Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Lead, Jun 17, 2018.
I don't want to be the guy, but I want to see this.
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.
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.
So if you were to rephrase the statement they should bet on, how would you word it?
This is clear from the way I worded 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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?
Separate names with a comma.