BC POLITICS
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

 But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.
It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.
Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop there.

https://t.co/097srhcwmd
(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
The birther racism was bad enough. But it also delegitimized Obama and contributed to the idea that Democrats only win by cheating - which is what got us to today.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is that people didn't pay enough attention to what the birthers were doing.
They were dismissed as a joke, but they were taking themselves seriously to (and beyond) the end of the Obama years - and they were doing so in the precursors to 8kun and Q.

I think dismissing these neo-birthers in the same way would be a bad mistake.
I don't plan to make that mistake. I'm going to keep watching, and trying to figure out what else I can do to combat the harm they cause.

With that in mind, let's turn to the complaint.
The complaint is filed on behalf of two organizations which may or may not be incorporated (we'll see in a bit; I haven't looked), one named individual, and 4 people who have the courage to demand to challenge the whole country's election pseudonymously.
They are represented by two lawyers. One is presently practicing law on his own after being dumped from his job after being identified as one of the livestreamers at the seditious riot of 6 Jan. The other is a failed Republican political candidate.
You are supposed to catch attention with headings, and credit where due this kind of does do this. Maybe not in a great way, but it does it.
The first paragraph is a thing. I don't have another word for it, really. It's a strange strange paragraph.
Also, this is one GEM of a footnote.

I mean, it's right. But it's not exactly -- I don't know what the hell it's trying to do.
My bad. Thanks for the reminder.

https://t.co/YlB9RwZSfg

https://t.co/XVM6S77hS2
This is a new theory. And when we say "new theory" in this context, we should be clear about what that means:

It means that this is so bonkers that even Ellis, Giuliani, Powell, Wood, and Eastman could not - not even by focusing their combined venial incompetence - think of it.
So the legal theory here seems to be that votes which aren't HAVA-compliant are not legal votes. This is consistent with the developing Republican orthodoxy in this area - which claims that the government can deprive you of your vote if they mess up election procedures.
Seeing this sentence, I'm genuinely surprised that they're not alleging Popehat's least favorite claim.
*reads next paragraph*
This is just - oh my.

They have really taken the bananapants clownshoes to a whole new level. The entire 117th Congress - apparently including those who were seated in the Senate in prior years - needs to be thrown out. Not just POTUS.
This is, needless to say, not going to happen.
Hasn't HAVA been around for like nearly 20 years or something? How the hell could this be the first year there was an issue?

(Also laches but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.)
BRB got tea in my nose.
"The only conceivable remedy is...for the Court to order the 50 states to conduct a new federal election that conforms to the minimum standards of HAVA."

That's an inconceivable remedy. And, yes, Inigo. I know what inconceivable means.
I'm cracking up with every paragraph. Just every last one.

We've apparently hit "if literally every last federal official except Trump is illegitimate maybe Trump can stay President."

WHICH IS STILL WRONG.
If there's no new President or VP, and no Speaker, and no President Pro Tem of the Senate, then Mike Pompeo, racist escapee from a pufferfish imitation club though he may be, would presumably become President provided his resignation was not yet effective.
"...this Court should rest assured that [literally yeeting the entire Congress] will not result in the destruction of democracy."
OK. This is something I feel like a lot of Trumpian MAGAts need to hear:

"Consent of the governed" does not mean anyone gives a damn whether you personally consent to any specific officeholder.
When I think "simple enough for a 3rd grader" I generally don't think of 8-point explanations resting on volumes of evidence, but maybe that's just me.
OK. So as to point 4, anyone who is talking about enforceable contracts in this context is one very short step away from rolling around the courtroom floor gibbering about fringy flags and screaming incoherently about joinder while being repeatedly tased.
Beyond that, the "self-evident" in point seven is doing a metric fuckton and a half of work in this argument.

But it's a great example for "if you say it is, it ain't."
Also, what the hell - do these pangalactic garglebrains not understand that Senators serve for 6 years and nearly 2/3 of the Senate wasn't elected on the ballots they claim were illegal?
This person shares a name with one of the nitwits who got arrested for driving up to Philly during the vote count with a bunch of weapons. But that person apparently lives in Virginia Beach, so dunno.
I have no idea whether either of the two "political organizations" have the capacity to sue.
Not sure why they're using a pseudonym for JB and yet providing this much detail.
There are a lot of defendants. Although a TRO is being sought, the plaintiffs have apparently not requested that summonses issue as to ANY defendant.

