The War Room Bet Thread v2

Status
Not open for further replies.
@HomerThompson , I'd like to take a bet like you currently have. Something small but still keeps something for me to be interested in. That Hunters bet I have is going to take forever to be called.

@HomerThompson v @Lead
1. Trump is removed from office on or before December 31st, 2019
2. HomerThompson- for, Lead- against
3. 01/01/2020
4. Avatar bet
5. 1 month
6. Death and physical illness would result in a null bet. Mental illness and subsequent removal would count.

Also, I think you'll see from my bet with N13 that there isn't much risk here with the punishment.
 
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption
Did not want this to get lost. Trump Getting charge with Collusion is 50/50 but laundering money is 100 fucking %


No sig, AV bet. YOu can rock a Seminole AV and whatever you want for mine is cool(as long as it does not get me carded). 30 days is the terms of the AV bet.

Lets give it by 01/01/2019 if nothing then I lose. Trump only has to be charged, if he fights it, trial will be forever.

Forgot to add, money laundering is the bet. Collusion is a tough to prove.

Done.

Trump has to be federally charged with Money Laundering before the beginning of the year.

Don't worry sweetie, he won't be charged with either.

If you guys were interested in making it here, it could be documented/enforced if the proposal is formatted the right way.
 
@HomerThompson , I'd like to take a bet like you currently have. Something small but still keeps something for me to be interested in. That Hunters bet I have is going to take forever to be called.

@HomerThompson v @Lead
1. Trump is removed from office on or before December 31st, 2019
2. HomerThompson- for, Lead- against
3. 01/01/2020
4. Avatar bet
5. 1 month
6. Death and physical illness would result in a null bet. Mental illness and subsequent removal would count.

Also, I think you'll see from my bet with N13 that there isn't much risk here with the punishment.
I accept.
 
If you guys were interested in making it here, it could be documented/enforced if the proposal is formatted the right way.
We agreed to the terms. @HereticBD eats poutine but I am not worried about him honoring the bet. I will post here as well, so it is now an agreement.
 
I accept.

Why can't every bet negotiation be this easy?

We agreed to the terms. @HereticBD eats poutine but I am not worried about him honoring the bet. I will post here as well, so it is now an agreement.

I mean, its fine posting it here so people can see the discussion happened but for it to get in the thread OP, it's gotta be accepted with this format:
1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

Might be a decent amount of work if you two already have things arranged. I do think it helps with locking all the terms down.
 
I mean, its fine posting it here so people can see the discussion happened but for it to get in the thread OP, it's gotta be accepted with this format:
1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

Might be a decent amount of work if you two already have things arranged. I do think it helps with locking all the terms down.

It's agreed. The bet is Trump being charged with Money Laundering by Jan 1st, 2019. If he's charged with that crime before then, I lose. If he isn't, I win. 30 day Av bet. That's it.

No @Jack V Savage nonsense going on here.
 
It's agreed. The bet is Trump being charged with Money Laundering by Jan 1st, 2019. If he's charged with that crime before then, I lose. If he isn't, I win. 30 day Av bet. That's it.

No @Jack V Savage nonsense going on here.

@44nutman v. @HereticBD
1. Trump being charged with Money Laundering by Jan 1st, 2019
2. @44nutman for, @HereticBD against
3. 01/01/19
4. Avatar bet
5. 1 month

Looks pretty clear? If you guys want it in the OP, just an okay to this post from both would do it. Like I mentioned, its fine to just keep it unofficial and publicly stated here. Just giving you two the chance to add a little more to it.
 
If bet means what funds can I claim Mexico gave us to claim they built the wall than nah.
I think Trump will probably push for a tax on remittances and/or new tariffs on Mexican goods (NAFTA is already being renegotiated, as I understand it). It's possible that these measures would cover the cost of the wall.
 
I think Trump will probably push for a tax on remittances and/or new tariffs on Mexican goods (NAFTA is already being renegotiated, as I understand it). It's possible that these measures would cover the cost of the wall.

I'm aware of how the idea developed and shifted to make sense of what he was saying.
 
Like what? What do you think is going on here?

I don't know how anyone would have a sound basis for claiming to know the answer. IMO, the only reason you feel confident that Trump is clean is tribalism, but I'm not a mirror image of you. However, my answer was serious. Why lie to the FBI about Russian contacts? Because you don't want them to know about them. You seem reluctant to even grant that obvious step.

Sure, probably something about the Obama administration going through the FISA court to surveil Trump transition team members.

Improperly? I mean because we know that Trump transition team members were committing crimes. But if you're suggesting that there was anything beyond regular law enforcement (and don't know how you're defining the "Obama administration" here), I think that's nuts and would be willing to bet against it.

I expect the memo to demonstrate improper behavior on the part of at least one FBI agent. In particular, I expect the memo to claim that at least one FBI agent used surveillance technology against high-level Trump campaign officials.

Again, we already know that Trump campaign officials were involved in activity that was properly monitored. If you're suggesting something concrete and improper, I might be willing to bet (harder to say that not a single FBI agent anywhere was doing anything wrong than it is to say that your kooky theory about the Obama administration is wrong).
 
