The War Room Bet Thread

[Rex Kwon Do]

Has @Rex Kwon Do been frequenting here lately? Maybe he would reconsider to do a Clinton v. Trump wager with Quipling? Even a sig bet. I do like the av bet idea of the other candidates picture.

Been posting in UFC Discussion pretty much exclusively recently. Lots going on in the MMA world, gotta keep up.

I challenge @Concurrent GOAT to a 1-month av bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win.

I challenge @KnightTemplar to a 1-month sig bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win. The loser has to put a quote considered to be praiseworthy of Adolf Hitler (to be approved by the winner) in their sig.

 

[m52nickerson]

It's been awhile since I checked but I saw other sites predict red while 538 was still on blue. What do you do with the bet in the event of 50/50?

Just like real life, control of the Senate would be decided by the Vice President. So if it does end up being 50/50 and Clinton wins the election the Dems would control the senate.

 

[Lead]

Just like real life, control of the Senate would be decided by the Vice President. So if it does end up being 50/50 and Clinton wins the election the Dems would control the senate.

Thought it would be that. That's a cool tiebreaker.

 

[VivaRevolution]

1. Did they say if there was x-chance of corruption the ruling would have been different or did they just rest on the fact that advertising is a form of speech?
2. Which section of the Constitution are you referring to?
3. Not everybody has the same education and vocabulary but we don't disallow the ideas of those who chose to pursue knowledge.

1) The corruption issue is very key in the decision, for two reasons. One, if it creates corruption, you can regulate it, in the same way you can't scream fire in a crowded building, giving congress the legal authority to regulate political spending. Two, all court decisions must take into account the public good.

2) I'm just going to back off that claim as that requires going into a whole debate about what state laws said about corporate personhood.

3) But we do have public education don't we?
As in we view it as a right that every person has equal right to a minimum level of education.

 

[Deleted member 453401]

Been posting in UFC Discussion pretty much exclusively recently. Lots going on in the MMA world, gotta keep up.

I challenge @Concurrent GOAT to a 1-month av bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win.

I challenge @KnightTemplar to a 1-month sig bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win. The loser has to put a quote considered to be praiseworthy of Adolf Hitler (to be approved by the winner) in their sig.

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. I accept.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. I accept.

I hope you enjoy your Guaca Bowle av, mwahaha

 

[KnightTemplar]

Been posting in UFC Discussion pretty much exclusively recently. Lots going on in the MMA world, gotta keep up.

I challenge @Concurrent GOAT to a 1-month av bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win.

I challenge @KnightTemplar to a 1-month sig bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win. The loser has to put a quote considered to be praiseworthy of Adolf Hitler (to be approved by the winner) in their sig.

Why not a quote by Hitler?

 

[Quipling]

Damn, all this betting on by how much donald trump wins. Any of you three willing to bet on whether he wins?

 

[Deleted member 453401]

I hope you enjoy your Guaca Bowle av, mwahaha

I'll take it like a man. After all, it's for the greater good.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

1) The corruption issue is very key in the decision, for two reasons. One, if it creates corruption, you can regulate it, in the same way you can't scream fire in a crowded building, giving congress the legal authority to regulate political spending. Two, all court decisions must take into account the public good.

2) I'm just going to back off that claim as that requires going into a whole debate about what state laws said about corporate personhood.

3) But we do have public education don't we?
As in we view it as a right that every person has equal right to a minimum level of education.

1. You can scream fire in a crowded theater, to my knowledge. And no, the courts need to take the law into account and rule accordingly. Congress shall make no law isn't ambiguous.

2. Then you don't have much to stand on besides arguing that not liking the results of the law justify ignoring it. I could maybe get on board with laws of defiance on a state level if I didn't believe SCOTUS was upholding the rights of the citizens, but I do. They did. Advertising is speech. Campaigning is advertising. Sorry that all advertising isn't free.

3. Yeah. And secondary education too. Plus learning on the job. Then there's charisma and the power of persuasion. Inequities abound. If I bought every product that was advertised to me then I'd be more sympathetic to the argument that raising awareness should be curtailed here. Also, information is ubiquitous and free in 2016. People can make up their own minds if they so choose. Ultimately I'm not totally convinced it makes any difference what the total amount of money spent is. Rich fucks are picking all your choices anyway and those candidates have been vetted to assure they'd "play ball" (on some level) with the powers that be.

