# US market risk due to political instability



## james4beach

I should start this off by saying that I have a fixed foreign % weight in my asset allocation, so I would not change this or revise my strategy just because of political turmoil.

But I'm curious what others think about potential US risk due to political problems down south. It looks like an impeachment process might finally be starting, and the fight could get nasty. There could also be social instability -- I certainly hope that does not happen, but it's a risk.

Do you think this could affect markets in a meaningful way? I'm leaning towards "no" but curious what others think. For example even with several past budget impasses and debt ceilings, markets kept going higher.


----------



## hfp75

Three could be impact but I dont predict that it is drastic... just normal up and down.

I think the more important thing to consider is this:

Since markets are driven in part by investor confidence, if Trump is out of office - impeachment or not reelected, I think markets will react with a 5-10% adjustment. He has a lot of followers and they are also involved in stocks. Weather Trump really impacts markets - he gives the social impression that he is very involved - that a successful stock market is part of his presidential mandate. I cant remember a past president that involved themselves as much in wall st. as him...

Impeachment begins - there will be turmoil - up to a 5% drop - not really much impact.
Actually out of office.... I think it'll drop up to 10%, and if there are other factors at play, I'd say maybe 15%.

Trump gives the illusion of his involvement in the success of wall st - and lots believe it...


----------



## lonewolf :)

Trump might have set the whole thing up to expose a couple of leakers & get the Biden scandal out in the open where the press would be forced to cover it. The media fell for it.


----------



## AltaRed

Good conspiracy theory but Trump is too far gone off the deep end to be anything but paranoid. I actually think he is becoming increasingly incompetent and exhibiting the first stages of dementia.


----------



## robfordlives

This was all designed by Trump to get Biden out as he feels he has a better chance against Warren. Maybe so, but if Warren wins in 2020, look out below....openly wanting to dismantle the capitalist system...S&P would be under 1000 by 2021


----------



## robfordlives

It's all here folks, re Biden in link below. Anyways it's a done deal; no way he survives this, next step is Warren. Gotta hand it to Trump, this is exactly what he wanted

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement


----------



## hfp75

I don’t think any of the people that offered input here read the original question. The replies are not related, I reread this thinking wtf...


----------



## james4beach

hfp75 said:


> I don’t think any of the people that offered input here read the original question. The replies are not related, I reread this thinking wtf...


Yeah, I had the same reaction. I can see the 10% swing you talked about hfp75. That would be pretty minor in the big scheme of things.


----------



## AltaRed

10% moves are mere corrections. I dont think any big political event has caused as much as a 20% swing, nor have any of those swings likely lasted more than a year. Check moves due to Watergate, Kennedy's assassination, Reagan being shot, etc for reference points.


----------



## james4beach

What about the possibility of civil unrest and upheaval in the country? For example the Hong Kong protests are having an economic impact.

There might be a big difference vs Watergate. Nixon resigned, and as far as I know, he didn't have a segment of the population who had a cult-like dedication to him.



> (Nixon resignation) "By taking this action," he said in a subdued yet dramatic television address from the Oval Office, "I hope that I will have hastened the start of the process of healing which is so desperately needed in America."


There's a possibility Trump may not react the same way, and he could instruct his supporters to do something. I believe that many police support Trump, as do anti-government militias, and biker gangs.

Trump even explicitly warned about this. His words should be taken seriously:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/trump-tough-people-military-police-bikers.html



> I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — *until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.*


If the impeachment proceeds, I figure about 1 in 4 odds that Trump mobilizes armed supporters, leading to civil unrest and clashes in some cities.


----------



## Topo

I've seen some conjecture that the process could be positive for markets. Maybe it will lead to resolution or sidelining of other risks such as trade wars, etc.

A successful impeachment would lead to Pence's presidency. In all likelihood, Trump's followers should be okay with that.

I agree with AltaRed that any stock market reaction would be limited to short term swings. In the long term (more than 10 years) it will be a blip on the radar screen. It could be a good buying opportunity for the long term investors.


----------



## lonewolf :)

I would be more concerned with a war with Russia from all the fake BS that Russia was able rig the vote & get Trump elected. Going after Trump has been the biggest Witch Hunt ever. The media & the globalists hate Trump more then they care what happens to their country.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

There isn't going to be any impeachment, we know now that Biden just shot himself in the face. As to whether there will be impeachment in the next 5 years, they won't stop trying but to go to court they need evidence and they can't find any no matter how hard they try.

As to the larger question, Americans elect crazy Presidents all the time but somehow the economy keeps going. Trump is far from the worst they have had.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> There isn't going to be any impeachment, we know now that Biden just shot himself in the face. As to whether there will be impeachment in the next 5 years, they won't stop trying but to go to court they need evidence and they can't find any no matter how hard they try.
> 
> As to the larger question, Americans elect crazy Presidents all the time but somehow the economy keeps going. Trump is far from the worst they have had.


 Who would want the president's job ? If your not part of the swamp the media will attack you 24/7


----------



## james4beach

james4beach said:


> If the impeachment proceeds, I figure about 1 in 4 odds that Trump mobilizes armed supporters, leading to civil unrest and clashes in some cities.


Trump is now talking about this too. In his tweets today, Trump suggested that the US may experience a civil war if he is removed from office.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...aint-now-trump-talks-of-civil-war-and-treason
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/30/20891128/trump-tweets-schiff-treason-civil-war

These threats should not be taken lightly. Trump has the means to orchestrate real violence on the streets. I have personally seen busloads of armed Trump supporters coming into a city as a planned incursion. In one of these incidents, Trump's militia men (various loosely organized gangs) set up rifles in sniper positions on rooftops near where I worked.

In fact, some of these groups have long believed there will be a domestic war in the US and have been doing this as training.

I know this stuff sounds just insane to Canadians, and I wouldn't have believed it myself either had I not witnessed it with my own eyes. There are many armed groups in the US which look up to Trump as their leader and spiritual hero.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
6:11 PM - 29 Sep 2019 "

In case you don't get it, that is a warning by Fox News saying removing Trump from office would split the country in a way similar to the Civil War of 1861 - 1865.

How do you twist that into a call for civil war by Trump?


----------



## james4beach

Nothing to twist, Rusty. Trump re-tweeted that message which means a full endorsement.

More importantly, this idea of a nation in chaos (and things about to blow up) has been a long time theme in the far-right media. Outlets like Infowars, Breitbart, Zerohedge, Daily Caller, religious fundamentalists have been talking about this kind of domestic 'apocalypse' for a very long time. It's part of their ongoing fear mongering message.

It's silly stuff, but I can't predict how it might impact various unbalanced people. This is why I still believe there is a chance of civil unrest if Trump is removed.

As a capitalist, this makes me less keen to engage with the US in various ways and I think investors need to be aware of this risk, even if it's a slim chance.


----------



## hfp75

I live in Calgary, AB and a few years ago we had notable flooding. Within a day grocery stores were empty and there were some low level (parking lot) fights over food and water on the west side of Calgary. This was a flood that would cause a disruption for a few days.

Desperation is a crazy thing.... and DON'T UNDERESTIMATE IT...

When things (society) melt(s) down - it happens fast....


----------



## james4beach

Wow, there were actually fights over supplies? I had not heard of that.

Emotions are also a powerful force. This Trump stuff raises tensions quite a bit... something I saw first hand in the US. Lots of emotion, lots of anger around the US. I have no idea how it will play out and I *presume* things will be fine and continue to be normal, but I still think there is risk in this whole situation.

The US does have powerful, militarized police, and I presume that would suppress anything too crazy happening.


----------



## Eclectic12

The militarized police could suppress it ... or spark it. Too many police forces itching to use their military equipment without proper training to end up abusing their powers puts the militia groups in an "I told you so" position about how America has changed/rights are being eroded.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/undercover-border-militia-immigration-bauer/


Cheers


----------



## james4beach

I posted this a year ago (Sept 2019). One could see all of this coming from a mile away:



james4beach said:


> What about the possibility of civil unrest and upheaval in the country? For example the Hong Kong protests are having an economic impact.
> 
> There might be a big difference vs Watergate. Nixon resigned, and as far as I know, he didn't have a segment of the population who had a cult-like dedication to him.
> 
> There's a possibility Trump may not react the same way, and he could instruct his supporters to do something. *I believe that many police support Trump, as do anti-government militias, and biker gangs.
> 
> Trump even explicitly warned about this. His words should be taken seriously:
> Trump Just Said His Friends in the Military, Police, and a Biker Group Might Get “Tough” on Democrats
> 
> If the impeachment proceeds, I figure about 1 in 4 odds that Trump mobilizes armed supporters, leading to civil unrest and clashes in some cities.*





james4beach said:


> These threats should not be taken lightly. Trump has the means to orchestrate real violence on the streets. I have personally seen busloads of armed Trump supporters coming into a city as a planned incursion. In one of these incidents, Trump's militia men (various loosely organized gangs) set up rifles in sniper positions on rooftops near where I worked.
> 
> In fact, some of these groups have long believed there will be a domestic war in the US and have been doing this as training.
> 
> I know this stuff sounds just insane to Canadians, and I wouldn't have believed it myself either had I not witnessed it with my own eyes. There are many armed groups in the US which look up to Trump as their leader and spiritual hero.


