prev <-> next
[2016-02-18 14:51:04] - a: No, I don't think you're confused. I think mig is saying that helicopter money AS basic income would be a more libertarian-palatable way of handling the ideas behind helicopter money. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-18 14:38:59] - mig: woah. is helicopter money supposed to be like basic income? i didn't think that helicopter money was supposed to replace welfare (whereas i'm pretty sure "basic income" *is* supposed to replace welfare). please correct me if i misunderstood helicopter money. ~a
[2016-02-18 13:02:56] - it right (or at least in a less bad way). - mig
[2016-02-18 13:02:35] - I'll third the notion that I wouldn't be in favor of such a policy. I do think it's akin to some libertarian ideas of replacing most of the current government assistance programs with straight up basic income. Yes, it's sort of counter-intuitive for a libertarian to be for it, but if it's accepted the government is going to do X anyway, it may as well try to do ...
[2016-02-18 12:24:50] - a: Generally, no, I don't think it's a good idea, as I lean more towards the Austrian school of economics. Ben Bernanke was also derided for presumably running the fed like he was throwing out helicopter money. -Paul
[2016-02-18 12:23:26] - i.e. banks, his other least favorite target, because they didn't properly account for the risk of insane inflationary responses in their pricing of the debt (the rate). So they're paid back in money that is worth less (though not worthless). It's akin to having every person in America get a free bankruptcy. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-18 12:22:20] - Bernie should be in favor, by the way. Helicopter money hurts the 1% the most (initially). Long term the outcomes are impossible to predict because that kind of bat-shit insane policy hasn't been tried yet. But in theory as long as the dump is infrequent, discrete, and sufficiently large as to have a real effect, the principal harm to the economy is to lenders.
[2016-02-18 12:20:35] - The problem with expansionistic trends by central banks, per Greenspan, is that they're "pushing on a string". They can't cause inflation directly because they can't force people to borrow. Helicopter money fixes that. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-18 12:19:14] - a: It's obviously a terrible idea. However, it's not AS BAD as many other economic theories that are actually held as good things by certain Nobel Laureate economists have proposed. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-18 11:53:49] - tell me that nobody here thinks "helicopter money" is a good idea. it's apparently a milton friedman idea from the 60s, and being suggested today, where you give out "helicopter money": i assume you print extra money and just give it to people. wtf? ~a
[2016-02-18 10:53:34] - Paul: I think that's one of the reasons I enjoy debating with some of my most liberal friends. We get to have the debates that politics refuses to have. It's completely non-productive, of course, but we often come to some interesting conclusions, and I at least feel better informed because of it. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-18 10:51:15] - mig: Yeah, I kind of agree with Nick Gillespie's article in Reason about the reactions to Scalia's death (and the nomination of a successor) being why so many people hate the two major parties. So much blatant displays of partisanship instead of at least an attempt to hear each other out. -Paul
[2016-02-18 10:47:32] - partisan about muscling their leverage in the process. - mig
[2016-02-18 10:47:07] - paul: Just going by the general discussion on reddit or elsewhere, one of the more reasonable objections to the McConnell's stance is that he's pre-emptively rejecting any potential nominee by saying he won't even hold committee hearings, let alone any sort of vote. So I think maybe a portion of the sentiment is more the optics of the sentate being too overtly ...
