I need to correct you on this:
When Obama was president, a lot of liberal leaning news sources and personalities were criticizing him. Maybe not enough, but they were. Now Trump is president, and I see barely any criticism on him, even when he deserves it. Just blind praise, and any flaws are all sweeped under the rug.

For example, liberal figures are outed for rape, and the left drops them like a hot potato. Someone like Roy Moore is outed for raping a minor, and Fox News desperately defends them because he has a R next to his name.

This is why in the above poll even 24% of republicans don't trust Fox news anymore. Even CNN does not have the balls to do that.

And stop throwing that 1984 crap around, you do not look more intellectual because of it. You just look like a pretentious ass.

Crikey is a hard-left site, perhaps the most biased left wing site in Australia, and a Murdoch hate site. It's so far from mainstream as to be ridiculous; it's only just above a blog. That you quote their article as an authority on the Daily Telegraph just shows how deep into your own bias you are, and how completely unaware of it.

Also, what the public believes about press reliability is completely irrelevant. The left are sheep for left wing sites, the right are sheep for right wing sites. This should be obvious to you The center is full of sheep who believes what the majority media tells them, and only 7% of journalists are Republicans, while 28% are Democrat. That's a 4:1 ratio. You think that a) the mainstream news that comes out is not going to have a left wing slant with those numbers?? and b) that this won't also inform public opinion in people like you who get their news from a 4:1 ratio left to normal?

Both sides are extremely biased. You just think that one is biased. That makes you an idiot. The end. The thing is though, journalistic bias overall is strongly to the left (thanks mostly to university humanities department bias). So the news you get is overwhelming going to have the philosophical bias that Trump is evil, that he's a scoundrel, that allegations against him are probably true, etc. It's just how the world works. People print their philosophies and their biases. They weight their assessments of evidence and uncertainties according to their biases. No amount of sterile language and pretensions of impartiality can hide that.

Let me make this really simple for you. Which of the mainstream news comments/predictions about Trump have come true, from the time to he first ran and was broadly ridiculed with "no chance" to each stage that would sink him, to (once elected) each of the breathless scandals that would surely sink him? They've been wrong on 20+ major points and predictions and 50+ minor ones. Do you want me to list them? The only way to misunderstand reality so badly is to have a strong ideological bias and poor grasp of reality. You think that suddenly disappeared with Trump's election?

It's all nonsense. Bet and trade accordingly. "It's all nonsense" is the only Trump related trade that makes sense. If you haven't figured that out by now, you're not that bright.
Dude I've been dead on with Musk's character and capabilities. Practically everyone can see that now he's started actually committing blatant fraud and lying to shareholders. It's strange you can't. It's like you're trying to impugn your own credibility; most of this forum now realizes that I was dead on about Musk, now that they've had reality rubbed in their face.

I mean, did you miss the bit where a CNN producer admits that Trump Russia is "mostly bull****" and pushed for ratings, and that they go after and scrutinize and lopsidedly criticize Trump far harder than they did Obama, etc?



This is reality. The fact that you think these guys are more impartial than Fox News is high comedy. Most of what you read is biased and packaged for the tribe who's watching, informed by journalists who are often less self aware than the guy above. It's highly likely, near certain in fact, that all of this Trump "scandal" is fake news. Trade accordingly.

What.

November AAII Asset Allocation Survey: Lowest Level of Cash Since 1999

Individual investors’ cash allocations fell last month to a level not seen in 18 years. At the same time, the November AAII Asset Allocation shows a rebound in both equity and fixed-income allocations.

Stock and stock fund allocations rebounded by 0.6 percentage points to 68.6%. Equity allocations were last higher in June 2017 (68.8%). November was the 56th consecutive month that equity allocations were above their historical average of 60.5%.

Bond and bond fund allocations rose 0.7 percentage points to 17.6%. This is the largest allocation to fixed-income since April 2017 (18.0%). The historical average is 16.0%.

Cash allocations fell 1.2 percentage points to 13.9%. Cash allocations were last lower in December 1999 (12.0%). November was the 72nd consecutive month that cash allocations were below their historical average of 23.5%.

Cash allocations have been mostly lower this year than they were last year. Year to date, cash allocations have averaged 16.0% versus 18.5% for all of 2016.

