I have some basic understanding of finance (and I mean basic), so take this as an observation rather than investment advice. If your retirement plan allows you to change your asset allocation, and you have a high-conviction thesis that a significant market event is about to occur, it may be worth temporarily rotating from a growth-oriented allocation into a more conservative allocation to reduce downside exposure.

Under normal circumstances, attempting to time the market is a bad idea, and financial advisors or plan managers will usually push you away from doing so. However, there are rare situations where it’s clear as crystal what’s happening. In those cases, reducing equity exposure and increasing allocations to lower-volatility assets for a short period may be a reasonable risk-management decision.

Using the recent SpaceX-related market activity as an example, I find it difficult to believe that any fund with a genuinely conservative mandate would have maintained meaningful exposure to assets directly affected by that event. A conservative portfolio, by definition, should prioritize capital preservation over aggressive growth and generally avoid concentrated exposure to higher-risk investments.

You generally can’t tell them, “I don’t want this stock,” when dealing with index funds, but you can get yourself out of the fund entirely while it’s poisoned. Unfortunately, my company was changing providers right when the SpaceX shit was happening, and I couldn’t make the change myself.

I haven’t been keeping up with the bond market but last I heard it was it’s own shit show so I’m not really sure anything is ‘safe’ these days.

Retirement accounts are a scam. It’s important for people to learn this, and stop contributing to them. It’s not a “benefit” to give all your money to corrupt Wall Street shit heads…

I’ll be yoinking this gif, thank you very much

I don’t think paying them to vote Republican was the issue either. I think he’s being sued because the lottery was rigged

If these elections are so important why haven’t people formed militias as a backup plan for if any fuckery happening?

Do we care about elections, if we’re not willing to do anything about them cheating brazenly in them?

Isn’t the wealth inequality double what it took for the french revolution?

Overreach is going over the set limits. Can’t overreach if there ARE no limits!

No, I don’t think so at all, but depending on whether the Democrats field a reasonably progressive candidate, there’s at least a slim chance. If not, and it comes down to the usual corporate Democrats—who, contrary to the will of the voters, clearly call the shots at the DNC—there’s no chance from the get-go.

For the Conservatives, however, this chance does not even exist in the first place.

So the Democrats are still the lesser evil, because the conservatives are not only many times more corrupt, they’re also completely unscrupulous in their inhumane actions.

With a Democratic president, at least, it would still be possible to engage in dialogue on the international stage. A conservative, on the other hand, represents exclusively the interests of organized crime, as the current regime demonstrates day in and day out: It commits horrific war crimes, does nothing but enrich itself and its billionaire financiers, openly threatens even the U.S.’s former allies with armed force, and is doing everything in its power to replace international law with the law of the jungle.

These people are the scum of humanity. The conformist, greedy opportunists among the Democrats are certainly despicable as well, but even they are no match for the absolute monsters currently ruling the country.

Look up the term “Dark Enlightenment” —this far-right, inhuman “theory” is the foundation of what conservatives stand for and what they are working exclusively to bring about, since it benefits the billionaires and would give them absolute power without any restrictions. Should they continue to succeed in this, it would have enormous, negative consequences for other, still somewhat functioning democracies around the world.

In short: A democratic president would definitely be the lesser evil—for the world as well as for the U.S. Anything that weakens the current regime is absolutely desirable.

The only good nazi…

Also true. I usually call them out as fascists, I just felt like I was missing out on calling them pedos

0.01% is 1% of 1%. 1% of a trillion is 10 billion, 1% of 10 billion is 100 million. The original was actually correct

it’s the equivalent of someone with 10,000 in their bank account spending 1 dollar.

And I misremembering because I believe he’s come out and said as much before.

Money helps, but it doesn’t GUARANTEE an election.

That’s going to be MAGAs problem - they think they can win with money alone, flooding the airwaves and mailboxes with crude propaganda, rather than ideas. Nothing from the insane amount of past propaganda has come true, and things have only gotten much, much worse, and EVERYONE sees it, and EVERYONE is unhappy about it.

MAGAs have made the fatal mistake of believing their own propaganda, getting high on their own supply, so their ads disparaging Socialism are actually going to work against them, and be some of the DemSocs best promotion - “You don’t want any of that FREE Socialist healthcare do you?”

And voters are going to to think, “Well, I can’t afford the expensive MAGA health care, so I’ll give it a try.”

Always remember: MAGA talks a good game, but they are ALWAYS bluffing. Every one of them are virtuosically incompetent, and fuck up literally EVERYTHING they do, and they will fuck up this election, too. The Dems just have to be ready to take full advantage of every inevitable MAGA mistake that is surely coming.

These people are STUPID beyond words. Exploit that RUTHLESSLY and MERCILESSLY.

Good! Being wrong in my assumption is a relief!

Good!