[2016-02-18 00:39:06] - paul: the wording is actually very interesting. The question asked is if the senate should vote, not necessarily whether they should vote to accept whatever nominee Obama puts forth. - mig
[2016-02-17 18:55:05] - a: that speed chess video was on /r/videos and /r/boardgames - aaron
[2016-02-17 17:25:19] - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-americans-split-if-senate-should-vote-supreme-court-pick-n520201 This is kind of what I expected: a pretty even split, with the end result that the Republicans aren't likely to suffer much in public opinion for stalling. -Paul
[2016-02-17 15:53:15] - mig: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/2122/Will-Bush-drop-out-before-Super-Tuesday#data Bet on it! -Paul
[2016-02-17 15:36:18] - xpovos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/s-c-gov-nikki-haley-to-endorse-marco-rubio-for-president/ The actual, final nail in the coffin for "¡Jeb!"? - mig
[2016-02-17 14:46:27] - I'm wondering if there is a similar super lightweight OS that I could relatively easily install to breathe some more life into the old machine, or if I've run out of ways to make it useful. Anybody know? -Paul
[2016-02-17 14:45:39] - So, I have a netbook (already not the most powerful of machines) that is probably around 5 years old at this point. I managed to squeeze some more use out of it by installing chromium on it a few years ago, but the version I installed then doesn't appear to be supported anymore, so I can't use things like google drive. -Paul
[2016-02-17 12:43:28] - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/donald-trump-s-hundreds-of-9-11-lies.html Not that this would even be the worst thing that Trump has said, or that it will hurt him, but it's still pretty brazen. -Paul
[2016-02-17 10:16:14] - "I guess Obama wants to check off the 'Indian-descent' box for the Supreme Court". It doesn't help that almost all references to him note that he would be the first in that regard. -Paul
[2016-02-17 10:15:34] - a: Me too. The problem that I have is when people say stuff about desiring to add diversity to the court and whatnot, it makes me briefly question their qualifications. I have no doubt Srinivasan is qualified for SCOTUS. He might even be the most qualified. Unfortunately, my first though when I heard about him was... -Paul
[2016-02-17 10:15:24] - a: Sotomayor very well could have been one of the more qualified candidates (which is good enough, you don't always have to get that aboslutist bestest candidate for a job), and I wouldn't have had much of problem with it had Obama not explicitly spelled out his desire to nominate female minority justice. - mig
[2016-02-17 10:10:54] - i was joking. i'd always prefer the best person for the job. the problem is it's basically impossible to determine who the best person for the job would be. ~a
[2016-02-17 10:03:02] - a: I don't think it needs to be proportional at all, I thought that's what you were implying with your comment, though. -Paul
[2016-02-17 10:02:02] - a: Hmmm, maybe not. I guess there should be less than 4 for it to be proportional. Nevermind. -Paul
[2016-02-17 10:01:49] - paul: does it need to be proportional? in the history of the united states, it's rarely if ever been proportional. ~a
[2016-02-17 10:01:16] - a: It bugs me, on a rather personal level, when requirements like that are explicitly spelled out, like Obama during his SC appointment. It makes me feel like ethnicity (particularly in that case, when Sotomayor was a nominee) or gender is a box to be checked in some kind of multicultural scavenger hunt. - mig
[2016-02-17 10:00:33] - a: White males from Princeton, Harvard and Yale, specifically.
Actually, right now white males are only half the court, which seems about proportional, at least. -Paul[2016-02-17 09:52:58] - yeah we need more white males. totally agree. ~a
[2016-02-17 09:44:12] - Paul: I suppose that makes sense. Hopefully, he won't impose a gender/ethnic requirement this time. - mig
[2016-02-17 09:42:50] - mig: I've heard that Obama might not want to "waste" such a promising candidate as him in a scenario where the person has a high chance of not getting through the nomination process. -Paul
[2016-02-17 09:40:07] - I'm curious who Obama will attempt to nominate. I think it would make sense to nominate a more moderate person (Sri Srinivasan seems to be #1 on the list in that regard) to perhaps put some pressure on republicans to not hold up the process, but based on his press conference yesterday it does seem he's inclined to nominate someone more polarizing. - mig
[2016-02-17 09:27:13] - aaron: that is *amazing*. i think speed chess is mind boggling. i wish i was better at it, but i just seem to lose a lot. . . . i love the instant-replay on the guy taking away two pieces in one move. what sub was this on? ~a
[2016-02-17 00:26:54] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5vnpOp0U_g this speed chess video was making the rounds on reddit today! i enjoyed watching it - aaron
[2016-02-16 17:17:31] - mig: Oh, I know. One of my first thoughts in terms of the political ramifications when I heard Scalia had died was that the Republicans better hope Ginsburg holds on now. -Paul
[2016-02-16 16:51:15] - paul: regarding ginsberg, some liberals have been more than just being worried, they've been actively telling her to GTFO for a while so Obama could name a replacement for her. - mig
[2016-02-16 16:43:57] - It'll be interesting to also so see which side gets more returns for any gotv efforts over the prospect that this election may well decide the balance of the court. - mig
[2016-02-16 16:40:18] - If a D wins the presidency enough republicans will probably capitulate to allowing a nominee. I agree with Paul, I don't think they'll take a hit in the public view for stalling until Obama is gone, but they will if they go back on "let the next president decide." - mig
[2016-02-16 16:26:03] - Xpovos: My money is on Rubio taking at least 3rd place and maybe even 2nd. Having said that, my track record so far is pretty bad.
