Why would it be over for the dems? If he does win Texas, a pretty big if, I think Cruz drops out tomorrow. Otherwise I expect no one to drop out on either side until two weeks when Kasich and Rubio lose OH and FL respectively.
Rather than lose the money here. When GDX is down big and gold is basically flat, it's been the sign of a trend change for the last few years. The miner bear is over but the GDX could retrace to the 15-16 region before rebounding and going to 24.
Cruz wins Texas. Trump wins the rest. Just my predictions.
On the D side, Vermont and Massachusetts join New Hampshire as the stup1dest states in the union after they vote for the communist. Minnesota probably joins them as well since there are a lot of dumb white libtards up there.
It gapped up yesterday so he is definitely losing today. He just won't admit it. But like you said, he was long QID and TVIX too.
He said yesterday morning that he sold NUGT and bought it back. That to me means he is long. I am only going off his own words.
Judging by your thumbs down, I would say you're 100% correct. This is one sick place and is a microcosm of what is wrong with our country (with a few bright spots such as yourself).
This is what the left wants to do (and in some cases does with section 8 housing) here in the US. Look at all the ridiculous new labor laws in Seattle. They are moving towards government ownership of private business. GM and Chrysler essentially WERE nationalized as were many banks. Healthcare is basically there. There is government involvement in every US industry.
By scientific definition then, you can no longer consider yourself a "scientist". Not that you ever were one to begin with.
Also, since you believe data that doesn't exist and in fact reject PROVEN data that contradicts your opinion on AGW, that is no different than religion. You are a religious nutjob.
Did you conveniently skip the rest?? PUD is the one that said gravity is not real, not me m0ron but go ahead and make a new thread embarrassing yourself and him.
Scientists are still trying to identify its limits and extend it. An article in Physics Today stated, "Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work." That is an important statement about all science.
I would rather spend it on neither and pay down the debt. How is that a non-answer stup1d m0ron?
I quoted a climate scientist before the article got cut off. You quote economists and journalists to validate you.
There is no difference at all ultimately. You are just too shallow-minded to believe that. Want more proof? Venezuela's ruling commie party refers to themselves as "Democratic Socialists".
How about spending the trillion dollars to pay down the debt?
The prevailing narrative by members of the climate establishment is the assertion that the science is settled. This is a tactic to stifle debate and informed discussion. Anyone who challenges the narrative is subject to pejorative characterizations — denier, skeptic.
What these advocates avoid discussing is the fact that science is never settled. Newton's theory of gravity was replaced after almost 300 years by Einstein's theory of relativity in the early 1900s. Scientists are still trying to identify its limits and extend it. An article in Physics Today stated, "Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work." That is an important statement about all science.
Experimental evidence is the criterion for confirming or rejecting a theory, according to the scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper. The general premise is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in his famous lectures on physics made the point very clear. First, we make guesses about the new theory, then we compute the consequences of the guesses and compare them with observations. "If it (the guess) disagrees with the experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
These two points about falsifiability and comparing experiments with observations are the Achilles heel of the settled science assertion and it underlying assumptions.
Recent testimony by Professor John Christy (U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 2 Feb 2016 John R. Christy University of Alabama Huntsville) demonstrated that the "climate theory" has been "falsified." That theory is embodied in models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Christy presented a comparison of more than 100 model runs by the IPCC's latest model and temperature data from weather balloons and satellites compiled by