Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paxb2u who wrote (81153)	10/10/2011 5:52:49 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 218816

>>martial law may be put in place, and the elections put off.<< ROTFL!

To: Paxb2u who wrote (81153)	10/10/2011 6:05:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Respond to of 218816

It can happen: < if there is enough rebelliousness before the elections, martial law may be put in place, and the elections put off.> There have been constitutional crises in a couple of Anglophone democracies, [leaving aside Fiji and others], happily resolved by the monarchy [which is held in lower esteem than is deserved]. In Oz, the Governor General fired a Prime Minister. In NZ, ex-Prime Minister Muldoon seemed unlikely to go quietly and did what he could to cause a NZ$ crisis on the way out. In the end, he went and the new Prime Minister took over. But such things can lead to serious problems of who the police and army should obey. I like Queen Elizabeth II being sovereign because in such a situation, she would call the shots and the public would go along with her to avoid catastrophe. Royalty is useful because they have an interest in stability. They do not want their countries to become a mess. They like constitutional process. They can call another election and get a solid result. I'm not sure the public of the USA would be so enthralled by the President declaring himself in charge. The Supreme Court would not be able to declare themselves in charge. Neither would Congress - I doubt that Boehner would get wide public backing. As Commander in Chief, Obama is the one with main political power. The USA has already had a couple of civil wars - the first resulted in partition with King George being evicted. The second resulted in conquest of the southern states. There are plenty of guns ready for a third. But who would be against whom? The first was easy - those in America vs the English king. The second was quite clear too = the north vs the south. The third would be what? The Maoists vs the landowners and capitalists? It would be ironical if the USA went like China in 1948 while China goes like the USA when it was more capitalist and less socialist. For those OWS people, they should take a look at China in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to see how much fun it was. Go live in a publicly owned hutong for a couple of winters. Mqurice

To: Paxb2u who wrote (81153)	10/10/2011 6:54:50 PM
From: paintbrush	Respond to of 218816

blackquillandink.com Obama has usurped the constitution of the US so many times. And the link above will tell the story of what is to come. Have ready, Guns, Gold , and Grain.

To: Paxb2u who wrote (81153)	10/10/2011 7:44:34 PM
From: Ilaine	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218816

States hold their own Presidential elections. Feds have no part in that. The President can't decide whether to hold a Presidential election. Ha. The Founders weren't stupid. They had zero faith in people who want power. The Electoral College is a beautiful thing. The more I learn about how that system actually works, the more amazed I am. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi hate it, want to abolish it. That should tell you something. The US Constitution is a short document. You can carry it around in your pocket and read it at your leisure. I recommend it.