-Paul[2016-02-16 16:20:50] - I think I'm finally ready to acknowledge that the final nail is in Jeb's presidential campaign coffin. We're just waiting on the pounding that the SC primary will give. So who wins in a Rubio/Kasich fight for third place? Or is this coffin nail somehow still not enough and they continue this cannibalism into Nevada? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-16 15:53:47] - Xpovos: Ah, I didn't even hear about that. It was weird, though, I actually caught about 5 minutes of W speaking about Jeb and then a few minutes of Jeb speaking afterwards and I honestly thought W spoke better. That can't be a good thing for Jeb. -Paul
[2016-02-16 15:43:16] - Paul: No, that's a good move. W is popular there, particularly with the military. I was referring to this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/jeb-raises-hand-when-graham-asks-how-many-of-you-are-democrats/article/2001111 His sense of comedic timing is at best misplaced. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-16 15:36:30] - http://www.cato.org/blog/washington-metro-getting-ready-bankruptcy WMATA is not doing so well. -Paul
[2016-02-16 15:15:39] - -Daniel
[2016-02-16 15:15:34] - Index Funds for the win.
[2016-02-16 15:14:57] - Xpovos: Bringing in W? -Paul
[2016-02-16 15:12:32] - Every time I think Jeb Bush will power his way to a South Caroline primary victory to salvage his campaign, he goes and does something boneheaded and sinks those chances even further. It's truly amazing to watch. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-16 14:43:46] - Daniel: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/16/warren-buffett-slips-but-still-winning-epic-hedge-fund-bet.html Thought you would enjoy this one. -Paul
[2016-02-16 14:11:35] - Daniel: I wouldn't put anything past a republican controlled congress, especially when you're replacing such a stalwart conservative justice (even replacing him with a moderate would still be shifting the court significantly leftward), but stalling for 5 years does seem excessive.
-Paul[2016-02-16 14:10:53] - wanna bet?
~a[2016-02-16 14:06:44] - Hmm interesting. I hadn't thought of that. The idea that they would be pro stalling to allow the possibility of a split court. Do you agree though that if D's win the presidency again that the split court will just go by the wayside? Surely the R's in congress can't stall for FIVE years? -Daniel
[2016-02-16 13:55:41] - Daniel: Like Adrian alluded to, the shoe was (somewhat) on the other foot years ago when W was president and Democrats had congress. I think the non-partisan centrists/moderates/independents probably would prefer a split court and would be okay with stalling tactics. Or at least not care enough to complain.