As it turned out, this did not happen due to impeachment, but because of his motivation to energize his base ahead of the elections. Trump is not explicitly mobilizing his armed supporters, but he's on the brink of it IMO. I think we saw an early case of this with the Trump supporter who just shot people in Wisconsin, and that shooter was supported by the police (as per my forecast above).

I think more is coming. Certainly we now have elevated threat of serious civil unrest in the US.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I posted this a year ago (Sept 2019). One could see all of this coming from a mile away:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it turned out, this did not happen due to impeachment, but because of his motivation to energize his base ahead of the elections. Trump is not explicitly mobilizing his armed supporters, but he's on the brink of it IMO. I think we saw an early case of this with the Trump supporter who just shot people in Wisconsin, and that shooter was supported by the police (as per my forecast above).
> 
> I think more is coming. Certainly we now have elevated threat of serious civil unrest in the US.


Threat of serious civil unrest?
Have you been paying attention?

While I agree that political risk is the single biggest risk facing investments, and I've said so for years.
I don't think the antics of US rioters really belongs in the General Investing thread.


----------



## kcowan

The Fed has more impact on the stock market than anything else which is random noise. The biggest risk is 3Q business results finally showing the extent of the shutdowns, along with fallout from opening schools.


----------



## james4beach

I continue to think that the growing civil unrest in the US is a threat to financial markets and to US stocks. *I believe this risk is currently under-priced;* nobody takes it seriously.

But Trump is rapidly stepping up his rhetoric, probably at a crazier pace than anyone expected. He's now tweeting direct endorsement for his MAGA people to attack political enemies and also talking about his political enemies planning a coup.

I think the danger here is quite severe. Trump is fuelling more violence and the next steps could be mass clashes in cities, massacres by armed groups, etc. It's very volatile and very unpredictable.

I really hope I'm wrong about this, but the scenario I foresee is a large domestic terror attack, organized by armed MAGA people -- who have been training up to this for years now -- with a large number of casualties. I can only pray that I am wrong about this.

Business can't be conducted if people are terrified and trapped at home, and I'll bet that investment capital doesn't like hanging around that situation either.



MrMatt said:


> While I agree that political risk is the single biggest risk facing investments, and I've said so for years.
> I don't think the antics of US rioters really belongs in the General Investing thread.


It's the action of the president. He's in charge and he's encouraging violence, attacks, and unrest. That's what makes this so dangerous.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I continue to think that the growing civil unrest in the US is a threat to financial markets and to US stocks. *I believe this risk is currently under-priced;* nobody takes it seriously.
> 
> But Trump is rapidly stepping up his rhetoric, probably at a crazier pace than anyone expected. He's now tweeting direct endorsement for his MAGA people to attack political enemies and also talking about his political enemies planning a coup.
> 
> I think the danger here is quite severe. Trump is fuelling more violence and the next steps could be mass clashes in cities, massacres by armed groups, etc. It's very volatile and very unpredictable.
> 
> I really hope I'm wrong about this, but the scenario I foresee is a large domestic terror attack, organized by armed MAGA people -- who have been training up to this for years now -- with a large number of casualties. I can only pray that I am wrong about this.
> 
> Business can't be conducted if people are terrified and trapped at home, and I'll bet that investment capital doesn't like hanging around that situation either.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the action of the president. He's in charge and he's encouraging violence, attacks, and unrest. That's what makes this so dangerous.


The state AG's are encouraging violence and attacks, simply releasing and not charging the offenders.
Good thing Trump is working to bring people up on Federal charges.

You're right, the real risk is that the MAGA people will get fed up, step in, and end this mess.
So far we've had months of these left wing loonies rioting, with the cities and states refusing to step in, and even rejecting federal assistance.

At some point, the silent majority will stop being silent and they'll go shut these guys down.
However, unlike law enforcement, which has training, and some form of accountability, ordinary citizens do not.
It's going to be REALLY messy.

That's why the state governments need to step up and get stuff under control.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> You're right, the real risk is that the MAGA people will get fed up, step in, and end this mess.


It's not their job to, but yes, they might decide to do this. A way to exert far right dominance over the country and extinguish their political foes. Trump has been grooming them like an informal personal army of his and his rhetoric is encouraging MAGA to be violent towards his political enemies.

Widespread political violence in the US (with dissident groups being killed) would be unpleasant. I don't think the US business environment, or foreign capital, will approve of this. If the MAGA people start committing massacres and occupying cities, the USA basically then looks like a failed middle eastern or Latin american country with multiple rebel groups fighting for control.

I believe the stock market is not reflecting this risk. So if this plays out, I think it will be a very negative surprise to equities.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The state AG's are encouraging violence and attacks, simply releasing and not charging the offenders.
> Good thing Trump is working to bring people up on Federal charges.
> 
> You're right, the real risk is that the MAGA people will get fed up, step in, and end this mess.
> So far we've had months of these left wing loonies rioting, with the cities and states refusing to step in, and even rejecting federal assistance.
> 
> At some point, the silent majority will stop being silent and they'll go shut these guys down.
> However, unlike law enforcement, which has training, and some form of accountability, ordinary citizens do not.
> It's going to be REALLY messy.
> 
> That's why the state governments need to step up and get stuff under control.


Trump is very tough on crime, except when it comes to his criminal co-conspirators.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Trump is very tough on crime, except when it comes to his criminal co-conspirators.


If he was really that bad, the DNC would run a credible candidate against him.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Trump is very tough on crime, except when it comes to his criminal co-conspirators.


Let's remember, he's also now directly encouraging vigilante justice and armed gangs, on Twitter.

This is all very bad for US government and justice systems. Just think of the FBI, for a second. The FBI has all kinds of duties to protect the nation from major crimes, including terrorism, but also financial crimes, gangs, etc.

Trump is now directly fuelling armed militia groups; many of these are borderline terrorist cells. Can you imagine the sudden load this is putting on the FBI? Law enforcement needs to track and stop these threats.

I don't think analysts appreciate just how badly the US government system is being stressed out by Trump. The FBI will not be able to keep up with the new domestic terror threats that Trump is helping create. The justice system can't keep up with all this turmoil, just like police on the ground have trouble keeping up with it. Trump keeps fanning the flames, and it's surpassing the capabilities of police & FBI to keep a lid on it.

*In short, Trump is fuelling an explosive growth in criminality and gang activity at the same time he's been dismantling government systems, departments, and chasing away competent employees. Remember, he's been planting his own men in government, people that have no experience.*

The risk is very high. I really think one should keep this in mind about investing in the USA. If Trump pushes this too far, it could collapse the government and create a state of lawlessness and anarchy. At that point, it's effectively like you're investing in Syria or Nicaragua.

The one reason the US has been able to attract so much capital during these past crises is that they are a stable and wealthy nation. Remove that stability, and I believe capital would flee to alternatives such as Europe, Japan, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Let's remember, he's also now directly encouraging vigilante justice and armed gangs, on Twitter.


That is an INCREDIBLY strong accusation.
I think you need to support it.

You probably just made that up.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> That is an INCREDIBLY strong accusation.
> I think you need to support it.
> 
> You probably just made that up.


Look at his twitter feed. He even retweeted footage of his supporters shooting paint balls at crowds. He likes it, he endorses it. It's documented on the official presidential twitter feed.

Again the point I'm making is that Trump is bringing in next-level American instability, and I think it's bad for American capitalism.


----------



## james4beach

Article: Markets aren't great at handling contested elections
It observes, “The market doesn’t like not knowing who the Leader of the Free World is going to be.”

Uncertainty about the US election outcome (the confusion and waiting) could be troublesome for financial markets.

But I think it goes further than that, which is why I'm talking about under-priced risk. Trump shows authoritarian tendencies, and may try to illegally seize power. Insiders who worked within the White House talk about how people around him are generally scared of him, and scared to challenge his crazy decisions.

My concern is that Trump may not step down when he loses, but call on his rebels to support him, which would be very destabilizing. Already Trump is demonstrating how he can mobilize armed rebels, and he could plunge the US into chaos.