Also: citing "https://t.co/LsPDjUepwD" instead of actually bothering to list all your defendants is an interesting choice.
ARRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHH - these people are soooo bloody bloody stupid what the everlovingmotherfuck
For the nonlawyers:
In order for the court to have diversity jurisdiction, NONE of the plaintiffs can be from the same state as ANY of the defendants.

They are suing EVERYONE in the 117th Congress and all 50 governors.

Do you see their problem?
I mean, OK, I can't totally fukking rule out the possibility of complete diversity. It's possible that these transcendental nincompoops are literally, as well as figuratively, domiciled somewhere beyond the second star to the right.

But it's pretty damn unlikely, now, innit?
This personal jurisdiction section is funny, but it's funny to lawyers in a way that's going to take too long to explain. Also, @AkivaMCohen said it's his favorite and I don't want to steal his thunder.
And - whoops! - so much for the lunar domicile theory of diversity jurisdiction. They just said that some of the plaintiffs live in the same district as some of the defendants.
Neither, actually. They meant "haled into court." https://t.co/FDCB93UUs9
Not a lot of facts really being stated. And the whole "not stating the specific sections of the law that we think were violated" thing is also an interesting choice when they want preliminary relief.
Or maybe I spoke too soon.

Except, no, they don't seem to be bothering to explain how any of these changes fail to comply with HAVA.
I'm going to scroll through the 50 states relatively quick. I'll stop and do a screenshot if anything seems noteworthy enough.
Seriously, I think they're just doing copypasta from some memo someone did, because why the hell am I reading about a court decision that resulted in election rules not being changed?
Wait wut??

You're suing Colorado because they made changes except you say they made no changes? Are you on crack? Did you fall down and hit your head on something? What the hell is going on here? Give me a reason for this. Something. Anything. COME ON!
GUAM?? GUAM????

What the hell? They have no electoral votes, no voting member in Congress, AND YOU AREN'T SUING THEM YOU COMPLETE BUMBLEFUCKING BANANAPANTS BUFFOONS.
OK, we're up to 3 states now being sued who according to the plaintiffs did not do anything wrong.
5 with no changes.

This is not the "reasonable inquiry" Rule 11 requires.
6 with no changes.
Ohjustkillmenow
LMFAO - SUCH AS???

I mean that's not exactly unimportant, now, is it???
OK. Now y'all just messing with me. Really.
And what in the name of the ichor god Bel-Shamharoth is this ratfuckery even? Every other change anyone made violated HAVA *except* Texas? GTFO.
Another no-change state. I think it's 7 now but I'm not going to waste the time looking back upthread to confirm that.
And one last no-change state. These people should not be trusted around objects.
Why are you only suing the members of the 116th Congress who won reelection if you're complaining about this.
Does it count as alleging that the defendants Did Teh RICO if you chicken out and don't add the cause of action?
*double checks* - yup. No RICO claim.

This plus the Hagar thing is starting to give me the same feeling I get when I'm grading a paper where the student changed topics mid-paper without realizing it because hey stream of semiconsciousness always works, right?
Does anyone but Zuckerberg qualify? Were they planning on suing about eleventyjillion more people?

Don't answer that.
They were soooo going to try and sue for Teh RICO and then chickened out.
There is no named plaintiff J. James in this case. There is, however, someone with the initials J.J.
WHATTHEHELLISTHISEVEN???

Competence, motherfukkers, do you know what that is??
I get the sense that they might not know how RAM works. Or what it is.
And always a good choice to make the Court read more on a case like this. Especially vaguely titled and poorly described exhibits.
OFFS. Learn to write you semiliterate seditionist pussbuckets.
And here are the other claims that they fail to state.

As far as I can tell, they are claiming that they were deprived of their right to vote and therefore the entire election of Congress should be overturned because....

Yeah, I'm just kidding. I've got no clue what they claim.
You want to invalidate the entire 117th Congress by having a court issue an ex parte TRO?

No, seriously, what do you want?
Because there's no way you could seriously ask a court to issue ex parte relief doing that....

But they are.

*sigh*
They're "calling on the courage of this court." Yeah, that always works. Great heading there. Really.

