I don’t think you do, because you didn’t invest slowly at regular intervals over time (unless you lied), you said you invested everything in one stock….lucky for you early when it was reasonably priced ($25?), and suggested to anyone that would listen that they sell everything and go all in all at once even when Tesla was over $400 a share. That’s the exact opposite of dollar cost averaging. Derp. It’s like I know you better than you know yourself…because I paid attention and remember what you said last week/month/year.

You improvident lackwit. When will you stop making predictions? I don’t think you’ve been correct 2% of the time.

Dow’s up 869 points this month, stocks sound pretty good to me. What new bank failed? I see no new failure. I wonder if you understand why the last two failed….hint, it starts with “der” and ends with “egulation”, and was a pure Trump Republican plan passed in 2018 because they had forgotten 2008 already, or wanted to repeat it.

Too busting? Do you mean too busty? I don’t understand the attempted insult… I don’t even understand the concept of “too busty”…but you should know it’s impossible for you to successfully insult me because I would have to value your opinion first.
If I were to put on a drag show for kids, you better believe it would be snap, crackle, and popping…but it’s really not my scene. I prefer my drag queens to be English and of the Python variety, but that’s just a matter of taste.
Don’t you find it odd that drag shows are suddenly such a problem for the far right?
They’re not new.
Many MANY far right politicians that are now suddenly outraged at drag shows enjoyed going to them, organized them, or performed in them themselves at one time. The right could even support them publicly in the 70’s and 80’s. Can you explain why are you ALL suddenly such insecure snowflakes now that, like alcoholics with booze, you can’t stand to be reminded drag shows and homosexuals exist and went all in on some misguided unpopular unconstitutional temperance movement? Why it’s suddenly such an impossible-to-ignore temptation for you? Somehow Trump? Maybe it’s just that your ilk needs a target to scapegoat for your failures and they’re the latest relatively powerless target….yeah…just maybe.

Aaaaahahahahaha!! Trump is threatening to sue CNN for saying he’s a big liar spreading his big lie. His claim….it’s his “belief”, so when he says it he’s not lying…not that it’s true, not that he can prove it, just that he believes the lie and that magically makes it not a lie.
He will never sue because 1) he has no case at all 2) he’s terrified of discovery and they would gain access to all the Jan 6 documentation he’s hidden from the committee, and 3) it’s a slapp lawsuit, which he would lose badly and be forced to pay millions in restitution and punitive damages for a frivolous lawsuit designed to silence critics….to anyone he sues.

Derp! What a sad, powerless little bully, enraged that no one takes his threats seriously anymore.

Also, his Saudi Arabia PR golf tournament is losing him so much Republican support. The FBI has said definitively that the Saudi government was directly involved in 9/11…not just the 15/19 terrorists being Saudis, but Saudi intelligence agents supplied them with funding, lodging, and “travel assistance”.
Trump was well aware of this, but chose to keep it secret to protect the crown prince and billions in arms sales. Biden declassified this information and stopped protecting those that attacked America.
Birds of a feather….no wonder Trump likes the terroristic draconian Saudis. I wonder how 9/11 Rudy feels about it.

Side note, the sedition caucus voted against helping victims of human trafficking. Their press conference celebrating protecting perpetrators of human trafficking was disrupted when Gaetz was asked if he’s a pedophile and instead of answering “no” he and the rest literally ran away in fear.

Second side note- Republican senator Mike Braun has said the quiet part out loud and proclaimed the right’s next move is to make interracial marriage a state right, not federally guaranteed, so states whose legislature is controlled by Republicans who are against it can ban it, just like abortion. I’m sure you won’t admit you see that as racist, but everyone else does.
Next comes voting rights for non whites and women, they need to be barefoot in the field, or barefoot, pregnant, and always silent and submissive anyway, right?

This is one of those cons that's so bad it actually helps it's own spread.

His entire premise depends on folks buying in that 'Science" was duped into a bad 'definition' for the origins of oil at some committee meeting. You have to accept that for the next 100 years, the entire scientific community was powerlessly bound by this committee decision.

The reason that's so effective is the same as the scam emails rife with typos and bad grammar. He immediately is limiting his audience after that point to folks who didn't nope out already at that point. Targeted marketing at any audience vulnerable to whatever snake oil pitch he's ultimately selling.

Who appoints a judge has nothing to do with their authority, good for you or all those Trump judges would be powerless come January....besides which, Brann is a registered Republican and a former member of the conservative Federalist Society. There's no appeal, he ruled Trump had no standing to bring the lawsuit, no evidence, and no case.