If things go that way, I think capital will flee America and seek more stable jurisdictions. People like investing in places that have law and order, and functioning government. Don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## james4beach

One of Trump's health team (this is an official role) Michael Caputo, posted extreme accusations on Facebook. He wrote that left-wing hit squads are being trained for armed insurrection and other paranoid talk:









Trump Health Aide Pushes Bizarre Conspiracies and Warns of Armed Revolt (Published 2020)


Michael R. Caputo told a Facebook audience without evidence that left-wing hit squads were being trained for insurrection and accused C.D.C. scientists of “sedition.”




www.nytimes.com





And pay attention to the violent rhetoric:



> Mr. Caputo predicted that the president would win re-election in November, but that his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., would refuse to concede, leading to violence. *“And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,”* he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.”


Really bizarre stuff, but this is what I'm warning about. These are some very unstable people surrounding Trump and there's some violent stuff brewing. I think there's a serious danger of US / government instability. Guys like Caputo are fuelling armed militia groups and vigilantes.


----------



## Topo

james4beach said:


> One of Trump's health team (this is an official role) Michael Caputo, posted extreme accusations on Facebook. He wrote that left-wing hit squads are being trained for armed insurrection and other paranoid talk:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Health Aide Pushes Bizarre Conspiracies and Warns of Armed Revolt (Published 2020)
> 
> 
> Michael R. Caputo told a Facebook audience without evidence that left-wing hit squads were being trained for insurrection and accused C.D.C. scientists of “sedition.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And pay attention to the violent rhetoric:
> 
> 
> 
> Really bizarre stuff, but this is what I'm warning about. These are some very unstable people surrounding Trump and there's some violent stuff brewing. I think there's a serious danger of US / government instability. Guys like Caputo are fuelling armed militia groups and vigilantes.


The idea of a (second) civil war in the US is a real thing. There are people training and preparing for such things. Some of them have military training either through militia or by enlisting in the armed forces. It was these kind of ideas that inspired Manson and McVeigh. Who knows what will ultimately trigger them, regardless, they have pretty strong firepower and are eager to use it.


----------



## james4beach

Topo said:


> There are people training and preparing for such things. Some of them have military training either through militia or by enlisting in the armed forces. It was these kind of ideas that inspired Manson and McVeigh. Who knows what will ultimately trigger them, regardless, they have pretty strong firepower and are eager to use it.


Yes, and I've seen them with my own eyes. It was very unnerving (2018-2019) to see a busload of armed men come into a city and march around with their weapons; they do this as a "show of force" to demonstrate their power. They have stepped up this activity throughout Trump's presidency.

And everyone just kind of shrugs and says, Yup that's what our militias like to do! Boys will be boys.

Here's my concern, and this ties into Caputo's unhinged commentary. If Trump loses the election, he -- or the maniacs he associates with -- may call on militias _to overthrow the legitimate government_. All the writing is on the wall. This is what could trigger the well-trained, well-armed militias to act. That would create a terribly messy situation and end America's status as a stable country that's good to invest in.


----------



## james4beach

Talking about unstable people... here's another one, Roger Stone who was previously Trump's election advisor. He was put in prison but was pardoned by Trump.

Roger Stone calls on Trump to seize "total power" and assert martial law

This was during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, so it's one of those conspiracy theory/nutbar places. One could normally shrug it off, but the danger is that Trump listens to these people.

Equally as inflammatory, Stone’s comments included calls for President Trump to invoke martial law and use federal law to arrest leading business leaders Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg , Bill and Hillary Clinton and “anybody else who can be proven to be involved in illegal activity.”​


----------



## andrewf

^ Trump's good friend is a raving loony. He's talking about a coup. Should he be arrested (again) for advocating treason?


----------



## james4beach

This video gives a good outline of the potential confusion on US election day. Based on this particular firm's projections, the election would start out looking like a Trump win -- that's on election day. Later, as mail-in ballots are processed, the result could shift towards Biden, perhaps days later.


----------



## jargey3000

^^^^
I love how pollsters always use waaaaay more odd-numbered percentages than even.
87%, 47%. 19%, 69%
sounds way more precise and scientific versus saying "approx. 20%" or "almost 70%"

But...I digress....
So, what should investors do here?
take profits & watch this mess unfold -over god knows how long?
batten down & hang tight & watch this mess unfold-over god knows how long?
jump in if or when markets tank leading up to, or right after election?


----------



## james4beach

jargey3000 said:


> I love how pollsters always use waaaaay more odd-numbered percentages than even.
> 87%, 47%. 19%, 69%
> sounds way more precise and scientific versus saying "approx. 20%" or "almost 70%"


Yeah it's funny. It implies more precision than they really have.



jargey3000 said:


> So, what should investors do here?
> take profits & watch this mess unfold -over god knows how long?


Good question. My argument in this thread has been that US risk of becoming a failed state is under-priced.

I still hold a lot of US stocks. I would not dump US stocks due to this fear. But I think it's important to check and make sure you are diversified and not heavily concentrated in the US or any other single country. Make sure you are spread across world equities and other asset classes.

Checking my portfolio right now, the US is 13% of my overall investments.


----------



## MarcoE

james4beach said:


> Checking my portfolio right now, the US is 13% of my overall investments.


Interesting. Only about 10% of my portfolio is in American stocks. They're great companies, but I keep my exposure to American equity relatively low.


----------



## londoncalling

jargey3000 said:


> So, what should investors do here?
> take profits & watch this mess unfold -over god knows how long?
> batten down & hang tight & watch this mess unfold-over god knows how long?
> jump in if or when markets tank leading up to, or right after election?


for me it's the 3rd option. Looking to a few industrials/US RRs or possibly a regional bank


----------



## james4beach

I think the odds of government crisis (Trump refusing to leave) just went up. In a Q&A session today, Trump did not agree to a peaceful transfer of power: Link to CNN video and discussion

Additional analysis I've seen elsewhere looking at VIX futures shows that the VIX is expected to be quite elevated after the election date.

I'm starting to think of other countries that could be major beneficiaries of capital leaving America (if there is a failed state). What are the other major economies that have both functioning democracy and rule of law? I think the top ones are: Japan, Germany, UK, France which basically is the MSCI EAFE.


----------



## calm

Elections are a soap opera.

At the moment with 30 million people without any income since August.

And the media is talking about Russian interference and how friendly Russia and Trump are.
Praising a Supreme Court which approved such perversions as Citizens United.
A Covid-19 body count.

We already know that those people without an income for 2 months are going to get desperate and the odds are that a Poor Person is going to be killed by police during a crime.

Nobody is talking economy. 30 million unemployed and desperate is barely news. The media shows a food bank with a line up in a parking lot but that might be 5 thousand people in the line up. The line up is really 30 million deep.

There is very little information about just how bad the economy is for 30 million people. A 2 minute clip on the 6 O'clock news is not enough.

On the International stage, I think my scenario which I have discussed elsewhere here, the more you hear - Israel or United Nations - mentioned in the news, the closer we are to where "The International Community" leaves the United Nations and NATO members attempt to police the world.

Just my opinion.

British troops in Afghanistan fired 4 million rounds ammunition in less then one year in Helmand. Thats almost 12,000 rounds of small arms every day by the 7,800 UK Armed Forces. So 8 million rounds in 2 years and 7,000 dead Taliban is almost 11,500 rounds per one Taliban.
--Mohsen, Malaga, Spain--
----
1.8 billion freaking rounds!
Let’s look at this number a minute. US Army spokesmen estimate that there are 20,000 insurgents in Iraq.
This means it takes 720,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single insurgent.
Looked at another way, since the standard 5.56 NATO round weighs 15.12 grams US forces have fired off more than 30,000 tons of small arms ammo, and it takes more than 12 tons of ammunition to bring down an insurgent.


----------



## james4beach

Here's an article that describes my concern: Trump’s Threat to Democracy Threatens the Economy



> If Trump either refuses to recognize the legitimacy of mail-in votes or uses a technicality of the electoral system to circumvent the will of the voters, it will represent at least a temporary cancellation of American democracy. The country may join the ranks of Turkey, Hungary, and other formerly democratic, quasi-authoritarian states.
> 
> What effect will this have on the economy? Plenty of research shows political instability is correlated with lower future economic growth. Coup attempts in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, tend to inhibit growth in the following years (interestingly, the effect is even worse when the coups fail). Coups that overthrow democratically elected leaders seem to be especially harmful.


----------



## calm

james4beach said:


> Here's an article that describes my concern: Trump’s Threat to Democracy Threatens the Economy


This kind of stuff by Trump is an election ploy. He is controlling the news cycle.
His face and name in TV-Land as many times as possible.
Nobody believes him except the media pundits and that is the game being played so that no candidate can be questioned day after day about how he Lower Class needs to be bailed out.

Instead of talking about the economy, the media is talking about personalities and the Ruling Class love it.

If anybody of any importance thought that Trump was going to refuse to accept a loss, it would be sending the markets into crash territory.

All the chatter is to find any subject of discussion for the media to fill up the hours with so that the election can come and be gone without any candidate being forced to detail exact plans to rescue the economy while we all wear a mask for another 18 months. The media does not want Bernie Sanders to rear his ugly head. So, it is Trump and his scenario's 24-7.

