The War Room Bet Thread V3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I have a non-political bet proposal. Open to anybody who wants to cause me serious discomfort on this forum.

For the next 4 weeks, I will post entirely in Shakespearean style. My posts have to address the thread topic, or substantively address a reply (in case the topic veers a bit, I'm okay replying to that). If I manage it, the person who takes me up has to wear a sig of my choice for 30 days.

For each post where I slip up, I have to wear a sig of the winner's choice for 30 days. Any takers?

I don't want to be the guy, but I want to see this.
 
@Jack V Savage

I am confused about what the cause of the hold up is. Is it this part or part 2 or 3?

If it's part 1, I don't see how it could be any more clear. Could you specify the scenario that you think will lead to ambiguity?

One question for me is the level of commitment. "I'll repeal the Magnitsky Act" vs. "we'll see what we can do about the Magnitsky Act." And then, "we got this situation with the Magnitsky Act." "Yeah, we hear you." Stuff like that can lead to a lot of ambiguity that I'd like to resolve in advance.

Just an example, though I'm using it because that's what Don Jr. said the meeting where Russia dangled dirt was about.
 
Roe V. Wade will be overturned within 18 months of the new Supreme Court Justice being named.

Me: For
@IGIT: Against

2 month sig bet

@Lead

@Quipling

I need some guidance on this one. Is a statement like that good enough to have a clear decision on a bet? For example, could the court overturn only portions of Roe v. Wade or would it be the entire ruling? Also, could the court overturn or rule on a new case which subsequently overturns Roe v. Wade but doesn't officially state they did so in the decision? I just need to know what issues I could run into here with calling this one.
 
@Quipling

I need some guidance on this one. Is a statement like that good enough to have a clear decision on a bet? For example, could the court overturn only portions of Roe v. Wade or would it be the entire ruling? Also, could the court overturn or rule on a new case which subsequently overturns Roe v. Wade but doesn't officially state they did so in the decision? I just need to know what issues I could run into here with calling this one.
Yeah all of that stuff could happen. The last isn't too likely, but its possible to "gut" roe by allowing various barriers (or, more accurately, gut Casey).

You can include language about expressly overruling Roe, either in full or in part. I'd also throw Casey v. PP in there, since it gives Roe some substance.

Edit:. I'm concerned about the wording. Confirmation is probably the appropriate term.
 
Last edited:
Yeah all of that stuff could happen. The last isn't too likely, but its possible to "gut" roe by allowing various barriers (or, more accurately, gut Casey).

You can include language about expressly overruling Roe, either in full or in part. I'd also throw Casey v. PP in there, since it gives Roe some substance.

Edit:. I'm concerned about the wording. Confirmation is probably the appropriate term.

So if you were to rephrase the statement they should bet on, how would you word it?
 
Proposal. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump will accuse the Democratic nominee of criminal activity, investigate or say we should investigate him or her, or call for him or her to be imprisoned.

Me: For
Sucker: Against.
 
Proposal. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump will accuse the Democratic nominee of criminal activity, investigate or say we should investigate him or her, or call for him or her to be imprisoned.

Me: For
Sucker: Against.

Seems like a lock, though maybe so obviously one that no one will take the other side.

And BTW, the fact that the sitting president thinks and acts like this is incredibly dangerous.
 
Seems like a lock, though maybe so obviously one that no one will take the other side.
I guess it's more of a...cognitive diss...than a genuine proposal. Still a genuine proposal, though. I'll make a fairly extreme bet here if I have a taker who has an account that is worth something.
 
Yeah all of that stuff could happen. The last isn't too likely, but its possible to "gut" roe by allowing various barriers (or, more accurately, gut Casey).

You can include language about expressly overruling Roe, either in full or in part. I'd also throw Casey v. PP in there, since it gives Roe some substance.

Edit:. I'm concerned about the wording. Confirmation is probably the appropriate term.

So if you were to rephrase the statement they should bet on, how would you word it?

Quipling. Did you have a clear statement we could use on this?
 
@Jack V Savage

This is by far the longest delay we've had on a bet negotiation. Are you frightened?
 
@Lead
@PolishHeadlock

1. Donald Trump will be indicted for a crime related to Russia's hacking activities in the 2016 election.
2. @PolishHeadlock- for, @waiguoren- against
3. At the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.
4. Sig + AV bet
5. 5 years

I removed 6 from your post cause of the OP guideline
"-Do not allude/mention bets in this thread that don't adhere to the rules above. For example, mentioning an account ban bet will just get the post deleted."
You are free to discuss that part in pms/lounge or afterwards in the lounge if you think someone didn't honor it

The rest of it looks okay to me. I always like when the formatting is already done cause it's a pain to do over mobile.
 
I removed 6 from your post cause of the OP guideline
"-Do not allude/mention bets in this thread that don't adhere to the rules above. For example, mentioning an account ban bet will just get the post deleted."
You are free to discuss that part in pms/lounge or afterwards in the lounge if you think someone didn't honor it
OK

How do you feel about the bet? Good with you? If so, we can begin to finalize with @PolishHeadlock .
 
OK

How do you feel about the bet? Good with you? If so, we can begin to finalize with @PolishHeadlock .

I think it looks fairly upfront. Are there possibilities where there's an indictment for Trump and Russia with 2016 that you would say doesn't count? In wondering cause of the word hacking being in the statement?
 
I think it looks fairly upfront. Are there possibilities where there's an indictment for Trump and Russia with 2016 that you would say doesn't count? In wondering cause of the word hacking being in the statement?

I think there are too many possibilities to enumerate, and I trust your judgment. For example, if Trump gets indicted for transferring funds improperly to some shell company which ends up funding the hacking indirectly, I'm assuming that would be a null bet.
 
I think there are too many possibilities to enumerate, and I trust your judgment. For example, if Trump gets indicted for transferring funds improperly to some shell company which ends up funding the hacking indirectly, I'm assuming that would be a null bet.

Can we define what the hacking was? Is it a broad term for with Facebook or the DNC hack or both?
 
Can we define what the hacking was? Is it a broad term for with Facebook or the DNC hack or both?
DNC hack

and/or

DCCC hack

and/or

hack of Hillary Clinton's office domain mentioned in the new indictment
 
DNC hack

and/or

DCCC hack

and/or

hack of Hillary Clinton's office domain mentioned in the new indictment

If indirect funding isn't one of the forms of indictment that would count either way, what would be one that counts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Replies
734
Views
30K
Back
Top