Q4 enters the arena

Rick wrote: Too many posts to search, but were we not supposed to be in a recession by now? I was told to wait for it... still waiting but expecting the goal post to move again. Wait for it...

[/b]

Let me clarify an apparent mis.conception......are you familiar with the term "trending"?

THAT is a macro view.....collecting available information, observing the business/consumer
environment and then correlating the information to forecast probable position or outcome.

The same is true for astrology....it forecasts TRENDS within a timeframe. THAT time frame
is a scope of weeks or months.....or for the outer planets,YEARS. Q4 is not over, my timeframe
is within what is trending.....it STARTED at the beginning of Q3......WAIT FOR IT....

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: Too many posts to search, but were we not supposed to be in a recession by now? I was told to wait for it... still waiting but expecting the goal post to move again. Wait for it...

[/b]

Let me clarify an apparent mis.conception......are you familiar with the term "trending"?

THAT is a macro view.....collecting available information, observing the business/consumer
environment and then correlating the information to forecast probable position or outcome.

The same is true for astrology....it forecasts TRENDS within a timeframe. THAT time frame
is a scope of weeks or months.....or for the outer planets,YEARS. Q4 is not over, my timeframe
is within what is trending.....it STARTED at the beginning of Q3......WAIT FOR IT....

Astrology? Our lives are controlled by the planets and stars? I guess they are in a way, but only by gravity and how hot the Sun happens to be this year. So when Pluto stopped being a planet, was it taken off your charts?

FredHayek wrote:

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: Too many posts to search, but were we not supposed to be in a recession by now? I was told to wait for it... still waiting but expecting the goal post to move again. Wait for it...

[/b]

Let me clarify an apparent mis.conception......are you familiar with the term "trending"?

THAT is a macro view.....collecting available information, observing the business/consumer
environment and then correlating the information to forecast probable position or outcome.

The same is true for astrology....it forecasts TRENDS within a timeframe. THAT time frame
is a scope of weeks or months.....or for the outer planets,YEARS. Q4 is not over, my timeframe
is within what is trending.....it STARTED at the beginning of Q3......WAIT FOR IT....

Astrology? Our lives are controlled by the planets and stars? I guess they are in a way, but only by gravity and how hot the Sun happens to be this year. So when Pluto stopped being a planet, was it taken off your charts?

[/b]

NOPE, the decision you are speaking of is controversial and NOT universally accepted.
A book utilized by astrologist,for planet transits and positions is called an EPHEMERIS and
my reference goes out to 2050.

www.sciencealert.com/nasa-administrator-...ys-pluto-is-a-planet

REALLY, utilizing astrology in everyday life is pretty innocuous. You actually do it without realizing it. IF you live on the coast, boating and clam digging are common activities. To maximize your
activity you consult tide tables....lowtide for clamming, high tide to launch a boat. It is the same for
other decisions you might make. You find the optimum timeframe and make a plan. TRENDING
in astrology, is equal to a transit. THIS would be an example of what a transit is.......A train is
approaching a crossroad....you hear the whistle far away, yet you can not see the train, the train
whistle becomes louder and louder and the train appears at your position....it passes you and
the train and the whistle then become distant until finally gone out of range.....that is a transit.

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: Too many posts to search, but were we not supposed to be in a recession by now? I was told to wait for it... still waiting but expecting the goal post to move again. Wait for it...

[/b][/b]



Let me clarify an apparent mis.conception......are you familiar with the term "trending"?

THAT is a macro view..collecting available information, observing the business/consumer
environment and then correlating the information to forecast probable position or outcome.

The same is true for astrology....it forecasts TRENDS within a timeframe. THAT time frame
is a scope of weeks or months....or for the outer planets,YEARS. Q4 is not over, my timeframe
is within what is trending.....it STARTED at the beginning of Q3......WAIT FOR IT....