All the media coverage is to have Americans happy and proud to take part in an election which they know nothing about. The lesser Evil choice and not which candidate will help them endure this stress of this virus.
.


----------



## james4beach

james4beach said:


> Here's an article that describes my concern: Trump’s Threat to Democracy Threatens the Economy


This is shaping up more concretely, and it's not looking good for democracy.

Trump is continuing to claim (without evidence) that there's voting fraud, and is now saying that mail-in votes should not be counted. The FBI and DHS came forward with official statements that election integrity is intact, and there's no fraud.

In the mean time, the Republicans appointed the new Supreme Court judge in record time (which has never been done before in history). The US Supreme Court now has 3 judges who previously helped George W Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore. Back then, these 3 lawyers helped the Bush legal team fight the battle in various courts.

The Supreme Court is now clearly stacked to favour Republicans. One of the judges Trump appointed (Kavanaugh) has already aligned with Trump's desires to throw out mail ballots in Wisconsin. The direction is clear at this point; it's like watching a slow-motion trainwreck.

I don't think the American public is going to be very tolerant of democracy failing them. If Trump loses the vote, but then uses legal mechanisms (supported by partisan judges) to steal the election, people are going to protest endlessly ... and quite vigorously.

This will of course be justified, just as it's justified when autocratic rulers seize power in various other s*hole countries.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> This is shaping up more concretely, and it's not looking good for democracy.
> 
> Trump is continuing to claim (without evidence) that there's voting fraud, and is now saying that mail-in votes should not be counted. The FBI and DHS came forward with official statements that election integrity is intact, and there's no fraud.
> 
> In the mean time, the Republicans appointed the new Supreme Court judge in record time (which has never been done before in history). The US Supreme Court now has 3 judges who previously helped George W Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore. Back then, these 3 lawyers helped the Bush legal team fight the battle in various courts.
> 
> The Supreme Court is now clearly stacked to favour Republicans. One of the judges Trump appointed (Kavanaugh) has already aligned with Trump's desires to throw out mail ballots in Wisconsin. The direction is clear at this point; it's like watching a slow-motion trainwreck.
> 
> I don't think the American public is going to be very tolerant of democracy failing them. If Trump loses the vote, but then uses legal mechanisms (supported by partisan judges) to steal the election, people are going to protest endlessly ... and quite vigorously.
> 
> This will of course be justified, just as it's justified when autocratic rulers seize power in various other s*hole countries.


There is voter fraud, there is evidence of it.
The amount of fraud is in question.

PA is a swing state, and they have a huge mess trying to sort out fraud, they can't even reject votes where the signatures don't match.
This whole election is a mess. That being said, thousands of lawyers are fighting the election.

Bush won,get over it.

That being said, they've already been clear, they're going to protest if Trump wins. Heck they're likely going to protest if Biden wins to, these losers have nothing better to do.

Also using the law to ensure the correct outcome of the election is very important.
If Biden "uses the law" to win, good, if Trump "uses the law" to win, good. Making sure the law is respected is important.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Bush won,get over it.


Bush lost the vote. There was a vote in a democracy, and Bush lost the vote.

His team used the millions of $ they collected from wealthy elite donors to fund a massive legal team (several of whom now sit on the Supreme Court) to pressure the courts and media to install Bush as president. A big part of the strategy was to use media to convince the public and put pressure on Gore to concede ... which he did.

Gore did not concede because he lost the vote. He conceded because public sentiment had turned against him, and the court battles were lengthy and expensive. To a great extent, *those with the most money and media power* won the election.

Many of us want to live in a democracy, where every vote matters and the public actually chooses the government.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Bush lost the vote. There was a vote in a democracy, and Bush lost the vote.
> 
> His team used the millions of $ they collected from wealthy elite donors to fund a massive legal team (several of whom now sit on the Supreme Court) to pressure the courts and media to install Bush as president. A big part of the strategy was to use media to convince the public and put pressure on Gore to concede ... which he did.
> 
> Gore did not concede because he lost the vote. He conceded because public sentiment had turned against him, and the court battles were lengthy and expensive. To a great extent, *those with the most money and media power* won the election.
> 
> Many of us want to live in a democracy, where every vote matters and the public actually chooses the government.


Gore quit. If he was really presidential material, he would have fought for it.

We have tech censoring the media. The Hunter Biden stuff is a smoking gun of corruption, and twitter tried to bury it.

Sorry, I want every valid vote to count, fraudulent votes shouldn't impact the results.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> We have tech censoring the media. The Hunter Biden stuff is a smoking gun of corruption, and twitter tried to bury it.


Nonsense. You're just getting sucked in by the far right's latest hype, just as you were sucked in by Q Anon's ridiculous claims earlier (and posted them here).

If you really were concerned about corruption, you'd be horrified by how corrupt Trump and his cronies are. Trump is actually in power and his corruption is a huge concern. Hunter Biden is not in power, nor he is he running for office.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Nonsense. You're just getting sucked in by the far right's latest hype, just as you were sucked in by Q Anon's ridiculous claims earlier (and posted them here).
> 
> If you really were concerned about corruption, you'd be horrified by how corrupt Trump and his cronies are. Trump is actually in power and his corruption is a huge concern. Hunter Biden is not in power, nor he is he running for office.


I never posted Q Anons claims, I didn't even hear of them until you started ranting about them.

What hype?
Really I want to know.

About twitter blocking articles, then lying to the senate about it?









Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey falsely tells senators company lifted ban on Post exposé


The Post's account was locked down after an initial article on Hunter Biden emails indicating then-Vice President Joe Biden met with an executive at Ukrainian energy company Burisma.




nypost.com





Did you watch the video where Jack Dorsey admits it happened?

I know in your world, the CEO of Twitter admitting to something, in a senate hearing isn't "reliable"

I'll take Trumps alleged corruption and bad policy, over Bidens alleged corruption and really bad policy.


----------



## james4beach

Walmart Pulls Guns Off Shelves as Precaution Ahead of Election: Walmart Inc. has temporarily pulled ammunition and guns off its shelves ahead of any possible looting or civil unrest that could take place following next week’s election.
​


----------



## gingymarathoner

Loving the political discussion. The Republican "Party" has lost its mind in its hunger for power. This has been evident since the 2000 election of the losing candidate. They have moved so far right that they are in fascist territory. Trump is a symptom of their becoming unhinged. Unfortunately 2/3 of Americans don't have college educations and struggle to make sense of American politics. Americans who are educated and compassionate vote almost exclusively (since 2000) for Democrats. The battle is over the 2/3 who simply don't possess the critical thinking skills to understand the complexities of dark money, gerrymandering, the eletortalk college, voter suppression etc. I am very worried for America - if Biden does not get sworn in early next year, America will become unrecognizable to many global citizens.


----------



## MrMatt

gingymarathoner said:


> Loving the political discussion. The Republican "Party" has lost its mind in its hunger for power. This has been evident since the 2000 election of the losing candidate. They have moved so far right that they are in fascist territory. Trump is a symptom of their becoming unhinged. Unfortunately 2/3 of Americans don't have college educations and struggle to make sense of American politics. Americans who are educated and compassionate vote almost exclusively (since 2000) for Democrats. The battle is over the 2/3 who simply don't possess the critical thinking skills to understand the complexities of dark money, gerrymandering, the eletortalk college, voter suppression etc. I am very worried for America - if Biden does not get sworn in early next year, America will become unrecognizable to many global citizens.


The Republicans are a mess, but the DNC are also a mess, they're not sure if they're Authoritarian socialists, or Anarchists.

The thing is, Libertarians are flocking to the Republicans, because they're less authoritarian than the DNC.


----------



## james4beach

Mail-in votes take a while to count. With massive numbers of mail-in ballots, we _could_ be dealing with an "election week" for results to be known definitively. It all depends on how clear the early results are. It's possible that the outcome will be known quickly, on election night.









How long it could take to count the vote this year, explained


Some swing states are expected to tally results relatively quickly. Others ... not so much.




www.vox.com





The question is: will Republicans respect the voice of the people, and respect democracy? It is one of the most fundamental American values.

The Republican Party has given many indications they don't respect the democratic process. Trump is already saying that votes should not be counted after election day. That would completely undermine the way American democracy works by throwing millions of legitimate votes into the trash. Votes in America have _always_ been counted after election day. It's the normal and legal way voting works in America.


----------



## AltaRed

The NY Times had a long state-by-state dissertation today or yesterday on ballot counting and drop dead dates. A number of toss up states could take days, or in the case of Ohio until late November. Unless there is a clear trend Tuesday night, it's going to be a gong show and long legal process. Autocratic Trump will tactically claim a win if it is remotely close. Make it look more like a Putin coronation.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Also using the law to ensure the correct outcome of the election is very important.
> If Biden "uses the law" to win, good, if Trump "uses the law" to win, good. Making sure the law is respected is important.