-Paul[2016-02-16 13:53:15] - Daniel: I think people will care about the next justice, but I don't think people (outside of the partisans on both sides, obviously) will care much if Republicans stall. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:50:53] - Daniel: Also, justices in theory aren't supposed to wear their political affiliation on their sleeves, and so surprises have happened. David Souter was a George HW Bush nominee. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:48:50] - Daniel: "Why would he do that?" Only if he felt like getting his nomination passed was preferable to letting the next president get to choose. If the republicans hold onto congress and win the presidency... there's a good argument to be made that a moderate conservative would be much better for liberals. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:47:06] - Paul: Interesting, I think people will care. I think its going to be one of the major issues in the news while it drags on because its the vote that could switch the courts composition I think that makes it a pretty major deal. -Daniel
[2016-02-16 13:46:56] - Daniel: What I find very interesting is the health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Liberals have worried about her health for awhile and have been clamoring for her to step down so Obama could nominate a replacement. If she dies... things get really hairy for both sides. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:45:23] - Paul: I can't imagine him nominating a conservative. Why would he do that? There is not any requirement that the court be fairly split. It just has worked out that way. If Sanders/Clinton wins I would fully expect the court to be at least 6-3 in liberal favor by the end of their term. -Daniel
[2016-02-16 13:45:21] - Daniel: But I don't think the general population will care much. I think there is a sense that Obama already got two appointments and that Scalia was such an influential conservative justice and it's so late in Obama's term that it's not a horrific thing to wait and let the next president decide. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:43:55] - Daniel: My guess is Obama nominates an eminently qualified (and maybe even somewhat moderate) person. Republicans either turn them down or don't even vote. Obama complains about how the evil Republicans are being all partisan... -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:41:29] - Daniel: I have no idea if we get another justice before the election, but I have a hard time seeing how we would. Republicans are going to want a fairly conservative justice to replace Scalia, and Obama hasn't shown a lot of desire to accommodate Republicans, so I can't see him even nominating a moderate, let alone a conservative. -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:39:08] - Daniel: I'm pleasantly surprised by how much near universal respect he's gotten after his passing. I expected partisanship to overwhelmingly be the story and for people to rant about how horrible his decisions were, but instead there's been a lot of "agree or disagree, you have to admit he was brilliant/funny/influential/etc." -Paul
[2016-02-16 13:26:23] - "There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today. Just because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we're here. We're ready to go to work." (R-TX). obviously, all of these quotes are from back when a republican was president. ~a
[2016-02-16 13:25:54] - otoh, "[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule ÂÂ- that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term."(R-IA) "I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that." (R-KY) ~a
[2016-02-16 13:20:54] - daniel: "Do we get another Justice before the election?" i was listening to npr this morning. they had a republican on who seemed doubtful that a nomination would get confirmed. i can't think of a single good reason, though, that obama shouldn't even try. ~a
[2016-02-16 13:11:43] - i'd almost prefer to go with nobody than somebody remote. ~a
[2016-02-16 13:11:07] - daniel: fire that remote person, hire someone different. or don't hire the remote person in the first place. ~a
[2016-02-16 12:48:30] - Thoughts / opinions on Scalia's passing? Do we get another Justice before the election? Who will it be? How crazy will this make the Republican party? -Daniel
[2016-02-16 11:44:44] - a: I'm not sure we had a better solution at the time. What do you want to do that would be better? -Daniel
[2016-02-16 11:28:42] - daniel: "It wasn't great but was ok" i wonder why managers resort to this obviously-suboptimal solution. ~a
[2016-02-16 11:27:16] - HERF! ~a
[2016-02-16 11:27:10] - paul: hmm, i guess <a herf="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bryant/boolean/US48_nocurves.svg">ten was an exaggeration</a>. ~a
[2016-02-16 11:24:54] - discussion and interaction are very very important parts of the job. for instance, if i can't communicate with someone, we're going to have a problem. if the reason i can't communicate with them is because they're ten states away, then that sucks just as much as if they are just bad at communicating in person. ~a
[2016-02-16 11:16:46] - a: Might be a software engineer thing? How much do they have to interact with the group to do their job? My coworker probably doesn't HAVE to video chat with people, but he does need to talk to them to discuss projects and requirements. -Paul