4. Let's all just pass a reasonable Amendment so we can create positive change while promoting respect for the process. SCOTUS made their fucking move. Now it's the citizens' turn. I'm for removing all advertising from the process, creating a government site that allows candidates to submit applications, and treating the entire process like a high-end hiring process. Whittle it down based on popularity ratings and then hold debates and an election.

 

[Lead]

Been posting in UFC Discussion pretty much exclusively recently. Lots going on in the MMA world, gotta keep up.

I challenge @Concurrent GOAT to a 1-month av bet: If Donald Trump beats Hillary by 0.1 to 2.0 percentage points of the popular vote, he wins. If Donald Trump beats Hillary by more than 2.0 percentage points, I win.

Sounds like a win/win situation to me. I accept.

Gotta format it if you want it posted.

1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by
2. Concurrent GOAT- 0.1% to 2.0% Rex Kwon Doh 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Avatar bet- Winner picks the losers av
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)

Also need to clarify that by percentage points, you are talking about the national popular vote, correct? So it would be Trump's total votes compared to Clinton's total votes? For example 52-48 votes Trump be a four point margin with Rex winning. Confirm when you can.

 

[Deleted member 453401]

Gotta format it if you want it posted.



1. Percentage Donald Trump wins by
2. Concurrent GOAT- 0.1% to 2.0% Rex Kwon Doh 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Avatar bet- Winner picks the losers av
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)

Also need to clarify that by percentage points, you are talking about the national popular vote, correct? So it would be Trump's total votes compared to Clinton's total votes? For example 52-48 votes Trump be a four point margin with Rex winning. Confirm when you can.

I accept to that. @Rex Kwon Do , I assume the bet becomes void/nobody wins or loses if the unthinkable happens?

 

[Lead]

I accept to that.

Just changed 1 to this
1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by

Just so it's included in the actual number part that this is just with Trump and Clinton votes, not Johnson and such.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Gotta format it if you want it posted.



1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by
2. Concurrent GOAT- 0.1% to 2.0% Rex Kwon Doh 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Avatar bet- Winner picks the losers av
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)

Also need to clarify that by percentage points, you are talking about the national popular vote, correct? So it would be Trump's total votes compared to Clinton's total votes? For example 52-48 votes Trump be a four point margin with Rex winning. Confirm when you can.

Yeah, I accept what you wrote. To the vote % point thing, yeah, you got it right. I'm going by national popular vote.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Any of you three willing to bet on whether he wins?

Taking candy from a baby yields the result you want but the process is so unfair even a lapsed Catholic like myself would end up feeling guilty.

if that analogy was too opaque to follow then what I mean is

 

[Wadtucket]

Yeah, I accept what you wrote. To the vote % point thing, yeah, you got it right. I'm going by national popular vote.

 

[Lead]

Taking candy from a baby yields the result you want but the process is so unfair even a lapsed Catholic like myself would end up feeling guilty.

if that analogy was too opaque to follow then what I mean is

\

Does this mean Quip has a wager in the works!? He's been trying since page 1 here. The guy deserves some comp or it's going to look like people are ducking him here.

 

[Lead]

Tis official unless Concurrent says something about 1 being adjusted a bit but I explained what I meant below and just edited it to make it within the number

@Concurrent GOAT v. @Rex Kwon Do
1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by in national popular vote
2. Concurrent GOAT- 0.1% to 2.0% Rex Kwon Doh 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Avatar bet- Winner picks the losers av
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Why not a quote by Hitler?

Mostly because one could choose a quote by Hitler that is benign, like "I love dogs!" whereas if you were forced to pick a 3rd party's laudatory quote, it pretty much becomes controversial. "I love dogs" - Adolf Hitler doesn't look nearly as bad as "Adolf Hitler was a tremendous man of boundless goodwill and staggering beauty" - H. Clinton

1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by in the US Pres. election popular vote
2. @KnightTemplar - 0.1% to 2.0% @Rex Kwon Do 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Signature bet- Winner picks the loser's signature; signature chosen must be quote praising Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Germany OR a quote by Adolf Hitler himself
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)

 

[Deleted member 453401]

Tis official unless Concurrent says something about 1 being adjusted a bit but I explained what I meant below and just edited it to make it within the number

@Concurrent GOAT v. @Rex Kwon Do
1. Percent Margin Donald Trump beats Clinton by in national popular vote
2. Concurrent GOAT- 0.1% to 2.0% Rex Kwon Doh 2.0%+
3. 11/08/16
4. Avatar bet- Winner picks the losers av
5. 11/09/16-12/08/16 (Depends when the results are completely in)