[/b]

A reminder.....shit is hitting the fan.....right on schedule. bolded

The big question for next year: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
For me? I am much better off. My nest egg has tripled since inauguration day.

homeagain wrote: www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/investing/premark...s-trading/index.html

SSDD........No real forward forecast.......just another fubared finding for Q4

It seems the LA Times is using the same references you are.

https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-100/s3/images/2019-11-08_2.png?itok=7BdpRNdWhttps://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-100/s3/images/2019-11-08_2.png?itok=7BdpRNdW

ScienceChic wrote: My apologies BB, I missed that they were specifically talking about TV news. You know how I feel about that garbage, right? I have always said that news should be consumed primarily in print, because television/video has too great of an impact on us subconsciously and emotionally, and it's too easy to miss the rapid sharing of information and have time to analyze it before they move on to something else. TV news is for entertainment in my opinion, not education.

So you're saying that the print media that you trust is not mostly biased the same way TV media is biased? I watch and read both and see very little difference. I guarantee I can show you evidence of extreme bias in any of the print media you find credible... mostly stories that are not told that should have been.

Print media is a mixture of facts (selective facts), opinion, innuendo, and assumptions made to steer the reader into agreeing with the point the writer/"journalist" wants to pound into your head. Tv does the same thing except with TV you get to watch and listen to the actual players we are talking about. I know we've argued about this before and I'm just as curious why you don't think that listening to the words straight form an individual's mouth is somehow less informative that having a third party describe what the individual said. Print journalists haven't been any more reliable and honest than TV journalists when it came to the whole Russia investigation... both groups failed to tell the whole story which left them all with lots of egg on their faces when it turned out that Trump did nothing wrong. Had they talked about how Hillary's campaign colluding with a foreign agent to get fake dirt from Russians, maybe print and tv media would have maintained at least a little credibility. There's so much that was ignored, like all the FBI, CIA, and DOJ Trump haters that tried to take him out immediately after being elected. We are about to see much of what the media knew but refused to look into. We are going to see indisputable facts that the media will once again attempt to brush off because it will prove that they truly are worthless as watchdogs for the people. I don't think we will have to wait much longer.

Unfortunately I don't believe that true Trump haters would ever be willing to concede that the media, print or TV, were not only biased but complicit if pushing a narrative that they and the Democrats created which turned out to be epic amounts of bullshit.

Rick wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: My apologies BB, I missed that they were specifically talking about TV news. You know how I feel about that garbage, right? I have always said that news should be consumed primarily in print, because television/video has too great of an impact on us subconsciously and emotionally, and it's too easy to miss the rapid sharing of information and have time to analyze it before they move on to something else. TV news is for entertainment in my opinion, not education.

So you're saying that the print media that you trust is not mostly biased the same way TV media is biased? I watch and read both and see very little difference. I guarantee I can show you evidence of extreme bias in any of the print media you find credible... mostly stories that are not told that should have been.

Print media is a mixture of facts (selective facts), opinion, innuendo, and assumptions made to steer the reader into agreeing with the point the writer/"journalist" wants to pound into your head. Tv does the same thing except with TV you get to watch and listen to the actual players we are talking about. I know we've argued about this before and I'm just as curious why you don't think that listening to the words straight form an individual's mouth is somehow less informative that having a third party describe what the individual said. Print journalists haven't been any more reliable and honest than TV journalists when it came to the whole Russia investigation... both groups failed to tell the whole story which left them all with lots of egg on their faces when it turned out that Trump did nothing wrong. Had they talked about how Hillary's campaign colluding with a foreign agent to get fake dirt from Russians, maybe print and tv media would have maintained at least a little credibility. There's so much that was ignored, like all the FBI, CIA, and DOJ Trump haters that tried to take him out immediately after being elected. We are about to see much of what the media knew but refused to look into. We are going to see indisputable facts that the media will once again attempt to brush off because it will prove that they truly are worthless as watchdogs for the people. I don't think we will have to wait much longer.

Unfortunately I don't believe that true Trump haters would ever be willing to concede that the media, print or TV, were not only biased but complicit if pushing a narrative that they and the Democrats created which turned out to be epic amounts of bullshit.

[/b]

GUESS you did not see tv and MULVANEY state ,for all to see and hear....IT WAS A QUID PRO\QUO.....it IS DONE ALL THE TIME....GET OVER IT....that,my dear, is a FULL ON f**k up,
and he can't take it back, because there is a visual/audio record of his STUPIDITY.