Before market close 5/15/2025. Jokes count. Any implication of causality between Trump being president and him being elected counts, e.g. "I told you I'd make America Great!" in context of the papal election counts, mere expressions of happiness, e.g. "It's a new American golden age" in this context do not.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ682 | |
| 2 | Ṁ334 | |
| 3 | Ṁ318 | |
| 4 | Ṁ283 | |
| 5 | Ṁ230 |
People are also trading
This is an interesting one but it's YES.
1) The market criteria is broad, I'm not going try to parse if there's any possible interpretation that makes it not imply causality. This is Trump's twitter feed, he doesn't talk in syllogisms and we can't make the criteria whether it HAS to be interpreted as logically entailing causality.
2) The statement he attributes to Raditz is exactly presenting the issue of causality. The implication of attacking someone for saying something is generally that you disagree with what they said.
3) "Catholics like me so of course I had influence" seems a very reasonable explanation of what the chain of thought is here with the sentence about the catholic vote. Not only is there a clear way in which it can be thought of as supporting his point, but "Remember, X" is a turn of phrase used to emphatically remind the audience of a fact that supports your argument, not a phrase that signals the beginning of aside or a change of topic. This is a very normal chain of logic on the "trump disagrees with Raditz" interpretation but it's non-sequitur on the "trump is just saying Raditz has TDS for bringing it up without expressing a position on the merits of the underlying issue" interpretation.
@NateWatson though I do not agree with the decision per se, 5 stars for coherently and transparently reasoning around it. Thanks!
This tweet would resolve YES under the market rules.
Why:
The tweet clearly implies causality between Trump and Pope Leo XIV's election.
Trump sarcastically criticizes Martha Raddatz for suggesting it had nothing to do with him, indicating he believes it did.
He reinforces this by referencing his Catholic vote win, implying influence or credit.
The mention of “Remember, I did WIN the Catholic Vote” in the context of a pope being elected is not just an expression of happiness—it is an assertion of political influence over religious outcomes.
This meets the market's bar: "any implication of causality between Trump being president and him being elected counts."
@Dleamer I don't think this counts, like everything he says it is really hard to parse. I think he's mocking her for feeling the need to say that he didn't cause pope Leo, he's not technically saying that he did cause pope Leo
@Dleamer This post should not be counted as a YES because Trump explicitly distances himself from the selection of Pope Leo XIV rather than claiming credit for it. The central claim in the message is a rebuttal: Trump attacks Martha Raddatz for asserting or implying that the papal selection had nothing to do with him, and he mocks that notion as a product of a "Trump Deranged Mind." However, he never suggests the opposite—that he did influence the election. There is no statement, joke, or even indirect implication that Trump caused or contributed to Leo’s election. The only relevant claim he makes is about winning the Catholic vote, which is not directly tied to Leo’s elevation and could refer to any number of contexts, including past elections. The tone is defensive and derisive, not boastful or self-congratulatory, and there is no causal link drawn, even rhetorically. This should not count as YES.
@digory "everything he says it is really hard to parse" That's for sure. I've read this multiple times and I can see people interpreting it as Trump implying causality OR as complaining about her always finding a reason to mention Trump and then rambling on about being popular amongst catholics.
@Thomas42 I think this interpretation is missing the point. When Trump mocks Martha for saying he had nothing to do with Pope Leo’s election, calling it “Trump Deranged Mind”, he’s not distancing himself. He’s doing the opposite: framing her claim as ridiculous and implying she brought it up because deep down, even his critics know he had an influence.
And then, right after that, he pivots to “Remember, I did WIN the Catholic vote, by a lot!” That’s not random. He’s making a connection. It doesn’t have to be a direct “I got him elected” to count. He’s suggesting that his win with Catholics matters here, which in the context of responding to the Pope's election is exactly the kind of causal implication the market rules say qualifies.
He’s saying, “They say I had no part in this, but don’t forget who Catholics love.”Denying that there's a rhetorical link here is just willfully ignoring the tone and context. This tweet clearly falls under "Jokes count. Any implication of causality between Trump being president and him being elected counts"
The only relevant claim he makes is about winning the Catholic vote, which is not directly tied to Leo’s elevation and could refer to any number of contexts, including past elections.
It could, but it doesn't. It is a statement in the context of the evaluation of another statement about Leo's elevation. That's the first suspect in the list of things it could be about. The fact that it could hypothetically be about other things is irrelevant.
@Thomas42 not sure what tweet you read, but Trump says that it's fake news that the pope selection had nothing to do with him. Quite the opposite of what you wrote.
.