You seem to be making the argument that merely being legal makes things 'right'. I can tell you that, for instance, it would be entirely legal for a Republican-run state to ignore the votes cast by their citizens to award their electoral college votes to Trump. The Trump admin has mused publicly about exploring this option. Would this have any, as you might call it, 'output legitimacy'? No, of course not. There would be bloody riots in the street if this came to pass, and the election will have been stolen.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> You seem to be making the argument that merely being legal makes things 'right'. I can tell you that, for instance, it would be entirely legal for a Republican-run state to ignore the votes cast by their citizens to award their electoral college votes to Trump. The Trump admin has mused publicly about exploring this option. Would this have any, as you might call it, 'output legitimacy'? No, of course not. There would be bloody riots in the street if this came to pass, and the election will have been stolen.


I think using the law to get the "right" result is good.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right, there is more than enough evidence of that.

Look at how Trudeau is using every trick he can to avoid yet another ethics violation, it's disgusting.

That being said, when you're fighting for what's right, you should use every possible tool to achieve it.

That's why the legislature should pass good laws, and the judiciary should read them.


----------



## james4beach

I'm not convinced that Trump is done yet. Some (not all) Republicans are aligning with him.

There is a low, but _non-zero_ possibility of a dictatorial power grab. I think the risk remains until Biden is sworn in on January 20. If Trump is somehow able to seize power, the USA would become a failed state.



MrMatt said:


> I think using the law to get the "right" result is good.
> . . .
> *That being said, when you're fighting for what's right, you should use every possible tool to achieve it.*


Can you please share with us: exactly *which* issue is so important to you that you are willing to throw out democracy to achieve it? You have written that you support Trump because he's better than the other side. You don't seem to respect the democratic vote; we know the clear result, and yet you want to see Trump fight it by any means possible.

So which issue is it, which motivates you so strongly to the point you are willing to throw away democracy?

I can tell you have an issue. I'm just really curious what it is. Surely you would not be willing to sacrifice democracy for stupid little tax cuts.

Or have I misunderstood you? Perhaps your position is: the people have voted, and Biden is the new President and Trump should step down. << is this your position? If so, apologies for misreading your position.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Can you please share with us: exactly *which* issue is so important to you that you are willing to throw out democracy to achieve it?


Never made that claim, and I don't believe that is the case at this time.



> You have written that you support Trump because he's better than the other side.


yes



> You don't seem to respect the democratic vote;


No I do respect the democratic vote. When did I ever state anything to the contrary? 
You're assigning a position I don't hold.



> we know the clear result,


No, because the states haven't certified the results yet.
We know the projected results, and it seems very likely Trump lost and Biden won.



> and yet you want to see Trump fight it by any means possible.


Of course I do. BECAUSE i support democracy.
If there are illegal acts being done to subvert the democratic will of the people they should be investigated and addressed.
Or do you want a repeat of Al Gore, who sacrificed democratic principles?



> Or have I misunderstood you? Perhaps your position is: the people have voted, and Biden is the new President and Trump should step down. << is this your position? If so, apologies for misreading your position.


There was a vote, we should ensure that it is counted and tabulated in accordance with law.
Assuming that the final certified and legal result matches projections, Trump should support the transition and hand over power at inauguration.

My question for you is what is so important about Biden winning that you'd suggest anyone accept an election with fraud and/or errors?
I'm NOT saying there was a significant amount, I've even posted previously that even if there were errors and fraud, it is likely not enough to sway the results.

So my official position is, Biden very likely won, however in the interests of democracy we should do everything properly and in accordance with the law.
What is so offensive about the legal, democratic process, that that is somehow upsetting to you?

Why are you so eager to discard democratic principles and declare Biden the winner? He's the projected winner, but it isn't official yet.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> So my official position is, Biden very likely won, however in the interests of democracy we should do everything properly and in accordance with the law.


I hope others are paying attention to this exchange, because MrMatt's position seems like the way Republicans think. It's useful to understand their mind set.

You keep saying: 'any means possible'. You seem to want the Republicans to use all technicalities available to them. You think it's justified to fight and challenge results as long as it's legal and technically accurate.

You support legal challenges even when there is no tangible evidence of actual fraud or election problems. You want challenges to occur based on someone simply not liking the outcome, even when there is no evidence of actual fraud.

That is really not how American elections work. In each American election, people *don't* aggressively fight through all technicalities and all legal means ... that is a bizarre and un-American way to conduct an election.

What I found concerning about your earlier statement ('any means possible') is that the American version of democracy actually requires good-faith participation by the candidates. There is an honour system involved, and certain traditions. Good example: a candidate who has lost, or sees near-certain defeat based on the results, should concede.

Candidates are not mandated by law to concede. It is a tradition and they do it because it helps assure stability in the nation.

Trump is not conceding even though he has clearly lost, because he plans to fight this on technicalities. This is what YOU endorse too. You want him to fight by any means possible even when there is no moral basis for it, and even when the resulting numbers show just about zero probability of the outcome changing, even if there were recounts in all states.

You are not endorsing good-faith participation in the US democratic system. You are repeatedly calling for an aggressive stance, to use 'any means possible' and fighting on all technicalities. It's your aggression towards all of this which I think is very concerning. You want the loser of the election, who has clearly lost, to FIGHT IT ANYWAY.

That's not how US elections work, and that's not participating in democracy in good faith. It's actually a malicious take on democracy.


----------



## gingymarathoner

james4beach...these absolute ignorant people can't be reasoned with..you and I both know that...my recommendation is to save your energy. I share your concern of the Emperor possibly succeeding in ensuring the US becomes a failed state. The world is watching and hoping for the best; there's not much more we can do...


----------



## OneSeat

Let's face it - 
- we really do not have democracy in Canada, the US or any western-oriented country
- what we do have is more like oligarchic aristocracies 
- - - by which I mean powerful groups supporting what they believe to be the best people to govern (generally connected)
- - - please think about that before dismissing it - it applies in most western countries
- democracy as we know it has never worked for more than a few centuries
- - - go and re-read The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire - it will happen here sooner or later.

Bit of humour - 
- democracy and idiocracy both derive from Ancient Greek (and Sanskrit) words meaning the same thing!


----------



## james4beach

gingymarathoner said:


> james4beach...these absolute ignorant people can't be reasoned with..you and I both know that...my recommendation is to save your energy.


I understand your point but it does bother me. Democracy is a very fragile thing and it pains me to watch it deteriorate in real-time.

American democracy isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good and far better than what much of the world has, especially looking at long-term history. When people challenge this democracy, for example by fighting legitimate results, aggressively trying to use technicalities, and clinging to power, this malicious participation erodes that democracy.

Wednesday is Remembrance Day. Over one million Canadians served in the military during WWII and made huge sacrifices, along with our western allies. 16 million Americans served in the war. Our countries fought, and defeated, fascism in Europe.

Should it not be painful, with our history, to see unapologetic emerging fascism in the USA? People rallying behind a charismatic, power-hungry "strong man" (Trump), disputing the results of fair elections, and blindly supporting the man even as he corrupts and dismantles public institutions?

I think it's painful and it's an insult to all Canadian, British and American war vets.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I hope others are paying attention to this exchange, because MrMatt's position seems like the way Republicans think. It's useful to understand their mind set.
> 
> You keep saying: 'any means possible'. You seem to want the Republicans to use all technicalities available to them. You think it's justified to fight and challenge results as long as it's legal and technically accurate.
> 
> You support legal challenges even when there is no tangible evidence of actual fraud or election problems. You want challenges to occur based on someone simply not liking the outcome, even when there is no evidence of actual fraud.


Again, ascribing a position I don't hold, and never claimed.
Yes I want every possible problem investigated, I think anyone who believes in the democratic process would want to ensure that the election is legitimate.



> That is really not how American elections work. In each American election, people *don't* aggressively fight through all technicalities and all legal means ... that is a bizarre and un-American way to conduct an election.
> 
> What I found concerning about your earlier statement ('any means possible') is that the American version of democracy actually requires good-faith participation by the candidates. There is an honour system involved, and certain traditions. Good example: a candidate who has lost, or sees near-certain defeat based on the results, should concede.


A candidate who has lost should concede.
I candidate who has not lost should not concede.

The process hasn't finished, there is no winner or loser yet so they shouldn't concede. 
Hilary Clinton took an even more aggressive stand.








Hillary Clinton says Biden should not concede the election 'under any circumstances'


The former Democratic presidential nominee predicted Republicans could try to “mess up absentee balloting” for a narrow advantage in the Electoral College.




www.nbcnews.com







> Candidates are not mandated by law to concede. It is a tradition and they do it because it helps assure stability in the nation.
> 
> Trump is not conceding even though he has clearly lost, because he plans to fight this on technicalities. This is what YOU endorse too. You want him to fight by any means possible even when there is no moral basis for it, and even when the resulting numbers show just about zero probability of the outcome changing, even if there were recounts in all states.