[2016-02-16 11:12:18] - a: We had some remote people here awhile back. We had IM and daily phone conversations with them. It wasn't great but was ok. I think skype or things like that would be an improvement where you could actually see people. -Daniel
[2016-02-16 11:02:01] - "I think it helps him to feel more a part of the group" well honestly i think that's great. i wish my remote-workers were pushing to be part of the group, but honestly, it seems to be coming to me to drag them kicking-and-screaming into the group. ~a
[2016-02-16 10:52:45] - a: *Shrug* I think it's something my coworker was in favor of. I think it helps him to feel more a part of the group. -Paul
[2016-02-16 10:44:01] - jesus. that's a heavy-weight solution, in my opinion. for contrast (on the other end of the spectrum), i had to beg both of our remote-workers to use IM. ~a
[2016-02-16 10:27:48] - a: Not sure if you want details of that. -Paul
[2016-02-16 10:27:28] - a: We have somebody in our group (not a software engineer... maybe closer to a data architect?) who lives in Wisconsin (I think) but participates in scrums and whatnot using one of these: http://www.doublerobotics.com/ -Paul
[2016-02-16 09:40:37] - morning, everybody. have any of you had experience with remote workers? i.e. software engineers that you work with, who are either working from home, or out of state, or otherwise not working in your office? if so, can you give some details on your experience? ~a
[2016-02-13 18:45:54] - I generally don't like Bill Maher, but he has his moments. - mig
[2016-02-12 14:28:37] - It's ironic, because libertarians like to bash Obama for all the times he tries to expand the power of the presidency and unilaterally do stuff by going around congress. But the one area where I think most libertarians would be fine with him acting unilaterally is his power of clemency, which, until recently, he hadn't used much. -Paul
[2016-02-12 14:21:22] - It's the Jubilee Year of Mercy. Pardons for all and miniature American Flags for others. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-12 14:16:56] - The kind of funny thing is that's a promise he can directly act on as the president has the exclusive and non-vetoable power of clemency. - mig
[2016-02-12 14:08:52] - aaron: Yeah, we completely suck when it comes to jailing our own population. It's ridiculous on a number of levels. -Paul
[2016-02-12 13:49:03] - "here’s my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country." awww. that promise makes me sad. - aaron
[2016-02-12 12:56:28] - mig: Total BS on Clinton's response. She's given a number of answers implying it would be special to vote for her because she's a woman. It's been a recurring theme in her campaign. She has been milking the historical angle a lot, but she tries to shy away from it whenever she's called out on it. -Paul
[2016-02-12 11:41:56] - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/transcript-of-the-democratic-presidential-debate-in-milwaukee.html one question that really jumped out of me: "Senator, do you worry at all that you will be the instrument of thwarting history, as Senator Clinton keeps claiming, that she might be the first woman president?" - mig
[2016-02-11 14:44:17] - So just make sure it's the same brand, with the same specs (memory size, type, etc), and you *should* be fine. - mig
[2016-02-11 14:37:34] - mig: Good to know, thanks. I'll do some research. -Paul
[2016-02-11 14:05:31] - so if the same rules apply, than an ASUS 5850 wouldn't link with an XFX 5850. - mig
[2016-02-11 14:05:06] - I don't know if ATI has that restriction, but it's one I know exists for Nvidia. - mig
[2016-02-11 14:04:06] - so you'd need to find the same 5850 that you bought. - mig
[2016-02-11 14:03:39] - I can't speak for whatever technology ATI uses, but NVIDIA sli usually only allowing linking to work with cards that are of the same make and model. - mig
[2016-02-11 14:01:52] - Paul: They usually do Twitter-style callouts of the worst offenders. It's often pretty mocking, but usually hilarious. It's also riddled with inside jokes and court/law language, so often people don't even know they're being mocked. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-11 14:01:04] - mig: I could get a second one to pair with it. Do you know anything about that? Do they have to be the exact same brand or just the same model? I did some searching online and it looks like I can find some used 5850s on ebay for around $60 (which still seems expensive to me), but I was wondering if that could be beneficial for my PC gaming. -Paul
[2016-02-11 13:59:48] - mig: I have a question that I wonder if you can answer. I was looking at getting Xcom 2 for the PC (since it's not available for console) and while I am pretty sure my computer can handle it, it got me thinking about possibly upgrading my video card. I had gotten a single ATI Radeon 5850 at the time thinking that if I needed to in the future... -Paul
[2016-02-11 12:55:32] - Xpovos: Didn't they have a pretty good sense of humor about it, too? -Paul
[2016-02-11 12:54:45] - mig: Although I have met somebody who I think said he thought Cruz was worse. -Paul
[2016-02-11 12:54:30] - mig: Yeah, I don't get that either. I can understand not liking Cruz. I can even understand hating him, but I find it hard to believe why people would think he would possibly be worse than Trump.
