Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: MaxPenQuote: ams288Still looking for takers?
yes, I am getting ready to head out but can check in over the next couple hours.
Our bet is on, right? She shows up ready to testify.
Quote: ams288Donald on the UN laughing at him:
“They weren’t laughing at me. They were laughing with me.”
He’s so f***ing delusional.
Did you watch that clip? Probably not.
Fake news (starts at 1:05) --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxkkrT1FPMk&t=65
Notice the time they cut Trump's audio.
What actually happened (surprising MSNBC didn't do the same quick edit, too) --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBaJVU5lfx8&t=26
If you don't have sound on your computer, this is what happened:
Trump "In less [sic] than two years, my administration has accomplished more than {pause} almost any administration in the history of our country. {pause} America's -- so true."
Laughter doesn't start until after he says, "America's -- so true". It's almost as if....wait for it....they're laughing at his diss of previous administrations.
If they were laughing at Trump, you'd expect all the laughter to start directly after "country" and before "America's...".
No, laughter starts immediately after he finishes the first line, "more than almost any administration in the history of our country." You have to listen carefully for it but it was clearly heard in the room.
CNN played the clip several times throughout the day. It was just Jeff's reporting of the story that cut a little bit of it out. Nothing mischievous about it.
Besides, Trump said later in the day that it was MEANT to get laughter (it most definitely wasn't intended to get a laugh, this was AFTER he said he wasn't expecting that reaction, lmfao). Kinda throws cold water on your theory doesn't it?
It cracks me up how convinced you guys are of #fakenews. CNN has been reporting the news for decades and will be around long after Trump is gone. There's definitely fake news alright, but it's not who you think it is. Think Russian trolls infiltrating facebook/twitter in 2016 to divide Americans and help get Trump elected.
Quote: billryanQuote: MaxPenQuote: ams288Still looking for takers?
yes, I am getting ready to head out but can check in over the next couple hours.
Our bet is on, right? She shows up ready to testify.
I say there will be no testimony tomorrow.
If you say there will be testimony tomorrow we have a bet. The testimony is by either Ford or Ramirez
^^^^the above is the bet^^^^
There are no interpretations as to why there was or wasn't testimony tomorrow. If she shows up claiming to be ready to testify and doesn't for whatever reason I win. There are no weasel clauses. There is either testimony under oath or there isn't. You have until 7PM today to accept the bet or I am closing the window.
You clearly wanted action that she would "not show up". Now you are saying testimony has to occur, knowing, of course, that there is all the possibility that she shows up but due to other extenuating circumstances testimony might not occur, through NO FAULT OF HERS.
Quote: Steverinoslol
No, laughter starts immediately after he finishes the first line, "more than almost any administration in the history of our country." You have to listen carefully for it but it was clearly heard in the room.
CNN played the clip several times throughout the day. It was just Jeff's reporting of the story that cut a little bit of it out. Nothing mischievous about it.
Besides, Trump said later in the day that it was MEANT to get laughter (it most definitely wasn't intended to get a laugh, this was AFTER he said he wasn't expecting that reaction, lmfao). Kinda throws cold water on your theory doesn't it?
It cracks me up how convinced you guys are of #fakenews. CNN has been reporting the news for decades and will be around long after Trump is gone. There's definitely fake news alright, but it's not who you think it is. Think Russian trolls infiltrating facebook/twitter in 2016 to divide Americans and help get Trump elected.
My "theory" is that people started laughing after Trump's diss of previous administrations, which, surprise -- is exactly what happened. At best, you may be able to hear some mumbles and general cross-talk during the short clip...but there is only laughter at the very end.
Keep watching Trevor Noah and John Oliver. That's real news, right?
Quote: SteverinosSounds like your whole bet is your own weasel clause.
You clearly wanted action that she would "not show up". Now you are saying testimony has to occur, knowing, of course, that there is all the possibility that she shows up but due to other extenuating factors testimony might not occur, through NO FAULT OF HERS.
I forgot what kind of element I was dealing with. The whole fiasco revolves around her testimony. Didn't realize it wasn't implied. I would have eaten my initial offer if it would have been accepted without any stipulation, should it have come to any kind of interpretation. However, dealing with Leftists is rarely something one can do without hassle. I think everything is real clear now.
