The War Room Bet Thread V3

[waiguoren]

What is the conspiracy theory part?

That Trump's secret motivation for calling for NATO members to pay up is to "weaken support for" NATO, and presumably that Trump wants to weaken NATO because that would strengthen his personal financial position in some way.

If the above is a fair characterization of your beliefs, I feel you might be headed to Jade Helm territory soon.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That Trump's secret motivation for calling for NATO members to pay up is to "weaken support for" NATO, and presumably that Trump wants to weaken NATO because that would strengthen his personal financial position in some way.

It's not a secret. And even based on what we know, Trump got a lot of help from Russia in the last election (and presumably will in his next one, plus the mid-terms) and does have a lot of financial ties to Putin. Blackmail is also a real possibility. In a general sense, it serves him personally well to stay on good terms.

 

[waiguoren]

It's not a secret. And even based on what we know, Trump got a lot of help from Russia in the last election (and presumably will in his next one, plus the mid-terms) and does have a lot of financial ties to Putin. Blackmail is also a real possibility. In a general sense, it serves him personally well to stay on good terms.

We disagree radically here. Bets should be in order. Let's start by finalizing the parlay.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We disagree radically here. Bets should be in order. Let's start by finalizing the parlay.

What do you disagree with?

 

[waiguoren]

What do you disagree with?

You alleged that Trump's motivation for calling for NATO members to increase contributions is to "weaken support for NATO". Since you say that's not a secret motivation, you should be able to provide a source directly from Trump or his staff claiming this as motivation. I don't think you can do so.

I also don't agree that Trump "got a lot of help from Russia" in the last election. Even supposing that the Russian state ordered the DNC/DCCC hacks, and supposing that the Russian state released the e-mails to the public (via Wikileaks), I believe the e-mails would be better described as "the straw that broke the camel's back". Hillary Clinton's failure to persuade traditionally blue rustbelt voters to vote for her would be the 500 lbs. pack on the camel's back that provided a platform for the straw.

I've not seen any quality evidence that Trump has "a lot of financial ties" to Putin. Having sold real estate to corrupt Russians over the years is a far cry from "having a lot of financial ties".

I think the chance of blackmail is about the same as the chance that Putin blackmailed Obama.

So yeah, we disagree on everything there.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You alleged that Trump's motivation for calling for NATO members to increase contributions is to "weaken support for NATO". Since you say that's not a secret motivation, you should be able to provide a source directly from Trump or his staff claiming this as motivation. I don't think you can do so.

I certainly can't, and that's a pretty ridiculous ask. "OK, guys, watch as I weaken support for NATO." Trump didn't say that, but his dislike for it and public statements designed to bring his followers to his view are no secret. He's been agitating against NATO since the '80s. I don't regard it as being legitimately controversial.

I also don't agree that Trump "got a lot of help from Russia" in the last election. Even supposing that the Russian state ordered the DNC/DCCC hacks, and supposing that the Russian state released the e-mails to the public (via Wikileaks), I believe the e-mails would be better described as "the straw that broke the camel's back". Hillary Clinton's failure to persuade traditionally blue rustbelt voters to vote for her would be the 500 lbs. pack on the camel's back that provided a platform for the straw.

So acknowledging the barest minimum of help he got (that is, assuming that they provided no help beyond what is known unquestionably to be true), you think it wasn't decisive, which has no bearing on A) whether it was "a lot" or B) whether Trump himself valued it, which was the substance and meat of my comment.

I've not seen any quality evidence that Trump has "a lot of financial ties" to Putin. Having sold real estate to corrupt Russians over the years is a far cry from "having a lot of financial ties".

Well, Trump Jr. himself has said Russians make up a disproportionate share of the company's assets, and that he'd made 6 trips there in the 18 months prior to those comments. Eric said in 2014 that they don't rely on American banks (which know Trump to be untrustworthy) and that they get all the funding they need from Russia. We know that from 2003 to 2017, people from the former USSR made 86 all-cash purchases of Trump properties. So, yes, a lot of financial ties.

