Yesterday on Truth Social, Donald Trump made this announcement:
this market is for prop bets on this conversation.
general rules:
Add your own answers, but please be as clear and objective as possible. I'll likely n/a vibes-based responses or ask for clarity to make them more concrete where possible. I will also n/a responses that are too difficult to track or resolve, or ones that are too obvious (if they'll definitely resolve Yes or No). Feel free to comment below if you want me to add the option for you.
For swift resolution, add proof or timestamps in your comment. Reply as a comment on the option you want resolved to make resolution clearer.)
The date of the conversation is said to be August 12th - I will extend as necessary if it's delayed.
For words/mentions, the following apply:
The exact word or sequence of words must be said without any differences, except for the following rules:
Plurals (e.g., "cat" and "cats") are considered equivalent.
Possessives, e.g. "Trump's" counts as an instance of "Trump" (but not vice versa)
Contractions count the same as the words they represent e.g., "don't" is equivalent to "do not"
Some examples of words which are not considered the same (not an exhaustive list!)
Abbreviations, e.g. USA is not the same as "United States of America"
Verb tenses, e.g. running vs ran are not the same
Other word forms like America and American are not the same
Parts of words, e.g. "Obamacare" does not count as an instance of "Obama"
Additional notes for clarity:
Any usage counts regardless of context.
Different meanings of a word, e.g. Apple the company or apple the fruit count as the same word
Different capitalizations e.g., "Apple" and "apple" are counted as the same word.
Different spellings of a word due to regional variations are counted as the same word (e.g., "color" and "colour," "organize" and "organise")
It's a verbal conversation so this shouldn't matter but just for clarity. E.g. in case someone spells the word out, the spelling wouldn't matter.
1,000
3.00I closed the question (as I should have done earlier) because it doesn't make sense that everyone has been trading heavily on a market with disputed answers. I'll be resolving these soon, the market will remain closed until then.
I'm copying a previous comment below and then wrapping up my reasoning - I've decided to resolve this one Yes. keep in mind, there's no way to resolve to everyone's satisfaction so just hear me out, No holders.
previous comment:
just for the record: while I appreciate what seems to be a lot of people adding quotes from newspapers and links to news pieces, I won't use headlines or articles for any resolutions - there's too much open for interpretation, editorialising, etc.
that said, here is the part in the transcript where they talk about a theoretic role in government if Trump is elected and that, afaik, is the only part that could possibly be considered for this option. Elon mentions a commission "we need," Trump says he'd be great for that, Elon says he'd be happy to help with it (which, in general parlance, means he'd be happy to have some sort of role/position/participation there).again, I will come back later to review and make a decision.
"I need an Elon Musk" does not count - this is Trump commenting that he needs a particular personality type or skillset. I need an Elon Musk is not the same as I need Elon Musk.
as far as I can tell, a lot of the debate between bettors is about semantics.
the difference between 'on' or 'in' does not, in and of itself, differentiate between a position and not. I can personally "help on the project of establishing this committee" or "help on the fundraising event" for example, and I still have the position as a/the person helping establish the committee or contributing to the event.
I also don't think that being paid is a requirement (or that the ambiguity about being paid changes anything) - a volunteer is still holding a position
I understand this is contentious and it seems there are also differing interpretations of 'position' etc. they did mention, even lightly without lingering or formalising, a theoretic committee that Elon could participate in either establishing or running, and given it's not an existing role I don't think it would have been possible for them to be much more detailed than that without brainstorming the details of the thing.
ultimately I need to make a decision and I don't think this is ambiguous enough to consider it an option that cannot be reasonably and fairly resolved (meaning I didn't consider NAing this one).
im confused how “help out on such a commission” can be “not ambiguous enough” (yet still ambiguous) and 100% of the time mean help “in the commission” or anything synonymous, in order to satisfy the positive claim.
For the positive claim “They mention a possible position for Elon in Trump's administration” to be correct, the evidence we have (the interview) must show any one moment or moments that allow the audience to interpret logically, in all possible meanings of the moment(s), anyone mentions Elon to have a possible position in trumps administration.
If one logically sound and correct interpretation of the moment(s) being used to prove the positive claim is anything but Elon having a possible position on the commission, then the positive claim cannot be true.
You’re saying we’re debating semantics but every argument consists of semantics if your trying to figure out the truth using written or spoken evidence. We aren’t arguing just about “in” or “on” we’re arguing if the fact that the evidence used to determine this positive claim has multiple correct meanings, even if rare, it still exists:
he could technically be not in the administration on paper and still be a part the commission’s functioning from what he does as owner of x, tesla, and spacex through contracts/deals or just give advice as Elon Musk, and this is logically true in one of the correct interpretations of the same statements “help out on such a commission” that we are using to resolve the claim to “YES they mentioned a possible position.”
How could it resolve YES if there is an interpretation that makes sense that doesn’t make the positive claim true 100% of the time?