What's this?

If you're asking about the thread:

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/w...-crash-the-world-has-ever-seen.2938613/page-2

If you're asking about the bet, after he made another of his usual unhinged character attacks, I told him he wouldn't be able to back it up. Bet him he couldn't produce a single example of me being dishonest. That thread is where he turned nuts, and you can see where it starts. He was humiliated in the thread and started using character attacks to cover that.
 
I don't know how anyone would have a sound basis for claiming to know the answer. IMO, the only reason you feel confident that Trump is clean is tribalism, but I'm not a mirror image of you. However, my answer was serious. Why lie to the FBI about Russian contacts? Because you don't want them to know about them. You seem reluctant to even grant that obvious step.



Improperly? I mean because we know that Trump transition team members were committing crimes. But if you're suggesting that there was anything beyond regular law enforcement (and don't know how you're defining the "Obama administration" here), I think that's nuts and would be willing to bet against it.



Again, we already know that Trump campaign officials were involved in activity that was properly monitored. If you're suggesting something concrete and improper, I might be willing to bet (harder to say that not a single FBI agent anywhere was doing anything wrong than it is to say that your kooky theory about the Obama administration is wrong).

On the first point, it is now clear you have no evidence that Trump told Flynn to lie and no explanation about what improper behavior Trump might be interested in covering up. The fact that you are so totally convinced something improper occurred is strongly indicative of anti-Trump tribalism.

On the second and third points, it's the propriety of the surveillance that's in question. The tricky part of betting on it would be establishing precise parameters. For example, just following the letter of the law (e.g., receiving approval from the FISA court) could meet one definition of propriety while failing another.

I am pretty confident that the new memo will reveal that at least one FBI agent improperly used communications technology to meddle in the affairs of the Trump campaign. Here "improperly" means that the action would violate the law or internal FBI policy. Shall we arrange a bet around these terms?
 
LimboPete

If Ngannou beats Hunt, you change your name to Limbo Francis and have an av of a sheep with a bucket

duration 2 week

Lead

Some kind of bet that changes your name to Limbo Graphite at the same time Limbo Pete is Limbo Francis
 
On the first point, it is now clear you have no evidence that Trump told Flynn to lie and no explanation about what improper behavior Trump might be interested in covering up. The fact that you are so totally convinced something improper occurred is strongly indicative of anti-Trump tribalism.

You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole there. I never claimed to have evidence that Trump told Flynn to lie or to know exactly what they're covering up. In fact, I outlined my thinking clearly earlier. Trump has no scruples and is clearly interested in preventing the truth from coming to light (whatever it may be). Flynn is his subordinate, and he should know better. Seems likely that Trump was involved in Flynn's decision to lie there. Your confidence that Trump is pure in general and specifically wasn't involved in Flynn's decision is based on what? Nothing. Just tribalism.

On the second and third points, it's the propriety of the surveillance that's in question. The tricky part of betting on it would be establishing precise parameters. For example, just following the letter of the law (e.g., receiving approval from the FISA court) could meet one definition of propriety while failing another.

So your view is that the FISA court is also part of the conspiracy against your boy? Do you see how once you start jumping to conclusions based on tribalism, madness is a short step away?

I am pretty confident that the new memo will reveal that at least one FBI agent improperly used communications technology to meddle in the affairs of the Trump campaign. Here "improperly" means that the action would violate the law or internal FBI policy. Shall we arrange a bet around these terms?

Meddle in the affairs means what? I mean, if it's like "FBI agent inappropriately used a gov't-issued phone to play 'Break the Wall'" or something (which I wouldn't put past Republicans), there's a certainty that some policy was violated. But the conspiracy being alleged is ridiculous (given that the FBI is hard right leaning and pro-Trump in general).
 
You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole there. I never claimed to have evidence that Trump told Flynn to lie or to know exactly what they're covering up.
Strawman. I never claimed you claimed to have evidence that Trump told Flynn to lie. I'm quite sure you don't have such evidence and that's why it's hilarious that you're so confident in that proposition.

Trump...is clearly interested in preventing the truth from coming to light (whatever it may be).
I don't see that.

Your confidence that Trump is pure in general
Strawman of the century. When did I ever write such a thing?

[Your confidence that Trump] specifically wasn't involved in Flynn's decision is based on what? Nothing. Just tribalism.
I love it when you try to read my mind and fail. It's super cute.

If you ask me again without purporting to know the answer, I might tell you.

So your view is that the FISA court is also part of the conspiracy against your boy?
Strawman #3. You're really outdoing yourself today. Something go wrong in your personal life again?

Meddle in the affairs means what? I mean, if it's like "FBI agent inappropriately used a gov't-issued phone to play 'Break the Wall'" or something (which I wouldn't put past Republicans), there's a certainty that some policy was violated. But the conspiracy being alleged is ridiculous (given that the FBI is hard right leaning and pro-Trump in general).

Sure, we can tighten up the language as we move toward the official bet.

For example, to spy on the Trump campaign without the mandated approval from superiors would qualify as "meddling" by my definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top