Schizo Hopium

mig:  "it rarely rises to the level of 'impeach rhe judges!' or 'we gotta pack the courts!'"  hard disagree.  trump goes after judges in ways that is eroding the independence of the judiciary.  he fires them en mass and attacks them in the press.  he's the head of the executive, what is he even doing?  ~a mig:  no sorry i didn't mean scova.  scova didn't ignore the constitution.  i was referring to the dozens of times the whitehouse has ignored the constitution.  ~a a:  do you believe scova ignored the constitution. - mig paul:  one thing I do think democrats are uniquely horrible is in their general disdain and hostility towards the judiciary.  While there’s plenty of GOP griping about court decisions that don’t go their way it rarely rises to the level of “impeach rhe judges!” or “we gotta pack the courts!” - mig paul:  i paid a company (paychex) to handle our state taxes.  but even then, i had to struggle constantly with getting state+local governments to accept (and register that they accepted) my money.  i think mainly this is a huge pain because most companies above a certain size can afford an accounting department that handle all this bullshit.  ~a paul:  TALKING about legally packing scova is "the" step too far?  and . . . not, ACTUALLY ignoring the constitution?  ~a I've spent multiple hours a day over multiple days just trying to get DC to accept some taxes that I am trying to pay them and I still haven't gotten them to accept it yet. It's ridiculous. -Paul I swear any politician who wants to place regulations on businesses should be required to actually try to set up and run a small business for at least 18 months first. -Paul The new minimum wage! Helping smaller businesses pay their employees more! -Paul https://wtop.com/virginia/2026/05/virginia-governor-signs-paid-leave-law-into-law-first-in-the-south/ Describing this as helping smaller businesses retain employees who encounter difficult times is so disingenuously misleading. Yeah, because it forces businesses to keep employing people who aren't coming in to work. -Paul a: I do wonder what point (if any) is a step too far where you would admit that, "yeah, that's probably not a good idea". I thought talking about packing the Supreme Court was definitely it. How about what Miguel posted, and blatantly trying to nuke the VA SCOTUS? -Paul a: Unsurprisingly, I don't see it as one side being 99% evil and the other being 1% evil. It varies over time and by issue but it's really more like 65% evil and 70% evil. Importantly, both are trending worse over the past decade or so. -Paul atheists back the pope more than catholics do (sorta)  ~a https://www.virginiascope.com/the-rumors-that-did-not-pan-out/ one thing to definitely NOT do is try to come up with a scheme to purge the scova and the install cronies to rule the way you want.  I understand this was never going to happen but the fact this was out there and at least considered reflects very badly on the Democrats. - mig mig:  I doubt a more pervasive argument will ever win against gerrymandering?  ~a https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/21/iowa-democrats-rob-sand-midterms-hunting-00837624 i don’t know if this guy will actually win but he seems to have the right idea. - mig a:  i mean short term, get the more persuasive argument/message and hammer it? - mig mig:  ok fair.  what is your suggestion?  assuming preventing the republicans from gerrymander the entire us house of representatives is your goal.  ~a a:  this debacle here w/ the attempted va redistricting?  this seems like a complete disaster in trying to out-trump trump.  From 10 fucking 1 to get fucking rekt. - mig mig:  do you have an example?  ~a just a reminder that trying to follow Trump into the gutter rarely ends well. - mig https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/08/politics/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting virginia supreme court strikes down redistricting amendment. - mig paul:  yes, i agree both are just horrible.  but at the end of the day, i have to decide who to vote for.  don't worry, i won't use this logic to always vote for democrats, that's not who i am.  but i do still have to vote for someone, so deciding if they're 99% evil or 1% evil is very relevant to me.  ~a a: Does it make Trump's tariffs and ownership stakes in Intel and such better because Republicans have been bad at this for less time than Democrats? I don't feel like it does unless you have a vested interest in one side and trying to keep score on which side has been historically worse. I don't care if Democrats are 79 horrible and Republicans are 82 horrible. Both are just horrible. -Paul a: I did not intend for either of those statements to be judgements on the equality of history and degree and I don't really think either implies that. Republicans used to believe in free trade and non government ownership of companies. Good for the Republicans in the past but that doesn't excuse what they're doing now. -Paul a: So to me, "you are now as terrible as them" was short-hand for "You are doing the exact same bad thing as them. To the exact same degree and for as exactly as long? Probably not, but I'm not interested in having that conversation. To me it's enough that this thing is a bad thing and you are doing the thing that is just as bad even if the degree might not be the same". -Paul paul:  "i don't really care to try judging who is worse."  oh, i definitely do.  it's pretty reliably how i decide who to vote for.  to be clear, i'll remind you that i do often vote third party, when i think they're being the least-worst, but yeah.  i dunno any better way how to decide who to vote for, sorry.  maybe you have a better way?  where you somehow only vote for people who never do things you don't like?  ~a paul:  "Have I said anything about equality between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue?"  yes.  yes yes 100 times yes.  that's what i meant by "i looked back down here and checked".  you imply it in almost every message, but here's where you were explicit:  "you are now as terrible as them" and "Democrats do the exact same thing".  there are many other examples where you imply it, but those are explicit.  ~a a: Have I said anything about equality between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue? I don't think I have. I don't really care to try judging who is worse. What's the point? This feels like any age old conflict between two groups who just can't stop the cycle of violence. "They started it", "That was just a response to what they did before", "They killed X thousands", "Only because they killed Y tens of thousands" -Paul a: Oh, I see what you're saying now. Yahoo says the EPS for Ebay is closer to $4.41, which meshes more with your P/E. -Paul paul:  my position was never never "did republicans start it" or "they started it" or anything along those lines.  it's a different argument.  it's that what democrats are doing is 1/10th as bad as what the republicans are doing in this case (and many many many other cases).  ~a paul:  one wrong and twelve wrongs are not equal.  you just can't keep implying (and sometimes outright stating) that they are equal?  ~a paul:  shouldn't 100 / 1.66 be the price earnings ratio?  or at least close?  (i understand that one is forward and the other is backward).  ~a a: "yes, that's exactly what i want you to do" Sorry to disappoint? Republicans are the bad guys here. BUT SO ARE DEMOCRATS. Did Republicans start it? Sure. Is that also the childish playground defense? Yes. Again, do two wrongs make a right? -Paul a: I haven't been following eBay much. Those numbers don't seem crazy? You think it is overvalued? Maybe people betting on the Gamestop buyout? -Paul paul:  yes, that's exactly what i want you to do.  i want you to try to defend republicans here.  you aren't allowed to claim both sides are being equally moronic (which you have done, i looked back down here and checked), when it's super clear that both sides are not being equally moronic.  ~a a: "i noticed you didn't reply to this one" I'm guessing your answer is Republicans? I didn't reply because I didn't see the need to. You want me to try to defend Republicans here? -Paul in non-political-news, what's up with $ebay?  mostly, i felt the company had fallen into a slump:  who even uses ebay these days.  but the stock prices / market capitalization are crazy high?  why?  i'm also even just confused by the fundamentals.  earnings per share is like $1.66, and the p/e ratio (forward and trailing) is like 18-25.  the price is $100/share.  how does that math out?  ~a the rubble from the east wing was dumped in a national park (and as a cyclist, one i am fond of).  the rubble has lead, chromium, and other heavy metals.  according to wtop, PCBs were also found.  ~a is it legal to cancel an election after tens of thousands of people have already voted?  ~a i can't believe they're considering pardoning maxwell.  is there no end?  ~a mexico will pay for the wall.  ~a paul:  florida signed a few new maps into law.  they did not have a voter referendum.  ~a paul:  "who exactly do you think has been fighting against them?"  i noticed you didn't reply to this one.  ~a paul:  "Welp, we tried, guess it's back to gay marriage being illegal"?  no, in your example, banning gay marriage doesn't combat/offset the banning of gay marriage in another state.  ~a paul:  doing a horrible thing because another person did a horrible thing is sometimes warranted.  it's the prisoner's dilemma.  it's mutual assured destruction.  it's why congress can declare war.  "you are now as terrible as them."  this is where we agree to disagree:  doing something bad doesn't necessarily make you as bad as another person who has done a different set of bad things.  you have to weigh.  you have to use a damn scale!  ~a a: Or insert whatever other issue you want to put there. -Paul a: I mean, what if Virginia made gay marriage legal and then the other states said, "Nah, we're not doing that". Would it make any sense for Virginia to say, "Welp, we tried, guess it's back to gay marriage being illegal"? -Paul a: "do you think this is a fair assessment of what happened?" I guess? When I read that summary it doesn't seem to support your point at all, though. -Paul a: You're trying to make the argument that Republicans did this horrible terrible no good thing which is so out of bounds, but when Democrats do the exact same thing (out of fairness) that somehow it's not horrible because they started it? -Paul a: Yes, the Republicans started this bad gerrymandering thing. Yes, it's terrible. Congratulations, you are now as terrible as them. -Paul a: I know you are against the both sides argument but that doesn't matter. That's not the point at all. I'm saying just because the other side is terrible it is not a justification to be terrible yourself. -Paul a: "you're ignoring the sunsetting" Sure, it's not as horrible as it could've been. Yay? In some ways it's a little damning, though, because it shows that they know what they did was wrong. -Paul us national debt surpasses size of the economy for first time since world war ii  ~a here's the scenario: virginia is like "ok, we've ended gerrymandering, yay.  it's even in our constitution.  good job, guys".  and then the president is like "hey, texas, make gerrymandering terrible. give the republicans 1000 new seats." and texas is like "ok, will do, boss". and virginia is then like "welp, fuck.  we tried.  back to the old status quo for another election cycle". do you think this is a fair assessment of what happened?  ~a paul:  democrats have been fighting against gerrymandering in many states for the past twenty plus years.  who exactly do you think has been fighting against them?  why do you think it was so hard to get this far?  ~a paul:  "I'm sitting here watching two children playing a never-ending game of escalation while yelling that the other side started it."  i'm against your terrible "both sides" argument.  the two sides are not behaving the same: look at the us/iran war, the epstein scandals, the rape allegations, ice, pardons, etc as examples.  or, better yet, show me text of the texas voter-referendum that changed their map.  (i can find no such text).  ~a paul:  "So what the Democrats did was bad?"  yes:  i wasn't happy voting yes.  i did consider voting no.  "Do two wrongs make a right?"  no.  "blew it all up" this is an oversimplification.  you're ignoring the sunsetting, i think.  ~a