wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 8:33 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:56 pm
wbtravis007 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:48 pm
If you'd be willing to put your money in escrow along with mine, you name it.
How about you agree to stop trolling me forever if I prove she said her campaign actually won the election despite the official results?
I said I’d put money on the proposition that Ear is correct. When you asked how much, I assumed that you were prepared to bet money on that. Guess not.
How bout this for stakes: you shut your pie hole for a month against my pledge to not post here any more.
If you agree to those stakes, and can show that Ear is incorrect, I’m gone.
Deal?
I suspect weaseling going on here.
First of all, you told me to name the stakes. If I wanted to wager money, I would be willing to do what you suggested. But I don't. I want you to quit being an asshole. So I have named the stakes. You have amended it to add your incentive that I stop posting for a month. I hereby agree.
Now in plain english, the statement that Earendel made that is the subject of this wager is
"I'll probably regret getting involved in this, but Ms. Abrams didn't say that she actually won. She said that her chances of winning would have been much better if there had not been voter suppression that began two years before the election (and before she announced her candidacy, I believe - although I may be wrong on that)."
My contention to which Earendel replied the above, was:
"Why have so many people been censored and canceled by the MSM and SM for doing the same thing the President of the Earth has done? And why haven't these same entities done the same to her?"
I contend that she has said, many times, in public and in many different ways, that despite the officially accepted results of the 2018 election for Georgia Governor in which Brian Kemp was declared the winner, she actually won the election, because he cheated. She did not concede that she had lost. She would not concede because she did not accept that the results were right, in her opinion. Trump has said that he does not concede his loss in 2020 because he does not accept that the results were right. Abrams contends that there was voter suppression. Trump stated many times before the election that mail-in ballots were an invitation for fraud and abuse, and has much evidence of fraud and abuse. Both have attempted to use the court system to dispute the results of their election. Yet Abrams is held by the MSM as a hero, and Trump. Well, what else is new?
I have already posted a link to one such occurrence where she says she won, in which she says unequivocally, that "We Won". I assume she is politically astute enough to know that by saying these words in the way she said them, they would and could be used against her. I think she did so deliberately. I did several searches to try and determine if there was any video record of creative editing of that particular statement to make it look different than what she actually was trying to communicate. I could not find any. There are after the fact, second hand accounts that she was referring to a 'moral victory', but I could find no video evidence of that. Those kinds of things are never used when Trump clarifies videos of him saying something that goes viral. So I will go with what is found when one does a general search.
She has stated that despite the official results, her campaign actually won. She has confirmed it by steadfastly refusing to concede her loss until recently when she decided to try again. If you want to weasel it by arguing over pronouns, this bet is off. This, by itself, and by the rules in which you apparently operate, wins me the bet.
I had already stated and posted this link. It is possible you didn't bother to go look at it before you suggested this wager, but I will assume you have. Why would you make this wager knowing you have already lost it? Probably some kind of play on words? I will not accept any 'depends on what the meaning of "IS" is stuff.
If you contend you win the bet because she was actually stating that she won a 'moral' victory, then you must also concede publicly here on the bored that you realize that most of the vitriol hurled at President Trump during and after his administration has also been creatively edited and comes to the wrong conclusion. Are you willing to do that? I am not willing to go into another legthy argument. So if that's the case, the bet is off.
So basically, I win this bet because:
1. Ear was NOT correct in his contention:
-- I have posted proof that Abrams said "We Won" in a context that would be used in the same way if Trump said it.
And
2. I am correct in my contention that the MSM and SM is biased in the way they handle the two:
-- Trump did what Abrams did: He did not concede his loss. He asked his audience to protest peacefully. He took his evidence to the courts and published it on the internet. But she gets hero treatment while he gets trashed. And many people, most notably Mike Lindell, have been censored and canceled for trying to disseminate the evidence they have compiled. No one, to my knowledge, has been censored or canceled for supporting Ms. Abrams contentions.
"We had this little election back in 2018. And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have a very affirmative statement to make. We won.”.
https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/statu ... 3311979529
You can accept that as my answer. Or not. I am not willing to go into any more debate with you on who's right or who's wrong. So I suspect we're at a draw. You can go ahead and continue trolling me, if that gets you off.