Quote: RSMy "theory" is that people started laughing after Trump's diss of previous administrations, which, surprise -- is exactly what happened. At best, you may be able to hear some mumbles and general cross-talk during the short clip...but there is only laughter at the very end.
Keep watching Trevor Noah and John Oliver. That's real news, right?
That is not what happened. The laughter started immediately after that line, yes, you can barely hear it, and then MORE laughter, yes, people joining in and laughing at how ridiculous the situation was after he said he wasn't expecting that reaction. And then later on in the day, he said he WAS expecting that reaction, lmao.
I get my TV news from Chris Cuomo and Anderson Cooper, both excellent journalists with integrity. I get my online news from a variety of sources. I occasionally watch Tervor Noah on YouTube. Don't watch John Oliver at all.
Quote: MaxPenIt's real simple. I take the NO on either of them showing up and you take the YES. How hard is that too understand? Preferably a wager for an amount of money but we could do rib eyes, if you are more comfortable with that
I have made many bets on this site
Currently have one unresolved till this Novembers election
When I throw out a request for action, I am very careful on the verbiage so there is absolutely no misunderstanding and I honor my bet offers
"showing up" "How hard is that to understand"
Its very easy to understand, this is just a requirement for either to show up, not to testify
after 30 + years... Video evidance would be good enough for me.Quote: SteverinosFor now? What could change your mind? The blue dress?
Let's look at some statistics of peoples memories after 30+ year's. If they are highly reliable, I will rethink my stance.
--------
I'll deal with you later Mission.
I need time to explain sh*t to a red neck/country bumpkin. I'm sure you have some mattresses to fight over....😅
Quote: RSDid you watch that clip? Probably not.
Fake news (starts at 1:05) --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxkkrT1FPMk&t=65
Notice the time they cut Trump's audio.
What actually happened (surprising MSNBC didn't do the same quick edit, too) --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBaJVU5lfx8&t=26
If you don't have sound on your computer, this is what happened:
Trump "In less [sic] than two years, my administration has accomplished more than {pause} almost any administration in the history of our country. {pause} America's -- so true."
Laughter doesn't start until after he says, "America's -- so true". It's almost as if....wait for it....they're laughing at his diss of previous administrations.
If they were laughing at Trump, you'd expect all the laughter to start directly after "country" and before "America's...".
It's the UN. Maybe 1 person in 20 is listening to him directly. They're all on headsets listening to their translators in their own languages. There's a huge translation booth directly above the General Assembly, facing the stage.
They laughed at his ludicrous statement, loud and long. But the laugh was delayed and "rippled through the audience" (quoting someone there) because it had to be translated before most of them heard it.
Trump is used to having heavily pre-selected crowds who will cheer anything he says. It was a huge error of judgement for him to do a rally speech opening to that crowd.
The rest of the world IS laughing at us, now and for the last couple of years, with him in charge. The UN Body was trying to be polite and quiet, but that was too much for them.
And we all may pay for it yet. He hates being humiliated, and he won't blame himself or his stupid speechwriters and handlers. So that leaves, IDK what. A war to "show" everybody? Not out of the question.
Quote: MaxPenI forgot what kind of element I was dealing with. The whole fiasco revolves around her testimony. Didn't realize it wasn't implied. I would have eaten my initial offer if it would have been accepted without any stipulation, should it have come to any kind of interpretation. However, dealing with Leftists is rarely something one can do without hassle. I think everything is real clear now.
I knew what I was dealing with but went ahead anyway.
You offered a bet that she wouldn't show up.
Now you say that if Trump withdrew the nomination, you win.
If Grassley cancels the meeting, you win.
I took you at your initial words. Shame on me for taking you at your word. It won't happen again.
Quote: AxelWolf
Julie Swetnick should lose her job/ position and security clearance now that's shes amitted what kinda person she is.
Knowing J.S. works for US, can you imagine being a victim, or parent of a victim who was drugged and gang-raped at one of the parties that J.S. just watched as lines of boys were waiting to gang rape girls? Now that's some sick twisted sh*t.
Thank you. She knew girls were being gang raped so SHE avoided the spiked punch. But did NOTHING to help the other girls. If she did, maybe she wouldn't have been invited to the next party.... and THAT would have been bad for her.....
