The War Room Bet Thread V3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bet looks fine to me, and I’m honored to be on the panel with Pan and Lead for such a high-stakes bet. Let’s do this.
 
@waiguoren v. @PolishHeadlock
1. The Mueller investigation will indict Trump and accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER
a) cooperate with / help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
OR
b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above
3. When the Mueller investigation concludes
4. Avatar and Signature bet
5. Five years
6. Null if Mueller is fired or Trump unexpectedly passes
*Lead, Zankou, and panamaican will make the call on the bet when the investigation concludes.

@Zankou and @panamaican , I'm sorry to pull you into this but please let me know if you can participate in deciding this bet when the time comes. Please point out any ambiguity that might make determining the winner an issue so we can clear it up before. There are discussions beforehand with waiguoren in the thread that might help clear things up.

@waiguoren @PolishHeadlock , you can quote this and give an okay. So long as Zankou and panamaican don't have issues with how it's set up, I'll make it official in a week or as soon as they answer back.

Ok.
 
@waiguoren v. @PolishHeadlock
1. The Mueller investigation will indict Trump and accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER
a) cooperate with / help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
OR
b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above
3. When the Mueller investigation concludes
4. Avatar and Signature bet
5. Five years
6. Null if Mueller is fired or Trump unexpectedly passes
*Lead, Zankou, and panamaican will make the call on the bet when the investigation concludes.

@Zankou and @panamaican , I'm sorry to pull you into this but please let me know if you can participate in deciding this bet when the time comes. Please point out any ambiguity that might make determining the winner an issue so we can clear it up before. There are discussions beforehand with waiguoren in the thread that might help clear things up.

@waiguoren @PolishHeadlock , you can quote this and give an okay. So long as Zankou and panamaican don't have issues with how it's set up, I'll make it official in a week or as soon as they answer back.
@PolishHeadlock
@Zankou and @panamaican

N.B. "accuse Trump of committing a crime to..."

@Lead

I agree to the terms of the bet, pending @Jack V Savage and @Quipling 's agreement in the Lounge.

Glad to do it.
 
@HomerThompson v. @IGIT
1. Within 18 months of Trump's new justice being appointed, the supreme court will allow individual states to outlaw abortion.
2. @HomerThompson - For, @IGIT - Against
3. Tentatively 18 months once the Trump justice is confirmed (will updated when this happens)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months
6. If Trump isn't able to get an appointee confirmed, the bet is null

@IGIT @HomerThompson


Please quote this with an okay for it to be finalized. If you have issue with what's above, let me know so I can adjust it.

ahoy Mr. Lead,

sounds AOK to me.

- IGIT
 
tenor.gif
 
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.

lol @ anyone taking this.

Might as well bet that Trump won't question the integrity of the election in the event of a loss, or that he won't mention his electoral college victory at a dead soldier's funeral.
 
@HomerThompson v. @IGIT
1. Within 18 months of Trump's new justice being appointed, the supreme court will allow individual states to outlaw abortion.
2. @HomerThompson - For, @IGIT - Against
3. Tentatively 18 months once the Trump justice is confirmed (will updated when this happens)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months
6. If Trump isn't able to get an appointee confirmed, the bet is null

@IGIT @HomerThompson

Please quote this with an okay for it to be finalized. If you have issue with what's above, let me know so I can adjust it.


ahoy Mr. Lead,

sounds AOK to me.

- IGIT

Tis official
 
@waiguoren v. @PolishHeadlock
1. The Mueller investigation will indict Trump and accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER
a) cooperate with / help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
OR
b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above
3. When the Mueller investigation concludes
4. Avatar and Signature bet
5. Five years
6. Null if Mueller is fired or Trump unexpectedly passes
*Lead, Zankou, and panamaican will make the call on the bet when the investigation concludes.

@Zankou and @panamaican , I'm sorry to pull you into this but please let me know if you can participate in deciding this bet when the time comes. Please point out any ambiguity that might make determining the winner an issue so we can clear it up before. There are discussions beforehand with waiguoren in the thread that might help clear things up.

@waiguoren @PolishHeadlock , you can quote this and give an okay. So long as Zankou and panamaican don't have issues with how it's set up, I'll make it official in a week or as soon as they answer back.

@Zankou and @panamaican

N.B. "accuse Trump of committing a crime to..."

