Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote=AN]I don’t think anyone thinks Wall Street would be OK w/ Trump. Not even Trump’s supporters. That’s the whole point. Trump supporter thinks the system (including Wall Street and the Media) is rigged against them. So, this would just confirm their thinking. As for why Wall Street wants Hillary, it’s all about the devil we know vs the devil we don’t. It’s all about uncertainty that spook Wall Street. Nothing new there.[/quote]
Or maybe that Trump supporters think that the huge bailouts that corporate America gets may end under Trump, or that maybe special interest money that fuels certain industries may get redirected to other special interest groups.One thing institutional investors don’t like is the unknown (aka devil you know vs the devil you don’t know). To adjust their portfolios they don’t have to move thousands or tens of thousands of shares. They have to move millions – hopefully finding an institutional investor to pick up the shares so they can do the transaction off-market so it doesn’t show as a spike in transacted shares and spook the price (either down or up). Short term market price is not a good indicator of who is best (think voting machine), long term movement/price is (think weighing machine – I can’t claim these terms).
Participant[quote=ltsdd][quote=flu]What would be a total shock for the markets is if Trump still ends up winning…[/quote]
Huge sell-off in the first few minutes of the opening of the market. At which point, I will move all in.[/quote]
I’m voting for a bit longer on the drop should Trump win. He is a semi ‘unknown’ to the institutional investors, with two very public corporate bankruptcies.Put options might be a better way to handle it – use them to cover holdings that might be at risk should Trump get in – ie. Medical. Oil and non renewable might be a risk should Hillary get in.
Participant[quote=PCinSD]
Why are you stating the rape as fact? How very Bret Baier of you. Do you have some information that confirms these allegations? Did you notice that neither Hillary, nor the DNC ever alleged Trump was a child rapist? Why do you think that is?
[/quote]Part of the reason why is another name that is associated, ties back to Bill Clinton – Jeffrey Epstein (look it up). It would be a hand grenade that would blow up on Hillary’s face if she or the DNC decided to use this for political fodder.https://www.google.com/search?q=Epstein+clinton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
NOTE: Not that I am saying there is truth to the allegations, just that this association of names would be toxic to use for political fodder for either side. That the suits were dropped seems to indicate that they were unsupported or frivolous.
Participant[quote=flyer]Although I know this doesn’t apply to us Piggs, hopefully the voting masses realize the wealth gap issue may be the most critical issue they and their families will face in their lifetimes, especially since, under prior and current administrations, wealth inequality has continued to widen, and is predicted to continue to do so going forward per:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
The stats, going forward, will reveal whether our new leader can make a measurable difference in the lives of the masses or not.[/quote]
Liked the link, here is another interesting video on the same subject.PS: If you are not in the 1% indicated, which I think the Piggs probably aren’t – it actually may apply.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=La Jolla Renter]
FlyerInHI, roughly what percent of republicans do you consider racists? If you vote for Trump are you a racist?[/quote]Here’s what happened at Trump rally. The event speaks volumes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/trump-booted-a-black-man-from-his-rally-and-called-him-a-thug-turns-out-he-is-a-supporter/%5B/quote%5D
Maybe – His exit was weird, the guy was smiling all the way out. I got the feeling it was a setup. That the guy was not a supporter and was intentionally being disruptive. You might want to see this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5fQ9_uSuxw
Also observe the background. Racist?
If there is any possibility for something to get violent, I think the policy of escorting them out is the best way to avoid any problems.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
She has been the most vetted politician ever. She’s had paparazzi watching her for more than 20 years. Is she not permitted to have a private conversation with anyone? Ever? What do you think she’s telling them? Do you have any evidence of it? Do you have any evidence she’s ever been influenced to change the policies she’s supported because of undue influences? Ever? I’ll ask it again, so maybe you can try to answer the questions. If you can’t answer those questions, you don’t have a point, you have an unfounded conspiracy theory. That’s it.Go ahead and keep getting those signals from your tin foil hat.[/quote]
All of this has been brought up by more than I, yet you decide that you prefer an echo chamber – can’t help you there.ParticipantI don’t know if a first/second is such a good idea. It does depend upon how much total down he has. If his total financing is 80% or less, there is really no purpose for the second – just prepay the first. A second will come in at a higher interest rate (it is ‘second’ in the case of default, so a higher risk premium is associated).
Make sure the first does not have a prepayment penalty.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
What is the point? Who do you think the “elites” are? Names? Do you have evidence they have historically had undue influence on actual policies supported by the candidate? Absent the answers to those questions, you don’t have a point. You have a conspiracy theory which is worthy of nothing more than mockery.[/quote]All we have to do is look – and you see their money influence. You can choose to ignore, that is your choice. I can’t buy TV station advertisements like Tom Steyer – therefore I don’t have the same influence. There is one right off the top of my head. You don’t have to look far to see the effects of those with crazy wealth using their contacts, money to push agendas that you nor I could because of the lack of both.
I don’t have to prove jack – your wilful ignorance is not a defense or proof of your position.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
LOL, good one. Global elites? Who exactly is that? Some nefarious group running the world that stays hidden from public view?More cow bell. Less tin foil.[/quote]
BTW: Clinton has stated that she is the most transparent candidate – however she is using white noise generators when talking to her high value donors, so the outside world can’t catch what she is telling them. That is not transparency.Go ahead and put your head in the sand..