Quote: billryanI knew what I was dealing with but went ahead anyway.
You offered a bet that she wouldn't show up.
Now you say that if Trump withdrew the nomination, you win.
If Grassley cancels the meeting, you win.
I took you at your initial words. Shame on me for taking you at your word. It won't happen again.
Then you believe she will not testify as well. So far everyone seems to agree on that, as I have no takers. The offer stands for you until 7PM tonight.
Quote: MaxPenThen you believe she will not testify as well. So far everyone seems to agree on that, as I have no takers. The offer stands for you until 7PM tonight.
Max.
$50 says she will testify tomorrow.
No bet on him.
Also no bet on them calling a vote Friday (in committee) as scheduled.
Quote: beachbumbabsMax.
$50 says she will testify tomorrow.
No bet on him.
Also no bet on them calling a vote Friday (in committee) as scheduled.
Booked...thanks
Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
Quote: terapinedI have made many bets on this site
Currently have one unresolved till this Novembers election
When I throw out a request for action, I am very careful on the verbiage so there is absolutely no misunderstanding and I honor my bet offers
"showing up" "How hard is that to understand"
Its very easy to understand, this is just a requirement for either to show up, not to testify
Quote: billryanFine. $100. No bet if the chairwoman cancels it.
#METOO....I have made many bets on this site as well. It is not unusual to have clarification of both sides intentions when it is obvious things were not clear to either party before officially booking. I will honor the chairWOMAN clause if that in someway could be interpreted to impugn my integrity. However, we can see that BillRyan has already pulled more gotchas than that. Hence the need to make things really clear. It is a shame that one has to go thru such a long drawn out process to book a bet with an extreme Leftist. Should probably be expected though.
So bill you have until 7PM to say you want to book the bet with the chairWOMAN clause only. And yes Ford or Ramirez need to TESTIFY under oath tomorrow.
Don't know if it matters, but, I knew what you meant the first time.Quote: MaxPen#METOO....I have made many bets on this site as well. It is not unusual to have clarification of both sides intentions when it is obvious things were not clear to either party before officially booking. I will honor the chairWOMAN clause if that in someway could be interpreted to impugn my integrity. However, we can see that BillRyan has already pulled more gotchas than that. Hence the need to make things really clear. It is a shame that one has to go thru such a long drawn out process to book a bet with an extreme Leftist. Should probably be expected though.
So bill you have until 7PM to say you want to book the bet with the chairWOMAN clause only. And yes Ford or Ramirez need to TESTIFY under oath tomorrow.
Writing time after time has proven to me, that it is a lousy means of communication. And that is only between people of good integrity. Throw in mischief and whatever, communication just won't happen.
And as for Terapined, it wasn't that long ago when you had offered a bet on NK, and decided not to book any bets later. I see no reason to dis Max on this. See how long it took for him and BBB to make a bet?
Quote: FleaswatterEx-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser.
Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
Yawn
Its meaningless
Lets say you are sexually assaulted
A couple years later you rob a bank or murder someone or threaten a boyfriend
The fact remains, You were still sexually assaulted
Just saw the number of women is up to five.
How many are needed to satisfy you? If ten come forward, are they all liars? Perhaps they may all be, but at what point is an investigation warranted?
Quote: billryanOnly max pen can turn a friendly bet into spewing attempted insults. How sad.
Just saw the number of women is up to five.
How many are needed to satisfy you? If ten come forward, are they all liars? Perhaps they may all be, but at what point is an investigation warranted?
There is nothing friendly about a bet when one side is trying to take shots and angle. I even offered to accept action with you with your 1 original weasel clause. Time has expired now though. At least I have action with one member. Took all of about 30 seconds to bring it together.
#KEEPANGLING
I wonder how BBB feels about someone with security clearance previously enabling gang rappers.Quote: SOOPOOThank you. She knew girls were being gang raped so SHE avoided the spiked punch. But did NOTHING to help the other girls. If she did, maybe she wouldn't have been invited to the next party.... and THAT would have been bad for her.....
See everything, say nothing, until 30+ years later when you are coerced to do so.
Who owes who money?
Quote: FinsRuleWell, she has shown up to testify.