You crappants clown.
Also: subject-verb agreement. It's a thing. It might not be a thing in this pleading, except perhaps by accident, but it really is a thing.
Fuck you, you seditionist little shitbirds. The fuck your plea is made on my behalf.
Oh my god they included a footnote defining "Founding Fathers" becuase how the hell else would we know who they are referring to in this insane screed.
Oh, they're worrying about the political question doctrine. That's so cute. It's like worrying about an ingrown eyebrow hair when you're the Black Knight post-Arthur.
Wow. Sense of self-importance much?
So they address political question but not really - they just say it should be ignored. Which it will be - there are too many other reasons to dismiss this steaming turdmountain for the court to get that far.
1: Sentences end with periods.
2: Undersigned counsels' don't know very much. There was an evidentiary hearing in Wisconsin. The parties simply avoided witnesses in that case by agreeing to a set of stipulated facts during a recess in that hearing.
You're filing the lawsuit less than 48 hours from inauguration and you are claiming that laches doesn't apply because the plaintiffs didn't lawyer up sooner?

That ain't how laches work, y'all. Not even close.
Oh, just gag me with a sp--- no, better yet, gag them.
"If investors come to view their investments in assets held in the United States as inherently unstable...that would have a devastating effect on the Plaintiff's ability to plan for retirement by investing" is my new favorite worst irreparable harm argument ever.
Not only does it use up so much nocturnal flying mammal excrement that it threatens the global guano supply, it doesn't even work. That's a financial harm claim - it's fixable with money and therefore not irreparable.
Also -
You think a court yeeting the Congress and Presidency would be viewed by investors as *improving stability*???
No.
No. No. No.

This isn't real.
There's a *gold standard* argument for irreparable harm???

This can't be real.
"Y'all might have the memory of a lobotomized goldfish, counsel, but I read the complaint. You said that you weren't sure if Texas violated HAVA."
Also, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around "failure to comply with HAVA renders every ballot cast in the election invalid."
It always ends well when lawyers try to argue entire key elements with single sentences. This is particularly true when the sentences start with "it is self-evident that."
You want the TRO to be entered without notice? WHAT are you smoking and no I don't want any.

Also, RICO!
How much bond would be appropriate for a TRO that destroys the very fabric of the nation?
Oh, cool. Now we get to the fun stuff.

The requests.
LOL. No.
LOL. Hell no.
We knew Davis was involved in the Capitol sedition because of the whole getting fired thing, but was Kellye SoRelle on anyone's radar for this? Or did she just out herself as a participant?

Also, no, the court isn't going to save your ass.
1: That's not how it would work.
2: Also, no, seriously, how do you think that would even work?
Seriously, in just One Day More - not even - Trump will no longer be a lawfully and constitutionally remaining federal public official. So how would this work?
And, no, the courts are not going to "forever restrain[]" all 50 Governors, all 50 Secretaries of State, and all the Congresscritters of the nation from future office.
And where's the unicorn? Why are they not requesting a unicorn? It would be such a reasonable request compared with the rest.
Oh, and yeah, the signature block is just beautiful. Legendary, even.
Thoughts:
1: There's also, lord have mercy, a motion for TRO. I'll look at that tonight.
2:
Seriously, I barely scratched the surface on this one. This is the product of flop sweat, panic, and time that would better have been spent by these lawyers putting their affairs in order in preparation for arrest.

/fin

More from Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:

1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.


3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.

5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.

7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.

So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.
ALL
Advertisement
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:

1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.

2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."

Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.


There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
COURT
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.

Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.


The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.

That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.

The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.

The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.

The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.

Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
GOVERNMENT

More from Politics

Werise
Werise
@We_Have_Risen
I was working on something before the election that became the election...

Color revolutions are real and we just witnessed one live and direct...

1.
POLITICS
Henry Farrell
Henry Farrell
@henryfarrell
1. Short thread - on the various claims we're seeing from Republican politicians over the last few days that the Democratic push for accountability is "divisive." Damn right it's divisive - that is what it has to be.

2. It is intended to enforce a clear division between those who accept and are committed to democracy and those who are willing to turn to violence when the vote doesn't turn out the way that they want it to.

3. One of the basic implications of Adam Przeworski's theoretic work is that democracy is made out of mutually reinforcing expectations, and those expectations are fragile. If some actors think they would be better off defecting from the democratic bargain, they will.