Sorry you're confusing things.
If there is an invalid vote I think it should be rejected.
This is both a "technicality", and a moral requirement. Are you suggesting that it's morally correct (let alone legally correct) to accept invalid votes? That's undemocratic.



> You are not endorsing good-faith participation in the US democratic system. You are repeatedly calling for an aggressive stance, to use 'any means possible' and fighting on all technicalities. It's your aggression towards all of this which I think is very concerning. You want the loser of the election, who has clearly lost, to FIGHT IT ANYWAY.
> 
> That's not how US elections work, and that's not participating in democracy in good faith. It's actually a malicious take on democracy.


To summarize, I think it is fundamentally undemocratic to allow invalid votes to be counted.
You keep saying "technicalities", like the democratic process is a "technicality". Sorry one person one vote, and only citizens can vote aren't mere technicalities, they're a fundamental requirement of the process.

I've held from the beginning they should count every valid vote, but only valid votes.
That's not the Democrat or Republican position.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I understand your point but it does bother me. Democracy is a very fragile thing and it pains me to watch it deteriorate in real-time.
> 
> American democracy isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good and far better than what much of the world has, especially looking at long-term history. When people challenge this democracy, for example by fighting legitimate results, aggressively trying to use technicalities, and clinging to power, this malicious participation erodes that democracy.
> 
> Wednesday is Remembrance Day. Over one million Canadians served in the military during WWII and made huge sacrifices, along with our western allies. 16 million Americans served in the war. Our countries fought, and defeated, fascism in Europe.
> 
> Should it not be painful, with our history, to see unapologetic emerging fascism in the USA? People rallying behind a charismatic, power-hungry "strong man" (Trump), disputing the results of fair elections, and blindly supporting the man even as he corrupts and dismantles public institutions?
> 
> I think it's painful and it's an insult to all Canadian, British and American war vets.


I have to agree and it is painful to watch.
Why do you think I'm so passionate about the damage Trudeau is doing?
I've said for years that Trump and Trudeau are engaging in the same activities.

This isn't just a Canada/US problem, it's occuring around the world.


----------



## gingymarathoner

james4beach said:


> Should it not be painful, with our history, to see unapologetic emerging fascism in the USA? People rallying behind a charismatic, power-hungry "strong man" (Trump), disputing the results of fair elections, and blindly supporting the man even as he corrupts and dismantles public institutions?
> 
> I think it's painful and it's an insult to all Canadian, British and American war vets.


I completely agree. I majored in Political Science in University and have been a student of politics all my life. It has never been more evident how fragile democracies are than in the last 5 years. It is possible that we are beginning to see the end of anything that resembles them but I like you plan to fight this. 

What I mean though, is that I've learned that debating with a Trumpster is pointless - trolls are going to troll - they're not interested in truth, honour, respect or anything resembling love. Their fueled by fear, rage and generally feeling small. Trump is their beacon and I'm done speaking with them. It's now time to drown them out and 76 is bigger than 70. Future elections are going to be, in the US and elsewhere, about turning out people who care and having those people drown out the trolls and those who only seek chaos. I'm neither hopeful or pessimistic; each election in each country is going to be a contest between fear and hate vs. love and progress. One more point i will make; I work with young people - they are lined up squarely at very high percentages in the progress camp so while fear may trump love occasionally and this will do tremendous damage to the citizens living in that state, as older generations are replaced by our young people, fear will lose much more often - I'm certain of that. Our job as elders, is to make sure that democracy and citizen participation is still around. It is our duty.


----------



## james4beach

gingymarathoner said:


> Our job as elders, is to make sure that democracy and citizen participation is still around. It is our duty.


Very good point, and I'll do my best as well.


----------



## MrMatt

gingymarathoner said:


> I completely agree. I majored in Political Science in University and have been a student of politics all my life. It has never been more evident how fragile democracies are than in the last 5 years. It is possible that we are beginning to see the end of anything that resembles them but I like you plan to fight this.
> 
> What I mean though, is that I've learned that debating with a Trumpster is pointless - trolls are going to troll - they're not interested in truth, honour, respect or anything resembling love. Their fueled by fear, rage and generally feeling small. Trump is their beacon and I'm done speaking with them. It's now time to drown them out and 76 is bigger than 70. Future elections are going to be, in the US and elsewhere, about turning out people who care and having those people drown out the trolls and those who only seek chaos. I'm neither hopeful or pessimistic; each election in each country is going to be a contest between fear and hate vs. love and progress. One more point i will make; I work with young people - they are lined up squarely at very high percentages in the progress camp so while fear may trump love occasionally and this will do tremendous damage to the citizens living in that state, as older generations are replaced by our young people, fear will lose much more often - I'm certain of that. Our job as elders, is to make sure that democracy and citizen participation is still around. It is our duty.


Not so sure about that, apparently students are upset that California rejected systematic racism.
Unless you think racism is "progressive"









California students say they're 'deeply disappointed' after voters cast ballots against affirmative action


"It would have been a game-changer in increasing diversity and representation at UC," one student from UCLA said of the rejected Proposition 16.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## hfp75

I will add in, and say... right now, I do think that Biden will prevail and I will support him because he is the Commander and Chief for the next 4 years.

In our Democracy, Trump does have the right to file legal injunctions. If they are false or have no factual basis they will not progress through the courts. If they do indeed have merit and there are decisions that favor Trump/GOP then I am supportive of the 'Rule of Law'. 

Its not a matter of conceding for either candidate. The courts are involved because at the State level voting is not secure, it is not flawless and the laws around it have holes. Voting in any democracy is where corruption happens. This election is no different. 

The winner WILL EVENTUALLY be announced by the the US Electoral College. At that time we have a winner, right now states are not able to certify their electoral votes and neither candidate has the required 270. WE DO NOT HAVE A WINNER, we by law, still have 2 candidates. The MEDIA has forecasted a winner and people believe that it is official, it is not.

Here are a few interesting points - we all know....

-Polls were wrong. It was to be a Biden landslide and it was not. The DNC has concerns that they have gone to far to the left and alienated 5+% of their centrist voters, who in turn, may have supported Trump. The DNC and Media were very supportive of the accuracy of the new polling measures - If the new polling algorithms are accurate (post 2016 election) why did Biden not get more votes ? Or, have we proven the real uselessness of polls ? Or have polls been again manipulated my media to support their propaganda. This is a multifaceted topic.

-I already referenced the US Electoral College not having 270 votes, certified by the states. It is the media that has declared a victor. The media has done a real disservice to the public about the actual process involved here. They have acted like they declare the 'winner' and they in fact do NOT.

-I think that you will see the GOP support Trump, why ? To get clarity on the outstanding issues surrounding absentee ballots. These issues have never come to the forefront of an election like this and there is a real grey area here - it DOES need legal clarity. There is also the issue of the armed forces voting - again it needs legal clarity. These things matter and because they matter now and will get clarity the GOP will support Trump / these issues. Once the courts have spoken - if Trump doesn't get the 270, I think the GOP will move on.

-We all know Trump will be a soar loser. I think he will try to drag Biden & his family through years of media dirt ect, ect. He might stop this agenda if they decide to prosecute him. We might see the Biden dirt disappear and Trump's charges dropped simultaneously - an internal deal ? I'd argue that no one gets to be the pres if they are not 1/2 corrupt. These guys both just got caught, weren't careful enough.

-Lastly, I think the saddest part, is that out of 400 million Americans these are the 2x Jokers that we get to choose between !!!

-Corrupt Geriatrics that obviously are trying to benefit themselves / families from their position.

Its not about 'We the People' - How Sad.


----------



## james4beach

The danger for more abuses of power by Trump should not be ignored, even though he's been voted out of office.

Trump and his loyalists are still in control of the government for two months. Attorney General Barr is a die-hard Trump loyalist, and the AG has a lot of power. They have power to determine what is acceptable, and what is not, under the law. There's a lot of room here for funny business because the AG supports broad powers for the executive.

Recap: Trump did not concede. He fired the Defense Secretary who was seen as disloyal. His loyalist Barr has started a witch-hunt for voter fraud. Trump has blocked the normal transfer of intelligence briefings to Biden, which should have started immediately.


----------



## gingymarathoner

james4beach said:


> The danger for more abuses of power by Trump should not be ignored, even though he's been voted out of office.
> 
> Trump and his loyalists are still in control of the government for two months. Attorney General Barr is a die-hard Trump loyalist, and the AG has a lot of power. They have power to determine what is acceptable, and what is not, under the law. There's a lot of room here for funny business because the AG supports broad powers for the executive.
> 
> Recap: Trump did not concede. He fired the Defense Secretary who was seen as disloyal. His loyalist Barr has started a witch-hunt for voter fraud. Trump has blocked the normal transfer of intelligence briefings to Biden, which should have started immediately.