I think the chance of blackmail is about the same as the chance that Putin blackmailed Obama.

So yeah, we disagree on everything there.

So intelligence reports suggesting blackmail and Trump's bizarrely deferential treatment don't register as having any chance at all of being true?

 

[waiguoren]

I certainly can't, and that's a pretty ridiculous ask. "OK, guys, watch as I weaken support for NATO." Trump didn't say that, but his dislike for it and public statements designed to bring his followers to his view are no secret. He's been agitating against NATO since the '80s. I don't regard it as being legitimately controversial.

Again, total disagreement. Asking for NATO members to pay their fair share is a far cry from "weakening support for NATO". Big stretch on your part.

what is known unquestionably to be true

"Unquestionably"...you're starting to appear as a zealot.

you think it wasn't decisive

I wrote the opposite: that it was probably one of the straws that broke the camel's back.

A) whether it was "a lot"

Ok, semantics. Uninteresting, move on.

We know that from 2003 to 2017, people from the former USSR made 86 all-cash purchases of Trump properties.

How many purchases from Chinese clients over that same period? If 86 or more, would that weaken your confidence?

he'd made 6 trips there in the 18 months prior to those comments

How many trips to India over that period? If 6 or more, would that weaken your confidence?

Eric said in 2014 that they don't rely on American banks (which know Trump to be untrustworthy) and that they get all the funding they need from Russia.

Your only source for this claim is golf writer James Dodson. Have some standards.

So intelligence reports suggesting blackmail and Trump's bizarrely deferential treatment don't register as having any chance at all of being true?

Trump has been tougher on Putin than any US president since Reagan. The fact that he flatters dictators in public seems to have caused you to overlook that fact.

Which intelligence reports suggest blackmail?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can't really respond when you break up like that.

 

[Greoric]

Can't really respond when you break up like that.

Can't or won't?

 

[waiguoren]

Can't really respond when you break up like that.

That's absurd. If you need some time to rest or handle other affairs, that makes sense. But there's nothing about the formatting that prevents a response.

 

[Lead]

Looks like we are officials guys

@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.

 

[waiguoren]

Looks like we are officials guys

@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.

You should probably specify who is "for" and who is "against".

 

[Lead]

You shiuld probably specify who is "for" and who is "against".

My bad

@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
2. PolishHeadlock- for, waiguoren- against
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.

 

[waiguoren]

Looks like we are officials guys

@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.

Excellent gif selection. Don't know the source but it sums up my feeling on this bet.

 

[Lead]

Excellent gif selection. Don't know the source but it sums up my feeling on this bet.

You don't know IASINP?

 

[waiguoren]

You don't know IASINP?

welp, that was ridiculous!

 

[Lead]

welp, that was ridiculous!

Charlie is the best character in a comedy sitcom in like the past two decades

 

[SBJJ]

Seeing that half the WR is convinced that Carter Page is a Russian agent. And since he’s been under surveillance for like 3 years. Let’s get a bet going

I bet he is not convicted of ANY crime related to Russia and does not plead to any crime involved with Russia. End date would be the conclusion of the Mueller investigation

 

[waiguoren]

Seeing that half the WR is convinced that Carter Page is a Russian agent. And since he’s been under surveillance for like 3 years. Let’s get a bet going

I bet he is not convicted of ANY crime related to Russia and does not plead to any crime involved with Russia. End date would be the conclusion of the Mueller investigation

You'd better tag some people. Here:

@kpt018
@Throttlehead
@Strychnine
@Rational Poster
@Cake4Breakfast
@Jack V Savage
@Darkballs
@LangfordBarrow

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You'd better tag some people. Here:

@kpt018
@Throttlehead
@Strychnine
@Rational Poster
@Cake4Breakfast
@Jack V Savage
@Darkballs
@LangfordBarrow

That would be beside the point. How would that negate his being involved enough with these people to warrant the FISA action?