4. In other words: democracy and armed factionalism are far closer than we think, or we would like them to be. This means that it is incredibly important to police the boundaries between them. Allowing some to turn to violence can lead to expectation collapse and cascading ruin.

5. When we allow the divisions to become blurred, that means that we are running the perpetual risk of things getting fucked up. If a major faction turns to violence, and no-one responds, things can get really fucked up really, really fast.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Stephen Bush
Stephen Bush
@stephenkb
Some quick thoughts on Sam Gyimah's resignation after conversations with various Conservative MPs: 1) the chances of a second referendum are a lot higher than I thought:

2) At this point, if you are a young and ambitious Tory MP it is now so overwhelmingly in your interest to vote against the withdrawal agreement. V v hard to see how Julian Smith can cap rebellion at under 100:

3) Really just to reiterate 1) Gyimah is the kind of "No, never gonna rebel" vaguely pro-EU Tory you'd need to get on side to outweigh Labour Leavers and Real Concerners.
POLITICS
legalnerd
legalnerd
@alegalnerd
1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.
POLITICS
Caroline - Real Feminists XX \U0001f1ff\U0001f1e6
Caroline - Real Femini...
@radicalhag
Transition, 'inclusion' etc all have political ramifications. Instead of buying into the remarkably masculinist assumptions of queer theory that the dissolution of boundaries is always good, we should be examining them from the point of group power relations.

Transactivists try to conflate identifying as trans with gay marriage, in attempts to demonstrate the progressiveness of their cause, but the comparators are actually transracialism, trans-abledness, identifying as w/c etc.

The diagram shows the asymmetrical nature of such identifications. Identifying down is colonisation. Identifying up is impossible. The most you can do is improve your individual status relative to your class of origin, which leaves everyone else behind.


It also shows that the classes are occupied. If you identify as disabled, or as a woman, or as black, you are demanding access to spaces and facilities which were set aside for people based on a characteristic which you don't share.

How well tolerated this is gives us a clear insight into which oppressions are tolerated. We're rightly paying a lot more attention to racism, so Rachel Dolezal was fired by the NAACP. Other white women in the US who've tried this have been heavily criticised.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Aditya Todmal
Aditya Todmal
@AdityaTodmal
MASTER THREAD on Short Strangles.

Curated the best tweets from the best traders who are exceptional at managing strangles.

• Positional Strangles
• Intraday Strangles
• Position Sizing
• How to do Adjustments
• Plenty of Examples
• When to avoid
• Exit Criteria

How to sell Strangles in weekly expiry as explained by boss himself. @Mitesh_Engr

• When to sell
• How to do Adjustments
• Exit


Beautiful explanation on positional option selling by @Mitesh_Engr
Sir on how to sell low premium strangles yourself without paying anyone. This is a free mini course in


1st Live example of managing a strangle by Mitesh Sir. @Mitesh_Engr

• Sold Strangles 20% cap used
• Added 20% cap more when in profit
• Booked profitable leg and rolled up
• Kept rolling up profitable leg
• Booked loss in calls
• Sold only


2nd example by @Mitesh_Engr Sir on converting a directional trade into strangles. Option Sellers can use this for consistent profit.

• Identified a reversal and sold puts

• Puts decayed a lot

• When achieved 2% profit through puts then sold
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , ALL , OPTIONS STRATEGY
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARMA
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARM...
@world_sanatan
LESSER KNOWN DETAILS ABOUT THE BATTLE OF PRATAPGAD - THIS YOU ALL SHOULD READ

In the 1659 Adilshah sent Afzalkhan with the army of 75000 soldiers to destroy Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj with his empire. He was the main soldier, warrior and minister in Adilshahi Sultanate.


He was the Subhedar of Wai province.

He was very powerful physically. His height was 7.3 ft. due to same he was very popular as a strong man from Adilshahi Sultanate.

Whole India was not daring to fight with Adilshahi due to Afzal Khan.

Badi Begum Sahiba sent him to kill Chhatrapati Shivaji on any cost.

Voluntary he decided to destroy Chhatrapati Shivaji’s empire with him. He started his operation against Chhatrapati Shivaji from "wai". He destroyed many temples like as Tulja Bhavani Temple.

