those without shame cannot be humiliated

paul:  "i find it is too often used to excuse bad behavior by 'your' side"  i understand and i agree.  "'Yes, I usually think gerrymandering is bad but the other side is doing it worse so it's good when we do it!'"  i have never said anything close to this, i'm pretty sure you'd agree.  ~a paul:  I wasn't referring to gerrymandering specifically, but instead I was referring to illegal (and/or immoral) attempts at circumventing justice, and circumventing the will of the people, and ignoring civil liberties + civil rights + laws and circumventing the constitution in general.  "but to look at the news in 2026" <- I feel from this language you must have realized that, though, right?  wasn't I being clear?  ~a a: "Yes, I usually think gerrymandering is bad but the other side is doing it worse so it's good when we do it!" -Paul a: But the reason I think this score keeping is beside the point and counter productive is because I find it is too often used to excuse bad behavior by "your" side (the royal "your" in this case). -Paul a: I asked Gemini to summarize gerrymandering attempts in 2026 (is that what we're trying to score keep?) and the result looked like 9 attempts by Republicans and 4 for Democrats. So by that specific metric my 3:2 ratio looks closer than your 803 to 397.81 billion. -Paul paul:  heck, i've seen so many companies adopt starlink for mobile internet connectivity I might participate in a spacex ipo.  ~a paul:  as a reminder i always thought starlink was a good service.  i use starlink at work extensively. many of my customers use it for lots of stuff and my company uses it for lots of stuff.  so ive always known it was a good service.  and that has only grown.  what has also grown is my insight into their potential revenue:  i was wrong about starlink's profitability.  very wrong.  to the point that I question some things I heard.  oops! ~a paul:  yes, i agree.  if i thought the score was close to 3:2 or 2:3 then keeping score would be pointless.  but to look at the news in 2026 and see a 3:2 or 2:3 feels surprising.  ~a a: https://www.fool.com/podcasts/motley-fool-money/2026-05-21-the-spacex-s-1-the-good-the-bad-the/ The first five minutes of this podcast talks about how it's one of the highlights. -Paul a: https://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=174000#174221 Do you still think Starlink is a fraud doomed to failure? I've heard it's one of the more impressive aspects of SpaceX's S-1. -Paul Xpovos: "Is the slight that Massie’s victorious primary opponent was deep in the APAC pocket" I think that's it. For various reasons, his election kind of became a referendum on Israeli influence over American politicians. -Paul mig: That's one of the reasons I've always been a little luke-warm on Massie. Sometimes he's a little too trollish for my liking. -Paul a: "when the "score" is 803 to 397.81 billion" Right, and as I mentioned before, if I had to guess where my score keeping would be it would a ratio closer to 3:2 which is why I don't really care if one side has done something slightly more often. -Paul mig: I’m not up on the details. Is the slight that Massie’s victorious primary opponent was deep in the APAC pocket, or something? Or was he literally in Israel on Election Day? — Xpovos https://x.com/acyn/status/2056893033153761415 I like Massie but this is kind of a classless way to sign off. - mig paul: "Maybe? I don't really care. Like I said, I'm not interested in score-keeping" yeah, agreed. i'm not super into score-keeping either. like if you want me to say that democrats go too far, i'll say it.  i did say it, just now.  "of course."  democrats are so so shitty often. but, like, when the "score" is 803 to 397.81 billion, it stops being "keeping score" i think.  the score is "a lot" to "a ridiculously huge astronomical number"  ~a a: My "too far" comments were for both sides. Hell, the first comment was "I think both sides have taken many steps too far for years now". Have the Republicans taken more steps too far? Maybe? I don't really care. Like I said, I'm not interested in score-keeping. When one side does something bad I don't think it matters if some other side did two bad things. All three are bad. -Paul a: "you don't see any hypocrisy here?" I... still don't think you're understanding me. I'm saying that was bad. What the Republicans did was bad. I'm not excusing it at all. Bad bad bad. But I am also saying it's bad when Democrats do it. I'm being consistent here. It's bad no matter who does it. -Paul paul:  "too far", it blows my mind that you can look at what's going on in the world today and come to the conclusion "damn, those democrats have finally gone too far this time".  do i think the democrats sometimes go too far?  of course.  but jfc, we are swimming in situations where the whitehouse has gone too far and nobody will do anything about it.  ~a "Playing shenanigans with timing to not approve Garland?" you don't see any hypocrisy here? arguing it's "the other side started it" is just blatantly excusing hypocrisy.  ~a a: I think all were bad. I don't think any were justified because "the other side started it". Bad all the way down. -Paul a: Trying to explicitly gerrymander Texas and whatever other states? Too far. Trying to pack the court? Too far. Playing shenanigans with timing to not approve Garland? Too far. -Paul a: Trying to reduce the retirement age for VASCOTUS in political retaliation for a decision you don't like? Too far. Trying to explicitly gerrymander a purple state to be almost exclusively blue and overturn an independent system that worked? Too far. -Paul a: "not, ACTUALLY ignoring the constitution?" I think you misunderstand me. I'm asking YOU what would be a step too far. I think both sides have taken many steps too far for years now. -Paul mig:  "filing articles of impeachment" are you not moving the goal posts? "it rarely rises to the level of  'impeach rhe judges!' or 'we gotta pack the courts!'"  is where you started.  ~a https://www.c-span.org/clip/us-house-of-representatives/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-introduce-articles-of-impeachment-against-justices-thomas-and-alito/5123416 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/free-speech-federal-crime-protesters-are-still-marching-conservative-s-rcna78678 a:  draw a distinction between mean tweets that end up going nowhere to i dunno, angry mobs showing up at scotus justice’s houses and congrespeople actually filing articles of impeachment. - mig mig:  "it rarely rises to the level of 'impeach rhe judges!'"  literally trump, the head of the gop, just over one year ago "[james boasberg], like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!"  ~a mig:  did obama erode the independence of the judiciary?  ~a mig:  did obama attack the judges personally?  ~a a:  sure he’s attacker judges in the press, but that’s hardly unique among his predecessors, who’ve also thrown fits in public when judges rule in ways they don’t like.  I seem to recall Obama quite famously publicly scolding scotus at the state of the union over Citizen’s United. - mig mig:  you've implied he only goes after administrative judges?  ~a a:  immigration judges are not the judiciary.  They are administrative courts and are actually part of the executive branch, so this isn't quite the same thing.  biden also fired immigration judges so this isn't entirely unprecedented</a>, though not at the same scale.  Sure, what Trump did is alarming, but this isn't an equivalency. - mig 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