I care very little about what grand strategic theory the defectors are trying to advance. None of them is Churchill (although an argument could be made for Chamberlain). Negotiation is credibility and they’ve frittered all of theirs away - again reinforcing how ineffective they will be in the future

The math, yes. But again, if we can’t agree on very basic things, such as healthcare is a basic right and shouldn’t bankrupt a person to access, then our leaders are not valuable. It isn’t even that deep or ideological. If your tools aren’t predictable, then they aren’t useful and must be replaced.

I’m confused by your theory of the argument. If our leaders are not going to fight for the voters’ basic needs, then they aren’t useful. It’s like saying I need to dig a ditch and I have a sieve. Yes, you have a tool but there isn’t much point in it because it will never give the outcome you need.

I’m so confused by this talk of fighting. They had it! They had momentum, morality, everything on their side and gave it up for - what? Nothing!

Talking about the next fight! They couldn’t fight for basic healthcare! if that’s not a worthy fight, there will never be one for them. Disgusting

You definitely want an appropriately registered financial advisor for that Q, not somebody on the internet.

Super super simplified view but at the one skeet, broad-strokes level that feels like what is happening

Theoretically stock markets are perfect predictors of time-weighted future earnings. Practically stock markets are human opinions on future earnings and can have inertia and be emotion driven, which means that the market can overshoot until an event breaks inertia and drives a correction

📌