@Krantz would this resolve YES if, for example:

1. Trump proposes no coherent policies, while Harris proposes vaguely to do more border stuff
2. Trump indicates that he would want to be dictator for a day, and Harris indicates that that is bad and should not happen

@ijk1 No. If either candidate 'proposes no coherent policies' it would be impossible to make a distinction between policies. Trump stating 'I would be a dictator on day one.' is a statement about his mindset and not a specific action. It is reasonable to assume either candidate will use the full authority of their position to accomplish their objectives.

However, if Trump specifically makes mention of any legislature or policies that would change his scope of authority and Harris states that she would not implement such policy, that would count.

In other words, at any point in the debate, do they ever point at a specific law or policy that would be implemented under one but not the other?

I'm open to suggestions if anyone thinks there's a better way this could be framed.

@Krantz planning or desiring a shift away from a liberal democracy (what the US has been since 1789) to a dictatorship is a policy position. It is the only policy position actually worth discussing because after that one change there's no point in discussing policy positions anymore.

You think Dick Cheney is voting for Harris because of her policies? No.

@becauseyoudo I think Dick Cheney is endorsing Harris because he believes in protecting the rights of corporations to donate to political campaigns and worries that's ultimately what's at stake with this election.

It appears Trump's dumb remark about being a dictator was something he said to trigger liberals and doesn't actually refer to any specific changes in written law.

I also think it's our written law that determines whether we are actually living in a democracy or a dictatorship (not the opinion of an individual).

If he actually mentions changing the law to provide the executive branch more authority, that would certainty be concerning. Let me know if it happens.

@Krantz Trump's motivations are not a mystery. Trump is a threat to democracy because the says he is. He might be deeply delusional and narcissistic but he generally keeps his promises when his many, many, many... failings don't get in the way.

Cheney is endorsing Harris because Trump has threatened his family. Trump threatened Cheney's family because he and his family believe Trump to be a threat to the country and the party they represented. Corporations donated so much money to the 2016 Trump campaign Trump gave them all direct positions in his cabinet. All of his top Secretaries were former lobbyists, CEOs and billionaires. Trump was so swampy, he out-swamped Cheney, so corporate allegiance has nothing to do with it.

Political leaders that go around threatening other politicians, inspiring mobs of their psycho fans to send death threats to their enemies, are not interested in policy discussions, democracy or the law. Laws are subject to interpretation up until they become useless piles of paper and kindling.

| If he actually mentions changing the law to provide the executive branch more authority, that

| would certainty be concerning.

The decision by the Supreme Court to extend presidential immunity to all actions indirectly associated to official duties, with wording so vague most legal scholars don't think there are any limits to presidential power, fit your criteria perfectly. You don't need to write new laws when you can just reinterpret vague old laws to mean whatever you want them to mean.

Any group seeking to transform the US into a totalitarian state would want to preserve the stability and prosperity of the country, and reap the benefits of that prosperity as a controlling minority. The only way to do this in a democratic country like the US is to create a democratic onramp for dictatorship, slowly centralizing power and limiting freedoms.

It is incredibly irresponsible to hand the presidency to anyone that even jokes about wanting to be a dictator. To anyone that doesn't explicitly believe the preservation of democracy is their highest duty in that position of power.

@becauseyoudo It doesn't seem like Cheney would be physically afraid of Trump. Cheney basically is the military industrial complex and does not hesitate to give the occasional birdshot makeover. Trump is just a guy with a ton of oppressed people behind him that are tired of the corruption. Elon and his ability to direct attention is the real threat to the establishment.

The first time around, Trump was handled by the establishment. I completely agree with your assessment of that administration. But at the end of the day, he's just a guy looking to be liked. He's managed to serve as a mechanism to unite the oppressed side of the right, with the oppressed side of the left.

So please, tell me again how crazy Trump is (even though I've said numerous times I agree) without saying anything about the character or policy of the person for whom I'm claiming to support. Which is RFK. Please. Give me any evidence (that is not somehow related to Trump) for why RFK should not deserve my vote.

@Krantz If Cheney were afraid of Trump he wouldn't be publicly supporting his opponent.

Circling back to the question by @ijk1: The bit that is unclear in your question is: "(A person with no prior knowledge of either candidate's policy would be able to recite a difference in their actual policies)"

You can probably reduce the question to:

Either candidate clearly states a policy position in opposition to the other candidate's position.

For immigration:

1 - Both want to reduce illegal immigration and don't speak deeply on the subject -> Resolves NO

2 - One wants to deport legal non-citizen residents and the other wants to give them a path to citizenship -> Resolves YES

Does that make sense?

@becauseyoudo I agree Cheney doesn't fear Trump in a physical sense. It'd be more reasonable for Trump to worry about Cheney. He's supporting Harris because he's worried about what Elon and RFK will convince him Trump to do with bitcoin, FDA, CIA, corporate personhood.

