Black Monday

[Pixelator]

Interesting questions. The markets have the following chances:

Democrats win Senate, 6.4%, Repubs win Senate with majority 78%, No majority 15.6%


www.betfair.com

So a majority of American people voting the Republicans back in the Senate, is that because of Trump or in spite of him?

[Lego_Man]

Return is income minus cost. Don did cost us a united Western alliance, he did cost America its unity and internal peace. He is destroying the international trade system and he did take integrity and honesty out of his office. Donald Trump is to the Western democracies what acid is to an engine when mixed with of engine oil.

I would not call this a win ... but each to their own.

And obviously - he started with a booming economical engine inherited by Obama, but even if you assume that Don is responsible for this "gain" - these 36% do come dear indeed. What is for you the price of freedom, democracy, integrity and a legal system based on laws instead of some autocrats personal desires?

Do you not share these values - or are you really happy to sell them out that cheap?

I'd like you to name some autocratic actions of Trump (as distinct from actions you simply disagree with). Thus far he looks to have acted withing his powers, in fact it's impossible by definition for him to transgress these powers.

The global trade system over the past 20 years has primarily served the interests of 3rd world workers and western corporate shareholders. I assume you fall into the latter category, so it's natural you're pleased with the results. Can make a value judgement on that if you like, but there's now bipartisan consensus that China has being taking the piss with its trade practices. Trump won election on a nativist platform aiming to restore the dignity of the US working class, and that's what he's doing.

As for Western alliances, another redundant entity based on cold war bogeymen, designed to provide a captive market for arms sales. What is the actual point of NATO now? Yes, Russia has a lot of nukes, but we already knew that. Their population though is half that of the EU and their conventional military far less numerous. Hardly a legitimate threat. The Europeans have the technology and the population to implement sufficient deterrents, without needing to load up their territory with American men and equipment. I'd also argue that the eastward expansion of NATO has pointlessly disturbed Russia's sphere of influence and violated past understanding.

America crippled itself under mainstream neocons (of both Dem and Republican) by pointlessly invading countries and chasing jihadis since 2001, while other countries caught up in conventional military tech and soft power. No wonder the establishment is discredited.

Lastly, as Trump himself pointed out well, Obama's economy was a sugar high based on zero interest rates and QE. He did nothing to improve fundamentals, whereas at least Trump has had a crack.

[blackcap]

So a majority of American people voting the Republicans back in the Senate, is that because of Trump or in spite of him?

The senate map favours the republicans this mid-term. That is pretty much it. They are not really having to defend many seats while the Dems do.
O and there are some terrible candidates standing for the Democrats, like Sinema in Arizona. She is purporting to be a conservative Dem, but has publicly stated that she would not mind US people supporting/joining the Taleban, that kind of thing.

[BlackPeter]

So a majority of American people voting the Republicans back in the Senate, is that because of Trump or in spite of him?

It is not what the majority of the American people do, but a markets prediction what a certain percentage of the American people who bother to cast their votes in a system tilted against Democrates might do.

Majority of the American people (even of the people who bother to vote) is clearly against Trump.

Last election - Tump had 46% of the casted votes (his opponent more than 48%) ... and voter turnout was 58% - i.e. 26.7% of elegible voters voted for the corrupt liar. Most Americans are decent people, but unfortunately - too many of them don't bother to vote and the system is as corrupt as its current president.

System still less fair for the midterms - large and densely populated Democratic states have two senate seats - as have small and hardly populated republican states. How is this fair? One man one vote ...?

[Pixelator]

It is not what the majority of the American people do, but a markets prediction what a certain percentage of the American people who bother to cast their votes in a system tilted against Democrates might do.

Majority of the American people (even of the people who bother to vote) is clearly against Trump.

Last election - Tump had 46% of the casted votes (his opponent more than 48%) ... and voter turnout was 58% - i.e. 26.7% of elegible voters voted for the corrupt liar. Most Americans are decent people, but unfortunately - too many of them don't bother to vote and the system is as corrupt as its current president.

System still less fair for the midterms - large and densely populated Democratic states have two senate seats - as have small and hardly populated republican states. How is this fair? One man one vote ...?