The reduction in cash allocations is occurring as equity allocations are higher. Last month marked the first time that equity stock and stock funds allocations have equaled or exceeded 68.0% in three consecutive months since September 2000.

The record highs realized by the indexes have boosted the value of stock holdings. Optimism about the short-term direction of the stock market has not soared in response, however. Rather, bullish sentiment mostly stayed below its historical average throughout November, according to our weekly AAII Sentiment Survey.

http://blog.aaii.com/november-aaii-a...sh-since-1999/

Perhaps the real news was the former NSA pleading guilt to lying and promising full cooperation. After yesterday’s bizarre speech it seems the pressure is truly getting to trump. Your boy is going down truthsayer.

Nope, that wasn't the real news. And the market agrees with me, not you.

If I had a dollar for every time some frother said "finally" and "going down" about Trump and then turned out to be a nothing burger, I'd be rich, but still poorer than the people who bought every dip on every "Trump is finally done" hysteria.

Fake news. Trade accordingly imo.

An example of more fake news from yesterday:

Bloomberg corrects Trump subpeona story
Journalists are overwhelmingly of the left, and are informed by their redneck-level ideological biases (like samsonh above) that Trump is Emmanuel Goldstein and that it's established fact that he colluded with Russia. Any news is viewed through this filter. Hence the huge number of mistakes even formerly reputable sources are making on reporting Trump events and outcomes.

The collective gross idiocy of these people is a gift to us traders (sell the news for a brief time, then buy the dip).

All this discussion is completing glossing over the fact that it's illegal for a president-elect to undermine the foreign policy of the sitting president. They are actually supposed to wait until they are in office.

Obama had similar Logan Act violations, far far worse than what is alleged about Trump:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-on-bush-deal/
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/did-...is-iraq-visit/

This is as a candidate by the way, not president elect.

It's standard and a big fat nothing. Incoming presidents reach out to all foreign governments to smooth transitions, to prevent misunderstandings, and to stop them making deals with lame duck presidents that neither side wants and will be harder to unwind. In fact foreign policy would be a mess without this transition process and informal discussion of future direction.

please re read tooths summary of media bias. don't be the adult WWE fan that gets swept up in the nonsense as if its real

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...62187846934528

Truth,

Rednecks are the ones who voted trump into office. You should be thanking them. I know you have zero understanding of this, but it’s true. Those of us who live here see it everyday.

Also what was up with your boy barely being able to speak yesterday?

samsonh,
How does what I say go right over your head (for example, the redneck comment). I guess we don't see ourselves as we are. The term
means that the left has the same insane heuristics and hysteria about Trump that rednecks had about Obama. The difference is that these same morons are now in the media class, and putting out fakes news masquerading as respectable news, a tiny fraction of which I've documented above and which moves markets. Understanding the biases of this news helps you make money.

And barely able to speak? He was very slightly slurring a few words. It's called being tired. It happens to people sometimes. I watched Obama ramble very cringeworthy and unpresidential streams of consciousness like a weirdo sometimes, he was obviously just tired. I watched the video, seemed liked a nothingburger to me. Certainly not as notable as collapsing and fainting at a public event, which turned out fine as well.

This kind of hysteria is exactly what I'm talking about. You live in a world of "Trump is evil and going down". The news feeds you that narrative like a WWE narrative. Again, which of the hundreds of left wing predictions about Trump have tuned out to be real? The reality is he very likely didn't collude with anyone, he's just fine and will serve out his term, a few slurring words once means he was tired that day and nothing more.

That is the sane rational view. Traders must have the sane rational view or they go broke. We get punished for being wrong.

Anyway, the whole thing is a fascinating exercise in groupthink. At this point the mind of left-wing-media fed people cannot grasp the notion that Trump might be decent/clean and that the Trump candidate/Russia thing is purely made up by a hysterical media. What would that say about them as people, as evidence evaluators, or the sanity of those they trust? Things that are not good and are contrary to our notions of our own reliability

If you hear something 100 times from people you trust, 1000 times, it sticks in your brain, and you ignore even copious evidence to the contrary. And any negative infomation you evaluate using existing heuristics. That's why these journalists are ****ing up so badly and putting out major fake news. In their mind, if the FBI has information, or something is leaked, of course it must be true, and confirmatory to your pre-held notions.