Trump lost by a landslide of over 7 million votes...verified legal votes. Be a man, not a crybaby sore loser, and come to terms with it. He lost. Bipartisan election officials have certified in every state that there was no democratic cheating scheme, OAN and Newsmax are lying to you. He was ahead only if you don't count Democratic votes. He's never had a single victory by vote. Never.

Just lost his Nevada challenge too....not that it matters. Pennsylvania clinches it for Biden.
Edit: and Michigan and Georgia.

What did Trump do in 4 years to secure election integrity. According to you, less than nothing and both elections under Trump were disasters. He claimed massive fraud from day one, spent millions investigating, yet found none and did nothing to stop any.
Who doesn't care about election security? Democrats tried multiple times to create an unchangeable paper trail of every vote, Republicans blocked it and every other plan to make elections more secure. You are again confused about which party tried to act to protect America and which blocked protections.

He clearly suggested something totally illegal, you call it playing the media.
Again, subverting democracy doesn't cross your line if it triggers some liberals. Unbelievably unpatriotic, antidemocratic, and anti American.

It's not a flaw if they catch them all, which is easy since everyone has a personal serial number for mail in or in person, checked before the ballot counts. Trying to vote a second time is a felony, no matter your reason.

He did say vote twice. Mail it in, then go check if they counted it yet, and if not vote again. That's a felony, I think it's a felony to tell people to do it. He's hoping to invalidate the election, or at least set up an excuse in case he loses. Massive fraud. No matter that it's by his direction.

If you're going to in person polls anyway, why would anyone try to mail in too except to try to vote twice....there's no reason besides to attempt fraud, no matter what you say.

It could lead to cheating, but not successfully. Because your mail in vote hasn't been scanned yet doesn't mean it's not delivered. When the massively understaffed polls have time to scan all the ballots, which may take days or more if the post office can't handle the load, as long as they're postmarked before the deadline they count. They'll catch the double voters that tried to cheat the system as he's suggesting. Getting caught doesn't make it a non crime. Don't play stupid.
If I steal your wallet but you catch me and get it back, I still stole it, didn't I. I'm sure you agree if hundreds of my friends and I mob rob a store and get caught, we still stole, right? Saying we were just checking their security isn't an excuse, is it? Looters are just checking the security levels in their areas so it's fine, right?
No?!?
Same goes for double voting. If two ballots reach the county office for counting votes that one person cast, they're a felon in most states, just an unpatriotic enemy of democracy and a criminal in a few. I'm just checking to see if it's possible to get away with isn't an excuse for crimes.

I only hope that anyone caught R or D not only gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but loses both votes not just one, and their right to vote. That only seems proper, wouldn't you agree? They're criminals, felons trying to subvert democracy. At least Trump is stupid enough to spill the beans on this scheme in time to put extra safeguards in place. I hope that includes tent prisons to house you all.

Testing the security of an election as a private citizen in any way that ends in casting your vote twice is illegal everywhere.

Of course, the FEC is intentionally understaffed so even if this obvious, open ploy to cheat by Trump leads to massive voter fraud as a campaign feature, they're powerless to even determine it's criminal much less charge anyone, it's been that way Trump's entire term, intentionally. He hasn't tried to fill the empty seats. He needs them toothless so he can safely cheat and steal.

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

Not sure that's the analogy you want to go for, what with the counter being to describe how we behave once we grow up...

You are describing women as powerless and perpetual victims, which I think is offensive to women. You then basically say that two wrongs make a right because victims should be allowed to create new victims if it helps them...

Reasonable people disagree with you. If that puts me in the 'wrong' camp, and means I deserve ridicule and attack, you're the problem, not me.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

@newtboy

Your being dishonest and unfair to people with stuff like this:
"predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher."
and
"people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys.

I saw an op-ed in the nytimes back when the supreme court nomination was hot and had hoped the author's opinion were a minority. Segments of this Daily Show clip and your own feedback make rethink that. The op-ed wanted to concisely show how dangerously right wing and extremist current Justice Roberts was. To do this, the author stated that the Justice own chilling rationale for one of his decisions should tell us everything we need to know about him: "To stop discrimination based upon race, we need to stop discriminating based upon race"

Being insulting and dismissive of people's frustrations at being racially discriminated against as your post appears to do just makes for more division still.

1) Yes, but that's much more easily said than done, and many people disagree too. I feel that it's far cheaper to pay to educate other people's children (I have none) and have them become far more productive citizens than it is to insist (despite all evidence to the contrary) that hard work overcomes all obstacles, and everyone is capable of doing the work required for success. This theory removes responsibility to help others and puts blame squarely on those who've failed. Convenient, but just wrong.

