Between inauguration day and the end of the year.
‘Go after’ in the sense of making their lives difficult in some public way, causing them financial hardship, etc.. In most cases, a post or something spoken during an interview only will not count, will have to be accompanied by some specific action. I will be the final judge of any edge-cases but will read any sources or arguments made in the comments.
Let’s see where this goes. N/As on added items that are ridiculously broad or way too difficult to prove.
If not elected, not elected resolves yes, everything else no immediately after election results.
Update 2025-02-01 (PST): 'Going after someone' includes actions taken against loyalists, such as Liz Cheney & Jan 6 Committee. (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00@DanHomerick isn't this one of the major critiques of prediction markets? That they don't predict the real relevant questions?
Curious what you all think?
@uair01 you're taking my comment more seriously than it merits, but sure, that sounds like a fair criticism.
Manifold does better than most though, since it's crowdsourcing what the questions should be. No gatekeepers are saying, "Nah, that'll never happen, no need to even consider it." If someone thinks it could, and wants to spend a pretty small amount of fake internet points, they can get people trying to assign odds.
@DanHomerick If Trump pays each resident of Greenland $200,000 to join the US, would that count as going after them? That sounds like going for them.
@MarkBowen honestly, it would be awesome for humanity if something like that happened.
Ignore who the players are, if a country could expand via a peaceful transaction between countries, performed with the consent of the people involved, instead of via the traditional path of nations going to war? That's pretty cool.
I thought the formation of the EU was pretty awesome too, for much the same reason: it was a peaceful alternative to how such things have historically happened.
But I sincerely doubt that Trump will actually try to make any deal without playing the "nice country you've got there, would be a shame if anything were to happen to it" card. "Ignore who the players are" only goes so far.
Can you say a bit more about what counts as "Trump going after someone" vs. his loyalists? I'm inclined to count the second - seems more in line with the spirit of the question?
E.g. Liz Cheney & Jan 6 Committee
https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-republican-calls-criminal-probe-192154967.html?guccounter=1
I voted here that he will go after "mainstream media".
I have a specific bet for that here:
@traders There's more free mana here - everything resolves NO rather than N/A if Trump loses the election.
This texting is coming through from the Trump to ME this morning. You all are thinking this is the joke? He is coming for us and I am afraid I am on the list. It may bring me to drink again in the Sober October. Is it the October surprise? No. It is the spooky season everyone is talking to me about!!!
If not elected, […] everything else [resolves] no immediately after election results.
This is rather counterintuitive, given the title already has 'if' in it, that would usually imply n/a in the event the condition isn't met
Would you rather edit the title to match the description or vice versa?
@TheAllMemeingEye Not sure what you're complaining about here. Just rolling with it, pretty self explanatory in the sense it's setting up a presidency where he goes after people/institutions more so than setting the conditions for resolution.
@Predictor I think it means everything here is way too high, probably because people didn't read the description carefully.