I'm not inclined to continue this conversation as I believe it is not great for my mental health. I'll say one more thing - this entire situation is the fault of only one group of people and that is the entire REPUBLICAN party which beginning in the 2000 election has lost touch with any form of decency and has been on a 20 year campaign of illiberalism and anti-democratic attitudes and behaviours. In the last 5 years, the party has become facistic in extremely dangerous ways. All of this, for political science students and experts is not in dispute.

The bigger more difficult question which does not have a clear answer is why American citizens have not repudiated this corrupt and morally bankrupt party? Even when there is a clear decision, like in this election for who will serve its citizenry better, we only see a spread of $5+ Million votes. The Republicans also did well in Congressional and other races. Americans, to some extent, approve of anti-democratic and illiberal (and even facistic) behaviours. They didn't use to, at least not in any real numbers. 

My sense is that the large evangelical block (which seems to always vote as a monolith) has decided that ensuring that no American can have access to an abortion is all they care about. Decency and real Christian values are secondary. They're very well organized, they're a significant minority and they work to convince non-evangelicals. They vote Republican no matter who the candidate is. Between that and the dark money (Coke et al) that goes into US politics on the far right, perhaps America doesn't have a real chance to resist this Party that has gone insane. It's very upsetting if you care about decency and policies that actually help Americans who don't earn 6+ figures. Can America wake up from its 20 year slumber - I'm not optimistic unless it can get money out of politics.


----------



## Spudd

hfp75 said:


> <snipped>


Just wondering, was this quoted from an article somewhere? Or are you American?


----------



## hfp75

Im a dual & I wrote that....


----------



## james4beach

hfp75 said:


> I will add in, and say... right now, I do think that Biden will prevail and I will support him because he is the Commander and Chief for the next 4 years.
> 
> In our Democracy, Trump does have the right to file legal injunctions. If they are false or have no factual basis they will not progress through the courts. If they do indeed have merit and there are decisions that favor Trump/GOP then I am supportive of the 'Rule of Law'.


I think you wrote a good overview here... all makes sense to me.

Should be noted that Trump has already brought several lawsuits (something like 10), and they have all been dismissed. In some cases the judge asked why on earth they are there, and the Trump team has not been able to show any evidence of wrongdoing.

I'm not too concerned about these nuisance lawsuits. I'm more concerned about how he might leverage his Executive power to get what he wants. Already Trump has influenced the Justice Dept to do his bidding, and Trump just fired the Defense Secretary. He's also talked about firing the heads of the CIA and FBI. Whenever these people are fired, they are replaced with people who are loyal to him.

If he proceeds down that path (and it looks like he will) this is more than just nuisance lawsuits. It's twisting and warping the system to do what he wants. If he's motivated enough to seize power, he might be able to do it by going down that path.

And I think if he does, that WOULD be a surprise for the markets. I'm just pointing out, there is a slight possibility he could seize power and install himself as dictator.


----------



## james4beach

By the way, here might be a couple clues or giveaways if Trump is en route to seizing power. Remember that he always uses the "night is day" trick to invert reality. So whatever he's up to, he will say his political opponents are doing it. Let's see if he starts saying, or if the right wing extremist web sites start publishing:

B... is going to attempt a coup
The Dem... want to seize power
B... wants to install himself as dictator
B... wants to take over the government
B... hates democracy
B... wants to be King

Additionally, watch for a new extremely scary threat. This is a classic tool used by dictators and fascists because fear is a great way to control people and override rationality.


----------



## Retired Peasant

hfp75 said:


> Im a dual & I wrote that....


Thank you for clarifying, as I had the same thought as Spudd


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> By the way, here might be a couple clues or giveaways if Trump is en route to seizing power. Remember that he always uses the "night is day" trick to invert reality. So whatever he's up to, he will say his political opponents are doing it. Let's see if he starts saying, or if the right wing extremist web sites start publishing:
> 
> B... is going to attempt a coup
> The Dem... want to seize power
> B... wants to install himself as dictator
> B... wants to take over the government
> B... hates democracy
> B... wants to be King
> 
> Additionally, watch for a new extremely scary threat. This is a classic tool used by dictators and fascists because fear is a great way to control people and override rationality.


I'd like to point out left wing extremists are saying
Trump is 
1 attempting to seize power despire the projected election results.
2. wants to install himself as dictator
3. wants to take over government by installing loyalists
4. hates democracy
5. wants to be king.


----------



## kcowan

What is the market risk? Traders drive it up on vaccine speculation. Trump drives it down by being Trump. Any other factors?


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> I'd like to point out left wing extremists are saying
> Trump is
> 1 attempting to seize power despire the projected election results.
> 2. wants to install himself as dictator
> 3. wants to take over government by installing loyalists
> 4. hates democracy
> 5. wants to be king.


Actually it's moderate and main stream people who are commenting that Trump is showing dictatorial tendencies.

But I'm not sure what argument you're making here. The above list does describe Trump of course... that's the point. What I'm saying is that if you see Trump inverting the narrative, for example saying nonsensical things like "Schumer wants to install himself as dictator" ... that kind of reversal lingo is a "tell" that he's up to something.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> What is the market risk? Traders drive it up on vaccine speculation. Trump drives it down by being Trump. Any other factors?


I would argue that the "failed state" scenario is more than just a little nudge one way or the other on markets. If it actually goes that way, it's more of a black swan event.

But it's very low probability.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> A candidate who has lost should concede.
> I candidate who has not lost should not concede.
> 
> The process hasn't finished, there is no winner or loser yet so they shouldn't concede.
> Hilary Clinton took an even more aggressive stand.


Isn't this contradictory? A concession is moot if it only comes after the results are formalized. It's like conceding a chess game after check mate. And you're saying no candidate should concede until after the results are formalized (check mate), which is equivalent to saying no candidate should ever concede. Hillary should have contested the results right up until EC selected the President and tried to convince Democratic states to overturn the election results. Obama should have withheld support for transition planning, etc.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Isn't this contradictory? A concession is moot if it only comes after the results are formalized. It's like conceding a chess game after check mate. And you're saying no candidate should concede until after the results are formalized (check mate), which is equivalent to saying no candidate should ever concede. Hillary should have contested the results right up until EC selected the President and tried to convince Democratic states to overturn the election results. Obama should have withheld support for transition planning, etc.


concede (verb)

To admit to be true; to acknowledge.
I do not think someone should admit something to be true, unless it is true.

Yes, if Hilary thought she won, she should have fought to the absolute bitter end, as should have Gore and ever other "losing" candidate. You don't run 99% of the race and give up.
That's why in primaries they often "suspend" their campaigns.

I don't think any president should withhold transition funding, Trump is wrong here.
In fact I think security briefings and transition funding should be provided BEFORE the election to the other candidate.
I don't think 1-3 months is enough time to get up to speed on all these items.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Actually it's moderate and main stream people who are commenting that Trump is showing dictatorial tendencies.
> 
> But I'm not sure what argument you're making here. The above list does describe Trump of course... that's the point. What I'm saying is that if you see Trump inverting the narrative, for example saying nonsensical things like "Schumer wants to install himself as dictator" ... that kind of reversal lingo is a "tell" that he's up to something.


The arguement I'm making is that hte people making these claims are the ones we should be concerned with actually committing the acts.
A very intelligent poster made this statement.
"Remember that he always uses the "night is day" trick to invert reality. So whatever he's up to, he will say his political opponents are doing it."

So all these lefties saying Trump is doing this stuff.....


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> So all these lefties saying Trump is doing this stuff.....


Neat trolling, MrMatt. No let's not be silly. Trump is the only president in recent times showing dictatorial tendencies, and he's being called out for it. Pretty clear.

Democrats are showing a strong respect for US democracy and the electoral process. There is only one party in the USA which is showing a shocking disregard for the democratic election system: the Republicans.

What they are doing now may cause permanent harm to US government systems and US democracy. How they can be proud of that, I have no idea ... but I don't think history will speak favourably of the Republicans.

I think your online behaviours are also contributing to the erosion of faith in democracy. Personally I would never go around saying the kinds of things you do.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Neat trolling, MrMatt. No let's not be silly. Trump is the only president in recent times showing dictatorial tendencies, and he's being called out for it. Pretty clear.
> 
> Democrats are showing a strong respect for US democracy and the electoral process. There is only one party in the USA which is showing a shocking disregard for the democratic election system: the Republicans.
> 
> What they are doing now may cause permanent harm to US government systems and US democracy. How they can be proud of that, I have no idea ... but I don't think historically will speak favourably of the Republicans.


Biden & Harris aren't president yet.
But they have stated very clearly they're going to push their agenda by executive order.


