This market is closed
Trading has closed on this market while it waits to be settled. Here is what you can trade right now.
This market resolves to Yes if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces a decision to eliminate the 30-year-old program providing affordable and reliable internet connections for schools and libraries by October 31, 2026. Otherwise, it resolves to No.
This market resolves to Yes if North Carolina State Auditor Dave Boliek makes a public statement, either in a press release, interview, or on social media, explicitly endorsing voter ID legislation by November 30, 2026. The market resolves to No if no such endorsement is made by this date.
This market resolves to Yes if a proposal to overhaul the Supreme Court, including adding justices or limiting their terms, is formally introduced as a bill in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and a vote is held on it by December 31, 2026. The proposal must include changes such as increasing the number of justices or altering term limits.
This market resolves to Yes if at least one of the Republican challengers, Michael LiPetri Jr. in New York's 3rd Congressional District or Jeanine Driscoll in the 4th Congressional District, wins their respective elections on November 3, 2026, presumably influenced by Trump's recent visit.
Will Congress approve the Pentagon's $80 billion request for the Iran war by July 31, 2026?
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if the U.S. Congress approves the Pentagon's request for $80 billion in funding for the Iran war, as publicly announced and recorded in official Congressional records, by July 31, 2026. A 'No' resolution occurs if the request is denied, stalled without vote, or officially withdrawn by the Pentagon by the resolution date.
Rules
- Market closes at 7/31/2026.
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
The current odds feel off. Historical data shows Congress often hesitates on massive military funding, especially for controversial conflicts. Just look at the pushback on previous requests. I'm skeptical they'll greenlight this without significant debate.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects historical trends regarding Congress's hesitance on military funding, which is supported by evidence of past debates and pushback. It is logically sound and directly relevant to the market question, though it does contain some emotional skepticism. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and logical reasoning in this context, given the historical data referenced.
It seems unlikely that Congress will approve such a massive request within that timeframe. The public sentiment around military spending has been shifting, especially with recent events highlighting domestic issues. Additionally, there are tensions within Congress regarding both fiscal responsibility and foreign policy priorities. This request could face significant pushback, making the odds feel inflated.
Rationale:The comment provides a well-reasoned perspective on the likelihood of Congress approving the Pentagon's request, citing shifts in public sentiment and internal Congressional tensions. The factual basis is strong, though it could benefit from specific examples or data to enhance credibility. The weights reflect a balanced focus on relevance and logical reasoning, with a slight emphasis on factual accuracy given the context of the market question.
It's hard to see Congress approving that request by the end of July. With the economy still reeling from previous spending and growing opposition from both parties, I think there's more resistance than the current price suggests. Plus, public sentiment around military funding is shifting; many are calling for a reallocation of resources toward domestic issues. I wouldn't be surprised if this request faces significant pushback before a decision is made.
Rationale:The comment presents a well-reasoned perspective on the potential challenges Congress may face in approving the Pentagon's request, citing economic concerns and shifting public sentiment. While the claims about economic conditions and public opinion are generally accurate, they are somewhat speculative regarding the exact level of resistance. The comment is directly relevant to the market question and free from major logical fallacies, leading to a balanced score across the criteria.
I find it hard to believe that Congress will approve such a massive budget request for the Iran war. Public opinion has been increasingly against prolonged military engagements, and there are strong calls for prioritizing domestic issues instead. Additionally, the current political climate is rife with division; I can’t see both sides coming together for something this controversial. The price seems inflated given these factors.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable skepticism about Congress approving the budget request, supported by observations about public opinion and political division, which are relevant to the market question. While the claims about public sentiment and political climate are generally accurate, they lack specific data to fully substantiate them, leading to a slightly lower score for Fact Check. The comment is free from logical fallacies and maintains a good balance of reasoning and emotional appeal, justifying the weights assigned.
this feels like a no-brainer. congress has shot down funding for wars before when public support dips. with how unpopular the iran war is, i doubt they’ll just hand over $80 billion. plus, they’ve got to deal with other priorities. this market is way too optimistic.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable argument based on historical trends regarding congressional funding decisions, particularly in relation to public support for wars. It is mostly accurate, though it lacks specific data to fully substantiate the claims about the unpopularity of the Iran war. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on relevance and logical reasoning, given the comment's focus on political dynamics rather than specific factual claims.
The odds on this seem way off. Congress has historically been hesitant to greenlight large military spending without public support, and approval ratings for military interventions are low. Add in potential for budget cuts and the need to address other domestic issues, I’d give this a 35 percent chance of approval by the deadline.
Rationale:The comment provides a reasoned analysis of Congress's historical hesitance towards military spending and the current low approval ratings for military interventions, which are verifiable claims. It avoids logical fallacies and is directly relevant to the market question. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the comment's analytical nature.
I think Congress might hesitate on the $80 billion request; public opinion is shifting against prolonged military interventions. While some may see urgency due to ongoing conflicts, I wonder if they'll prioritize domestic issues instead, like inflation or healthcare.
Rationale:The comment presents a reasonable perspective on Congress's potential hesitation regarding the funding request, supported by the observation of shifting public opinion. It avoids logical fallacies and remains relevant to the market question, though it lacks specific data to fully substantiate the claims about public opinion and Congress's priorities. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on relevance and logical reasoning, with a slight focus on factual accuracy due to the mention of public sentiment.
An $80 billion request is huge, but given the bipartisan support for military funding historically, I'm leaning toward approval. Still, I think the current odds look inflated, maybe around 70% approval is fair, considering possible opposition from budget hawks. What do you all think; does anyone see a strong pushback this time?
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the historical bipartisan support for military funding, which supports the claim of potential approval. However, the mention of 'inflated' odds and the specific percentage of 70% is subjective and lacks concrete evidence, leading to a slightly lower score in Fact Check. The comment is relevant to the market question and presents a logical analysis without major fallacies, but it does include some emotional appeal regarding the potential for pushback.
honestly, even if it feels like a power move, there's no way congress is dropping 80 billion on another war right now, too many other issues to deal with.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on Congress's potential reluctance to approve such a large budget for war, given current issues, but lacks specific evidence to support the claim. It is relevant to the market question and avoids major logical fallacies, though it does rely somewhat on emotional appeal. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and relevance in this context.
bruh, there's no way Congress is gonna drop 80 billion for a war with Iran rn. like, have they learned nothing from previous conflicts? plus, with the economy being kinda shaky, I just don't see it happening. maybe someone thinks this is some kind of political play, but I vote no.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on Congress's potential reluctance to approve such a large budget for military action, especially considering past conflicts and current economic conditions. While it does not provide specific evidence, it reflects a reasonable skepticism. The weights emphasize relevance and logical coherence, as the comment is primarily an opinion based on general observations rather than specific data points.