Resolves YES if they were involved in any sexual acts with each other, including if additional partners were present, at any point between January 1, 2024 and November 5, 2024. “Sexual acts” covers anything consenting adults do that you’d be embarrassed to explain to a 12 year old. They have to be in the same room, phone sex or dirty texts/DM’s/photos don’t count.
Because the evidence may not come out until after the election, the market will not close with a NO resolution until March 31, 2025.
Credible sources include mainstream media reporting, congressional testimony, sworn depositions, divorce filings.
Given the frequency with which Laura Loomer lies for attention if she just says “we had sex” and it can't be corroborated in any other way I’m not sure that’s an automatic YES.
1,000
3.00To everyone betting no - if you had a friend who was suddenly bringing someone you've never met everywhere, it was mentioned that they both live in the same building, they are clearly super close and friendly all the time in person, this person looks like your friend's "type", and this friend is in a long term relationship with someone who is nowhere to be seen, what would your mental odds that your friend is in a sexual relationship with this person? I'm gonna bet higher than 20%
@ZacParker Hard to say, none of my friends have a hundred campaign staff and five hundred reporters following their every move.
@ZacParker well, if your odds are higher than 20%, I have a limit order you can take at 23% :)
@ZacParker OK but normally my standards for evidence also don't even begin to involved Congressional testimony, and one or both of the parties telling me they were having an affair would be sufficient...
@ZacParker betting no doesn’t imply you don’t think anything is going on, just that the resolution criteria won’t be met
@dgga but she's neither campaign staff nor a reporter and that's what's making it so weird. Even if they /were/ fucking, trump could extremely easily invent a token position for her and straighten the whole thing out in an instant, but he goes and bumbles embarrassedly about how she's a "supporter", then only undermining his own narrative with "I have so many great supporters" - okay when do /they/ get to fly on dingusforce 2? what part of him is she exactly supporting? where's the piss tape?
@Milly dont get me wrong, I think they are doing the dirty, just because it would be so on brand for Trump. Not very confident anything conclusive will come out by the closing of this market though.
@JosephMoore It's a just a bad look that the markets on ABC rigging the debate and Haitians eating cats and dogs are at half the price of this market. We should be betting against all conspiracy theories equally.
@JosephMoore Greg thinks the NYT is in the business of printing unverified information about people and exposing themselves to defamation suits so my criteria for resolving this market is unreliable.
It's maybe understandable because right wing media does just print whatever rumors they get, and Fox etc. can't stop paying lawsuit settlements to Seth Rich's family and Dominion and the poll workers in Georgia but the mainstream media believe it or not does not actually do this.
@Joshua No, you should bet based on the likelihood that you think it will resolve yes not based on a category you think the question belongs to.
@KevinBurke Also, irrationality is a nebulous term. Just bet on the likelihood that NYT would expose themselves to this risk. powerful institutions tend to be extremely rational
@Joshua and personally, I just think it's way more likely that TD is sleeping with a girl who travels around with him than Haitians are stealing people's pets and eating them in Ohio. Not impossible but seems less likely...
@Joshua Just let the free market work. If you think this site is D-biased and this market is overpriced, buy no here. I have Mana on NO here. Manifold has a D bias sure. But Manifold users are less conspiracy-minded than the average person. Bill Maher, who I like and is much less partisan than most Dems, would be way higher here.
@JosephMoore Irrationality in this case refers to the person resolving the question. If you've been around here long enough you know you have to choose your markets and your market-resolvers carefully, or you get ridiculous outcomes. Sometimes biased people resolve things in profoundly unexpected ways.
@nathanwei In defense of @joshua, all the big NO holders are the more accurate Manifold Forecasters (at least historically, which you USED to be able to see back when calibration was a thing)
@Qoiuoiuoiu I try to follow people who are good traders:
When a positions page looks like this it almost always resolves NO.
@Joshua I feel like if this was an example of dem bias it would be way higher than 13%… DT is a known serial cheater and has been seen to be very cuddly with a woman who is very clearly infatuated with him. Has anyone seen that video of Trump blowing kisses to her at the convention? I’d say 1/10 is about right for this market.