5 ms·

On the intent of the US administration?

by NewJazz 10mo ago

cyanydeez 10mo ago
Yeah, actually. He's basically a spokesperson. A non credible one. Someone like Stephen Miller is more credible.
margalabargala 10mo ago
Obviously. The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false. If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done. That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.
- NewJazz 10mo ago
  Well, then the polymarket bet was written stupidly because you can argue all day about intent if you refuse to accept the man's words.
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    > The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources. There are other credible sources whose consensus could be checked.
    - NewJazz 10mo ago
      What credible source exists for the intent of this administration? You can have all the IR acumen in the world, but you won't be able to get into the head of this president.
      - margalabargala 10mo ago
        News sources in Venezuela reporting on the presence of American troops might be one? An invasion with the intent of taking control of the country would not involve troops arriving in the capital, completing their mission perfectly with no losses on their side, and then everybody leaving, such that no enemy troops remain.
  - margalabargala 10mo ago
    The bet wasn't "will President Trump claim to have invaded Venezuela", it was whether the US would actually do it. Your understanding of the relationship between the truth and the words being spoken by POTUS are the only discontinuity here. Update that expectation and everything makes sense.
    - NewJazz 10mo ago
      The US did launch a military offensive in Venezuela, albeit briefly. That is not in question. What is in question is the intent, which how do you know intent without accepting the publicly stated intent of the commander in chief? The bet was, specifically: This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
      - margalabargala 10mo ago
        I'm not saying I know the intent. I'm saying you don't know the intent, because the word of the commander in chief is not sufficient evidence. Maybe Trump's eventual goal is to invade Venezuela with the intent of controlling it. I don't know. I do know that the intent of the brief military offensive was not to control it, because of what was done.
        machomaster 10mo ago
        Yeah, not like the original plan was to keep the territory, but after failing they had to leave. No, they had a specific plan to capture Maduro and to leave; and this is exactly what they did.
  - actionfromafar 10mo ago
    He may also claim Venezuela is controlled by aliens. AFAIK the bet was not about what deranged stuff POTUS might express?
- bluegatty 10mo ago
  We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot. Secondly, even if argument could be that 'some other, more credible president would lie' - this actually does not hold up, because nobody could operate in those terms. The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Except in rare cases. "He tells people what to do on a whim" and "has longstanding personal beefs and gripes" - that's it. We don't know what he's going to wake up and tweet tomorrow so all we have are his statements. Also, I think we give way to much credit to this notion of '4d chess' - he lies in the moment because he can get away with it, not out of some well plotted deception. He's not servicing some complicated scheme - just his gut. He'll say something else the next day, but for that moment, what he says is policy.
  - machomaster 10mo ago
    > We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. You are welcome to believe everything that President Putin is saying about anything, including Ukraine. That's a profoundly absurd statement. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially with a trackrecord of an "authority" lying. If the President's words are the truth, what to do with the statements in which he contradicts himself? What about situations in which 2 presidents disagree? >The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Official, perhaps most of the time. Truthful, definitely not. What's up with the inability to separate "opinions/statements" vs. "facts/truth"?..
    - bluegatty 10mo ago
      I don't believe anything he says. But his statements are the position of the US government aka the most 'truthful' representation of US policy. I'm responding to the notion that because he lies and misrepresents, his statements don't count as representative somehow, which is not true. If he says 'military force is on the table' for acquiring Greenland, we should assume he means to invade if wants.
      - 10mo ago

On the intent of the US administration?

by NewJazz 10mo ago

On the intent of the US administration?

cyanydeez 10mo ago

Yeah, actually. He's basically a spokesperson. A non credible one. Someone like Stephen Miller is more credible.

margalabargala 10mo ago

Obviously. The things the POTUS says, are intended to further the US Government's goals. The actual statements made may be true or false. If POTUS says "We did X because Y", that's no guarantee that Y is the reason that X was done, or even that X was done at all. That just means that POTUS would like people to think that Y was the reason X was done. That Trump is also a serial liar is not actually relevant here, this is true for every President. They make statements in service of their agenda, not in service of the truth.

NewJazz 10mo ago
Well, then the polymarket bet was written stupidly because you can argue all day about intent if you refuse to accept the man's words.
- zahlman 10mo ago
  > The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources. There are other credible sources whose consensus could be checked.
  - NewJazz 10mo ago
    What credible source exists for the intent of this administration? You can have all the IR acumen in the world, but you won't be able to get into the head of this president.
    - margalabargala 10mo ago
      News sources in Venezuela reporting on the presence of American troops might be one? An invasion with the intent of taking control of the country would not involve troops arriving in the capital, completing their mission perfectly with no losses on their side, and then everybody leaving, such that no enemy troops remain.
- margalabargala 10mo ago
  The bet wasn't "will President Trump claim to have invaded Venezuela", it was whether the US would actually do it. Your understanding of the relationship between the truth and the words being spoken by POTUS are the only discontinuity here. Update that expectation and everything makes sense.
  - NewJazz 10mo ago
    The US did launch a military offensive in Venezuela, albeit briefly. That is not in question. What is in question is the intent, which how do you know intent without accepting the publicly stated intent of the commander in chief? The bet was, specifically: This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
    - margalabargala 10mo ago
      I'm not saying I know the intent. I'm saying you don't know the intent, because the word of the commander in chief is not sufficient evidence. Maybe Trump's eventual goal is to invade Venezuela with the intent of controlling it. I don't know. I do know that the intent of the brief military offensive was not to control it, because of what was done.
      - machomaster 10mo ago
        Yeah, not like the original plan was to keep the territory, but after failing they had to leave. No, they had a specific plan to capture Maduro and to leave; and this is exactly what they did.
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  He may also claim Venezuela is controlled by aliens. AFAIK the bet was not about what deranged stuff POTUS might express?
bluegatty 10mo ago
We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. He has no real strategy, he makes things up on the spot. Secondly, even if argument could be that 'some other, more credible president would lie' - this actually does not hold up, because nobody could operate in those terms. The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Except in rare cases. "He tells people what to do on a whim" and "has longstanding personal beefs and gripes" - that's it. We don't know what he's going to wake up and tweet tomorrow so all we have are his statements. Also, I think we give way to much credit to this notion of '4d chess' - he lies in the moment because he can get away with it, not out of some well plotted deception. He's not servicing some complicated scheme - just his gut. He'll say something else the next day, but for that moment, what he says is policy.
- machomaster 10mo ago
  > We have to take the Presidents Statements are credible, firstly, because it's the closest thing to the truth anyone has. You are welcome to believe everything that President Putin is saying about anything, including Ukraine. That's a profoundly absurd statement. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially with a trackrecord of an "authority" lying. If the President's words are the truth, what to do with the statements in which he contradicts himself? What about situations in which 2 presidents disagree? >The presidents statements in an official context are official, that's it. Official, perhaps most of the time. Truthful, definitely not. What's up with the inability to separate "opinions/statements" vs. "facts/truth"?..
  - bluegatty 10mo ago
    I don't believe anything he says. But his statements are the position of the US government aka the most 'truthful' representation of US policy. I'm responding to the notion that because he lies and misrepresents, his statements don't count as representative somehow, which is not true. If he says 'military force is on the table' for acquiring Greenland, we should assume he means to invade if wants.
    - 10mo ago