User Avatar

ArbitrageSupreme45

Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:13
Registered on:8/16/2022
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

I’m all for boycots. I’ve purged my house from as many Disney products as possible (But I just reminded myself that I need to find an alternative to Hulu.)




Uh, Disney had a fantastic quarterly earnings in Q3. They're doing very well - it seems like the 'vocal' internet users boycotting Disney aren't the vast majority of Americans/people.

LINK

quote:

Zealots gonna zealot.


I'm hardly a zealot for pointing out that Republican primary voters aren't reflective of the general voter base.

No shite Republican primary voters like Trump. I'm not sure who is denying this but a primary election in freaking Wyoming isn't going to be reflective of voters in Michigan or Wisconsin for example.

Wyoming is obviously going to go for Trump. If it makes me a zealot for pointing out the obvious, I don't give a damn.
Cheney lost a Republican primary in one of the most Trump-voting states in the country.

I'm not sure you can read much more into it other than Republican primary voters like Trump.

It's hardly reflective of the general electorate - for starters, the general electorate will be be significantly different than a Republican primary in a deep red state i.e. the most Trump-y voters in America.

quote:

This question was posed to you because you seem to *think* that this has nothing to do with Joe Biden.


I've got no idea and I've not claimed otherwise.

It's why I said the issue should be investigated - and the issue is currently being investigated by the Delaware attorney general. That's the whole point of an investigation.

LINK
quote:

You think a crackhead got a job with a Ukrainian energy company while his father was in the White House all in his own?



Isn't this the point of *investigating*?

Much like the DoJ is investigating Trump, there is an investigation into Hunter Biden currently open.

quote:

You think a crackhead got a job with a Ukrainian energy company while his father was in the White House all in his own?


This is the point of investigating. It shouldn't matter what I *think* because investigations aren't about what I personally think.

quote:

Because trump was impeached at the very mention of investigating a political rivals son


No he wasn't.

He was impeached because of the quid-pro-quo.

If he had instructed the DoJ to investigate (with independence), he wouldn't have been impeached.

quote:

"Ok yes Hunter is a crackhead who is on tape committing dozens of crimes and who made foreign business deals solely because people wanted access to his VP-now-POTUS father. But no, there is no reason for anyone to worry about the fact that a known and compromised criminal is hanging out on AF1 with the POTUS all the time."



So punish Hunter then? I'm confused at your point.

The DoJ is investigating Hunter and if Hunter is guilty, he should be punished. Similarly, the DoJ should investigate if Trump is guilty.

How exactly does this support your point in any aspect?

quote:

The flip may be due to degree types. The '90s seem to have higher concentration of STEM and business degrees. Women's Studies was not that popular during the '90s. Plus a majority of women have college degrees now versus the '90s and women tend to vote Democrat more than men.


But this doesn't explain why higher earners are switching to Democrats when this is a group that normally votes for Republicans.

Voters making over $100k in 2020 voted for Biden by over 13 points. That's a landslide for Biden if only affluent voters were allowed to vote.

Romney won voters making over $100k by huge margins. Trump was the first Republican politician to lose voters making over $100k a year.

Edit:

LINK

You can click '2016-2020 Validated Voter Detailed Tables' and it will show voter breakdown by income.

Voters making between $50k and $100k voted for Trump by 5 points.

Voters making over $100k voted for Biden by 13 points.

Voters making under $50k voted for Biden by 9 points.

So Trump won middle-income voters, lost high-income voters and lost low-income voters.



quote:


Not sure your want to go there with all the Popeyes chicken and church’s chicken around the south.


LINK

College-educated whites and non-college-educated whites have a pretty big difference in obesity rates. You're lumping college-educated whites (a demographic that voted for Biden by over 22 points according to Pew) and non-college-educated whites (a demographic who voted for Trump by over 30 points). The difference between non-college-educated and college-educated whites is pretty significant - once you remove the college-educated white voters, the obesity rate becomes much more similar.

The link below shows you that college-educated voters were far less likely to be obese than non-college-educated voters (Figure 2).

LINK

College-educated women have half the obesity rate that non-college-educated women do. Similarly, college-educated men are far less likely to be obese than non-college-educated voters.

Democrats both have Black voters who are more likely to be obese but they also have college-educated white voters and Asian voters who were some of the least likely to be obese people.



Did you read any of those studies?

One of them is regarding politicians, we're talking about voters.

And every single one of those studies tries to control for age. But that's not how comparing attractiveness works - young people overwhelmingly voted for Democrats last election and it's statistically obvious that young people are more attractive than old people (old men wouldn't try dating young women otherwise).

By trying to control for age, you're not really comparing attractiveness of the overall voter groups.
quote:

Maybe with...how do you define "investor"?


To be fair, calling yourself an investor if you're a trader would trigger anyone who works at an investment firm and calls themselves an investor.

It's borderline idiotic but my firm pretty much doesn't hire people who call themselves traders or say they 'trade' lol. People who work in buy-side asset management get very bitter/salty when people call themselves investors when they trade, not invest.






What?

There's plenty to be bullish about. 

1) GDP projection is expected to be positive this quarter.

2) The FED is going to ease of interest rate hikes and economists are projecting a much lower rate of interest than the one that was originally proposed

3) Net investment flow has been positive over the past week I suspect.
I didn't check Bloomberg today but I'll log into the firm's terminal tomorrow.

I suspect net investment flow is positive over the past month in regards to equities - on the whole, investors aren't liquidating their equity positions.

Picking out individual investors liquidating certain portions of their portfolio doesn't mean anything. Michael Burry is pretty much a joke in the investment community - he got 2008 right and has been wrong ever since.

In my opinion, if you look at FED projections, GDP expectations are positive for this quarter so most firms are not pricing in recessions or contractions in real GDP. A reduction in consumer spending this quarter will be counteracted by an increase in government spending.