Even if 99% of interpretations find “help out on such a commission” does mean a position in it , there still exists the few logically and factually correct interpretations (using the evidence we have) of it not meaning a position in it, which make this unable to resolve YES.
Considering the claim:
“They mention a possible position for Elon in Trump's administration.”
And considering what was said on the space
a true YES resolution would’ve been simple but it didn’t happen. They would not actually need to go into much detail at all to satisfy the need required by this positive claim. There are many small things that could’ve been said to make all possible interpretations of the evidence consistent with the positive claim that Elon or Trump mentioned a “possible position”
they wouldn’t need to state the position itself, after Elon's three separate mentioning's of creating the "government efficiency commission," if Elon or Trump mentioned that Elon should be the head of this commission or hold any position in this commission then it should resolve YES but they just agree he should be a part of it in some way, that he would "be happy to help out on it" not a possible position mentioned, leaving this open for different, but correct with the evidence available, interpretations and causing the positive claim to not be true. again even if it’s rare, the positive claim can’t be true with these interpretations existing (which wouldn’t exist if it was truly clarified by the available evidence)
he said "help out on such a commission" intentionally or not, he did not say "help out in such a commission" or "-a position on/in such a commission." it’s semantics but it’s true. This would’ve truly and correctly resolved yes if he just said it like the latter two, doesn’t need much detail about the commission itself to be explained or “brainstormed.”
I do appreciate your contributions and the commitment you have to your position, but I've already thoughtfully replied and stated my reasons for resolving yes. I think the abundance of commentary and lengthy debates have to have a limit, and as I said in my comment, there is always going to be one side that disagrees.
It was an off-hand remark in a broader conversation and as far as "mention" goes, that suffices for resolution. I really don't have anything more to add to my earlier comment, and while I know it's frustrating to be on the opposite side of a resolution (and I've been there before - where I've felt like my interpretation is the only right/true one) I need to ask again that everyone accept the decision I've made. I arrived at the resolution with a lot of careful deliberation.
I've decided to NA this option. I originally added the below note related to curation of answer adds, but I'm applying it here too.
I will also n/a responses that are too difficult to track or resolve
I still personally, wholeheartedly believe this one should be No. the "third person speaks" instance was an indistinguishable murmur and was only audible because the person happened to be picked up by a speakerphone mic. if there were a comment immediately after it was added to clarify some of the cases that nikstar mentioned below, it would change my mind. but since there wasn't, I believe the spirit of this answer is that someone else would be a part of the stream - not an incidental background noise.
that said, I understand the literal interpretation that caused some people to bet Yes on this option, even if I don't agree. I think the most fair outcome in this moment of ambiguity is to resolve NA and return everyone's mana.
@Krantz No mention of position in the Trump "administration' for Elon, only some committee. Extremely clear no, nothing to even argue here.
I strongly feel this should resolve to YES. Numerous news outlets are running with the headline that Elon proposes a possible role. Trump has the power to create any sort of position for Elon not limited to one within his cabinet.
“Elon Musk Pitches White House Role in Glitchy Donald Trump Interview” - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-08-13/elon-musk-pitches-white-house-role-in-glitchy-donald-trump-interview
right, but we could only infer that, since neither of them actually say the position, just that they both were down for Elon to “help on it” which has multiple meanings.
With just the words he said, we can’t know if that means he’d have a position/ title in trumps administration or not by his “helping” on it so it can’t resolve to the positive claim that it does entail a “position” in Trumps administration.
Not arguing this in bad faith. If a plethora of reputable news organizations like (AP, Bloomberg, Forbes) are running with headlines and articles that align with this resolution in the affirmative, I’m not the only one “jumping” to conclusions on the substance of the conversation.
Forbes: “Trump Backs Idea Of Musk Joining ‘Government Efficiency Commission’ If He Wins Second Term (https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2024/08/13/trump-backs-idea-of-musk-joining-government-efficiency-commission-if-he-wins-second-term/)
AP: “Trump welcomed the idea of Musk joining his next administration to help cut government waste.” (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-x-twitter-livestream-83d6d07fc0ffef4151c96fc56aeec9ee)
Bloomberg: “Elon Musk Pitches White House Role in Glitchy Donald Trump Interview” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-08-13/elon-musk-pitches-white-house-role-in-glitchy-donald-trump-interview)
There’s a bar for news to publish the contents of the interview as such, and if it reaches the standard for publication, it should resolve in the affirmative.
We both know that journalists can’t be experts on every single topic under the sun. They're tossing around this term like it’s some magical fix-all, but let’s be real—it falls apart the moment you actually scrutinize it. Using it as a catch-all doesn’t make it any more valid when you put it to the test.
I'm currently not holding any shares in this question, but I do think that the AP article kind of makes a strong case for YES.
During their talk, Trump welcomed the idea of Musk joining his next administration to help cut government waste. Musk volunteered to join a prospective “government efficiency commission.”
