This market will be very generous to the candidates and resolve YES only if I, despite carefully analysing an audio or video recording, cannot figure out what the candidate wanted to say.
I am not aware of any incoherent rambling from Biden or Trump in the past that would have resolved it yes. For example, neither of the following would have counted:
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1754722213364720001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ys5VWI29R8
1,000
3.00@Philip3773733
Thank you for sending it. Let's go through it one by one.
1) electric boats: I remember this. He is talking about this https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-you-can-use-cybertruck-as-a-boat-2023-12 and the conversation he had about it with Musk. "I will take electrocution every single time" lmao .. Completely coherent, even in the fragment they clipped.
2) Vibing with the music is not incoherent rambling
3) ok, the rest is just commentary
As the comments below show, I set a high threshold for what counts as incoherent rambling.
Please, please give me something on Trump. People will bury my rating (even further) if I end up resolving his option as NO.
This was close but the official transcript provides plausible intended words and I said I'd be generous.
https://www.youtube.com/live/veiioynPVY0?feature=shared&t=5407
@admissions https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1789438633209995637/
If he didn't correct himself afterwards, I think it would have been very difficult to figure out what he was trying to say
How did we get to this point? If I were inclined to conspiratorial thinking I'd say these candidates were hand-selected by the Adult-Diaper Cabal. I'm pretty sure we can all name a person we know personally who would be able to check the very basic box of, "can consistently have a conversation without having a senior moment".
@VerySeriousPoster in case you're not being rhetorical about how did y'all get to this point: single-winner elections are just worse than proportional multi-winner ones. Letting the head of government be elected directly by the people would already be bad, as they can claim legitimacy even against the legislature, which more representative of the general will simply due to being more numerous. Electing the president in the bizarre way you do is worse. And on the topic of legitimacy coming from the representatives of (all) the people, allowing 1/3 of the less representative chamber of Congress to protect the head of government from being held accountable (by preventing their removal from office in case of impeachment) makes it even worse.
tl;dr your Constitution is bad.
Edit: please don't Amerisplain your political system to me. I know full well why you made the system like you did; also, explaining the origin of something is not an argument in favor of it, even if it is a really common thing for me to see y'all doing. This is said with lots of love for your country and its people.
@Snarflak So close, but no since we can tell what he was trying to say ("foothills of the himalayas") as he recovers quickly, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=087UC0i4_Xc
If he had not recovered or if he had continued with something different, it would have been a "yes".
@Snarflak I located the official transcript [1]. The part about Himalayas actually makes sense as a way to recount the conversation with Xi before stating the word (keeping in mind I want to be generous here).
But what follows is incoherent and would count for this market to resolve "YES":
(Inaudible) traveled 17,000 miles when I was Vice President at the time. I don’t know that for a fact.
Basically I want to see a situation where I cannot reconstruct the original meaning despite trying.