Strike

This is a lie if we are to believe your posts. I posted TWO of your posts in my decision, one where you said everyone who bet against you had lost the bet and the other where you posted the question "Isn't Biden the nominee?" when someone questioned your assertion of having won the bet. So, given that twice you suggested Biden was the nominee I find it hard to believe you didn't actually believe that at the time.

Then Tim shouldn't have claimed the bet is over and requested payment. When you do that you're wanting to settle the bet NOW instead of the agreed upon time frame. EG chose to accept that offer. Had he not this probably never gets to this point. Tim thought the changing of the terms only mattered if Tim was the winner. He didn't anticipate that he was actually the loser based upon the facts as they exist today. Had Tim just said "We'll stick to the original terms" and STFU this probably never gets to this point. Had Tim not asked four strangers to decide the merit of the situation this probably never gets to this point. But Tim can't help himself.

He did not imply that he already won. He flat out said it by saying you lost. No implication.

Yes

You forgot the rest of her quote:. "but Trump."

Not gonna tell him about the other threads, huh?

I don't think you understand what we are discussing. I also don't think your article says what you think it does. But good post!!!

Yep. They said this when he put tariffs in place when he was President and prices didn't rise as a result. They're the boy who cried wolf.

Eh. I watched the CU/Iowa game the other night. Really wanted to think women's bball had evolved. And I'll admit Iowa is a fun team to watch. But CU was a dumpster fire. That team made it to the sweet 16? Iowa seems like an outlier and the couple of games I've watched this year, both with Iowa as one team, the other teams have had the same issues I've always seen with women's bball. I don't find it enjoyable at all. Not sure what you all see in it.

Tim, You shouldn't have included me on this list, and you shouldn't have said if ONLY one agrees with EG you would pay up. I would have rather had nothing to do with this. And it's not because I'm not honest. It's because I am, and because I look at things through the lens of data and logic as I've made clear a hundred times since you joined this bored. Here are some of your quotes on this topic: To EG in various threads: Why would you repeatedly ask someone for the money they MIGHT owe you unless you're trying to settle the bet? The only reason is because you're asserting you won. But we have to look at the terms of the bet to determine that. So, you're asking in the above quotes to settle the bet. Any "honorable" person wouldn't request the payout from a bet until such time as they were ready to settle the bet. If they erroneously ask for the payout but the terms of the bet indicate that they haven't won the bet and in fact have lost the bet at the time they request settlement they should pay up. Note the bolded above. Here is where you assert that you have won the bet. As further proof that you believe you have won the bet, when someone suggested you hadn't, you replied with the following: So, what we have here is you asserting that you had won the bet and requesting that people settle up with you on their "loss." If the terms of the bet are that when settlement is done Biden is the nominee, which we all agree is not the case today, then you have lost the bet. So, IMO, you lost the bet and owe EG his payout. Now we get to see if you stand by your word as you have also asserted.

Which is about $20 too much

Drea de Matteo is on OF too and credits it for saving her from losing her house.

GO DUKE!!!!

Well if they were the banks would be all over it. For some reason the banks have no problem with all these investors "breaking the law." If the victim doesn't care why should the DA? And where are all these other prosecutions? If they're all breaking the law there should be a lot more prosecutions. Instead, we have ONE prosecution using a law that has NEVER been used in this way in 70+ years, by a person who ran for office on getting Trump. Yeah, this is legit.

No, it's not. From your article: Trump is accused of overvaluing his assets. He is not accused of hiding his criminal past, using a false SSN, or any of the other things this guy is accused of. If this guy had been honest he would not have gotten a loan. At worst, and I don't believe this is true, the allegations against Trump say he would have paid a higher interest rate. There is absolutely NOTHING similar between these cases.

Trump did not break any laws. A bunch of real estate investors have come out publicly on his side saying that what he did is what every developer/investor does. Some have stopped doing business in NY. I haven't seen one that has said he did anything wrong. The banks he supposedly victimized testified in the trial, on his side, and have said they have no issues doing business with him in the future. There was nothing out of the ordinary here. Just a DA who ran on getting Trump and following through with that promise despite not having a case.

So you're complaining that RLLD is using examples that aren't similar to what Trump did by posting an example that is nothing like what Trump did?

It is factually incorrect to post someone's original allegation but not also include that they withdrew said allegation. That's called a smear campaign. Again, this type of posting pattern may have a lot to do with why you were relegated to your own thread, and that thread is a ghost town. You might ponder that instead of LOL'ing at it.

Tim, I think you raped me when I was 12 years old. Oh, I guess we get to call you a rapist pedo forever now even if I later realize I "made a mistake", as the accuser in this case did. It's funny how you mention her original accusation but conveniently forget to mention how she not only dropped her lawsuit, but acknowledges as did her attorney that she may have been mistaken. It's like how newspapers report when someone is arrested on the front page but bury it, if posting it at all, when they are exonerated. No wonder you love the MSM so much.

This is factually incorrect. As I've told you over and over, I have no problem debating you on our differences in opinion. But it's amazing how frequently you have the actual facts wrong. Maybe that's why this thread is a ghost town.

If what she said were true there wouldn't be a Trump case. Therefore, we know she's lying.

Did he get confused on the moon??

I don't know if this is the same document I posted for Tim or not. That was several weeks ago IIRC. However, the reason I had you post it was so that we'd be talking about the same document. I don't want to ASSUME what document you're talking about when you make some vague reference to a 92 page document. I could be thinking of some totally different document. This gives us a common understanding. Now, to the document you just posted. It's about the damages portion of the trial. The document I posted was about the summary judgment motions which decided the guilty/not guilty part of the trial. Totally separate so not sure why you'd expect the same arguments and/or valuations to be included in both. They're completely separate portions of the case. It's not like the two documents overlap in any significant manner other than being related to the same case.

ROFLMAO. Would be nice if you responded to what was posted and not what you wanted it to say.

The discussion is public. You can go back and read it if you'd like. Whether you'd be able to comprehend what you read is debatable.