-Paul[2016-02-11 12:40:55] - paul: I guess the other thing that maybe makes me weird is I don't see a reason for all the vitriol that gets thrown Cruz's way. Yeah I get there are plenty of reasons to not like him, but it seems like there's a sizable portion of people who find him even more "dangerous" than Trump. - mig
[2016-02-11 12:19:28] - Paul: Reminds me of the great fun reading the @scotusblog backlash hoopla after every controversial decision. That's the Twitter account for www.scotusblog.com, not the actual SCOTUS, which doesn't have a Twitter account because they're sensible people. Yes, even Kagan. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-11 11:55:21] - Xpovos: Not sure what to say, but Europe sometimes seems like a scary place. -Paul
[2016-02-11 11:42:00] - http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/technology/twitter-famous/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iid=obnetwork Thought this was amusing. Who knew twitter forbid buying and selling of usernames? -Paul
[2016-02-11 09:40:24] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2016/02/10/google-to-censor-us-search-site-for-european-users I can't remember how any previous conversations about the "right to be forgotten" went. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 17:02:00] - mig: I don't think so. All together, he's probably my preferred Republican of the candidates left. I would hesitate to use the term "least objectionable", though, because I do find many things about him objectionable (versus, say, Jeb), but I also think he has some legitimate good points (as opposed to everybody else). -Paul
[2016-02-10 16:41:15] - 2 casualties today - Christie, Fiorina. - mig
[2016-02-10 16:34:16] - Is it weird that I might find Cruz the least objectionable of all the candidates left? - mig
[2016-02-10 16:06:24] - Xpovos: I fully admit Trump makes me question my entire philosophy of voting for somebody instead of against somebody, but I take solace in the fact that my vote likely won't matter anyway.
-Paul[2016-02-10 15:57:57] - Paul: There's always other candidates (or simply not voting) but at this point I think that the moral imperative of NOT having Trump as president means I'd be pushed hard to vote for Sanders in that match-up. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 15:15:42] - Xpovos: As long as there is a semi-palatable libertarian candidate, I can't see myself voting for Sanders, but there's plenty of Republican candidates I would want to see lose to Sanders (Trump and Rubio, at least). -Paul
[2016-02-10 15:07:50] - Paul: I'm with you on that. About the only way to get me to vote for Bernie Sanders is to have him running against Trump. And that once far-fetched matchup is becoming ever more possible an outcome. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 14:59:49] - Xpovos: Yeah, I know the establishment hates Cruz, but I could see him not being a complete disaster for the party. I just can't imagine any way Trump ISN'T a disaster for the Republican Party, even if he's just their nominee. -Paul
[2016-02-10 14:55:59] - Paul: More from some of the stuff I'm reading. Cruz is amazingly polarizing. Trump is a sideshow buffoon, but apparently some 'establishment' folks think they can use him for certain goals if he does get the nomination. No one has any such illusions about controlling Cruz. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 14:17:30] - mig: Anyway, I guess my point is that while the establishment field is split, it seems like the (presumably smaller) anti-establishment field should also be split, so I'm not sure how much credence I give that. -Paul
[2016-02-10 14:06:13] - mig: I don't know if you've been following Matt Welch on twitter, but he's done a lot of tweeting about the combined support of the "establishment" candidates (Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Christie) vs the "outsiders" (Trump, Carson, Fiorina and sometimes including Cruz, because the establishment apparently hates him as much as Trump). -Paul
[2016-02-10 13:52:05] - paul: I think you're not seeing much fracture now because Cruz and Trump waited so long to start really going after one another. Now that Cruz is fixated on him, you'll likely see some fracturing as the primaries continue. - mig
[2016-02-10 13:20:52] - Xpovos: I would like to think that it's all about a fractured opposition, although I don't really know why Trump's support isn't similarly fractured. There are other "outsiders". Cruz can appeal to the angry anti-establishment people and Carson to the religious anti-establishment people. Heck, even Fiorina to the... pro-business anti-establishment? -Paul
