Politics are a “fun” part of American tradition where each side tires to paint their opponent in a negative light and the back and forth attacks can cloud out the main issues worth considering in making a choice.
It also reveals that no matter what is said, some people will stick with a person/party regardless of the attacks brought against them, which is also a bad thing. It’s important to make a decision based on critical thought rather than emotion if you want both the most effective leadership in power while having them know they will be judged on their actions and past history rather than just charisma or slick advertising. Emotional voting is one main reason why we never seem to nominate the most qualified deserving candidates.
This election cycle is one that will go down in history books as having two of the most polarizing people in recent history. It has been joked that each candidate has enough flaws that they should be thankful they have each other to run against. There is a huge segment of the population that will be voting against one of the candidates more so than voting for one.
While both Clinton and Trump elicit high emotion from people, it’s still rather straight forward to break down the true pros/cons of each to make a true logical and non emotional choice.
- 1st female candidate to be nominated for Prez in a major party.
- Extensive political background experience covering domestic and foreign relations.
- In favor of overturning “Citizens United” and getting big money out of politics
It’s a historical moment for a woman to be nominated in a major party, but of course one’s gender shouldn’t be ranked over one’s abilities. The capacity to handle the job should be the top concern.
One big plus is she is in favor of getting big money out of politics that is destroying our political system. Most of our politicians are bought out by corporate interests, which is why things seem to be getting worse over time no matter which party wins.
- Political choices made in conflict with Progressive movement.
- Unforced error in email controversy- heavily criticized by FBI in handling classified emails.
- Seen as the typical “quid pro quo”, pro corporate politician.
Years in the political arena has given Clinton that feel of squirmy politician who adjusts according to current public sentiment. Of course, this is no different than over 90% of out current elected candidates, and is the reason why the American public is growing so exasperated.
While she has extensive experience, her choices have not always aligned with Progressives. For example, she voted in favor of the disastrous/needless Iraq War as well as US involvement in Libya and Syria, all of which has caused compounded problems and more instability in the Middle East. The irony is her choices here have been more in line with Conservative strategy, so these are issues that Conservatives have no moral high ground to attack her on, but Progressives do.
The email server controversy was a ridiculous unforced error on her part because she decided on a private server rather than use the government server. The FBI clearly called her out as being very careless. To make matters worse, she attempted to try to explain that the scathing FBI report was a good thing and showed she was honest when in fact it contradicted several statements she made in the past about sending/receiving marked and unmarked classified documents. Doing things like this only justifies the “Crooked Hillary” nickname given by Trump.
She was paid for speeches to Goldman Sachs that she is unwilling to release, indicating they must be pro corporation and embarrassing.
I left out the Benghazi controversy because I don’t hold this to be a true issue. Embassies have been attacked and/or lives lost on the watch of both Reps and Dems (Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama), only now we live in such a polarized environment that every tragedy is held under a microscope to find fault. Past administrations would fare no better if held under the same level of scrutiny.
- Lots of business experience
- Not afraid to speak his mind
- Against Citizens United
Trump steps up to the plate with extensive experience in real estate and name brand recognition. As a businessman, he has direct practical experience on the state of the economy. He also ran a near flawless campaign against his Republican opponents during the primaries.
The fact that he was able to beat seasoned politicians should also be a warning to our elected officials that the American public is growing weary of the same old tired politics where much is promised and little is delivered.
One of the things that stood out about Trump is the fact that he didn’t sound “scripted” like the other seasoned politicians he faced. His answers sounded off the cuff and wasn’t afraid to call out the faults of his fellow Republicans. Now compare that to the standard political talk we hear, and it sounded refreshing.
He has stated real problems that other Republicans seem to ignore like the loss of manufacturing jobs to outsourcing- a populist stance more associated with Progressives.
He has also taken a stand against big money in politics, but not to the same level as Progressives. Big money corruption is mutually hated by base Dems and Reps.
- Has seriously insulted or threatened numerous demographics of ethnicities/religions.
- Won’t release his Tax returns – breaking ranks with all other Pres nominees in modern history.
- Trump has his own set of legal problems with lying/fraud with Trump University.
- There is no “Trump 2.0” for the general election.
- Wants to repeal “Obamacare” without showing/offering a superior replacement.
I could clearly see Trump winning the primary race because he was willing to be more extreme than all his rivals. He moved to the far right- more so than his opponents were willing to go because they had enough experience to know that to win a general election, you have to appeal to more than just your base. His opponents failed to call out his extremist viewpoints in the beginning and it then became silent approval from which they couldn’t recover from.
The key moment in the primary was when Trump labeled the majority of illegal Mexican immigrants as drug users/pushers, criminals, and rapists. That should have been immediately called out and condemned by all candidates, but they stayed silent for the most part.
