Bull Ring Calling out a challenge to Crepitus and every democrat on this message board !

[Moonglow]

I left for a month .. so I didn't honor the bet .. but I'm a lot more honest and honorable than someone that supports the slaughter of children in the womb for any reason ..

Unless it is Israel doing it to the Palestinians.

 

[forkup]

so Dems are saying there's no way to prove the letter was made by Trump ? forensics would have no problem with proving it one way or another .. by the way .. where is this letter that Dems claim to be real ?

Strawman much?

 

[Harry Dresden]

You guys just keep on crying the same ole stuff. You have a few years to go yet.

what am i crying about?....

 

[Crepitus]

candycorn Crepitus JoeB131 citygator Harry Dresden Winco Moonglow

Brace yourself guys.......get ready....

View attachment 1139968


... wait....wait....in one...two.....three


View attachment 1139969

LET IT ALL OUT​

That person is obviously a tRumpling based on the skin color.

Is it you?

 

[yidnar]

No — forensics can tell. That’s not the issue. The issue is that it almost certainly won’t be applied in any setting both sides would trust.

Let’s say the DOJ says they’ve reviewed the card and declared it fake. You’d probably nod along. I wouldn’t. Now suppose the Wall Street Journal doubled down and claimed it was genuine. You’d call it propaganda. So would I, honestly — but that’s not the point.

The only venue where I’d trust the process is discovery in open court, where both sides get to dig in and challenge. But that’s a fantasy — you and I both know we’re not getting that.

Now, about your bet: I’ll take it. But let’s be clear on terms.

The WSJ, owned by the guy who also owns Fox, published this. Rupert Murdoch isn’t exactly a friend to anti-Trump narratives — so if his paper ran this, it wasn’t on a whim. That means either the card is real or they’re prepared to burn a mountain of credibility.

So yeah — if you’re still confident it’s fake, let's play, just don't claim I didn't warn you.

challenge accepted !

 

[forkup]

challenge accepted !

You still haven't clarified what proof would look like?

 

[candycorn]

I left for a month .. so I didn't honor the bet ..

You said you were leaving for a year.

So you didn’t honor the bet.


If you bet someone $50 and pay them $5 when you lose...that isn’t honoring the bet.

So clearly, you’re dishonest...even now.

 

[candycorn]

You still haven't clarified what proof would look like?

It will be whatever isn’t ever presented...

Just a preview of what you’ll hear, “You call that proof? When they (the people he supports by the way) release ____________, then I’ll accept it.”

 

[forkup]

It will be whatever isn’t ever presented...

Just a preview of what you’ll hear, “You call that proof? When they (the people he supports by the way) release ____________, then I’ll accept it.”

I know that's how it'll probably go that's why I want him to define it properly before we get into this. The fact that he hasn't is clarifying. I won't let it go either. I don't suffer fools or people who take me for one gladly.

 

[yidnar]

You still haven't clarified what proof would look like?

I've been trying to explain ... I guess no proof will satisfy the left of his innocence .. so tell us .. what proof of his innocence would you accept ?

 

[forkup]

I've been trying to explain ... I guess no proof will satisfy the left of his innocence .. so tell us .. what proof of his innocence would you accept ?

You haven't explained nothing to me. You said something about forensics. But that still leaves the question who you would accept as experts. This is the best I've come up with.

The only venue where I’d trust the process is discovery in open court, where both sides get to dig in and challenge.

As a further aside. The WSJ has come out with more information that's not being contested, namely that Trump was notified he was mentioned in May. And another news agency also confirmed it. Now this doesn't prove that the card is real. What it does imply is that the WSJ has more than one contact leaking information within the administration that's feeding them info regarding the Epstein files since the phrasing was sources with an s. That means it's likely related. And that would mean the card is in the possession of the DOJ. This is a whole lot of conjecture, but would you say it makes sense?
And if the DOJ does have it, would their silence on the card’s authenticity mean anything to you?


Personally, I wouldn’t take a DOJ confirmation as proof it’s real — not without independent verification, for reasons I’ve already laid out.


But if your standard of disproof is “the DOJ says it’s fake,” then logically, the absence of such a denial, assuming we confirm they have it, starts to carry weight.


It’s still an inference — but it’s not a baseless one.

 

[yidnar]

You haven't explained nothing to me. You said something about forensics. But that still leaves the question who you would accept as experts. This is the best I've come up with.


As a further aside. The WSJ has come out with more information that's not being contested, namely that Trump was notified he was mentioned in May. And another news agency also confirmed it. Now this doesn't prove that the card is real. What it does imply is that the WSJ has more than one contact leaking information within the administration that's feeding them info regarding the Epstein files since the phrasing was sources with an s. That means it's likely related. And that would mean the card is in the possession of the DOJ. This is a whole lot of conjecture, but would you say it makes sense?
And if the DOJ does have it, would their silence on the card’s authenticity mean anything to you?


Personally, I wouldn’t take a DOJ confirmation as proof it’s real — not without independent verification, for reasons I’ve already laid out.


But if your standard of disproof is “the DOJ says it’s fake,” then logically, the absence of such a denial, assuming we confirm they have it, starts to carry weight.


It’s still an inference — but it’s not a baseless one.

lol ! Trump was notified he was in the files ! that's no surprise dembot ! Trump was also informed that though he along with many others is mentioned in the files he is in no way implicated in the democrats crimes ! Epstein was a wealthy financial adviser and rubbed elbows with many other wealthy people ! heck .. he was even a major donor to the democrat party ! but what the left ignores is that Trump cut ties with Epstein long before Epstein was ever outed or prosecuted for his perversions ! Trump actually banned Epstein from his resorts for life for inappropriate behavior towards an underaged female at Mar a Lago ! face it ! there's no link between Trump and Epsteins crimes ..



AI Overview


Yes, Donald Trump banned Jeffrey Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club
. This was reportedly due to Epstein's inappropriate behavior, specifically harassing the daughter of a club member. According to some accounts, this occurred around 2007, prior to Epstein's initial legal troubles becoming public knowledge.

 

[forkup]

lol ! Trump was notified he was in the files ! that's no surprise dembot ! Trump was also informed that though he along with many others is mentioned in the files he is in no way implicated in the democrats crimes ! Epstein was a wealthy financial adviser and rubbed elbows with many other wealthy people ! heck .. he was even a major donor to the democrat party ! but what the left ignores is that Trump cut ties with Epstein long before Epstein was ever outed or prosecuted for his perversions ! Trump actually banned Epstein from his resorts for life for inappropriate behavior towards an underaged female at Mar a Lago ! face it ! there's no link between Trump and Epsteins crimes ..



AI Overview


Yes, Donald Trump banned Jeffrey Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club
. This was reportedly due to Epstein's inappropriate behavior, specifically harassing the daughter of a club member. According to some accounts, this occurred around 2007, prior to Epstein's initial legal troubles becoming public knowledge.

Still haven't set the terms. I asked and will continue to ask about what would be acceptable proof to both of us. Focus on that instead of calling me names.

 

[candycorn]

what proof of his innocence would you accept ?

In Trump’s America one has to prove they are innocent?

 

[forkup]

So I'm guessing since yidnar deemed starting a new OP preferable to actually hashing out what proof would be acceptable, he figured that challenging "the left" to a bet isn't such a good idea when "the left" is actually willing to take the bet providing he's not allowed to move the goalposts... interesting.

 

[yidnar]

So I'm guessing since yidnar deemed starting a new OP preferable to actually hashing out what proof would be acceptable, he figured that challenging "the left" to a bet isn't such a good idea when "the left" is actually willing to take the bet providing he's not allowed to move the goalposts... interesting.

lol ! y'all pretend to not understand the simple stipulations ..

 

[forkup]

lol ! y'all pretend to not understand the simple stipulations ..

Oh, you sweet summer keyboard warrior.

You strutted into the room with your chest puffed out, challenging “the left” to a bet like you were some political John Wick. But the moment someone actually said “Sure, let’s define the terms”, your spine liquefied.

Now you're flailing around pretending the “simple stipulations” were clear, a statement so dumb in a forum setting, where stuff is typed, that it deserves its own Darwin award, the only thing clear is that you were banking on nobody calling your bluff. And now that someone has, you’re doing the equivalent of checking your shoelaces and slowly backing out of the room.

You didn’t want a bet. You wanted applause from the cheap seats.

The funny part? You still think you're winning. Like a kid who hides under the table during hide-and-seek and thinks he’s invisible, except everyone saw you crawl under there, fart, and call it strategy.

 

[yidnar]

Oh, you sweet summer keyboard warrior.

You strutted into the room with your chest puffed out, challenging “the left” to a bet like you were some political John Wick. But the moment someone actually said “Sure, let’s define the terms”, your spine liquefied.

Now you're flailing around pretending the “simple stipulations” were clear, a statement so dumb in a forum setting, where stuff is typed, that it deserves its own Darwin award, the only thing clear is that you were banking on nobody calling your bluff. And now that someone has, you’re doing the equivalent of checking your shoelaces and slowly backing out of the room.

You didn’t want a bet. You wanted applause from the cheap seats.

The funny part? You still think you're winning. Like a kid who hides under the table during hide-and-seek and thinks he’s invisible, except everyone saw you crawl under there, fart, and call it strategy.

simple ... if its proven the letter is fake then you leave the board for a month .. if its proven to be authentic and written by Trump I leave the board for one month .. forensic analysis would have no problem revealing the truth .. cant do any better than that for ya mam ..

 

[forkup]

simple ... if its proven the letter is fake then you leave the board for a month .. if its proven to be authentic and written by Trump I leave the board for one month .. forensic analysis would have no problem revealing the truth .. cant do any better than that for ya mam ..

So just to be clear, if the Wall Street Journal came out tomorrow with a forensic report verifying the card as authentic, you'd pack up and vanish for a month? Really? That’s your claim?”

Because I don't buy it for a second. You're setting conditions you already know you’ll wiggle out of. Which means, functionally, you’ve offered nothing but posturing.

 

[yidnar]

So just to be clear, if the Wall Street Journal came out tomorrow with a forensic report verifying the card as authentic, you'd pack up and vanish for a month? Really? That’s your claim?”

Because I don't buy it for a second. You're setting conditions you already know you’ll wiggle out of. Which means, functionally, you’ve offered nothing but posturing.

if they come up with positive proof like a forensics verifying the letter as Trumps I will leave the board for one month !