Ray

Blockchain, Equities, Macro, VC // Family office investments // Former HF manager (Citadel, Point72) Not financial advice, just my personal views, DYOR

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@SenWarren Good luck changing the constitution.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@Goeun_6121 Did you ever figure out why you were ghost banned?

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@Goeun_6121 Hi, wondering if you have a view on the range for BTC in the next 6-12 months?

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@Goeun_6121 When I came across your posts a few weeks ago, I was really puzzled that only 1k people followed you. I’m glad I did!

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@thecyrusjanssen So no good choices. Unfortunately, sometimes that is life.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@elonmusk Kind of torn on this— Manchin and Sinema sacrificed their careers to uphold the filibuster to protect minority rights, something the Republicans now want to abolish. I understand the view that Democrats are becoming more extreme, so Republicans feel the need to shoot first…

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@Abude_al_asaad @BoringBiz_ You might be right that income and education are not entirely correlated. But the issue here is that someone else should not be paying for your education if your education does not lead to the income needed to repay your student loans. Free college education is not a right.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@RannXerox @roneysize @JMichaelWaller ROC does claim sovereignty over Taiwan, China, HK, Macau, Tibet, and parts of Mongolia.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@Jason Yoroniku. There are 3 locations, this is the original:

https://t.co/e98k81AWFB

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@JamesHolder @elonmusk @grok For political inquiries on Grok, I keep the same chat going where I specified which sources to exclude because of extreme bias. And you will need to further instruct Grok to reference only DATA from various identified sources but not parrot the ANALYSIS from these sources.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.

I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.

Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.

However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.

When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.

The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.

Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?

I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.

The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.

Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@PaulaYScanlan You know that won’t happen. You are better than clickbaiting.

[Sunny @sunnyright]

You mean the people who turned in their left-wing son for murder?

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@robsmithonline Well said! Not just a great man, but also a good one.

[JD Vance @JDVance]

A while ago, probably in 2017, I appeared on Tucker Carlson's Fox show to talk about God knows what. Afterwards a name I barely knew sent me a DM on twitter and told me I did a great job. It was Charlie Kirk, and that moment of kindness began a friendship that lasted until today.

Charlie was fascinated by ideas and always willing to learn and change his mind. Like me, he was skeptical of Donald Trump in 2016. Like me, he came to see President Trump as the only figure capable of moving American politics away from the globalism that had dominated for our entire lives. When others were right, he learned from them. When he was right--as he usually was--he was generous. With Charlie, the attitude was never, "I told you so." But: "welcome."

Charlie was one of the first people I called when I thought about running for senate in early 2021. I was interested but skeptical there was a pathway. We talked through everything, from the strategy to the fundraising to the grassroots of the movement he knew so well. He introduced me to some of the people who would run my campaign and also to Donald Trump Jr. "Like his dad, he's misunderstood. He's extremely smart, and very much on our wavelength." Don took a call from me because Charlie asked him too.

Long before I ever committed (even in my mind) to running, Charlie had me speak to his donors at a TPUSA event. He walked me around the room and introduced me. He gave me honest feedback on my remarks. He had no reason to do this, no expectation that I'd go anywhere. I was polling, at that point, well below 5 percent. He did it because we were friends, and because he was a good man.

When I became the VP nominee--something Charlie advocated for both in public and private--Charlie was there for me. I was so glad to be part of the president's team, but candidly surprised by the effect it had on our family. Our kids, especially our oldest, struggled with the attention and the constant presence of the protective detail. I felt this acute sense of guilt, that I had conscripted my kids into this life without getting their permission. And Charlie was constantly calling and texting, checking on our family and offering guidance and prayers. Some of our most successful events were organized not by the campaign, but by TPUSA. He wasn't just a thinker, he was a doer, turning big ideas into bigger events with thousands of activists. And after every event, he would give me a big hug, tell me he was praying for me, and ask me what he could do. "You focus on Wisconsin," he'd tell me. "Arizona is in the bag." And it was.