The anti illegal Mexican statement was bad enough, but he proceeded to make even more extremist statements such as:
- Banning all Muslims from entering the US
- Did not disavow FDR’s use of Japanese-American internment camps.
- Bringing back globally defined torture such as water boarding.
- Killing the families of known terrorists.
- Claiming a Mexican-American judge can’t do his job because of his ethnic background.
Making statements like these may be well received as red meat to a Conservative base, but it makes it very hard to pivot towards the center in a general election to win over moderates and Independents. This is where we get to another critical problem of his campaign- he has continued making extremist statements since being nominated and hasn’t pivoted at all. There doesn’t appear to be a polished, more refined and “presidential” Trump able to appeal to a wider audience than his initial primary base. This is bad news for Republicans in general because without building a consensus vote, the odds of winning an election drop like a rock.
Some current examples of Trumps continued offensive/outrageous statements:
- Attacking Muslim gold star family whose son died defending our country.
- Calling Obama/Clinton the founders of ISIS.
- Making statements that can be construed as threatening the life of his opponent Clinton.
You simply can’t act in this manner if the main goal is be the adult in the room and build a working consensus among all groups. Worse yet, he’s now making statements of the “system being rigged” so that if he loses, the election must be illegitimate. This is a direct danger to our Republic since he is priming his group of followers to consider the election to be a fraud if he doesn’t win. This will only further fracture our political system and make the polarization that much worse. Trump is attacking the very legitimacy of our democratic process on baseless claims.
As a result of his continued bombastic statements, more and more prominent Republicans have started coming out denouncing him. These are interesting times people when members of a party are now publicly campaigning against their Prez nominee. Interesting times indeed! What they fear is the outrage against Trump will result in down ballot losses for all Republicans in general.
Lastly, he can’t claim to be “transparent” or more honest than Clinton if he refuses to disclose his tax returns. Trump claims he can’t because he is currently being audited. However Warren Buffet has given him a challenge that he is also being audited but wants Trump to join him in showing their returns.
“Brexit”, the media created cutesy lingo for the British referendum on whether to stay with or leave the European Union. I’ve heard it discussed backwards and forwards and sideways throughout the days, weeks, and months leading up to the vote that just took place.
Despite all the fear mongering and artificially induced drama by the media, I never actually considered the possibility of Britain actually leaving the EU. It seemed so absurd that there would be enough people that would want to turn the clock back with actions that will surely spawn negative unintended consequences.
Well, I was proven wrong tonight as polling states that the vote for Britain to leave is expected to be the winning consensus.
I’m not the only one caught by surprise, as the futures markets are roiling with a nice big fat after hours crash that will translate into crashed markets on the open Friday. The value of the Pound has plummeted. The majority of businesses were counting on a “stay” vote winning, and this just adds a boatload of uncertainty for both Britain and the EU going forward.
I truly believed Britons had more common sense than this. Color me wrong.
There will be lots of analysis on how this wound up happening, but it’s likely due to the same old things that breed surprise outcomes:
- Voter apathy – which favors those who have more motivation, typically the conservative vote. People love to complain about government and politics and then find other things to do when it comes down to taking the time to cast a vote.
- Low information votes- people voting on something without doing their due diligence to figure out the true pros/cons of their choices. What are the odds that the majority of people who voted YES on leaving did so out of xenophobia and border control without thinking through the economic consequences of their actions.
- Media stupidity of focusing mostly on ratings rather than trying to educate people on the actual facts rather than false arguments and hyperbole.
The irony is the first unintended consequence of this action besides crashing global markets will likely be layoffs as British companies retrench over fears that current trade agreements are now in flux.
Trump’s win in Indiana coupled with Ted Cruz dropping out of the race all but ensures Trump’s eventual clinching of the GOP’s Republican Presidential nomination, leaving all the pundits who never fathomed such a scenario in their wildest dreams stunned, and scratching their heads.
This election cycle has been a perfect case study of why you shouldn’t trust the “experts” when it comes to making assessments/predictions. We’ve seen in the 2008/2009 market crash that the vast majority of political and economic “insiders” had no idea of that approaching crisis and certainly gave no warning to investors.
This time just about all the so called political guru’s completely missed the rise of Trump and his ability to stay afloat regardless of what he says no matter how inflammatory. They are flummoxed about his ability to withstand increased scrutiny and a biased assault of press related articles against him, attempting to write him off in hopes that the polling numbers would follow, which they didn’t.
Even worse, having missed the boat on predicting the ascendancy of Trump’s campaign, they have the audacity of now writing articles on explaining how this came to pass- like anyone should pay attention to the same folks that were completely oblivious to his sustainability in the first place.
