It'd be as hypocritical as the people claiming China is evil having a nice large stock holding in Tencent.
I don't see that as hypocritical either. You don't have to like a country or company to hold stock in it.
When your career is dedicated to opposing something, you can't then be benefiting from the success of it.
I mean, I know full well that this is just an ad hoc reason to say 'woman bad'. But all sorts of people who do not like the vaccine benefit from it all the same. For example, if more people have immunity due to the vaccine, this means Covid causes less damage, which leads to a reopening which in turn benefits everyone, including people who may not like it. Furthermore, is she even opposed to the vaccine, let alone having dedicated her career to it?
Is it just me that avoids investments purely for political reasons? Having integrity is hard, I suppose. Saying that, I decided to begrudgingly add AMD to my portfolio at the last dip to 130. Probably could have got it far lower, but I have faith that it will perform...mainly because Intel is a circus that thinks they can get away with not paying people if they don't get the jab.
Yes, she definitely has. The last few months have been just her pretending to be helping the anti-vax movement while actively making it look stupid.
You can't avoid passively benefiting from the removal of restrictions, but you can avoid putting your money into Pfizer stock, as I did. I lost a huge amount of potential gains selling at ~$42, but I have a clear conscience.
Is it just me that avoids investments purely for political reasons?
Unlikely, but you may have the misprision that buying a company's stock benefits the company. It really doesn't. The question is whether you will reap the benefits, or... women.
Saying that, I decided to begrudgingly add AMD to my portfolio at the last dip to 130
130 is a dip now? I bought AMD a while back at $2.
mainly because Intel is a circus that thinks they can get away with not paying people if they don't get the jab.
Look, making investment decisions based on ideology is quite a bad idea. You'll end up losing money. But at least you are not shorting Intel.
Yes, she definitely has. The last few months have been just her pretending to be helping the anti-vax movement while actively making it look stupid.
The anti-vax movement really doesn't need any help looking stupid. Also, your article only says that she is not vaccinated, which she has every right to not be, and that she denounces those who are forcing vaccinations down people's throat, which she is also right about. This does not make her "anti-vax".
At least be honest and say that you don't like her because she is a woman.
You can't avoid passively benefiting from the removal of restrictions, but you can avoid putting your money into Pfizer stock, as I did. I lost a huge amount of potential gains selling at ~$42, but I have a clear conscience.
That is your opinion.
It'd be as hypocritical as the people claiming China is evil having a nice large stock holding in Tencent.
When your career is dedicated to opposing something, you can't then be benefiting from the success of it.
I don't see that as hypocritical either. You don't have to like a country or company to hold stock in it.
I mean, I know full well that this is just an ad hoc reason to say 'woman bad'. But all sorts of people who do not like the vaccine benefit from it all the same. For example, if more people have immunity due to the vaccine, this means Covid causes less damage, which leads to a reopening which in turn benefits everyone, including people who may not like it. Furthermore, is she even opposed to the vaccine, let alone having dedicated her career to it?
Is it just me that avoids investments purely for political reasons? Having integrity is hard, I suppose. Saying that, I decided to begrudgingly add AMD to my portfolio at the last dip to 130. Probably could have got it far lower, but I have faith that it will perform...mainly because Intel is a circus that thinks they can get away with not paying people if they don't get the jab.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-shes-not-vaccinated-rips-vaccine-nazis/ar-AAQf2fi?ocid=BingNewsSearch
Yes, she definitely has. The last few months have been just her pretending to be helping the anti-vax movement while actively making it look stupid.
You can't avoid passively benefiting from the removal of restrictions, but you can avoid putting your money into Pfizer stock, as I did. I lost a huge amount of potential gains selling at ~$42, but I have a clear conscience.
Unlikely, but you may have the misprision that buying a company's stock benefits the company. It really doesn't. The question is whether you will reap the benefits, or... women.
130 is a dip now? I bought AMD a while back at $2.
Look, making investment decisions based on ideology is quite a bad idea. You'll end up losing money. But at least you are not shorting Intel.
The anti-vax movement really doesn't need any help looking stupid. Also, your article only says that she is not vaccinated, which she has every right to not be, and that she denounces those who are forcing vaccinations down people's throat, which she is also right about. This does not make her "anti-vax".
At least be honest and say that you don't like her because she is a woman.
As do people who did not sell.