Charlie genuinely believed in and loved Jesus Christ. He had a profound faith. We used to argue about Catholicism and Protestantism and who was right about minor doctrinal questions. Because he loved God, he wanted to understand him.

Someone else pointed out that Charlie died doing what he loved: discussing ideas. He would go into these hostile crowds and answer their questions. If it was a friendly crowd, and a progressive asked a question to jeers from the audience, he'd encourage his fans to calm down and let everyone speak. He exemplified a foundational virtue of our Republic: the willingness to speak openly and debate ideas.

Charlie had an uncanny ability to know when to push the envelope and when to be more conventional. I've seen people attack him for years for being wrong on this or that issue publicly, never realizing that privately he was working to broaden the scope of acceptable debate.

He was a great family man. I was talking to President Trump in the Oval Office today, and he said, "I know he was a very good friend of yours." I nodded silently, and President Trump observed that Charlie really loved his family. The president was right. Charlie was so proud of Erika and the two kids. He was so happy to be a father. And he felt such gratitude for having found a woman of God with whom he could build a family.

Charlie Kirk was a true friend. The kind of guy you could say something to and know it would always stay with him. I am on more than a few group chats with Charlie and people he introduced me to over the years. We celebrate weddings and babies, bust each other's chops, and mourn the loss of loved ones. We talk about politics and policy and sports and life. These group chats include people at the very highest level of our government. They trusted him, loved him, and knew he'd always have their backs. And because he was a true friend ,you could instinctively trust the people Charlie introduced you to. So much of the success we've had in this administration traces directly to Charlie's ability to organize and convene. He didn't just help us win in 2024, he helped us staff the entire government.

I was in a meeting in the West Wing when those group chats started lighting up with people telling Charlie they were praying for him. And that's how I learned the news that my friend had been shot. I prayed a lot over the next hour, as first good news and then bad trickled in.

God didn't answer those prayers, and that's OK. He had other plans. And now that Charlie is in heaven, I'll ask him to talk to big man directly on behalf of his family, his friends, and the country he loved so dearly.

You ran a good race, my friend.

We've got it from here.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

From the illogical reciprocal tariff rates to constant flip flopping, the U.S. has lost credibility. Nations who can withstand the pressure will resist negotiating against themselves until there is visibility on what offerings gets them what.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

This is quite crazy.

According to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman (one of the rare senior US officials that I admire), the Trump administration couldn't even explain to the Japanese negotiating team what they were looking to achieve with the tariffs.

Here's what Freeman said: "The Japanese have just been in Washington. Their experience apparently was they went to talk to the American leadership on this matter, and the American leadership said 'what are you offering?' And the Japanese said 'well, what is it that you want?' And the Americans could not explain what they wanted."

Freeman also noted, correctly, that "the United States [broke] virtually every agreement it has agreed to in recent decades including the replacement for NAFTA with proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico that was negotiated by Mr. Trump in his first term."

Which doesn't exactly encourage countries to make a deal with Trump: what's the point?

Which is why Freeman believes that China won't go for negotiations and has instead decided to "wait [America] out".

As he puts it: "What is [China's] incentive to negotiate with the US when the US has no stated objectives that make sense and no record of compliance with its own agreements? I think the Chinese have decided they will wait us out and see how Americans like Walmart and Amazon denuded of products."

Fundamentally and somewhat paradoxically, that's the thing Trump the self-anointed "dealmaker" obviously doesn't get: at the end of the day dealmaking is built on credibility and consistency, and America has now neither.

[Nayib Bukele @nayibbukele]

Human rights

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@DigitalSamIAm @BillAckman Easy. U.S. citizenship.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@TheShortBear I doubt Lutnick is out there overriding Trump, so it is much more likely that Trump’s statement of “exemption” is incomplete & misleading in not stating clearly that the 125% “reciprocal” tariffs on these categories will soon be replaced by sector specific tariffs.

[Ray @RayGSG2]

@JuliaSassybaker @ScottPresler If the problem is that it costs money for a Real ID or passport, then solve that problem directly by making it free thru govt subsidy. Don’t create additional problems by not requiring IDs or proof of citizenship.