Well he's riling up some international chaos, with Greenland and Mexico and whatnot. Wouldn't surprise me if some self-inflicted incident will be used as an excuse to "postpone" elections. From the article:
“So you say during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump said to Zelensky at the time. “So let me just say, three and a half years from now—so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that’s good.”
Trump tried to overturn an election and failed, he’s a moron but he won’t make the same mistake again. The next US elections will be rigged, if there are even elections.
It seems the poster is of the low probability belief that at some point before Nov 2028 elections will be suspended and we will move to some kind of imperial system instead.
The issue is that even if I win that bet, they’re paying me my winnings in USD, which is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, which has been irreparably destroyed.
If I can buy, say, low probability insurance that that will give me a squad of mercenaries and a jet to a bunker somewhere safe, I’d be far more apt to put my money where my mouth is.
It’s not a bad bet. It’s just a dumb bet. The payout doesn’t match the risk.
How big would the risk be in your view that you would loose the bet? In any risk-benefit situation, the first step is to define the probability of the risk.
The usual way for this to happen doesn’t involve suspending elections. And I’d not bet on a guy that old and infirm winning again in 2028 even if he could legally run.
We’ll see how ICE at select polling places and iffy federal-run voter role purges go in 2026. Should set the tone for how far they try to go in 2028.
I think that's a reasonable worry, but I'd encourage you to make sure you do remember this prediction, and update accordingly if they don't suppress votes or the voter suppression doesn't work. I was worried about Elon Musk's efforts to buy off a Wisconsin judicial election earlier this year and became a lot more confident in democracy when it didn't work at all.
One of the two things I mentioned is already happening, and it’ll be pretty surprising if the Republican army isn’t used for voter intimidation. Why even have it, if not for that kind of thing?
It’s not like they didn’t already use both covert and overt means to try to overturn an election, and get caught red-handed on both (I mean, one was televised live, so…) Much cleaner to put in the effort on Election Day itself.
Polling places closing early, terrible weather, computers off-line, etc., will of course drive people from voting. Seeing an ICE agent isn't going to deter a citizen from voting any more than deter people taking vacations overseas. I'd be more than happy to show ID to vote as the rest of the world does.
India can do it. They had a caste system and yet conduct fair and honest. We can do it too.
Long horizon events like this on Polymarket stabilize around a % odds corresponding to time value of money. You can get 4% buying risk free CDs for that horizon.
this is not true - if you know for certaint that trump will be president through winning an election in 2028 you can make over 20X your money.
at the end of the day people don't actually believe it, which is why trump is valued little. people who aren't willing to bet with their money on things they say so absolutely aren't serious people.
I am not sure that is a useful principle. I tend to keep an umbrella around in the car regardless whether the forecast calls for rain. Do these people similarly avoid stock markets, insurance, and similar products in the risk space?
your scenario here doesn't really make any sense. one you're conflating getting married with staying together. you could get married and then divorced. two, such a bet wouldn't make sense since it could easily be rigged (and indeed this is what happens with sports betting).
again, if someone says they know the winning lottery and they don't play, they're unserious. nearly impossible to rig, high payout - outcome is of interest to layperson.
The idea was that I figured you’d consider that some things are valuable in ways that don’t involve money. Unfortunately I think the conclusion here is that you actually truly believe that there is nothing that cannot be bet if a suitable market could be formed for it. Of course, I should have realized this, because by placing bets in general you are in fact taking a financial position in the concept of betting markets.
If Trump indeed manages to turn the country into a dictatorship I think winning money on polymarket is going to be the last thing you'll be thinking about
A more charitable explanation is that people believe in a larger set of nearly equivalent outcomes that are not captured in that market.
Some possible outcomes (I personally don't believe they are very probable), but...
There is no "call" or inaugurated at all, Trump stays on via some kind of "emergency". The market will fail to resolve to an outcome (based on what it says).
Somehow (via a normal election, or the outcome being decided in the House) one of Trumps sons becomes president.
This, I think, illustrates some of the problems with far out edge cases in prediction markets. Nailing down all of the possible outcomes exactly is hard.
OpenAI expects multi-year losses before turning consistently profitable, so saying they are already profitable based solely on an aggressive depreciation assumption overstates the case
And note the end of that URL. This isn't about Trump. This is about the Secret Service.
I'm not being funny here. I'm not being political. I'm not making normative claims here. I'm not saying whether this is great or awful or whatever. I'm not trying to score internet points. I'm telling everyone reading this, screwing around making threats to the President, regardless of who he is, is not something you should do lightly. If you want to do it, I won't stop you, but I'm a big believer in understanding what risks you are taking rather than being blindsided by them. There's plenty of people who have discovered the hard way that this was more risky than they realized and I'm trying to help treadump not be one of them, in the spirit of helpfulness, not internet points.
If you think that concept applies in this case, you'd best stay away from this topic entirely before you get yourself in a lot of trouble.
Again, this is a public service announcement. Not an endorsement, a celebration, a denunciation, a political statement, or anything else. Don't do this, not even playing around, unless you are aware of what you are doing and ready to take the consequences for it.
It would have to go before a court. I think it wouldn't be too hard to convince a jury (or judge) that a head-in-a-basket AI art + description is expression (first amendment) and not a threat
Edit: your first link is a genuine threat. the second one is a picture of someone holding a photo-realistic, mangled head. The head-in-a-basket is neither
You should stay away from this, in case you haven't figured it out. You're not even in the ballpark of a correct understanding of this situation. Better to just think you could argue your way out of this with a deficient understanding of the law than to put it to the test and find out how wrong you are in a courtroom.
That's the point. They will guarantee they won't lose an election.