🏅 Top traders

FT says nothing about political violence from Trump supporters in the last month. This can resolve

@BTE This can resolve now.

@ForrestTaylor oh wait, no, needs a couple more days. Apologies

I'm going big on this one. It's now been two weeks since the indictments, and far from rallying and beginning to protest, the right wing spent the last weekend talking about boycotting Bud Light. I am not seeing much meaningful likelihood of an organized protest, much less a Jan 6 style riot.
However that is only one type of political violence. It is still possible for one or a few supporters to engage in some type of political violence in the next few weeks, much like the "raid" on Trump's Mar-a-Lago provoked a lone supporter to shoot up his local FBI headquarters.
It's quite possible for some wingnut to go off, but I deem it only 50% likely at this point. That happened 3 days after the "raid", and these people are fundamentally reactive. It should have happened by now. Secondly, I just scanned through Infowars, and it seems like even they aren't even talking about Trump's indictment much anymore.

@ForrestTaylor It's strange, the first indictment is so political which I thought would make violence more likely but maybe because it seems so harmless nobody cares?

@MartinRandall Jan 6 really suppressed conservative in person rallies and protests. Even non-Trump connected rallies have had a significantly smaller attendance. In a lot of conservative groups anyone who advocates doing something in person is instantly labeled a fed

Good idea. But impossible to judge. I'd suspend/remove the market.

There are millions of acts of violence in the US each year, and probably approximately 40% are by Trump supporters (if you assume 40% of Americans are loosely speaking Trump supporters) - it'd be impossible to tell how many of them are politically motivated.

Perhaps it's worth thinking carefully, in advance, about what qualifies as "political", what qualifies as "violence", and how you plan to make this judgement. It's very, very common for different observers to disagree on what qualifies as "political violence".

(For example, a general pattern is that observers on the right are more likely to accuse the left of "political violence", and vice-versa. In the immedate aftermath of an attack, each side will speculate about the possibility of politically-motivated violence from the opposing side, while downplaying the possibility of political violence from their side.)

@Boklam I don't think I agree. Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party and he has already made comments about prosecutors being racist and if he is charged it will be the end of America or whatever. I see MANY Trump voters who are not already threatening violence if Trump is indicted, or making veiled threats that "you are begging for a civil war". I think the word political is actually carries no significant distinction and if I took it out the question would not change at all.

@BTE Let me rephrase what I'm trying to say, in an attempt to seek agreement.

I think it's very likely that, say, NYT and Fox News give differing answers to your question. (Something happens. NYT: it's obviously political violence. Fox: nope, nothing to do with politics, just run-of-the-mill crime.) I'm assuming you agree with me that this is a possibility?

If do you agree, could you say which media sources you plan to rely on to resolve this market?

@Boklam the best and only trustworthy newspaper on the world is the Financial Times so I will us the FT reporting to resolve this. Neutral foreign editorial staff also eliminates chance of political bias.