Simply psychology can explain the Trump phenomenon. People are angry at Washington and the constant failure of their elected officials to live up to their promises. In their frustration they seek someone not yet “tainted” by the system that constantly overpromises and underdelivers. They are now ready to pick an outsider over the political insiders.
Trump remains on top due to his public persona of brashness/arrogance towards the establishment. The more he is attacked, the more he fits the role as the “rebel” of politics to all his supporters, which increases his appeal. It’s very similar to the daughter who is dating a “bad boy” and the more the parents admonish and scold her to let him go, the more attractive he becomes to her.
The “experts” ask, how can Trump supporters be so oblivious to all the negative things he has said as well as his past flip flops on opinions? Why doesn’t this exposure change their mind? The answer is they have made an emotional choice based on their resentment of their elected politicians as well as his positive message on better times ahead with bringing back outsourced jobs and good times in general, and are ignoring/rejecting anything else said, period. Back to the daughter/bad boy example- how many times will she be “persuaded” with a list of rational cogent reasons why the guy she is dating is a bad match? How many times have your parents persuaded you to change your mind after you became passionate/excited about something or someone?
The “experts” asked, why did Marco Rubio fail to beat Trump at his own game of childish attacks/insults? The answer is you can’t imitate someone’s “brand” and expect to beat them with it. It’s the equivalent to the school valedictorian/nerd taking off his suit/tie, and putting on a leather jacket to try to woo the daughter away from the bad boy. All that does is make you look like a “wannabe” as well as corrupts the “brand” you stood for. Notice how Cruz and Kasich didn’t take the bait to go into the mud, and how they continued to poll higher than Rubio before he dropped out.
Now these “experts” are saying in 20-20 hindsight Rubio made a mistake in fighting Trump in the mud when they were the ones who suggested he should do it! The lesson here is to be true to yourself, or at least “appear” that way. =)
Tonight we know that not even the behind the scenes 3D Chess Level strategy of Ted Cruz or his team up with Kasich was enough to stop Trump’s growing momentum.
This election season is one for the history books – that a non political outsider could take out a field of seasoned elected professionals that were way more funded and entrenched in the system than he ever was, and ride a populist wave to the Republican nomination turns all conventional wisdom and expert analysis on its ear. We live in interesting times!
My trading style uses fairly tight stop loss settings, which demands that my entries be pretty accurate with a small margin of error. In some trading circles, this would be seen as being “amateurish” for not allowing your trade to have breathing room to deal with the range of market volatility. Of course, most of those same trading circles view the market as mostly random in the short term that must be met with a ball park entry with a wide stop loss.
I used to trade with wide stop loss settings, or threw caution to the wind with “mental stops” rather than actual programmed stops. The market can gyrate so much that it’s an easy habit to get into. The market rarely moves in a straight line and can drift back and forth before making a definitive move in a particular direction. When stops are tight, it’s easy for price to move just enough against you to trip the stop loss before moving in the anticipated direction. This often happens enough to be a common frustrating experience among traders.
Using wide stops gives you more leeway when in a trade, but that also means your losses will be greater when they are tripped. Of course some traders don’t use stops at all- as that guarantees you will never be whipsawed out of a trade, but that also leaves you without protection if the market makes a big move against your position.
Not using stops is high risk, yet most traders including myself have engaged in such behavior due to the frustrations of getting whipsawed out of trades that would have eventually worked. But eventually the Grim “Stopless” Reaper cometh and will make you pay for not using stops. Eventually one learns to incorporate hard exits via stops, or the market will do it for you with severe losses that can blow out your account.
Over time I’ve learned that while using stops can be frustrating, and using tight stops VERY frustrating, it forces you to really focus on your trading system to find ways of improvement. Typically when a trade is entered that doesn’t work out, it’s one of three things:
- System is correct, but market had a random spike/dip due to some late breaking news.
- System is correct but the application of system was wrong.
- System has flaws that need to be worked out.
Out of most events encountered, #1, is VERY rare, while #2 is more common and #3 is typically the most common. One could say that #2 is a subset of #3 since proper execution is also part of the system.
I’ve been working on precision trading, where one can trade the daily battle between resistance and support with a fair amount of accuracy so as to not need to use wide area stops. Using tight stops and the ensuing failed trades and frustrations that resulted were actually great motivation in improving my trading system.
I find that my post trade analysis of failed trades have been responsible for the bulk of my trading system evolution. Preparation and planning can only go so far but I seem to be able to pick up so many more fine details of what went right and wrong when the analysis is done right after the trade is finished- likely because my plan is fresh in memory so it’s easier to pinpoint the aberrations. It’s a great feeling to spot a problem that was previous missed that when fixed, improves the accuracy of my system.