It's a widespread flaw in human cognition. The same thing happens with religion. Try telling a southern evangelist that the Jesus story is probably bull****. Or a Muslim that Muhammed was no prophet Show them all the evidence. It's simply outside the sphere of competence of most humans to reevaluate things they've had drilled into them 1000 times by people they trust.

FFS stop politarding guys. Take it elsewhere.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

I love how everyone thinks a less than 2% intraday move in S&P 500 counts as being a something worth mentioning at all, let alone arguing about.

Also, as a slight aside, these sorts of things NEVER have any lasting impact on the markets. It isn't like Flynn is going to testify about prime rates, liquidity, availability of credit, trade restrictions or the number of IPhones people are going to buy.

It paid a 20 bagger in puts if you got in within 5 minutes of the news hitting. It paid a 5 bagger in calls if you bought the dip because you realized it was likely fake news.

It might not matter if you're playing a backtested monkey thesis, but if you want to trade, these things move markets. You only think they don't because there's been a strong upward bid since 2009.

You're also confusing the effect of fake news with the effect of real news, something we haven't had in a long time. Bull markets have stagnated for an entire year on this kind of uncertainty.
They NEVER have a lasting impact on markets with a strong upward bid. But in less heavily bought up markets, things like this are catalysts for moves down and prolonged corrections. They matter.
Most analysts agree that the extraordinarily low volatility buy up for the past year has been a Trump trade - the promise of corporate tax cuts, regulation cuts, a business friendly administration. If something happens to him, that matters. On top of that, markets hate meaningful uncertainty. Look at how they traded flat/down in the year into the 2016 election, and then ripped and crushed volatility right after, creating the smoothest bull run in history.

Nothing at all matters from a long enough perspective. Looking at the market from a 100 year perspective, you just buy an index. Looking at it from a 3 year perspective, you have the view you're espousing above - focus on economics and liquidity and call this stuff noise. Looking at it from a trading perspective (minutes to weeks), this stuff is most of what matters.

Wouldn't have mattered by now if the initial report were 100% accurate.

It wouldn't matter if we had strong downward momentum or were stuck in a range either.

Actually, most analysts don't agree on that. We just haven't had a yuan devaluation or shock to oil prices or Greek debt drama (2015) or further drop in oil to 12-year lows, Brexit and an earnings recession (2016). In 2017, we haven't had one bit of actual bad economic news,* and economic news is what matters to markets.

I was looking at it from a trading perspective. I saw articles that should have had the lede of "uptrending markets down this morning on news completely unrelated to the markets."

I adjusted my position sizing (XIV was about 10% at the time I dragged myself out of bed) to take advantage of the ridiculous move. I saw that the initial completely unimportant report that the market was severely overreacting to* was slightly inaccurate much later.

*yes, I am saying that the 2% move was both nothing AND an overreaction.

In case you all are worried about a gov't shutdown and were born in the last few years. House just passed a 2-week extension, Senate to vote by EOD Friday:

https://lplresearch.com/2017/12/04/a...whats-it-mean/

From Josh Brown:
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/12...-is-ready-for/

Cliffs: Everyone is predicting a good year (on average) from 2018, but at some point Mueller will get removed by Trump and Republicans will do nothing about it. To him, the probability of this and its effect is not even remotely priced in.

are you trolling?

if not, what are your thoughts on this?

That blog post is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. And I read BrianTheMick posts. It has to be satire.

1. Bizarre tinfoil Trump-as-dictator conspiracy theories
2. Certainty that Trump colluded with the Russians despite no evidence
3. Certainty that strong evidence will be found for (2) by Mueller
4. Certainty that Trump will stymie it and the GOP will not impeach (i.e. nothing will happen)
5. Despite (4) above, the market will crash

Not trolling - sorry if the article is bad. I've followed Josh for a while and he seems to be pretty well grounded. Def doesn't strike me as the tinfoil-conspiracy type. I don't think he's saying the market will crash, but that the possibility of Trump removing Mueller is something that will have a much bigger expected effect than people are accounting for.

Guess I gotta discriminate better in terms of reading.

Whoever he is, the article indicates he suffers from a pretty strong case of Trump Delusion Syndrome which is a pretty accurate tell that someone is currently confused due to their political biases and unable to view reality objectively.

Trading on political figures is always silly, except that it occasionally offers some decent opportunities to fade the initial reaction from people who think it does matter.