BCreed1

re: Thom Thillis goes berserk at Noem

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/3/26 at 1:52 pm to cajunangelle

quote:
Why is he screaming dem talking points

Let's look at what he has stated

quote:
Tillis expressed frustration with the "political theater" and "partisan gridlock" in Washington. He noted that while independent thinking is often cheered by the opposing party, it is frequently "scorned and ostracized" by one's own side.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

re: Austin cops that took down the shooter are being referred to a grand jury

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/3/26 at 1:31 pm to cajunangelle

quote:
What is the wren collective?

A progressive criminal justice reform and strategic consulting group that has become a lightning rod for controversy due to its "behind-the-scenes" influence on district attorneys' offices across the United States.

Heavily funded. Founded by activist Jessica Brand

Blumenthal asks illegals to stand up, Schmidt "the dead illegals killed can't stand up"

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/3/26 at 1:09 pm

Richard Blumenthal grilled Noem on illegal aliens who were allegedly arrested or detained by ICE and asked Leonardo Garcia Venegas, Javier Ramirez, and Miramar Martinez to stand in the back of the room, while accusing ICE of targeting people for being Mexican.

Senator Eric Schmidt began his time:

quote:
“Since we’re having folks stand up,” he began, “I would have Laken Riley stand up. I would have Kayla Hamilton stand up. I would have Jocelyn Nungaray stand up. I would have Rachel Moran stand up. I would have the beautiful sons and daughters, who were murdered by illegal immigrants, stand up.”

He continued, “but they can’t, because they’re dead. They were murdered by illegal immigrants that were let into this country by Joe Biden.”

LINK

re: Federal Circuit clears path for tariff refunds

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/3/26 at 10:14 am to LawTalkingGuy

Cry more SlowMo. Do better in creating an alter.

-3

re: Federal Circuit clears path for tariff refunds

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/3/26 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro

I see you created an alter.

-2

re: How soon before "conservatives" call Matt Walsh a Leftist and want the DW to fire him?

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 9:52 pm to the808bass

quote:
Eh. That’s a rational response from Matt.

yep

quote:
What am I supposed to be furious at?

You know... feelings

re: Megyn Kelly and MTG had a nice little interview.

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 9:47 pm to BoomerandSooner

Not watching them.

re: Marco Rubio confirms President Netanyahu made decision -VP Trump has to go along….

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 9:18 pm to FlyDownTheField83

What you believe is not relevant to the truth. It's so far away from the truth that people are ignoring you and a few calling you out for being a dumbass.

For example, you are blaming Israel for Iran's actions. It's stupid. Iran leaders call for death to America and that somehow makes us a pupet to Israel.

You lack critical thinking and all logic.

re: The DEMS and the TDS just cost themselves.....

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 1:46 pm to mtb010

quote:
what I see is a war that Israel should be fighting by themselves.

Because Iran chanting death to America is an Israeli issue.

-1

re: The DEMS and the TDS just cost themselves.....

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 9:46 am to PeleofAnalytics

Oh there is more coming......... Just watch

The DEMS and the TDS just cost themselves.....

Posted by BCreed1 on 3/2/26 at 9:35 am

All of the gnashing of the teeth over Iran is majorly backfiring.

Midterms will be won by the GOP.

To all of our TDS peoplehere like Slowman, Doger, and the TDS gang. Some of you really stepped in your own shite over this and really exposed your true selves. You have been taking EVERYTHING Trump does and attacking Trump in slight ways.... until this. Rick Wilson would be so proud of you few.

re: Options premiums plays

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/27/26 at 12:24 pm to TigahsOnTop

quote:
I can do the math however way you want to cut it. You are part of a larger issue, options bros that think they know something, but in reality don’t understand the financial instrument.

No you actually have proven you can not. The only thing you can do is make up a strict hypothetical to try to prove your misguided point.

The hypothetical is not based in reality.

Tell me, how many stocks have only gone up? You can not name one. And that is the only way your point is valid.

And WE both know it.

re: Options premiums plays

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/27/26 at 8:34 am to TigahsOnTop

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!

-1

re: Options premiums plays

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 10:12 pm to TigahsOnTop

quote:
This, on the other hand, is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are doing. Yes it is capping upside.

When you sell a call, you’re literally selling someone else the right to your stock above the strike. If AMZN rips $20 past your strike, you don’t get that move (the call buyer does). The premium doesn’t change that.
“Just selling puts to get it back” doesn’t undo the missed upside. You already gave it up.

No sir. You are wrong. You are presenting hypotheticals. I can do the same with every aspect of thew market.

AMZN, continuing to use it as an example (but applies to all stocks). AMZN is $40 under it's YTD high(over $51 off it's 52 week high). Tell me how I missed out on the upside had I been assigned at $245? I didn't. Markets and stock move up and down.

Stock "xyz" is purchased at $100. I sell a call at .15 delta or a strike of $110. It reaches $111 and I am assigned. I collect the $110 per share, plus the premium. I immediately sell a put at the $109. It falls off the following week(month..etc) and I exercise the put. I keep the premium and now own it at $109 after selling it for $110. Where did I lose upside?

The only time your hypo would be a thing is if a stock never breathes. If it never moves up or down. Nothing about the market only moves in an up direction.

quote:
Extensive research to back this

My extensive research is almost 2 decades of trading and investing.

re: Options premiums plays

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 1:43 pm to TigahsOnTop

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.

re: Options premiums plays

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 1:30 pm to TigahsOnTop

quote:
This is all just gambling. "I asked chatgpt if I should pick red or black on roulette".

For all of you options bros, compare your performance selling covered calls to the performance of the underlying equities if you bought and hold. You'll quickly realize this "income" you are generating is just capping your upside.

No. No it's not. At all.

-1

re: 4 republicans are holding up the SAVE America act

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 1:25 pm to donut

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.

re: Who pays the tariffs?

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 1:20 pm to NC_Tigah

Well now.....

re: F-22's in Israel

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/26/26 at 10:26 am to GumboPot

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.

re: Who pays the tariffs?

Posted by BCreed1 on 2/25/26 at 9:30 am to northshorebamaman

quote:
You’re presenting this like there are only two camps when there’s a sizable third group you’re overlooking: People who are not ideologically opposed to tariffs at all, but who objected to the way they were imposed.

That's a very small group. Take a few of them like SLow and Roger...etc. They are simply against it all and used the method to attack them. While they appear to be in that third group, they are actually in the group that hates them.

But yes, there are those who stated they are pro tariff, but did not like the method for fear that the dems would use it. It's a fair critique.