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
This is the first time anyone mentioned global elites here.
It’s interesting because around the world people say the people operating in the shadows are us, Americans, via the CIA.Is George Soros any more global elite than Sheldon Adelson?[/quote]
I would not say ‘us’ as a group, but that the ‘elite’ have undue influence, significantly more than you or I. Many of them also live within the United States.. so I would stand to look like it were the Americans (as a group, via the CIA) operating in the shadows.As for the second question, I would tend to feel that George Soros is more in the global elite than Sheldon Adelson.. though I would have to really think about it.
One thing that does concern me specifically about George Soros, is his involvement with voting machines. I don’t understand why the contract for them wasn’t thrown over to the universities like the ArpaNet was.
Oh yeah – Linky for the pedantic: http://www.infowars.com/petition-to-stop-george-soros-voting-machines-hits-100k/Personally – I really don’t like that announcer.
On the other hand, Sheldon Adelson has approx 33% greater net worth – which could count for influence. You also have to consider that it is not always pure wealth that is involved, but how well ‘connected’. NOTE: Not discounting wealth here though.
NOTE: I also know one is Republican, the other a Democrat. I also said that the public in general has been played one side against the other why the elite (both sides) do what they really intend while having the public at each other’s throats over stupid wedge issues.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=mixxalot]Hillary will steal the election and win even though Trump will win the popular vote. The global elites want their puppet to win.[/quote]
Good one.[/quote]
Actually Hillary is the elite’s puppet. She has gone so far as to use white noise generators to hide her meetings with global elites from the press.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748
A bunch of refs – just Google
https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+using+white+noise+generators[/quote]
LOL, good one. Global elites? Who exactly is that? Some nefarious group running the world that stays hidden from public view?
More cow bell. Less tin foil.[/quote]
You don’t address the point, instead resort to trying to mock the person making the point. Logic fallacy – personal attack proves nothing.That said, I didn’t say they run the world. I did say they are ‘elites’ and I am willing to add that they have undue influence in politics, but that influence is not absolute. Money influences, and lots of money can buy lots of influence.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=mixxalot]Hillary will steal the election and win even though Trump will win the popular vote. The global elites want their puppet to win.[/quote]
Good one.[/quote]
Actually Hillary is the elite’s puppet. She has gone so far as to use white noise generators to hide her meetings with global elites from the press.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-static-noise-speech_us_570930dae4b0836057a16748
A bunch of refs – just Google
https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+using+white+noise+generatorsTrump isn’t. He is too likely to say what is really on his mind – and probably at the wrong time, and maybe not too well thought out. This would be disastrous for the elites. Trump can be noisy, self-promoting, obnoxious – all things that the global elites don’t like because they don’t want attention drawn to them and prefer to operate in the shadows.
Participant[quote=harvey]
You and I must not live in the same country.The purpose of the first amendmendment is to protect everyone’s inalienable right to say whatever the fuck they want to say.
If you don’t like what “they” – the press – does, then start your own media enterprise. The first amendment lets you do that, same as anyone else.
[/quote]The problem comes down to campaign finance laws, and why the laws exist. The supreme court has also stated that there is a layer of responsibility to the exercise of the first amendment. You can’t yell fire (without there being a fire) in a crowded room, so it is not exactly being able to say w-e-t-f you want to. You are trying to do the equivalent of equating a person yelling through a very loud PA system to being of the same loudness of a person talking. Not Quite.
An individual has much smaller resources than does a large well backed organization. The problem becomes one of trying to upset the one person one vote through mis-information.
ParticipantI find the polls a bit questionable. I get really doubtful when the percentages change significantly day to day or week to week. It is almost like the poll ‘results’ are being used to drive the actual results through implied ‘group think’ – when thinking, deciding like the larger group is safer or perceived as being more ‘right’.
As for whether Trump will win.. don’t know. If Russia is involved with the leaks of Clinton’s Emails etc, they may then try to cause conflict within the United States by having Clinton win (by tampering) while also revealing facts that could result in her impeachment (the electronic voting machines are proven to be insecure, and California is only allotting enough paper ballots for 10% of the vote, if more than 10% go paper – they get a provisional ballot.). – in which case, if true, would really be an indictment against the press themselves because the whole purpose of the first amendment is to inform the public – not to try to lead them about by the nose. They should have been digging into some of Clinton’s issues instead of trying to dredge every last bit of crap from Trump’s background. It would have given the DNC impetus to look elsewhere and get a better candidate, forcing the GOP to do likewise – and Trump would not have appeared and we might all have been better off.
PS: As I have mentioned before, I have done Defense contracting work, and according to the documents I had to sign when getting a clearance AND when being ‘read into’ a program – Hillary definitely and knowingly violated the law when it comes to the handling of classified info. Part of the paperwork you sign includes documents on labeling of, and handling of classified info. The statute also states that negligence or not knowing is not an excuse. You also sign that you know how to and will responsibly handle the classified data under threat of prosecution (statutes that they are trying to throw against Snowden)
This is one weird election. I propose another scenario: Hillary wins, gets outed via Wikileaks, impeached, the VP then becomes pres…
-
AuthorPosts