----------



## kcowan

It is not clear to me if the current market weakness is due to:
a)the impossible logistics of delivering a vaccine at -70 degrees,
b)the prospect that the Democrats might win 2 senate seats in the byelection, or
c)the exposure to a substantial lunatic fringe who are still supporting Trump's groundless claims of election fraud?

I believe that Trump is just trying to raise a warchest from his flock.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> I believe that Trump is just trying to raise a warchest from his flock.


I agree, it looks like this is what's happening. The nonsense lawsuits etc seem to be just to create noise, to raise donation money from his base.

I would agree that the political risk (actual harm to the country) is lower than I first though. This recent antics seem to be for fundraising & donations.


----------



## Money172375

I hope this thread is closed once the results are certified.


----------



## hfp75

I hope cooler heads surface....

This is all political posturing...

Rule of Law will guide this process.

I have no illusions that ‘if’ Biden is certified with 270, in January he will can a bunch of Trumps guys. Its how it works. Trumps just being Trump.

Everyone here needs to realize that the world is not ending this week.


----------



## MrMatt

hfp75 said:


> I hope cooler heads surface....
> 
> This is all political posturing...
> 
> Rule of Law will guide this process.
> 
> I have no illusions that ‘if’ Biden is certified with 270, in January he will can a bunch of Trumps guys. Its how it works. Trumps just being Trump.
> 
> Everyone here needs to realize that the world is not ending this week.


I think part of the problem is the anti-Trumpers are so obsessed with him it's become part of their identity.


----------



## Retired Peasant

Money172375 said:


> I hope this thread is closed once the results are certified.


You can always stop reading the thread, ya'know.


----------



## MrMatt

Retired Peasant said:


> You can always stop reading the thread, ya'know.


What? Take responsibility for my own decisions?#$!#[email protected]#[email protected]


----------



## james4beach

The transition between presidents is already being described as one of the most turbulent and chaotic in modern US history.

Most likely it will end up OK but some market risk remains until inauguration on January 20. The way I see it, the issue is no longer the election (which is pretty much done) but the transfer of power and departure of the previous administration.

And even the media is talking about it, which means it should be priced into markets by now. I feel better knowing it's priced in.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I don't understand how can anyone believe Trump's claims about disinformation and fraud when he's the main cause of disinformation. He's playing a psychological game with the population and his supporters. He's working very hard to make people doubt on what's true or false because that confusion is helpful to him. There's no doubt about his dictatorial behaviors. Actually, I understand why some believe him, because that game he's playing is working and that's very dangerous.

People can be for the Republicans, people can be for the Democrats, some are more on the right, some are more on the left, I don't care, it's okay and it's healthy. But people can't be for Trump.

This video was posted 7 months ago about his own speeches about the coronavirus. I'd like to find another video containing all of the contradictory speeches he gave up to this day. And that's only about the coronavirus, but we could make such a video for every subject, like any of his claims during the presidential debate.






4 years ago... (By the way, at 3:15 he says [in 2004] that in many cases he identifies more as a Democrat and that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans)





And also watch this recent speech in November still talking about the China virus and how the USA is the greatest of all time on handling the situation.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't understand how can anyone believe Trump's claims about disinformation and fraud when he's the main cause of disinformation. He's playing a psychological game with the population and his supporters. He's working very hard to make people doubt on what's true or false because that confusion is helpful to him. There's no doubt about his dictatorial behaviors. Actually, I understand why some believe him, because that game he's playing is working and that's very dangerous.
> 
> People can be for the Republicans, people can be for the Democrats, some are more on the right, some are more on the left, I don't care, it's okay and it's healthy. But people can't be for Trump.
> 
> This video was posted 7 months ago about his own speeches about the coronavirus. I'd like to find another video containing all of the contradictory speeches he gave up to this day. And that's only about the coronavirus, but we could make such a video for every subject, like any of his claims during the presidential debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 years ago... (By the way, at 3:15 he says [in 2004] that in many cases he identifies more as a Democrat and that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also watch this recent speech in November still talking about the China virus and how the USA is the greatest of all time on handling the situation.


I don't think there are really that many "for Trump"
But there are a hell of a lot "against Biden"


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> I don't think there are really that many "for Trump"
> But there are a hell of a lot "against Biden"


I said I don't care about Republicans vs Democrats, but I do care about being against Trump.

I don't think people are "against Biden", but I believe people are "against Democrats". But is being "against Democrats" more important than being "against Trump"? I hope not.

Trump is a bigger issue than "Democrats vs Republicans".

And even if people are "against Biden", do you really believe Biden himself is a bigger threat than Trump himself?

I could be an American voting for Republicans for 50 years, I'd be voting against Trump even if that means voting against Republicans in this case. That's what I mean. That's how much I am against Trump.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> And even if people are "against Biden", you really believe Biden himself is a bigger threat than Trump himself?
> 
> I could be an American voting for Republicans for 50 years, I'd be voting against Trump even if that means voting against Republicans in this case. That's what I mean.


Trump is a known quantity, we know exactly how much of a screwup he is.

Those behind Biden, we know they are actually planning some really bad things.

They've been pretty open about it.
Systematic racism and a fundamental restructuring of the economy are right there on Bidens campaign page.
They've literally said, in black and white, what they plan to do.
It's not a conspiracy, you can read the policies, read the bills.


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> Systematic racism and a fundamental restructuring of the economy are right there on Bidens campaign page.


So you are *for* systematic racism? Because Biden is *against* racism. That's the really bad things you are talking about?


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> So you are *for* systematic racism? Because Biden is *against* racism. That's the really bad things you are talking about?


Biden is clearly for systematic racism, it's in his platform. Did you read his platform and what he stands for?


It's absolutely a bad thing, I can't believe that in 2020 you even have to ask if racism is bad.


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> Biden is clearly for systematic racism, it's in his platform. Did you read his platform and what he stands for?


Tell me where you read that Biden is for systematic racism.



> An economy where Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), and Native American workers and families are finally welcomed as full participants.











The Biden Plan to Build Back Better by Advancing Racial Equity Across the American Economy - Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website


Joe Biden’s jobs and economic recovery agenda is built on the proposition that we must build our economy back better than it was before the COVID-19 crisis. Over the last month, Biden has been laying out his vision for a stronger, resilient, and inclusive economy. He believes in an economy...




joebiden.com


----------



## MrBlackhill

More reading here on Biden vs Trump plans for racial equity.



> Biden has laid out a comprehensive plan to address racial disparities within the United States on issues ranging from health to policing, zeroing in on measures to advance economic equality, access to affordable housing, education and a fair criminal justice system.


(Yes, I found his plan for racial equity on his platform in a matter of a few seconds)



> Trump has not outlined a broad policy plan to address racial inequity. Trump has repeatedly questioned whether systemic racism is a problem in the United States.


(I have not found any mention about racial equity on his platform yet)









Trump's And Biden's Plans For Racial Equality


Here's how the presidential candidates compare on plans for racial equality.




www.npr.org


----------



## kcowan

I am counting on at least a split on Senate seats in Georgia, leaving Moscow Mitch as the blocker-in-chief, so no worries.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> More reading here on Biden vs Trump plans for racial equity.
> 
> 
> (Yes, I found his plan for racial equity on his platform in a matter of a few seconds)
> 
> 
> (I have not found any mention about racial equity on his platform yet)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's And Biden's Plans For Racial Equality
> 
> 
> Here's how the presidential candidates compare on plans for racial equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org


From your link on his plattform.
He clearly states he intends to have one of the most overtly racist administrations in decades.

"Biden will launch a historic effort to empower small business creation and expansion in economically disadvantaged areas – and particularly for Black-, Latino-, AAPI-, and Native American-owned businesses. "
"Expand access to $100 billion in low-interest business loans by funding state, local, tribal and non-profit lending programs in Black and Brown communities "
*"Dramatically increase the availability of venture capital investments for small businesses, especially those owned by Black and Brown people. * "
"expand small business lending programs that disproportionately benefit small businesses owned by Black, Latino, AAPI, and Native American people and those serving low income communities. "

I'm all for helping economically disadvantaged areas, however I draw the line at being racist in my help.
Sorry, racism is a non-starter for me.


----------



## james4beach

MrBlackhill said:


> Tell me where you read that Biden is for systematic racism.


He's trolling you, by the way. This is one of the techniques to deflect / redirect attention away from how awful the Republican policies are.

MrMatt is quite the expert at Republican talking points and far-right propaganda. In any thread where someone says something negative about Trump or Republicans, he's immediately on the scene and straight to work.


----------



## OneSeat

Moderators - it is time you closed this topic - too many are simply disagreeing with each other with strongly held, but often unsubstantiatable, arguments - and I am not referring to any one or more than one in particular. Covering the same or similar topics with provable facts would be interesting but this covers politics - not well known for provable facts on any side.

This is a money forum not a political forum.

Thank you.


----------



## moderator2

Closing thread


----------