For the demarcation criteria, that looks great and embraces the spirit I was aiming for.

Thanks for the feedback.

I know this is intended to be a 'fun game', but it's really disappointing that we are wagering on what names these idiots will call each other instead of wagering on what persuasive points will be made in a discussion between charitable individuals actually trying to create a sense of unity and compromise.

Does anyone else out there hope for a society like that some day?

Tools like manifold, polymarket, X, ect could be incredibly powerful if we actually used them to sort through our ideas and communicate at scale.

Sorry for being a buzzkill. Just hoping for more from the community.

Maybe I'm in the wrong place.

Anyone know of any substantive debates that could be wagered on?

I'd love to wager on a debate between Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, AOC and RFK (hosted by Lex) about campaign finance and corporate personhood.

@Krantz I think this is a (sad) reflection of the candidates, rather than the community. One of them in particular has famously made these debates more of a spectacle of name-calling than contrasting policy.

I'd love to wager on policy and their arguments for/against their position, but unfortunately I don't think that will be a large part of the "debate".

Hopefully we have more politicians and fewer entertainers in the running 4 years from now.

@AndrewBrown I think the candidates are a product of the community (not the manifold community, but the US in general). I empathize with the frustration from both sides. They both seem to be genuinely aimed at avoiding the consolation of power (decentralization, a cause I support).

The left sees the threat of putting too much power into one person that is obviously really flawed. It is kind of insane that we'd be willing to put a single human in charge of the country, right? We need checks and balances. We need some sort of committee to approve any big changes, right? You can't just go on a stage and speak freely. You need to have a team of speech writers audit what you are going to say to make sure we are politically correct and don't offend anyone. Candidates should be groomed, non-controversial and follow the script.

The right sees the threat of putting too much power into one corporation/network of corporations. It's the same lobbyist groups that have selected candidates/policy. People are sick of picking between cookie cutter #1 or cookie cutter #2. They fear the mega corporations more than having an incompetent President.

For what it's worth, I've been a Democrat my whole life. I was all in with Bernie because I believed in completely overhauling the pharmaceutical corruption and believe everyone deserves universal healthcare. I was all in with Yang because I believe wealth inequality is the underlying reason for stagnation and a basic income was a realistic way to address it. I've been all in on many democratic candidates over the years. My battles were always over well before a majority of people started paying attention to the general election. The corporations squashed any revolutionary ideas.

I want to live in a country where anyone could actually become President.

I want our debates to make us feel uncomfortable and confront hard ideas.

RFK has the character that I would want in a President.

Our system never gave him a chance.

Trump has cemented himself as a protest vote.

I've criticized him just as much as anyone.

I'm just as worried as you guys what he might do.

I'm just more worried that I will never get the chance to vote for real people.

It feels like this is really an election to decide what is worse:

(1) Having the blaring village idiot as our official leader.

(2) Having the same corrupt corporate mega network quietly guide us further into complete oppression.

I just wish people paid attention to RFK when it mattered.

He would have been legendary.

At the end of the day, I'm voting for the administration that I think will best navigate the societal changes that come with the rise of crypto and AI.

Unfortunately, neither candidate in this debate is expected to utter the words, 'existential risk' or 'smart contracts'.

@Krantz It seems there has been a shift in the US.  That shift has been from (left vs right) to (corporatist vs populist). I think there's a good chance that 'corporate personhood' is the key issue that has ignited figures like Musk and RFK. It appears that AI will soon be able to run corporations. The question of whether corporations should have the rights of 'personhood' will subsequently determine whether AI will have such rights. Corporate personhood plays a critical role in campaign finance and a ton of money goes into keeping the issue out of the mainstream media. This is an issue that will encounter tremendous push back from corporations (and the politicians they control). If anyone can provide an argument for why Harris would be more likely to repeal corporate personhood, I'd love to read it.

Who?

@ZacParker what is the official post debate coverage? What channel? What timeline?

@mqudsi ABC is hosting the debate so it would be the ABC coverage immediately afterwards.

@PlasmaBallin Would reading poetry count?

@Quroe I don't think so

@jacksonpolack Excellent. I wanted to dash that hope, just in case it became relevant.

@Quroe No, it has to be sung

@jacksonpolack Can we include bets for the official post-debate coverage on ABC?

@ZacParker Yes

@ZacParker does clearing the throat count?

@PoliticalEconomyPK That's a tough one. I'd say since clearing your throat can be both voluntary and involuntary it isn't as definitive as a sneeze or a burp or like a serious sustained cough.

This is a good point to get clarified.

@Quroe I'd say it would have to be definitive that it is involuntary. A candidate might voluntarily clear their throat to speak louder and with more clarity. It is hard to imagine a candidate intentionally burping during a debate.

@PoliticalEconomyPK I expect this one to plausibly be subjective and unclear, I'd nonbindingly currently think that clearing your throat doesn't count