🏅 Top traders

@robert can we please resolve this? I feel there's enough of a consensus.

@traders Important poll created by market creator: https://manifold.markets/robert/is-this-demeaning

I think... although I am not certain, that this resolves to this poll.

If there is a consensus on the poll, particularly among disinterested parties, it resolves to the consensus. If there is no consensus, we'll see...

@robert Bet you no one votes against their financial position ;-;

@traders I'll resolve this NO at 7pm ET unless someone provides evidence that Trump demeaned a former president

@robert

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/president-trump-celebrates-americas-new-golden-era-on-presidents-day/

He denigrated Biden during a press gaggle this evening: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-press-gaggle-air-force-one-february-16-2026/

@ChurlishGambit I don't think anything in that transcript counts

@robert Why not?

He's certainly discrediting, lowering, degrading them.

@ChurlishGambit which quote are you talking about from the transcript?

@robert

Trump mentions Biden twice but neither time demeans him.

The first: "Um, gasoline is less than $2 in many places gallon, which nobody expected to see, but I did is we're going by the initial expression of drill, baby drill and prices are coming down very strongly and as goes gasoline and oil and gas, uh, so goes the rest of, uh, other products that were high because of Biden."

The second: "That's peanuts compared to the kind of money that has been spent in the Middle East by Bush, by Obama, by all of these people, by Biden. I mean the money he spent."

In both these cases, he's not demeaning or debasing these people, he's stating objective (from his point of view) facts about these presidents.

He's not discrediting their character or personalities, but their policies - a whole different matter.

@Qoiuoiuoiu that's my read of it too

@Qoiuoiuoiu "High because of Biden" is clearly a smear & an attempt to demean. Gas doesn't go up because of a President, mainly, but Biden oversaw a huge expansion in domestic oil production. Saying it's his fault gas prices went up is a lie whose sole purpose is to put Biden down & elevate Trump. That's demeaning.

@ChurlishGambit I don't see it that way. It is an (invalid) criticism of Biden's policies.

@robert But it is, by definition, demeaning. Putting Biden down, to elevate himself. It doesn't matter if it purports to be about policy or not. Unless you have a special other definition you never revealed?

@ChurlishGambit as a native English speaker, that is what I find the word demeaning to mean.

https://manifold.markets/robert/is-this-demeaning?r=cm9iZXJ0

If a majority (weighted by bias) agrees with you, then I am fine resolving yes

@robert You said "that is what I find the word demeaning to mean," but you haven't said what you think it means. Do you have a meaning other than the dictionary definition?

@ChurlishGambit the reason dictionaries are hard to make is because it is hard to precisely define words. For that reason 1) I trust my own intuition more than the dictionary definition and 2) I cannot provide an alternative definition. However, I am willing to accept that my intuition is not what most people traded on, which is why I made the poll

@ChurlishGambit I don't think he's putting Biden down. He's criticizing his policies.

Take the following examples:

1: "Timmy is stupid and ugly"

2: "Timmy is bad at driving"

In example one, I'm demeaning Timmy. In example two, I'm demeaning Timmy's driving. There's a difference.

Edit: The statement, "Timmy is bad at driving" could be a lie. It still doesn't change the fundamentals here.

@Qoiuoiuoiu But "demean" does not only mean, "demean personally." The second one is demeaning, you're saying his driving is bad. It can be demeaning, and true.

@ChurlishGambit Yeah! But in this case, I'm demeaning Timmy's driving, not Timmy.

The question asks: Will Trump demean another president? The answer is NO. He demeaned another president's policies, but not the president himself.

@Qoiuoiuoiu No, Timmy's driving is not a separate entity—but even leaving that aside, he says "because of Biden." Not, "Because of Biden's policies which don't reflect on him personally" or anything like that. "Because of Biden." No mention of policies. If you INFER "policies," then you're doing Trump a kindess & also adding outside verbiage that he didn't say.

@ChurlishGambit ...I see what you're trying to say, but I just don't agree. It's a statement. It could be true, it could be false, but it's not an opinionated comment on Biden.

He's just saying, X happened, because of Biden. That's not demeaning.

If I say the vase fell because of the cat, regardless of the veracity of the statement I'm not demeaning the cat.

@Qoiuoiuoiu Cats don't have agency the same way people do, that's not a correct example.

@ChurlishGambit

Ok, replace Cats with a guy named Katz. It's the same argument, whether it's a person or cat. Do you want to debate the definition of demean or discuss trivialities that are tangential to the topic at hand?

@Qoiuoiuoiu It's not the same argument. You can't really discredit a cat.

If you just say Katz knocked a vase over, it can be putting him down, might not be, depending on your exact tone. But if you say "Katz knocked the vase over—it was an accident," then you're removing any chance of demeaning, & defending his credit.

This whole market has become tangential because of fiddling over "demean," when Trump did attack other Presidents. It's now a market on what what people think "demean" means, & not a useful prediction of what Trump did or said.

@Qoiuoiuoiu For example, a more useful market, that is an actual prediction market, is either:

"Will Trump attack, criticize, or say anything negative about other US Presidents, on Presidents Day?"

or

"Will Trump make personal insults or character attacks on other US Presidents, on Presidents Day, unrelated to policies or political matters?"

Then, you're making specific predictions about clear events. "Demean" captures both of those senses, but now it's trying to be narrowed. It's not a prediction market, it's a definition market, now with a post hoc poll attached.

@ChurlishGambit sorry about bad criteria. I expected this to get like at most 10 traders who each had like 10 mana, so resolution would be low stakes and providing extra clarity would not be worth it.

As an aside, if I did specify, I doubt this would have reached 150 traders...

@robert We knew what we were getting into when we bet on a market with no criteria. If you want clarification, ask before you bet.

@robert No need to apologize, I'm enjoying the discussion. The flaw is with the whole concept of prediction markets—not you personally.