“You’re the greatest cutter,” Trump told Musk. “I need an Elon Musk — I need somebody that has a lot of strength and courage and smarts. I want to close up the Department of Education, move education back to the states.”
Moreover, a committee would be part of a Trump administration, I'm not sure what you mean by committees not being part of an admin. People can be ad hoc members of administrations, and even advisory roles are considered part of an "administration". It's not limited to political appointees by any means.
Additionally, this option clearly says "mention a possible position". Not only did both people "mention this", but I think that "they mention" does not require both to mention, but rather for it to come up in conversation. When this option was created, people didn't even know if it would be two people or more people in the interview. Imagine there were, say, 3 or 4 people. Would all 4 have to mention it for it to resolve YES? I think this is quite adequate if Elon mentioned it and Trump seemingly seemed open to the idea in a vague response. Again, the option says "mention a possible position", not "offer explicitly a cabinet position" or anything as concrete.
“they” means literally anyone mentions a “possible position”
but the first thing you’re saying ap says in that article (Musk volunteered to join a prospective “government efficiency commission”) didn’t actually happen, it is just highly inferred by the true conversation, which also is a short watch (five mins)
Elon says “happy to help on it” which has multiple meanings and having “a possible position” on the commission technically could be one inference from it, but there are others which cause this specific positive claim of “mention a possible position” to not be true. such as:
Elon not being in the administration on paper and still be a part or "help out" the commission’s functioning from what he does as owner of x, tesla, and spacex through contracts/deals or just give advice as Elon Musk.
after Elon's many mentioning’s of creating the "government efficiency commission," if Elon or Trump mentioned that Elon should be the head of this commission or hold any position in this commission then it should resolve YES, but they just agree he should be a part of it in some way, that he would "be happy to help out on it" not a possible position mentioned.
In the case of this resolution, the meaning of “help out on” is too ambiguous to be a YES, but in the case of writing an article by putting together pieces to tell a story of what happened, this inference makes sense, as you’re able to explain which possible meaning you believe while writing an article.
I'm really swamped today at work and haven't been able to read the many comments that came in overnight or this morning as yet - I'm doing my best to do what I can between meetings but I won't have a lot of space until later today. I'll come back later to make a decision on the remaining options once I have time/headspace to focus.
but just for the record: while I appreciate what seems to be a lot of people adding quotes from newspapers and links to news pieces, I won't use headlines or articles for any resolutions - there's too much open for interpretation, editorialising, etc.
that said, here is the part in the transcript where they talk about a theoretic role in government if Trump is elected and that, afaik, is the only part that could possibly be considered for this option. Elon mentions a commission "we need," Trump says he'd be great for that, Elon says he'd be happy to help with it (which, in general parlance, means he'd be happy to have some sort of role/position/participation there).
again, I will come back later to review and make a decision.
"I need an Elon Musk" does not count - this is Trump commenting that he needs a particular personality type or skillset. I need an Elon Musk is not the same as I need Elon Musk.
it’s all good take your time. Yeah I agree the words that were said definitely mean some participation in the commission by Elon Musk.
And by this being inferred, this participation may or may not mean a “possible position” in said commission.
And by the claim, “They mention a possible position for Elon in Trump's administration” being a positive one, it makes the resolution NO due to the claim not being true 100% of the time, or not being true for 100% of the inferred meanings of “help out on it”
@pluffASMR This is a conversation taking place with 60 million listeners (jk), so Elon wouldn’t grovel and ask: “Could you create a position for me on your administration and reply affirmatively that you want me to serve?” Given the public nature of the talk, there’s no doubt in my mind that one can reasonably conclude Yes.
"I'd be happy to help out on such a commission": The key word here is “on”. As such, Elon is volunteering to be at least in some advisory role on the said commission.
"I'd love it”: Trump agrees.
"They mention a possible position for Elon in Trump's administration.": A possible commission that Trump would love for Elon to advise on. So I think the context of this public interview did play a role in how the possible position was worded.
the keyword would be “in” if it was said. “On” is basically what makes this NO as the meaning becomes ambiguous at that point between a position in his administration and just Elon participating in any way.
again:
"help out on it" doesn't mean officially hold a title as a position in Trump's administration, he could technically be not in the administration on paper and still be a part or "help out" its functioning from what he does as owner of x, tesla, and spacex through contracts/deals or just give advice as Elon Musk.
after Elon's three separate mentioning's of creating the "government efficiency commission," if Elon or Trump mentioned that Elon should be the head of this commission or hold any position in this commission then it should resolve YES but they just agree he should be a part of it in some way, that he would "be happy to help out on it" not a possible position mentioned
he said "help out on such a commission" intentionally or not, he did not say "help out in such a commission" or "-a position on/in such a commission."
doesn’t need that formal first paragraph you said needed to happen to resolve YES in my argument.