Mark Davis

I know you follow this part of the world and are knowledgeable about the cross currents, but take the embassy move as one example. I'm not sure how people are extrapolating that move toward this current situation unless it's purely political and is essentially like wearing blinders towards an anti Trump bias. That move didn't establish Hamas, make Iran a bad actor, etc. Those things already were in place. I don't feel that had anything to do with what is going on now. If the embassy were still in Tel Aviv, would Hamas have not attacked Israel? I find it hard to believe that would have changed in any way at all. In specificity to the Iran situation, In my eyes we emboldened Iran by releasing funds to them. I think time is showing that when we ease sanctions, release funds, react in a more passive faction to their bad acts, they are proving to seeing that as an opening to take further and more aggressive actions. I actually agree with you that Iran largely telegraphed this attack so that it could be intercepted. They can look strong to their public and the Arab street while trying to create hesitancy in the West to respond because of the lack of large scale fatalities and damage in Israel. But it does seem probing to me and they are wanting to see how the West and opinions in the West will respond to this attack. I would ask, when in our lives would we have ever had a significant faction of our country say Israel should stand down if their homeland was attacked in such a way, whether intercepted or not? We already have a significant portion of the West and sentiment in the West that are sympathetic to some of Hamas' wishes, if not Hamas themselves. By that I mean they are focusing on a cease fire rather than the return of the hostages. Now the ball has been moved under another shell and now we have the question of how far should Israel go in response to Iran, all the while the hostages are still held by Hamas.

I'd say the blame for this lies almost totally with Iran. They fund and prop up Hamas, they arm them, they arm Hezbollah, they arm the Houthis and prop them up. Action should have been taken sooner in regards to the Houthis and we've been quite careful to strike at indirect Iranian targets and they seem emboldened that we aren't going after their forces directly. This particular mess isn't started without Iran's funding and support. I'm not sure why Trump is even part of this discussion this far in arrears. The fact is the world seems to be catching on fire right now, and Biden is in office and war is everywhere. I'm not going to sit here and be so political to blame the Biden Administration for all of these wars, personally I don't feel there's any U.S. action that is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine. But it's odd to blame Trump for the aggression of Iranian proxies when he took the step of eliminating Soleimani when many on the left were concerned that could lead to broader conflict. Hell, at the time I was unsure, but looking back on it I think time has shown that it was proper and sent the right message. There's a balance between not provoking a larger war but striking them enough to punish bad acts so that they know there is a price to pay that is beyond what they may gain in those actions.

The Trump tax package was a great benefit to my business, specifically the S Corp treatment that Sen. Johnson fought hard for in order to get his vote. Taxation is actually the runaway top reason from a self interest standpoint for me to vote for either, and that would be for Trump. As far as tariffs go, yes they will cause price increases. In rough terms those increased prices will go to the government. It essentially should function as a de-facto use/consumption tax.

Do you not find it odd that even though the article specifically mentions Texas, and that it benefits, that Texas is doing all it can to stop the flow and ship illegal immigrants to other locales? If your take is that Gov. Abbott is mistaken about it, then are blue politicians such as Mayor Adams in NY, etc also mistaken? It seems wherever volumes of these folks are shipped, economic hardships follow. Let me be clear, there are good and bad people in every group, but if by in large this subset of folks were an economic benefit, why are these cities and localities struggling so badly? I still think it's pretty easy to find jobs out there for unskilled labor. We can agree there is some need for some of that, however while some of them are indeed filling those jobs, we seem to have large volumes draining resources without offset as well. I know we simply aren't going to agree here. But I find it interesting when the rubber is forced to meet the road in some of these sanctuary cities, suddenly this theoretic economic benefit dissipates like a fart in the wind and they become overwhelmed not only from an infrastructure standpoint but a fiscal one as well.

I didn’t get it either. It’s like I missed out on the secret handshake or something.

Oregon should thank Bryan Harsin for Bo Nix. He single handedly ran him off from Auburn. Now Knight sure stepped up once he was on the market. Bo's dad is a big time coach in Alabama HS football and was at AU while I was there. Still see them both around in Auburn, Bo was at one of the home basketball games this year.

It's part of the demographic political realignment. The old neocon R's like Nicole Wallace/Liz Cheney are now darlings to the left and carry the water for D's. Those Republicans who got us into Iraq are suddenly quite popular on MSNBC and the like.

Gamestop was a company in financial distress. As much as some may not like it, I have to be honest and admit it was brilliant that a group got together and figured out so many shares were shorted and the stock was so cheap that they could buy up all the available shares and create an incredible short squeeze. As the shorts' losses mounted, there were simply no shares for them to purchase to cover their shorts and stop the bleeding. That's why it's always important to remember that shorts have limited gains and unlimited losses. To stay short on a company already in the toilet is a very low reward and extremely high risk proposition. So many hedge funds were short Gamestop and they were just going to ride it to zero. Rather than take their profits, they left themselves exposed and someone figured out a way to capitalize on their mistake.

A couple of thoughts. I don't think him promoting it is a problem at all. Many people with large stakes in companies do the same. The only crime would be if he had inside knowledge of fraudulent financials and misled the public. I don't think there's anything to lead us to believe that. I don't think the numbers support the valuation today so I don't think that financial reporting is behind this value. If Trump supporters are buying it as a way to indirectly help him create wealth, I don't think that's a crime. In fact, as long as it's heading north, it's creating wealth for them too and they can sell it for a profit today. Those gains be it Trump or individual shareholders would be subject to cap gains treatment and taxation. Even if you and I, and most of the investing community believe this is overvalued, a short squeeze can be created if there aren't enough shares out there to satisfy demand. It's a self fulfilling prophecy in that regard until those people decide to sell off their shares. It will be interesting to see the short float on this once those numbers are available.

It's simply trading a stock. If you feel strongly it's not worth that (I'd agree), you can short it and make money. One caveat, you have to have the financial wherewithal to withstand and hold that short position if you get squeezed like a Gamestop or you end up being wrong. There's nothing Ponzi about it, overexuberance I believe. But my motto is never put myself into a short position with this much of a spotlight on it. This thing is ripe for a group to bid it up and continue to do so and put you in some dire straits financially. It doesn't mean they will, but when you short a stock you have a finite profit and a limitless loss. The risk/reward is all wrong on this one for me to be on either side.

Not sure about the hot issues of today, but Russia has long had issues with Muslims in Chechnya.

I agree, tough job. She's not exactly politically savvy, but the operatives around her are. She has the old Shelby political establishment behind her. She was in bad trouble in the primary for that seat. So much so that the frontrunner, Mike Durant from Black Hawk Down, wouldn't take debates with her and Mo Brooks. Suddenly the attack ads started and sank Mike Durant. The ads could be completely valid, but it was pretty apparent that the Shelby machine wasn't going to let Durant win. It went from a hands off approach to avoid Mo Brooks, where they thought they wanted Durant in the runoff to suddenly realizing if they didn't smear him that she might not even make the runoff. Trump had originally backed Mo Brooks but later pulled his endorsement as Brooks struggled once they got heads up as well and the avalanche of attack ads came cascading down on him. Mo Brooks tried to run as "MAGA Mo Brooks" yet Donald Trump pulled his endorsement. At that point it was over.

Well at least we can trust Vox to call balls and strikes right down the middle

President al-Sisi realizes there will be some bad hombres in those that would flow in without the wall.

On the bright side, Alabama does have an age limit for judge positions. Parker is 72 and therefore can't run for re-election in November.