It’s a lesson I like to forget – that failure is a part of progress, since it opens the window for improvement. To get the best out of failing, it helps tremendously to have a clear and concise system trading plan that you can back track step by step to see what went wrong as well as what went right. A big mistake I’ve seen other traders make is “winging” trade entries in real time without a clear plan of specific entry and exit strategy. The point of system trading is the eliminating of seat of your pants “ad lib” style trading.
This election cycle has never been clearer in showing just how much the mainstream media works in projecting their own bias against threats to the status quo. Trump from the beginning was continually put in a negative light and written off as non serious no matter what the polls showed about his sustained popularity, and they finally had to change course once he started winning elections.
For, Bernie Sanders, the treatment has been one of largely being ignored compared to the attention given to the other major candidates running such as Clinton, Bush, Cruz, Trump, Rubio, etc..
Like Trump, many of the articles that did feature Sanders were cast in a negative light favoring Clinton over him. The Washington Post was caught running a marathon string of negative articles against Sanders – 16 of them in 16 hours.
The most recent egregious example of another so-called established and principled source, the NY Times, got caught making changes to an article they had already released that was so significant to change the tone of the article from a positive to negative/dismissive. What’s worse, they left no “editorial updates” or revisions to let people know a change had been made- just significantly changing an article that had already been released on the fly, as if they were “motivated” to make these “corrections” after the fact.
Did they not think they wouldn’t be called out on this, which certainly appears to be driven by partisan politics? The NY Times is claiming no wrongdoing, but even their public editor, Margaret Sullivan, disagrees.
And yet another stake is driven through the heart of the belief of an unbiased “Fourth Estate” that is supposed to serve the public interest.
Links to all the info:
In your life and in the world are many injustices. Let your response to those injustices be positive action, to make a difference, rather than uncontrolled anger.
Source: Beyond anger
The GOP is taking their opposition to Obama to new heights with the decision to not hold any hearings for a Supreme Court nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley are united in their stance to not hold any hearings until a new President is elected.
Some Republicans have attempted to argue that this type of blocking has been done in the past, but in reality this has never been done to a sitting president with close to a year left in office.
What this action does is basically nullify a President’s FULL last year in office, which is a subversion of the will of the people as well as the Constitution in the name of political gaming.
If this action is allowed to stand, it will set a new dark precedent in obstruction when it comes to mixed government. Every two years a “stunt” like this could be pulled by either side with claims that major appointments and bills should be ignored until the election cycle is over. Our already hobbled government would function even worse than ever before.
It’s understandable why the GOP wants to avoid the nomination process- it poses high risk for GOP Senators in purple States if they vote against qualified candidates for no good reason. Meanwhile, their fellow Senators in hard-right leaning States fear getting the boot if they approve any pick from Obama. Those are indeed tough prospects to face, but it’s no excuse to just stop doing their job. All elections have consequences and one can’t just go on a work strike because the election results were not favorable.
Senator Elizabeth Warren provides her own scathing commentary on the damages of continued GOP obstruction:
A tale of woe and caution against excessive risk taking.
Most traders/investors are well acquainted with the warnings against shorting stocks, and many choose not to do so. Those that do, should obviously employ judicious risk management, which seems to be MIA in this case.
Before I provide the link to the story- here’s a primer of some of the dos and don’ts of short selling that were not heeded:
- Avoid penny stocks
- Don’t short in the hole
- Don’t over leverage
- Overnight positions carry much more risk
- Respect the market
- Penny stocks- stocks that are very low in value such as a few bucks or less are typically pretty volatile as they are avoided by institutional buyers and therefore typically lack volume and is subject to being manipulated by buying/selling spikes. Risky to be long, but much risker to be short since gains are limited as the stock is already near the floor.
- This refers to shorting a stock after it has already dropped precipitously. Much higher risk of a reversal move at this point.
- One can typically buy on margin, meaning the brokerage will loan you money based on the amount in your account. In order to short you must be on margin as you are selling stock you don’t own and must repurchase. As such, taking on too many shares can result in being over leveraged and at risk for bigger losses. People sometimes forget that leverage works two ways, but they only focus on the potential gains rather than losses.
- Once the market closes, anything can happen news wise that can affect the price of the stock. Day trading minimizes risk of exposure by having positions closed at the end of the day. A good rule of thumb is market = risk, so shorting overnight = more risk.
- The market has more firepower than your account by a wide margin and can vaporize it if you allow it to. As such, you have to manage risk.
So what did this guy do:
He shorted over 5700 shares of a penny stock at $2, thinking it would go to $0, and left it on past the market trading session.
……and this is what ensued: