In Ben Shapiro and Destiny's debate,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I6A2cukme8
Ben Shapiro claim that there is 0% chance that Trump would try to run for a third term US president, while Destiny claim that there's 100% chance that Trump would try to run for a third term. Who is right?
I use a rather broad definition of 'attempt' here. Resolves to 'Yes' if there is any attempt by Trump to run for a third term as president. This includes public statements, fundraising efforts, or other indications suggesting he is considering a run for a third term.
Resolves NA if Trump did not become president in 2024
Resolves 'No' if there is no evidence for Trump attempting to run for a third term by the end of 2032.
Edit: If Trump was making a joking about running for 3rd term president that wouldn’t count. In case that it is difficult to determine if Trump is joking or not, I’ll consult with traders here.
Edit: If no clear statement or quote from Trump is available, I do not consider that sufficient evidence for the market to resolve YES.
Pinning the voting page here on whether this market should have resolved Yes already.
https://manifold.markets/Balasar/should-manifold-market-resolve-as-y?play=true
1,000People are also trading
@AmmonLam Yeah, is this enough in your view to trigger a YES? This seems like the weakest possible signal that is still through a vaguely official channel.
———
Trump store is selling ‘Trump 2028’ hats
@ChadCotty How many times will people have to see him actually do the thing before they stop assuming it's a troll?
@WilliamGunn Definitely wouldn’t rule out an eventual attempt, but I’d prefer the market not resolve until he does something less ambiguous to indicate he is actually pursuing a third term.
@Odoacre Not at that point, because if that (and everything until now) were to end up being the extent of his attempt, it would be pretty clear in hindsight he was simply trolling.
@ChadCotty he has literally already done this and Ammon said he would resolve YES if a majority of voters agreed, which they did, and he still refused to resolve YES here.
this market is bogus and I'm really annoyed such a widely known and reputable trader on the site is acting so poorly here.
@No_uh What is the rush? If he is serious about attempting a third term, there will be stronger indicators that is the case. If it resolves YES now, and it turns out he was never seriously pursuing a third term, that would be a bad resolution. I really don’t believe this resolution will need to be controversial. Right now it would be. We will eventually have a much better idea whether or not he is seriously pursuing a third term.
Not at that point, because if that (and everything until now) were to end up being the extent of his attempt, it would be pretty clear in hindsight he was simply trolling.
you can use that argument for literally anything except running a third term
@ChadCotty Look, I'm not in a rush to resolve this, but it's good to know you're in the category of "default no" when it comes to resolution. Either way is ok, I just prefer not to take positions in markets resolved on the "nothing ever happens" principle.
On a broader editorial note, some of y'all will say "he's just trolling" if he declares martial law and demand video evidence that every Democrat in Congress is in the El Salvador gulag before believing it.
@ChadCotty yeah, your argument is that a person that intends to run for a third time will behave in a similar way to a person that's only pretending to run for a third time.
It's a a variation of the no true scotsman fallacy. Anything he does you can say he's just trolling or is not serious. Even if he runs you can say he's running with the expectation of losing or something.
@ChadCotty There is no rush. It is a simple question if what he has already said fulfills the criteria outlined in the description, and the answer is OBVIOUSLY (snd agreed upon by a majority vote) YES!! lol
some of us actually fuckin read the descriptions of the markets we bet on! i SPECIFICALLY bet yes on the markets because the resolution criteria, VERY CLEARLY laid out in the description were farrrr more loose than trump *actually" running for a 3rd term!
And he had already non-jokingly stated as much! Whether he commits to this or decommits to this later is irrelevant! There is no 'rush'. The simple fact is the market creator told us what would wualify as YES, we got it, and then told us we should vote and if a majority agreed we would resolve, SAW THE VOTE, moved goal posts, and still refused to resolve yes! lol
@ChadCotty idk what to tell you to make you understand. Read the paragraph 'i use a rather broad definition...' it's very clearly outlined there, and then again down in the comments with regard to the poll results.
@No_uh If it were truly that obvious, the vote would not have been so evenly split. My only point is that the resolution should not be that controversial, and I don’t believe it will have to be.
I'm of the opinion that things have gone sideways when it seems like people are trading on the chances of the market judge resolving one way or the other, not the state of the world itself.
Do we think we're at that point yet? Why or why not?
Edit: Disclosure, I hold a net NO position, but I made a notable YES trade as labeled in an above comment.
@ChadCotty I can walk past a looted electronics shop with a TV on my shoulder and just be innocently bringing a TV (that I totally own and did not steal) to a friends house, too.
@Quroe the only trade i have made was based on the likelihood I thought there was of Trump fulfilling what was outlined in the description. I did not trade, nor have I since, initially on what I felt Ammon would do in response or anything like that.
The market met the criteria, Ammon asked for a majority vote, we got it, and then decommitted again lol.
I'm wanting this to resolve based on what happened in the real world and it matcing what was outlined in the description.
@ChadCotty I'm sorry to talk down to you, but I honestly think you're not speaking to me in good faith.
Did you read the market description? Did you read the comments on the poll?
@No_uh I don’t want to argue about this indefinitely, but my understanding is that joking/trolling does not meet the requirement. However, “attempt” is defined liberally to include anything that would suggest he is seriously considering a run for a third term. Right now I honestly can’t tell if he is joking/trolling or seriously considering a run for a third term.
@ChadCotty Chad, I asked you because he literally said VERBATIM 'I'm not joking. I'm not joking.' in the interview. This is what I'm talking about lol.
I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone!
@ChadCotty the problem is IMO the market and its description. Most people casually look at the market and think it's about an attempt to run. However, the issue is that the description includes this much, much weaker requirement: "This includes public statements, fundraising efforts, or other indications suggesting he is considering a run for a third term."
IMO it's this that causes all the controversy here and why the poll was split. "Attempt" isn't the bar here. The bar is "consider"
@AlexanderTheGreater IMO this market should right now either resolve YES because Trump is clearly considering running again or NA because the way the market is written has clearly led to different people assuming the market is about different things.
@AlexanderTheGreater @AmmonLam A market creator comment weighing in would be helpful. That way, we're betting on the state of the world, not the market creator's state of mind.
@No_uh If “attempt” is defined to include statements that suggest he is considering a third term, then the NBC phone interview would probably be enough to resolve. It would barely meet the defined criteria, but that would be a fair reading.
My main hangup with this market is if that’s how “attempt” should be defined, it was essentially predetermined to resolve YES regardless of whether he puts any actual effort towards running again. He hardly ever rules anything out publicly, especially not this far in advance. Was he ever not going to make people think he might try for a third term?
@ChadCotty all of this is true and yet, "considering" is what the market's resolution criteria state.
It's odd and an unintended outcome like market criteria sometimes turning into a debate similar to a court trial that hinges on interpretation on a law or fine print on a contract but that's unavoidable.
At this point I'm just looking to sell off my shares at a reasonable price and not wait for this to resolve. I expect it to resolve YES, but it's unclear to me if that might happen tomorrow or in three years and what needs to happen for that
@ChadCotty yeah, you're not interacting in good faith. please read market description closely. your use of "probably" int he first paragraph tells me we're not speaking on equally informed or well-intentioned grounds. im not gonna reply further here. good luck, traders.
It seems like Mod Nikki locked the market.
While I did make the most recent trades in these 3 markets below at times of post, I think these markets should be referenced in our discussion to argue that we were trading on the market creator's state of mind [edit: or at least on a technicality in the description].
/JRR/if-trump-wins-the-2024-election-wil-877b62a380ec