The War Room Bet Thread

[Quipling]

Well Space is easily there and then some, at least until this moment just came up. Actually surprised. I was sure as a reasonable person could be that he was sure as a reasonable person could be and then some that Trump was going to win.

I'm not that surprised. He did a similar tail-tuck a month or so ago when he was called out. That's part of the reason he didn't bounce to the top of my list when I was looking for people to bet against.

 

[Lead]

Aw yes, @curryjunkie, surely you have some ideas

 

[Lead]

Wasn't it Bush who brought out the third party when Perot ran? I was only 13 at the time, but I'm pretty sure I remember there being a big debate over NAFTA and the right feeling disenfranchised.

Don't mean to derail, if there's substantive discussion to be had we can move it elsewhere

Not entirely sure but I think Bill benefited both elections from third party as a result. Won't be surprising if Hillary did too. At one point, I thought it could've been from Trump doing third party and it completely splitting the vote.

 

[Fawlty]

Not entirely sure but I think Bill benefited both elections from third party as a result. Won't be surprising if Hillary did too. At one point, I thought it could've been from Trump doing third party and it completely splitting the vote.

Right he definitely benefited, so it would seem to me that Bush was the one far more responsible for the emergence of third party there, rather than "a Clinton."

 

[Quipling]

@Thunderflash500 @Hans Gruber @Big_Chief_Stove surely believe Trump is more likely to win than not, based on the weight they put on the size of his rallies.

 

[Lead]

@Thunderflash500 @Hans Gruber @Big_Chief_Stove surely believe Trump is more likely to win than not, based on the weight they put on the size of his rallies.

I mean, a sig bet isn't even that big of a deal. I could get why some don't like their avs switched

 

[Lead]

Right he definitely benefited, so it would seem to me that Bush was the one far more responsible for the emergence of third party there, rather than "a Clinton."

True. Was Nader only 2000? I got my third parties all mixed up.

 

[Fawlty]

True. Was Nader only 2000? I got my third parties all mixed up.

Too bad we can't settle this with a bet. Remember before google, when you could actually do that?

 

[Lead]

Too bad we can't settle this with a bet. Remember before google, when you could actually do that?

I can't imagine what arguments felt like without a smartphone and google. Sounds awful.

 

[Quipling]

Oh yes he will and the Trumps will be the greatest family in US Presidential history

You seem pretty certain. You're new to the warroom, but a 2006 account adds some value to your scalp. Sig bet?

@MASShole or @J. Bernie Cunningham can accomodate you, I'm sure.

 

[ripskater]

@IDL when do you suppose we will have a one world government

@ripskater , when do you suppose the rapture will occur. Well I guess that bet wouldn't work.

@TheComebackKid , got any wager ideas?

Nobody knows Lead Salad.

 

[Lead]

Nobody knows Lead Salad.

Exactly. So it would be a crapshoot of a bet. And all or some of the participants wouldn't be around to enjoy the risk/reward

 

[K1levelgrappler]

I've been thinking of proposing some kind of Supreme Court bet. Assuming Hillary wins, how long will the last spot stay vacant? I'm expecting blanket obstructionism from the GOP, which their base will demand of them, and I could see them going ham and the SC staying with 8 judges for years.

 

[dittohead84]

You seem pretty certain. You're new to the warroom, but a 2006 account adds some value to your scalp. Sig bet?

@MASShole or @J. Bernie Cunningham can accomodate you, I'm sure.

Nah we can just pull up that thread when the time comes. I dont care for sig/av bets, not that invested in this

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is partly the argument I took jack to task for.

You are right that if a person is certain, there is no risk, but the problem with this idea, is in ignoring the value of feigning surety in a debate.

From my perspective, there is zero value in feigning anything in a debate. That's called "bullshitting" or outright lying. The whole point of betting is to end that kind of thing and get people to just be more honest.

 

[Lead]

I've been thinking of proposing some kind of Supreme Court bet. Assuming Hillary wins, how long will the last spot stay vacant? I'm expecting blanket obstructionism from the GOP, which their base will demand of them, and I could see them going ham and the SC staying with 8 judges for years.

Yea and if Clinton would still pick the same option for her appointment. Ton of good stuff there but the rulings usually are in the summer I believe

 

[curryjunkie]

Aw yes, @curryjunkie, surely you have some ideas

naa i just lurk and laugh.......

 

[Jack V Savage]

There can be good in arguing from an absolute position at times for the sake of the conversation and what is explored from it but I would think with something more simple like who wins an election that isn't the case. People are obviously less sure than they admit to in the other threads which they are claiming absolute certainty, especially the polling thread.

Unless we're talking about humor or something, what's the value in bullshit?

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

@Thunderflash500 @Hans Gruber @Big_Chief_Stove surely believe Trump is more likely to win than not, based on the weight they put on the size of his rallies.

I don't know if he's more likely than not to win, but he does have Yuuuge rallies.

 

[Lead]

Unless we're talking about humor or something, what's the value in bullshit?

I'm not sure if I could explain it the best but I notice on Sam Harris podcasts when he has a guest, they frequently explore different stances in philosophy and table certain disagreements for the purpose of exploring beyond that scenario. I guess it's not applicable much here but I was trying to say that with my previous post.