He destroyed so many villages, killed villagers to torture Chhatrapati Shivaji.

DETAILED VIEW- Running commentary

1. Chhatrapati Shivaji chose Pantaji as a lawyer to communicate with Afzal Khan. Pantaji was very sharp minded, who did his job very nicely.

2. He presented Chhatrapati Shivaji is fearing Afzal Khan and he wanted to invite him in his kingdom near Pratapgad.

3. Pantaji succeed in the communication with Afzal Khan and he brought him as per the planning of Chhatrapati Shivaji.
ALL
Advertisement
\u0100yudhika
Āyudhika
@Satyamev1310
Ashta Siddhi

Ashta Siddhi is mentioned in Patanjali Yog sutra and can be obtained by very few through countless years of practice and devotion to all eight limbs of Ashtanga Yoga.

Siddhi can loosely be translated as accomplishment or a special power or unusual skill.


The eight Siddhis are:

1. Anima: Reducing one’s physical self to the size of an atom.

2. Mahima: Expanding one’s physical self to infinite level

3. Garima: Making one’s physical self so heavy as immovable by others

4. Laghima: Becoming almost weightless


5. Prapti: Being able travel anywhere in the Universe

6. Prakamya: Can know & understand what is going on in one’s mind. Can understand other person’s min.

7. Ishitva: Possessing title of Bhagwan

8. Vashitva: A seeker can subdue any person/thing

(Hanuman Jayanti is coming)


Hanumanji not only possessed all eight siddhis, but was also blessed by Sita mata as “Ashta Siddhi Nau Nidhi Ke Daata”.

When Hanumanji first reaches to Lanka on his mission to find Sita, he makes use of anima so as to be discrete in enemy territory.


He uses it again when he approaches Sita mata for the first time – reducing his size to that of a schoolboy, to avoid scaring her. He uses mahima to outwit & overpowers
the demons.
ALL
Angad Singh
Angad Singh
@Singh7575
𝙎𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙙𝙤𝙢 𝑾𝒐𝒏'𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒇 𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒘 𝒖 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒇𝒇 𝒊𝒏 50𝒌 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒑 𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄
Simple and effective way 2 make Money


Idea 1:- Use pivot level like 14800 in case of nifty and sell 14800straddle monthly expiry (365+335) exit if nifty closes on daily basis below S1 or above R1

After closing below S1 if it closes above S1 next day or any day enter the same position again vice versa for R1

Idea2:- Use R1 and S1 corresponding strikes multiple
Incase of R1 15337 take 15300ce
N in case of S1 14221 use 14200pe
Sell both and hold till expiry or exit if nifty closes below S1 or above R1 around closing
If the same bounces above S1 and falls below R1 re-enfer same strikes

Use same criteria for nifty, usdinr and banknifty

(This is must)Use this margin rule for 1lot banknifty pair keep 4Lax margin
For nifty one lot keep 3Lax
For usdinr 100lots keep 4Lax

I bet you if you do this on consistent basis your ROI will be more than 70% on yearly basis.

Couldn't explain easier than this

Criticisms are most welcomed.
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , MONTHLY OPTIONS SELLING , OPTIONS LEARNING
Antonio Garc\xeda Mart\xednez
Antonio García Martíne...
@antoniogm
Observing the public conversation around FB, and the private ones happening among techies and ex-FBers, I think the mutual misunderstanding is worse than when I set out two years (and 500 pages) ago to (in a small way) bridge that gulf.

We're basically fucked.

The tech world has gotten so huge, self-reinforcing, and insulated from reality they can no longer even vaguely look at themselves (and their actions) as others do. They just live on a different planet than most people.

Conversely, the average tech consumer doesn't understand the technology that has slowly taken over their lives, and their designated emissaries to figure it out--politicians, pundits, regulators, journalists--understand it barely better than they do, and have their own agendas.

To say more than generalities for a moment, here's what I think is likely the core problem.

Techies take weird, improbable visions, and make them realities: some BS pitch deck to a VC, mixed with money and people, really does turn into some novel thing.

Most people work inside a legacy industry that's evolved that way over time (usually for good reasons), and they think about the future via some analogy with their present (which is a function of a long-ago past). The interruption that tech will introduce is often hard to grasp.
TECH