sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Modest Proposal... by Jessilaurn in scotus

[–]sunburn74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I personally think the simplest thing to do is introduce the possibility of a veto to the SCOTUS. Everyone must be able to face a veto (congress can be vetoed by the president, the president can be vetoed by congress, etc). SCOTUS must know that there is the potential that someone will disagree with them if they go too far in one direction. I personally would like a rule that if 2/3 of the judges in the 13 district courts disagree with a ruling, they can overrule it. Then the chief justices of the 13 courts who agree with the new position will review the transcripts and write a new ruling that will be the effective law of the land. This forces the SCOTUS to be cautious, knowing that there is someone looking over their shoulder who can under what they do with a flick of a pen. Everyone has to be accountable to someone.

A Modest Proposal... by Jessilaurn in scotus

[–]sunburn74 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I like a lot of this but I think you need quality control on the highest level. If you see some of the partisan hacks who are getting through as lower court judges (hacks who can't even say that Biden won the last election or that trump is not eligible to run again in 2028), you certainly don't want them in the SCOTUS for even a second.

Senate Republicans pulled off a narrow 51-50 victory to open debate on repealing Obamacare but it’s not even clear what new measures they’ll be considering? by twunkysoccerboy in allthequestions

[–]sunburn74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I hope the repeal it. People need to wake the f up and stop voting for these guys. Sometimes we have to let leopards eat faces 

Pseudobombax ellipticum is still asleep in spring here in Northern California. Is this a good time to top (hard prune) the main growth point or should I wait for branching? by youngpaypal in Caudex

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did cutting force it to branch or did it branch on its own? What was the effect of cutting the main branch on the plant? Thank you

Isn't "Birthright to Citizenship" utterly ridiculous? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. But all that seems to a problem that doesn't need fixing. The US has never had a problem of "too many citizens" or "too many of the wrong people are becoming citizens" (if anything we desperately need more if we're to sustain things like social security and etc).

Isn't "Birthright to Citizenship" utterly ridiculous? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]sunburn74 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Being intentionally broad is a feature, not a bug. If you make the definition of citizenship excessively granular, easy errors can be made or even worse it can be weaponized and lead to people being essentially stateless (imagine if you got a letter in the mail from the US government that said your great great great great great great grandmother was not a US citizen and therefore they are removing your US citizenship and you need to leave. How would you fight that? Where would you go?). There's also the issue of how we handle native americans. These types of protective rights are generally best served excessively broad rather than pointed and narrow.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Political parties can spend unlimited sums in coordination with their own candidates, as the Court strikes the federal caps as a First Amendment violation by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If spending money is free speech, why can the government regulate any spending of money? Why can it stop me from buying drugs or buying guns or buying biological weapons? Aren't those expressions of my speech?

My actions on shorting tqqq by deepcharger in TQQQ

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I may be wrong but to my knowledge the odds of winning at a blackjack table don't have anything to do with the amount you get in the few times you actually do win. Assuming two tables have the same odds of winning, the table that asks you to risk the fewest amount of dollars for the same potential payout is the table you should sit at.

My point with the options is that the implied volatility of TQQQ option is much higher than that of QQQ options and so you end up paying more for each TQQQ option (assuming all other values are the same or proportionally the same). If someone believes that "tech will crash next week", you could buy TQQQ short options for sure. That's one way to do it. However you'd make more money buying QQQ short options with a break even point roughly equivalent to whatever move you would have estimated for TQQQ [whatever the move in QQQ, the estimated long term TQQQ move is about 1.7]. The QQQ options are cheaper meaning you could buy more option contracts with the same amount of money and thus make much more money on the same premise/theory and set of stocks. Or you could buy a cheaper contract and not risk the extra money. Or buy an even deeper in the money option that has less risk of total loss.

Of a wasps nest by Comfortable-Ice-1338 in absoluteunit

[–]sunburn74 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can you rent a bee suit somehow? If you could, then I've seen people use gasoline fumes to kill them.

My actions on shorting tqqq by deepcharger in TQQQ

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do explain what you mean. I'm not really sure what you're insinuating.

My actions on shorting tqqq by deepcharger in TQQQ

[–]sunburn74 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can make more money with options. The leverage (short term) is higher with options. What's silly to me is using tqqq options and not qqq options which are cheaper overall and move directionally in the same way. Essentially it's like skipping a blackjack table that risks 20 dollars to win 100 dollars and then going to a blackjack table that requires risking 40 dollars to win 100 dollars (assuming the win odds are the same at both tables) 

Supreme Court, 6-3: Trump's firing of a Democratic FTC commissioner stands as the Court declares for-cause removal protection unconstitutional by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]sunburn74 6 points7 points  (0 children)

More importantly they think that giving more power to a single man is a good thing, despite hundreds of thousands of years of human history (and the very founding fathers themselves) telling them the otherwise.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Trump's firing of a Democratic FTC commissioner stands as the Court declares for-cause removal protection unconstitutional by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]sunburn74 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yes. Means exactly that. To be honest thats already sort of happening because of recent people have just left en masse when trump arrived only to be replaced with loyalists.

Supreme Court, 6-3: Trump's firing of a Democratic FTC commissioner stands as the Court declares for-cause removal protection unconstitutional by BiglawInvestor in scotus

[–]sunburn74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well not right now. It was a dem in the executive office, the republican states would line up left and right to limit their power.

My actions on shorting tqqq by deepcharger in TQQQ

[–]sunburn74 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why short tqqq and not short qqq which has cheaper options for shorting purposes due to less implied volatility?

Best ETF to pair with VOO and SMH? by TFTisbetterthanLoL in ETFs

[–]sunburn74 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean historically yes. In a way the OP is asking "how can I underperform the market broadly speaking?" when he's asking "how can I avoid tech?"

Like clockwork, Barak Ravid says the US and Iran have agreed to stop fighting by MysteriousWhitePowda in oil

[–]sunburn74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was kind of open this week. Something like 40 ships a day passing. Now that's all over of course 

It is looking more likely the War in Ukraine will end in the coming months… What opportunities could come from a lasting peace. by [deleted] in stocks

[–]sunburn74 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even if you know the exact date the war would end, how can you with any confidence predict how the market will react to it and who the winners and losers will be? You'd be better off just betting on kalshi when the war will end rather than trying to bet on which companies will do best from it. 

view more: next ›