-
I think the counter argument is that you have literally no way of influencing the vote. You wanting him to win more has no effect, and bet or no bet the outcome will be the same. A conflict of interests is defined as 'a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.'. In this case, none of your actions or decisions can directly and definitely result in personal benefit. The act of placing the bet does not affect the outcome.
I agree that the moral side of it feels a bit iffy, because you would end up 'celebrating' Trump winning. And it does make me a little bit sad to accept that making money off an awful situation is so readily within our reach.
Edit: and obviously nothing new for humanity - Kodak sold film to the Nazis throughout the war, even opening a branch in Switzerland to avoid breaking trade embargoes.
You are reading a single comment by @tb and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
tb
It is literally a conflict of interests though.
I did mention hedging (e.g. if you had a larger bet the other way - and while I guess you could say you stand to 'lose' if Trump wins, it's not a direct financial loss). Yes, a small bet of £20 is neither here or there. But what if I bet £1000 on Trump at 4/1 (and no bet the other way) and it came down to the wire - who would I want to win at that point?