@Lead

I agree to the terms of the bet, pending @Jack V Savage and @Quipling 's agreement in the Lounge.

The bet looks fine to me, and I’m honored to be on the panel with Pan and Lead for such a high-stakes bet. Let’s do this.



@PolishHeadlock , I just need a final okay from you. I suggest you read the bet as well as me and waiguoren's conversation beforehand (starts here) to make sure nothing is being missed or misunderstood to what the terms/criteria of the bet is. Let me know if this can be finalized.
 
@waiguoren v. @PolishHeadlock
1. The Mueller investigation will indict Trump and accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER
a) cooperate with / help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
OR
b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above
3. When the Mueller investigation concludes
4. Avatar and Signature bet
5. Five years
6. Null if Mueller is fired or Trump unexpectedly passes
*Lead, Zankou, and panamaican will make the call on the bet when the investigation concludes.

@Zankou and @panamaican , I'm sorry to pull you into this but please let me know if you can participate in deciding this bet when the time comes. Please point out any ambiguity that might make determining the winner an issue so we can clear it up before. There are discussions beforehand with waiguoren in the thread that might help clear things up.

@waiguoren @PolishHeadlock , you can quote this and give an okay. So long as Zankou and panamaican don't have issues with how it's set up, I'll make it official in a week or as soon as they answer back.

What is the term of the bet? Eventually I would think there is an end date.
 
What is the term of the bet? Eventually I would think there is an end date.

For the purpose of this thread, it's 5 years (av and sig). This thread doesn't recognize account bets officially.
 
@PolishHeadlock , I just need a final okay from you. I suggest you read the bet as well as me and waiguoren's conversation beforehand (starts here) to make sure nothing is being missed or misunderstood to what the terms/criteria of the bet is. Let me know if this can be finalized.

In
 
But you said a "we'll see what we can do about the Magnitsky Act" would count

Yes, but of course it would have to come from Donald Trump Sr.

Come on. This (defining "spending on X" as "the amount of funds that can theoretically be diverted to pay for X in an emergency") can be used to justify all sorts of crazy claims.

I went to one of the original statements. Here's the link:

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=LeOWGpEzPZM

"We're not going to pay 70 to 90% of the cost to defend Europe."

Starts around 3:55.

That statement is unequivocally based on a false premise---that our military spending is all used "to defend Europe". It seems likely that Trump is confusing total military spending by NATO members with member contributions to the NATO budget. Not a good sign. Maybe he's losing it.

Trump is a demagogue who has a personal interest in reducing support for NATO (and generally weakening the Western Alliance), and was deliberately giving his idiot followers the impression that we're being taken advantage of and that we're owed money by our allies. Note also that the only time the mutual defense was actually invoked was after 9/11 when the U.S. was considered to have been attacked. And the reason we don't need defending from NATO is that same military spending that in your previous accounting you decided to list under contributions to NATO.

This looks like a dodge--you didn't address the core point. Other NATO members aren't paying their fair share.

But anyway...what is Trump's "personal interest in reducing support for NATO"?
 
Yes, but of course it would have to come from Donald Trump Sr.

That seems like an unreasonable standard if he's not personally doing the negotiating.

This looks like a dodge--you didn't address the core point. Other NATO members aren't paying their fair share.

But anyway...what is Trump's "personal interest in reducing support for NATO"?

I agree that other NATO members should live up to their (even informal) agreements. I think the legitimate, if minor, issue is being misrepresented to the public for the purpose of weakening support for NATO.

Trump's personal fortunes in many ways are closely tied to his relationship with Putin, who obviously wants a weaker NATO.
 
That seems like an unreasonable standard if he's not personally doing the negotiating.


I agree that other NATO members should live up to their (even informal) agreements. I think the legitimate, if minor, issue is being misrepresented to the public for the purpose of weakening support for NATO.

Trump's personal fortunes in many ways are closely tied to his relationship with Putin, who obviously wants a weaker NATO.
Again, if Mueller alleges that Trump Sr directed Trump Jr to offer the exchange, you win.

At least we agree that the NATO issue is legitimate. You and I are in total agreement except for the conspiracy theory part.
 
Again, if Mueller alleges that Trump Sr directed Trump Jr to offer the exchange, you win.

At least we agree that the NATO issue is legitimate. You and I are in total agreement except for the conspiracy theory part.

What is the conspiracy theory part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Replies
734
Views
30K
Back
Top