WinnyFirst with 7% of the vote now calling most of the shots....not much different...still rather be in NZ though

[BlackPeter]

The senate map favours the republicans this mid-term. That is pretty much it. They are not really having to defend many seats while the Dems do.
O and there are some terrible candidates standing for the Democrats, like Sinema in Arizona. She is purporting to be a conservative Dem, but has publicly stated that she would not mind US people supporting/joining the Taleban, that kind of thing.

OK - I think we should move this discussion to the Trump thread. However - you should do a bit more research before you spread Trumps fake news:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/si...nt-in-context/

The statement was totally our of context. It is Trump supporting the crooks (i.e. in Saudi Arabia).

[peat]

OK - I think we should move this discussion to the Trump thread.

Hallelujah Brother.

Tho I did laugh at someone saying Obama was divisive.
And I think you, JoshuaTree might have insulted the Inca's

[Lego_Man]

System still less fair for the midterms - large and densely populated Democratic states have two senate seats - as have small and hardly populated republican states. How is this fair? One man one vote ...?

If you view the USA as a federation of pseudo-sovereign states, which is how their history has evolved, it makes sense. It was never conceived of as a unitary state to be dominated by both coasts.

The House of Representatives is the broadly population-weighted representative body.
The Senate represents the individual states.
The President sits somewhere in the middle, due to the vagaries of the Electoral College system.

States are supposed to govern themselves, the Federal Government is supposed to be both constrained in power, and acceptable to the highest proportion of states, rather than the highest proportion of the US population.

Ironically for the Progressives, it's an argument for a state's rights/constitutionalist approach, which they have historically tended to oppose. California liberals can live in a progressive paradise of their own if they want. The less power Congress and the President have, the less they can interfere with their way of life.

[Blue Skies]

If you view the USA as a federation of pseudo-sovereign states, which is how their history has evolved, it makes sense. It was never conceived of as a unitary state to be dominated by both coasts.

The House of Representatives is the broadly population-weighted representative body.
The Senate represents the individual states.
The President sits somewhere in the middle, due to the vagaries of the Electoral College system.

States are supposed to govern themselves, the Federal Government is supposed to be both constrained in power, and acceptable to the highest proportion of states, rather than the highest proportion of the US population.

Ironically for the Progressives, it's an argument for a state's rights/constitutionalist approach, which they have historically tended to oppose. California liberals can live in a progressive paradise of their own if they want. The less power Congress and the President have, the less they can interfere with their way of life.

To that very good summary, as I understand it i'ld add, the founding fathers wanted to ensure democracy would extend to all, not just the powerful, & those lesser populated states would also have an equal voice in govt, hence equal representation.
If representation was based purely on population, the sparsely populated states would have little representation & consequently politicians would never even bother to visit them or listen to their issues.

Works well in theory but as it turns out, not so well in practice with the tail wagging the dog.

[BlackPeter]

I'd like you to name some autocratic actions of Trump (as distinct from actions you simply disagree with). Thus far he looks to have acted withing his powers, in fact it's impossible by definition for him to transgress these powers.

The global trade system over the past 20 years has primarily served the interests of 3rd world workers and western corporate shareholders. I assume you fall into the latter category, so it's natural you're pleased with the results. Can make a value judgement on that if you like, but there's now bipartisan consensus that China has being taking the piss with its trade practices. Trump won election on a nativist platform aiming to restore the dignity of the US working class, and that's what he's doing.

As for Western alliances, another redundant entity based on cold war bogeymen, designed to provide a captive market for arms sales. What is the actual point of NATO now? Yes, Russia has a lot of nukes, but we already knew that. Their population though is half that of the EU and their conventional military far less numerous. Hardly a legitimate threat. The Europeans have the technology and the population to implement sufficient deterrents, without needing to load up their territory with American men and equipment. I'd also argue that the eastward expansion of NATO has pointlessly disturbed Russia's sphere of influence and violated past understanding.

America crippled itself under mainstream neocons (of both Dem and Republican) by pointlessly invading countries and chasing jihadis since 2001, while other countries caught up in conventional military tech and soft power. No wonder the establishment is discredited.

Lastly, as Trump himself pointed out well, Obama's economy was a sugar high based on zero interest rates and QE. He did nothing to improve fundamentals, whereas at least Trump has had a crack.

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showth...l=1#post735681