Cosine Thoughts

While it does sound a bit ridiculous on the surface it isn't beyond questioning. However, I feel that the answer would be "no". Or rather, pending a very strong reason, he shouldn't be allowed. Obviously, he should still be permitted any reasonable recourse to ensure any trial is fair. But beyond anything major, I think the cases should be expedited if anything. At this stage, judges at both the federal and state levels in numerous jurisdictions have found the evidence compelling enough to allow trials to move forward. So, even claims that this is some sort of witch-hunt or partisan attack are a bit thin. But, even if it were just a political witch-hunt and doomed to fail I'm not convinced that would change anything here. If this came out of nowhere immediately after Trump had begun his re-election campaign then it might seen as meddling. This is why the Clinton emails were a scandal after all. The public was not generally aware of the allegations ahead of time an...

Well this is a new one . So, personally, while I have no vested interest here and I'm not a UK Citizen, my vote would be "no". And this isn't just a personal preference thing. I have a few technical reasons and a few on the more personal side. So let's dispense, shall we? On the technical side, being a "working royal" has never been a factor in succession. In fact, as the monarchy has slimmed down over the years, the number of those with no formal duties who have remained in the line of succession has only increased. The remove the son of the King while many lower in line who aren't working royals still exist would be lunacy. In fact, his place in line and his relationship the King are also very good reasons NOT to eject him. While modern monarchies are not under constant threat of assassination, every monarchy needs a line of succession with heirs who have some level of legitimacy. Being directly related to a living monarch is about a strong a claim...

I'm not certified of anything. So, this is not financial advice. Just some thoughts on my strategy and an excuse to put this in writing somewhere. The hardest part of investment, in my experience at least, has been sticking to a plan. The biggest part of that problem is not actually defining what my plan is. Another part of it, especially in the beginning, was simply the lack of experience and information from which to make a plan. It is hard to get past that latter one without some time. After all, everyone starts out without any real experience. There are a few things I like to define in my plans these days: How am I breaking up my investments? Usually, this is in terms of how long am I planning to invest a sum of money. In most cases you'll have a bunch of different financial goals. All with very different time horizons. Then, for each investment, what does that mean? What does my risk look like? For my retirement funds, I'm still a ways from retirement. So, I'm not ...