The War Room Bet Thread v2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Limbo Pete said:
Especially considering that bet seems to revolve around some sort of yet-to-be-revealed wording issue.
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm an accountant that hates technicalities and sucks at interpretation that would be needed for this. I forget what each of the other mods do but I bet anyone would be a better fit in those instances. On its face though, it seems like a bad bet to start if we have to worry about this.
 
Once I figure out what additional mods want in, I'll update a clause in the op. This was a good reminder to update some of that
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
I'll try again. I'll bet no "Russia collusion" type charges will drop on Trump, or any other "high level" guys from the campaign
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and admitted to collusion. Manafort's being charged with something else, but we know that he's run campaigns for Putin puppets before and that he was in debt to a Russian oligarch with ties to the Russian gov't and paid that debt by working for Trump for free. So you can quibble with "Russia collusion"-type charges, but the outlines of what went on are becoming clearer, and Russian collusion is pretty well-established.

Lead said:
Beyond that though, I ask you @waiguoren and @Jack V Savage, do you really want the highly anticipated super bet come down to a judges decision on events past? That just seems very anticlimactic and one of you will be left feeling cheated by the interpretation.
Click to expand...

I do not (though there's still the matter of checking if what Papadopoulos said in his agreement is accurate). I especially don't want it to be a weasel thing where he won't even say what the disagreement is.
 
@Jack V Savage: Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)

It is very sad that Mr. Savage is unwilling to accept a bet on the veracity of his carefully crafted statement.




 
Jack V Savage said:
To change it to "you (or Quipling) says something, and I think there's a secret, subtle bit that might be slightly off but I refuse to say what it is,"
Click to expand...

Literally every bet is of that form.

When I smashed Nate Silver in my bet with @m52nickerson , I thought there was a "subtle bit" in Silver's analysis that was off. That's why I took the bet. Mr. Nickerson thought that my analysis would also be "off" and that's why he took the bet.
 
waiguoren said:
Literally every bet is of that form.

When I smashed Nate Silver in my bet with @m52nickerson , I thought there was a "subtle bit" in Silver's analysis that was off. That's why I took the bet. Mr. Nickerson thought that my analysis would also be "off" and that's why he took the bet.
Click to expand...

The disagreement in that case was very clear. Likewise, look at my bets. Drstrangelove clearly said that he expected Trump's approval to be above a certain level by a certain time, and I clearly said that I didn't. We had an explicit, open disagreement about what would happen, and one of us was right. McVeteran thought that Obama would not give up power after the election, and I thought he would. Clear disagreement, resolved by events. No, "oh the inauguration started 15 seconds late so I win." I said exactly what I thought he was wrong about, and we put together wording that reflected the spirit of the disagreement. If you don't want to do that--if you recognize that I'm fundamentally right but think that there's some wording issue I'm missing--I just don't care. If you think I'm actually wrong about something and you want to say what it is, I'm interested.
 
Jack V Savage said:
The disagreement in that case was very clear. Likewise, look at my bets. Drstrangelove clearly said that he expected Trump's approval to be above a certain level by a certain time, and I clearly said that I didn't. We had an explicit, open disagreement about what would happen, and one of us was right. McVeteran thought that Obama would not give up power after the election, and I thought he would. Clear disagreement, resolved by events. No, "oh the inauguration started 15 seconds late so I win." I said exactly what I thought he was wrong about, and we put together wording that reflected the spirit of the disagreement. If you don't want to do that--if you recognize that I'm fundamentally right but think that there's some wording issue I'm missing--I just don't care. If you think I'm actually wrong about something and you want to say what it is, I'm interested.
Click to expand...

Since you aren't going to take the bet, I might as well reveal the first area I expect your statement to fail:

Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)


I doubt that Papadopulous met with any Russian agents.
 
waiguoren said:
Since you aren't going to take the bet, I might as well reveal the first area I expect your statement to fail:

Papadopoulos was meeting with Russian agents with the knowledge and approval of the Trump campaign to get illegally acquired "dirt" on Clinton (the hacked emails)

I doubt that Papadopulous met with any Russian agents.
Click to expand...

The London professor and the Putin relative both would be "agents" at least by one definition of that word. And Papadopoulos Skyped multiple times with someone described as a "Russian (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) connection," which would also seem to count as "meeting." Either way, quibbling over the definition of "agent" and "meeting" seems to pointless. If you want to say that he was lying about meeting with the London professor or the Putin relative, or that the Russian MFA connection Skype meetings described didn't actually happen, that's a more interesting bet.
 
Jack V Savage said:
The London professor and the Putin relative both would be "agents" at least by one definition of that word. And Papadopoulos Skyped multiple times with someone described as a "Russian (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) connection," which would also seem to count as "meeting." Either way, quibbling over the definition of "agent" and "meeting" seems to pointless. If you want to say that he was lying about meeting with the London professor or the Putin relative, or that the Russian MFA connection Skype meetings described didn't actually happen, that's a more interesting bet.
Click to expand...
Your tribalism is blinding you here and causing muddled thinking.

Objectively, there is a big difference between 1) being an agent of a government and 2) having connections with a government.

I have family members who have worked at a high level in influential companies in D.C. I would say they are connected to the federal government in that they know powerful people there, but I would never say they are "agents" of that government. Your tribalistic distaste for Russia probably led you to conflate these distinct concepts.

I doubt that Mifsud was an agent of the Russian government. The unidentified woman who Mifsud claimed was Putin's niece? Even less likely, in my estimation.

I let you off the hook by implying Quipling's terns were not airtight. Your undefeated record thanks me for that tipoff.
 
waiguoren said:
Your tribalism is blinding you here and causing muddled thinking.

Objectively, there is a big difference between 1) being an agent of a government and 2) having connections with a government.

I have family members who have worked at a high level in influential companies in D.C. I would say they are connected to the federal government in that they know powerful people there, but I would never say they are "agents" of that government. Your tribalistic distaste for Russia probably led you to conflate these distinct concepts.

I doubt that Mifsud was an agent of the Russian government. The unidentified woman who Mifsud claimed was Putin's niece? Even less likely, in my estimation.
Click to expand...

And the Russian MFA connection? Or would the argument be that Skype meetings aren't "meetings"?

And if your relatives were acting as agents of the U.S. gov't in dealings with a foreign campaign, they could be called agents.

waiguoren said:
I let you off the hook by implying Quipling's terns were not airtight. Your undefeated record thanks me for that tipoff.
Click to expand...

What you spared was not my undefeated record but drawn-out, pointless quibbling over definitions.
 
Jack V Savage said:
And if your relatives were acting as agents of the U.S. gov't in dealings with a foreign campaign, they could be called agents.
Click to expand...
What's your evidence that Mifsud was acting as an agent of the Russian government?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SakurabasEar
  • Locked
Social War Room Lounge 318: Propaganda Extravaganza
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
30K
LMP
LMP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,040
Messages
55,463,437
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top