BCreed1

quote:

---

Using your own example:

---

But you didn't use my own example. You used a part of it and demand that it be what you are presenting. When in reality I gave you the numbers of AMZN over the past 52 weeks and showed you that like EVERY OTHER STOCK... they all move up and down.

Why ignore that?

quote:

---

And this absolutely would have crushed you during real secular runs. Try systematically selling calls during the massive multi-year runs in Amazon or Nvidia. You’d have been consistently called away and repeatedly chasing higher.

---

You are full of shite! Dude I own both of those and SNDK which has been on a hard run!

quote:

---

“I’ve traded for 20 years” doesn’t change the payoff diagram. If you could truly capture unlimited upside and premium at scale with no tradeoff, you wouldn’t be arguing on a message board (you’d be a PM at a top hedge fund).

---

LMAO!...... Dumbarse!

quote:

---

If you own the index, you get unlimited upside and can ride out drawdowns over time. If you sell 0DTE puts, your upside is capped at the tiny premium

---

No. It's just wrong. I own many stocks that I sell options on every week and have for well over a decade.

One is AMZN purchased at $104. I sell calls weekly and have from the start. I still own it. So, no it's not capping anything. On the few times I have been assigned, I simply sold puts with the idea of purchasing at the assigned price.

The filibuster was never actually "created" by the Founding Fathers—it was essentially an accidental loophole that appeared in 1806. Since then, the Senate has overhauled the rules several times to rein in obstruction, usually during moments of national crisis or extreme gridlock.


Majority Leader Harry Reid used a parliamentary maneuver (the "nuclear option") to change the rules. In oither words, 50+1. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell used it.


So pardon me for seeing past the "Opposes any move seen as breaking filibuster rules". They are lying POS that are either being pid or are IGNORANT and need to be removed.

quote:

---

quote:
Why would the Arab states have a problem with Iran being taken down?



Believe it or not, tourism is a growing part of the Arab state economies (4-12% of their respective GDPs). While O&G still obviously dominates they are trying to grow their tourism industry. Missiles flying over their skies tends to quell not only the tourism industry but all economic sectors in the region.

---

Nah. they want Iran to change for the reasons you listed. They will be ok with Iran falling.

quote:

---

There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs but are Americans willing to take some of the good with the bad? It would seem like the "tariffs are the worst" and the "tariffs are the greatest thing ever" baws are both not painting the bigger picture.

---

I think this is the over all picture of people here.

- All of us wish the world was a perfect place and we were all on the same level playing field where free trade could be what it was sold to be. But time has proven that it's not.

- One group promotes tariffs being an evil communistic tool. This group of people ignore our history. They have never be able to rectify that thought with the fact that the USA has always had tariffs nor that it was the way the Fed Gov was funded. It just simply an evil communist thing because that's the talking point they believe will win people to their side.

- The other side are those that have looked at the complete picture. They se the bad to tariffs and the good of tariffs and have reached a conclusion that they are needed to some degree. That degree is up for debate. This group seems deeply concerned about the future of the USA and it's ability to survive.


Personally, I do not mind tariffs. My reasons are simple. Protect the interests of the USA. That means all things related to national security and jobs. We are going to need them. With automation, robots, and AI, we are either going to have to have jobs re-shored or universal income. I do not want the later.

I also have gone deep into the cultural shift that is 100% due to free trade. Perfect example is everything that China has purchased within our own boarders. They made John Cena apologize for saying Taiwan is a nation.

All of that goes back to the 45 stated goals of communism for the USA. Read them. Look at the differences it has made due to those goals being accomplished.

Group 1 says free trade is the most efficient while ignore the massive shift in our nation.

Group 2 says certain free trade has caused more harm than good. Yes we got cheaper products but at what cost?


Group 1 says that job losses don't mater because other jobs opened up.. like box store jobs.

Group 2 says those jobs pale in comparison and it did not have to be 1 or the other. We did not have to lose jobs to invent tech. That's just a stupid argument.


ETC ETC

CNBC would be wrong. Our issue is the wide trade gap/deficit.

A trade deficit that is small to moderate is 100% ok. We have a very large one and we have had it for a very long time.

A large trade deficit is not just an accounting entry. It is a structural force that compels the U.S. to expand its money supply. The mechanism is a cycle of debt monetization, where the Federal Reserve essentially "prints" money to keep the system from collapsing under the weight of the very debt used to pay for the trade gap.

During the first three years of the Trump administration, manufacturing did see a notable rebound after years of stagnation.

The "Manufacturing Boom": From 2017 to late 2018, the US added approximately 450,000 manufacturing jobs. This was fueled by corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which encouraged some "reshoring" (bringing production back to the US).

This term, you are wrong too. While factory jobs dipped in 2025, manufacturing construction jobs hit record highs. This is because companies are building new plants in the US to avoid future tariffs, even if they haven't started hiring the assembly-line workers yet.

We are going to see a shift from a very large deficit gap (which has us in major debt) to a small to moderate deficit.

quote:

---

ignoring the obvious that this needs to go through Congress

---

Not per the SCOTUS.. LOL

And Trump put them right back in place and the market did what? LOL