The War Room Bet Thread

[Lead]

I want to bet @Hans Gruber

If Trump wins I won't post in the War room anymore.

If Hillary wins Hans can't start threads in the War room anymore, but he can still post.

This is in the op. You can't do esuicide or account bets. This is the same for banning a person from posting within the sub forum. Make an AV bet or something.

 

[Rational Poster]

This is in the op. You can't do esuicide or account bets. This is the same for banning a person from posting within the sub forum. Make an AV bet or something.

Doesn't seem like he's interested anyway.

 

[Lead]

Doesn't seem like he's interested anyway.

There haven't been many who want to vote trump will win in this thread

 

[m52nickerson]

There haven't been many who want to vote trump will win in this thread

There maybe a reason for that. What is that old saying regarding money talking?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There haven't been many who want to vote trump will win in this thread

Maybe deep down people are thinking the corruption you know is better than the retard you don't?

 

[Lead]

Maybe deep down people are thinking the corruption you know is better than the retard you don't?

I meant to say bet*

And yea, that's exactly what I think

 

[Lead]

@Space , I'd still love to come to some type of wager for this election. Obviously if we can't just agree on a simple trump wins or Clinton won, surely we could come up with some adjustment we both agree on. Also, a signature bet wouldn't be the end of the world to have for a month or so. What are you open to on this? A certain margin with electoral map? A specific state maybe that comes red or blue? A difference in the percentage of the vote Romney gets compared to Trump? I'm all ears for coming up with an wager here.

 

[Lead]

Also @VivaRevolution , I am disappoint you haven't secured a wager yet here. I expected far more hustle from you in this thread. I'm sure there are plenty of potential wagers you have here with other regulars

 

[VivaRevolution]

Also @VivaRevolution , I am disappoint you haven't secured a wager yet here. I expected far more hustle from you in this thread. I'm sure there are plenty of potential wagers you have here with other regulars

Alright, how about this. For all those who say unlimited money in our election systems doesn't have massive public support against it. I am willing to make a 1 month sig bet for whether this initiative passes at 80% + in Washington state.

Initiative 735 is a grassroots movement to make Washington the 18th state to ask Congress to overturn Citizens United.
in 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v FEC that corporations, unions and special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. It has led to obscene amounts of money being poured into elections. It's part of the reason why the amount spent on elections by campaigns and outside groups grew 555% from 1984 to 2014!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Alright, how about this. For all those who say unlimited money in our election systems doesn't have massive public support against it. I am willing to make a 1 month sig bet for whether this initiative passes at 80% + in Washington state.

Initiative 735 is a grassroots movement to make Washington the 18th state to ask Congress to overturn Citizens United.
in 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v FEC that corporations, unions and special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. It has led to obscene amounts of money being poured into elections. It's part of the reason why the amount spent on elections by campaigns and outside groups grew 555% from 1984 to 2014!

They're asking for a Constitutional Amendment? That says what exactly?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Alright, how about this. For all those who say unlimited money in our election systems doesn't have massive public support against it. I am willing to make a 1 month sig bet for whether this initiative passes at 80% + in Washington state.

Initiative 735 is a grassroots movement to make Washington the 18th state to ask Congress to overturn Citizens United.
in 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v FEC that corporations, unions and special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. It has led to obscene amounts of money being poured into elections. It's part of the reason why the amount spent on elections by campaigns and outside groups grew 555% from 1984 to 2014!

Wait, what? Why would you use 1984 as the start date?

 

[VivaRevolution]

They're asking for a Constitutional Amendment? That says what exactly?

Not an amendment, a initiative that requires the state house to lobby congress to overturn CU. It would be the equivalent of a state platform, like a party platform.

The initiative simply states that CU should be overturned.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Wait, what? Why would you use 1984 as the start date?

????

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not an amendment, a initiative that requires the state house to lobby congress to overturn CU. It would be the equivalent of a state platform, like a party platform.

The initiative simply states that CU should be overturned.

What's Congress need to do to overturn a SCOTUS ruling?

 

[VivaRevolution]

What's Congress need to do to overturn a SCOTUS ruling?

Yes a constitutional amendment from congress would be required. Although I do wonder if you couldn't just pass new campaign finance law, and force the Supreme Court to overturn the new law, or CU. Basically forcing a review of CU.

 

[Jack V Savage]

????

"It's part of the reason why the amount spent on elections by campaigns and outside groups grew 555% from 1984 to 2014!"

Hard to credit CU with most of that growth, no?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes a constitutional amendment from congress would be required. Although I do wonder if you couldn't just pass new campaign finance law, and force the Supreme Court to overturn the new law, or CU. Basically forcing a review of CU.

That approach seems lo lack integrity by showing zero respect for a very clear ruling. In addition, I don't believe SCOTUS has much of a history for overturning recently made decisions. Especially one that's as straightforward of an infringement on free speech as limiting campaign contributions is.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That approach seems lo lack integrity by showing zero respect for a very clear ruling. In addition, I don't believe SCOTUS has much of a history for overturning recently made decisions. Especially one that's as straightforward of an infringement on free speech as limiting campaign contributions is.

Integrity?

Like the integrity of stating with a straight face that unlimited money in politics won't create corruption?

Also, I would love to see where in the constitution it says anything about Corporations, or special interest having a right to free speech. That is the original activist court ruling right there.

 

[VivaRevolution]

"It's part of the reason why the amount spent on elections by campaigns and outside groups grew 555% from 1984 to 2014!"

Hard to credit CU with most of that growth, no?

Ahh, I got you. It's politics. Rhetoric is king.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Integrity?

Like the integrity of stating with a straight face that unlimited money in politics won't create corruption?

Also, I would love to see where in the constitution it says anything about Corporations, or special interest having a right to free speech. That is the original activist court ruling right there.

Yeah. Fuckin' integrity. The system spoke and it upheld a natural right. Sorry you don't like the results. There's a remedy for that if enough people share your frustration and that's to create an Amendment to the Constitution.

Where does it say that the federal government can prevent associations of people from using their resources on political advertising? If people have free speech then groups of people do too. Pretty simple really.