3 ms·

Gotta love how open with their biases the article is. They make sure to spell out Republicans multiple times throughout the article, but put "D-N.J." for the De

by hn8788 5y ago

Gotta love how open with their biases the article is. They make sure to spell out Republicans multiple times throughout the article, but put "D-N.J." for the Democrat from New Jersey.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
They also seem to have no idea what a covered call is, or how assignment works. Never heard of getting assigned as “dumping” a stock before. Either that, or ya know… the author is being intentionally misleading.
- MathYouF 5y ago
  One has to wonder, if demand for unbiased, non-partisan, reasonable, complete, measured, historically aware, accurate, non-inflammatory political news coverage exists, why is it only available via C-Span? Seems like the American public have either been worn down into non-engagement or radicalised, and I think it's a combination of the designs of politicians (the partisan game is simpler to play and costs less and is more predictable than the one that is focused on societal progress) and that a lot of people would rather believe that the only thing between us and a better society is the evil 50 senators in the other party. Distracts them from having to take personal responsibility for their contribution (or lack thereof) to society and that many of our problems don't have obvious legislative solutions.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s much different than it’s ever been before. There’s always been efforts to control information (aka propaganda), and when people are confronted with propaganda they disagree with I think they naturally gravitate towards propaganda that they do agree with. The way this conflict escalates doesn’t typically resolve around disputed “facts” at all. I would say it typically revolves around disputes in the interpretation of facts, or the attribution of motive, or the likelihood of particular outcomes… These interpretations or opinions are naturally quite seperate from “the facts”, but the appetite for propaganda demands that each faction asserts their own interpretation as “the correct interpretation”. This article for instance doesn’t really present many disputed facts. But it does describe what it believes was the motive for a particular decision, and asserts that this explanation is clearly the correct explanation. I think this sort of thing has been around forever, and the only thing that’s different now compared to 20 years ago, is that the internet has made controlling the flow of information a slightly more efficient endeavour.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I mean, based on the timing it seems like he sold an ITM option as opposed to selling the stock for the optics. That said, he expected the option to exercise and just wanted to muddy the waters.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Based on what timing? He sold the contract the same day he purchased the stock. Even if you’re only going off the information in this article, it doesn’t seem that way at all, as they point out he “netted a healthy profit” on the sale.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I didn't get that he sold the option the same day he bought the stock from the article. Maybe I misread it. If so, than that obviously makes it not suspicious. I read it as "he bought the stock a month ago" and then "later on, he sold an ITM option"
      - AmericanChopper 5y ago
        I agree that if the author had made any attempt at all to try and actually cover the facts, you probably wouldn’t have had that misunderstanding. If you look at this guy’s disclosure (the one linked in the article no less), it seems as though he sells a covered call on just about every allotment of stock he purchases (which is a perfectly common strategy). So it doesn’t even seem like an out of the ordinary trade for him to be making. I don’t agree that the article implies in any way that he was selling ITM calls to try and exit a position though. But it does seem to imply that he had control over when the contract was exercised, and that he may not have even had a contractual obligation to sell the stock, which is very obviously complete nonsense. So who knows what the article was trying to say, apart from maybe GOP man bad?…
busymom0 5y ago
It also mentions David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler but doesn't mention Dianne Feinstein who did the same thing. And Pelosi from Congress who did same thing. A Ctrl+F for "Democrat" gets zero hits.
throw_m239339 5y ago
Is Salon.com still mining Monero in people's browsers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com#Cryptocurrency_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com#Cryptocurrency_minin...
- busymom0 5y ago
  They did show me a paywall so I ended up using archive.is to get around it.

by hn8788 5y ago

Gotta love how open with their biases the article is. They make sure to spell out Republicans multiple times throughout the article, but put "D-N.J." for the Democrat from New Jersey.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

They also seem to have no idea what a covered call is, or how assignment works. Never heard of getting assigned as “dumping” a stock before. Either that, or ya know… the author is being intentionally misleading.

MathYouF 5y ago
One has to wonder, if demand for unbiased, non-partisan, reasonable, complete, measured, historically aware, accurate, non-inflammatory political news coverage exists, why is it only available via C-Span? Seems like the American public have either been worn down into non-engagement or radicalised, and I think it's a combination of the designs of politicians (the partisan game is simpler to play and costs less and is more predictable than the one that is focused on societal progress) and that a lot of people would rather believe that the only thing between us and a better society is the evil 50 senators in the other party. Distracts them from having to take personal responsibility for their contribution (or lack thereof) to society and that many of our problems don't have obvious legislative solutions.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s much different than it’s ever been before. There’s always been efforts to control information (aka propaganda), and when people are confronted with propaganda they disagree with I think they naturally gravitate towards propaganda that they do agree with. The way this conflict escalates doesn’t typically resolve around disputed “facts” at all. I would say it typically revolves around disputes in the interpretation of facts, or the attribution of motive, or the likelihood of particular outcomes… These interpretations or opinions are naturally quite seperate from “the facts”, but the appetite for propaganda demands that each faction asserts their own interpretation as “the correct interpretation”. This article for instance doesn’t really present many disputed facts. But it does describe what it believes was the motive for a particular decision, and asserts that this explanation is clearly the correct explanation. I think this sort of thing has been around forever, and the only thing that’s different now compared to 20 years ago, is that the internet has made controlling the flow of information a slightly more efficient endeavour.
HWR_14 5y ago
I mean, based on the timing it seems like he sold an ITM option as opposed to selling the stock for the optics. That said, he expected the option to exercise and just wanted to muddy the waters.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Based on what timing? He sold the contract the same day he purchased the stock. Even if you’re only going off the information in this article, it doesn’t seem that way at all, as they point out he “netted a healthy profit” on the sale.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I didn't get that he sold the option the same day he bought the stock from the article. Maybe I misread it. If so, than that obviously makes it not suspicious. I read it as "he bought the stock a month ago" and then "later on, he sold an ITM option"
    - AmericanChopper 5y ago
      I agree that if the author had made any attempt at all to try and actually cover the facts, you probably wouldn’t have had that misunderstanding. If you look at this guy’s disclosure (the one linked in the article no less), it seems as though he sells a covered call on just about every allotment of stock he purchases (which is a perfectly common strategy). So it doesn’t even seem like an out of the ordinary trade for him to be making. I don’t agree that the article implies in any way that he was selling ITM calls to try and exit a position though. But it does seem to imply that he had control over when the contract was exercised, and that he may not have even had a contractual obligation to sell the stock, which is very obviously complete nonsense. So who knows what the article was trying to say, apart from maybe GOP man bad?…

busymom0 5y ago

It also mentions David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler but doesn't mention Dianne Feinstein who did the same thing. And Pelosi from Congress who did same thing. A Ctrl+F for "Democrat" gets zero hits.

throw_m239339 5y ago

Is Salon.com still mining Monero in people's browsers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com#Cryptocurrency_mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com#Cryptocurrency_minin...

busymom0 5y ago
They did show me a paywall so I ended up using archive.is to get around it.