Who owes who money?
whom* :)
And nobody owes anyone anything yet.
How much money does max pen owe, and to whom does he owe the money?
Quote: FinsRuleI’ll rephrase.
How much money does max pen owe, and to whom does he owe the money?
He owes Babs $50.
I just don't know what planet some of y'all are living on...
The woman is clearly a nut job and is making it up.
I wish Kavanaugh could sue her for making false claims.
Quote: KeyserI wish Kavanaugh could sue her for making false claims.
He can.
Quote: ams288How could anyone watch this opening statement and think, "yep, she's making this up!" ???
I just don't know what planet some of y'all are living on...
She sounds very credible and honest to me
I listened to all the Bill Clinton accusers
I agreed with all the conservatives, Bill Clinton accusers all sounded honest and credible
I find it shocking conservatives attacking this honest and credible witness simply due to politics
When it comes to sexual assault, all politics need to be set aside
Quote: KeyserWatching Abigail Williams Ford attack and slander John Proctor Kavanaugh is repulsive.
The actions of someone who knows Kavanaugh isnt getting on scotus after this testimony lol
They KNEW it could be a disaster, did everything to stack the deck against Dr. Ford (bringing in a prosecutor to cross examine her, no FBI investigation, no other witnesses allowed to testify, the weird 5 minute segments format), and it's still blowing up in their faces.
Schadenfreude.
Quote: KeyserWatching Abigail Williams Ford attack and slander John Proctor Kavanaugh is repulsive.
Dont watch
Were you repulsed when Bill Clinton was attacked?
I support the women Bill Clinton sexually abused just as I support Ford
Politics is meaningless to me when it comes to sexual assault
Trump called on two Kurdish reporters, including one whom he prompted, simply: "Yes, please. Mr. Kurd. Go ahead."
....he claimed a number of networks would endorse him for president in the 2020 election because he's good for ratings.
"They're all going to endorse me because, if they don't, they're going out of business," Trump said. "Can you imagine if you didn't have me?"
Jesus Christ.
Nobody can substantiate her claims and two other men have come forward to take responsibility.
It's basically her word against his at this point. He's a six time vetted Judge! Who the hell is she? Oh wait, she's a woman so we should just assume he's guilty. Lol!!!
Quote: KeyserWhy should we believe her instead of him?
Nobody can substantiate her claims and two other men have come forward to take responsibility.
It's basically her word against his at this point. He's a six time vetted Judge! Who the hell is she? Oh wait, she's a woman so we should just assume he's guilty. Lol!!!
You tuned out her CV, I guess. She's a person with 4 degrees, including a PhD, so Doctor, and a Professor at 2 universities in California. She's been published 65 times.
Quote: KeyserHis credentials are better and he's been vetted by the FBI several times. She hasn't. He is also innocent until proven guilty and deserves the benefit of doubt.
1. This is not a trial. It's a job interview.
2. There is not a legal threshold of guilt or innocence.
3. Many on both sides have already declared their intention. Almost none of those took that position based on this issue.
4. Your trashing and memeing her here is just making you look like your mind was made up before she said a single word. Maybe you should practice what you're preaching.
Whatever his credentials, hers are not in question. You're indulging in victim blaming and discrediting her as a person, not listening to her.
Quote: KeyserHis credentials are better
So the person with "better" credentials is automatically right?
Quote:He is also innocent until proven guilty and deserves the benefit of doubt.
Ford is innocent of making false claims until proven guilty and deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Quote: KeyserUnfortunately, he's the victim.
Ridiculous.
Quote: KeyserUnfortunately, he's the victim.
Lol. Do you actually believe the things you write?
Quote: FinsRuleLol. Do you actually believe the things you write?
I learned to ignore his posts many moons ago.
You already have assumed he's not guilty. Fine. But what DO we know?
We know that he has NOT been telling the truth about himself. And for a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS where you are tasked with finding and seeking truth that will affect millions of our lives, that is disqualifying. If you can't tell the truth about your own life, you cannot be allowed to make decisions that will affect mine.
PERIOD.
I also firmly believe that the third accuser represented by Avenatti is in the same category or worse and need to lose her job as a result of her being complicit as an adult in what she says happened.