2) In a vacuum, that makes sense, but not in real life. The refusal to acknowledge the disparities in opportunity to prepare for that singular performance is where the racism lies.
It's actually illegal to use just race over performance merit in most places as I understand it. Ethnicity/gender are usually only one small part of the equation. If they could be replaced with a numerical opportunity score, used to modify performance scores,
I would support that, but good luck figuring that one out to anyone's satisfaction.

3) Yes, people always resent being forced from a position of power. I do think it's important to constantly revisit the issue to insure policy doesn't foster inequities, particularly since that's the point of the policies, eradicating inequities.

4) Predicting the naive would be suckered by a professional con man telling them platitudes, sure, but predicting so many of the educated would go along for short sighted, purely tribal reasoning, that's tougher.

5) Certain groups of people have been claiming white men are the downtrodden powerless whipping boys since the 60's. It's getting closer to true, but we aren't near there yet, it just seems that way to those less socially powerful than their fathers. Sure, there are outliers where the white male gets the shaft due to race, but we still come out well ahead in the balance by any objective set of criteria..

Racism-prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
-the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

....I absolutely hate the bastardized definition you gave, because it's flatly wrong and just an excuse for horrid behavior.
Edit: the statement "I feel "racism against whites" is not only currently impossible, but the idea is inherently racist. " is inherently racist.
One, whites are hardly always dominant in every situation (I sure as hell wasn't when I lived in East Palo Alto for years) and two, actual dominance has little to do with racism, it's about what you think. For example, if blacks think they're automatically superior to others based on race, but not in status because they are oppressed, they are perfectly capable of vile, even murderous racism towards non blacks.

Clearly, racism paired with power is far more harmful, but the powerless can be just as racist.

Ha! Even sifty knows to not listen to you, Bob. ;-)

The kid was a nut...he supports Trump, that's proof positive.

What's funny is lies could be appropriate, since the NRA spokeswoman was lying through her teeth, claiming they support a strong useful national registry and screening system. They do nothing but lobby to obstruct it at every turn. She's a bold faced liar. I used to be a member decades ago.

Nothing he did, even if it had been investigated fully, would have bared him from buying his guns. Blame police and the FBI, but they're powerless to stop known dangers from buying weapons because the NRA ensured they would be, because they exist only to lobby for manufacturers right to sell guns.

The leftist solution is to 1) ban guns from people diagnosed or
being investigated for criminal instability 2) regulate certain guns, modifications, and magazines much more stringently and 3) make private gun sales go through background checks. Without the latter, the rest is moot.

Really? funny, I recall Trump saying the buck stops with him, and blaming Obama when it happened under his watch, don't you? (He also likely claimed mass school shootings were fake news leftist propaganda, his buddy Jones told him so) Now, he blames the investigation of his campaign for the FBI not investigating his internet postings, knowing they aren't connected at all.

How is the cop responsible, specifically?

1)I considered that argument, I just disagree. Women under some religious laws can't initiate a divorce at all, but I doubt you would argue the lower, near zero divorce rates are evidence that it's a better way of life or leads to better outcomes for those powerless women than normal current American Christianity, would you? I think women who stay in bad marriages for their religion don't usually find it to be a better way of life, they often find it an inescapable trap of hopelessness.

2) you would be hard pressed to find men living up to that ideal and or not taking unfair advantage of their religion given position of dominance. As I recall, the bible also tells you various reasons it's your duty to murder people with rocks, so it's not a bad thing to be a bit loose in your interpretations, but perhaps not that particular instruction.

3)but, if I am created by the creator with reason enough to believe only in things that are at least either logical or verifiable, and God is neither without revealing himself to be more than fable, and he doesn't, it's his decision not mine. If he exists and has miraculous powers including revelation, he chooses to have me not believe by choosing to not prove his own improbable existence, meaning he chooses to create me just for inescapable eternal torture.

I get what you're trying to say but you don't really have to be bigger to abuse someone. You're ignoring the fact that women are typically given the benefit of the doubt in domestic violence situations because of that sort of thinking. Abusive women can and do use that fact to their advantage; a man can feel powerless to defend himself for any number of reasons: fear of mob-justice, criminal charges, loss of job, financial ruin, etc.

It's interesting that the people they interviewed after the roles were reversed felt that the man must have done something to piss off the woman and that somehow justified her behaviour.

Sure. But the Republican that was referenced isn't some whack-job nobody that is simply a registered Republican, he's a Representative in the US Congress.

When the powerless and disturbed lash out violently, it's unfortunate. When a person equally disturbed and violent has real power, it's a much bigger problem.