[2016-02-10 13:18:23] - Paul: Ah. Yeah, Trump winning NH is more about the general anger and frustration of the electorate, I think. He's not a strong NH candidate, but the opposition is so splintered. At least that's how I read it. And then he took 35% of the vote... so, yea. No clue. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 13:15:14] - My net worth is 0% individual stocks. Just as a comparison note. -Daniel
[2016-02-10 13:12:26] - Also, I'm getting so obsessed with PredictIt. Just bought some shares of Rubio/Cruz/Jeb to double down on my "no" bet that Trump wins the nomination. I've got $1.20 riding on Jeb! -Paul
[2016-02-10 13:10:50] - a: I'm only treating it like gambling in that I'm not necessarily doing it simply to make money (or, in this case, more money than a mutual fund). I also enjoy it, so I'm willing to accept some loss in exchange for it. -Paul
[2016-02-10 13:09:53] - Xpovos: Sorry, no, I was referring to Trump. I guess it's because he lives close by? I never really understood the whole "proximity" thing. I know it's real, but I don't understand it. -Paul
[2016-02-10 13:00:16] - So, if Kasich is a Democrat from 24 years ago. Who's really moved? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:59:42] - I was listening to the Diane Rehm show this morning and they were going on and on about how strongly conservative Kasich is and how it's really an indictment of how far right the Republican party has moved that he's the "moderate". But really, look at the platforms Kasich and Tsongas have. Nearly identical. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:59:21] - paul: if you're treating it like gambling 20% is too high
~a[2016-02-10 12:58:20] - Paul: You're referring to Kasich? He appeals to NH for two significant reasons. 1) He's spent all his time and money there. About 100 town hall meetings. Ground game matters in NH. 2) He's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:56:58] - a: Kind of like gambling. I know I'll probably lose money, but at least I'll have fun doing it.
-Paul[2016-02-10 12:56:43] - a: Undoubtedly my employer affects that thought process, but I've thought that before working at TMF as well. Even if I do under-perform a bit, it's something I enjoy so I chalk it up to that. -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:55:20] - a: Fair. Like I said, my mutual funds... uh... funds outnumber my individual stocks funds by at least 2:1. I acknowledge that for most people, individual stocks probably aren't the best option, but I do believe that it's possible to beat the market (and hence, index funds) with individual stocks. -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:54:54] - "Not sure if that's considered high or not." 10% is probably fine, imo. if you count bits as "stock" (bits are more volatile than any stock i've ever bought), my percentage is a little closer to 10%. 20% might be too high, imo. ~a
[2016-02-10 12:52:52] - Xpovos: NH has me baffled. After Iowa I figured his appeal was waning and that he was having trouble bringing his supporters to the polls, but there seems to be no good reason to me why he would appeal so much to voters in NH, so if he can do well there, why not in other states? -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:51:54] - paul: i dunno. combine it all? i guess my point wasn't about net worth though. the point was, your portfolio, however you count it, should probably have relatively small amounts in individual stocks? ~a
[2016-02-10 12:51:39] - a: Extremely rough estimate... I think I have maybe 10-20% of my net worth tied up in individual stocks. Not sure if that's considered high or not. In terms of retirement funds, I would say I have at least twice as much invested in low fee mutual funds than I do in individual stocks. -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:49:36] - Paul: Bearing some kind of white swan event, then? I take your point, it's truly bizarre, but it's the reality. He's alive, in the lead in the most recent (dated) polls for both SC and Nevada, and shows no sign of going away, particularly when there's no clearcut single opposition source. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:48:39] - a: Percent of net worth? Hmmm, don't have a good idea of my net worth. How does it work with a spouse? Do I get credit for all the house? Half? -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:48:16] - I chose those two because I think Bush starts to show his strength now while Rubio fades and Kasich is done with his NH grandstanding getting him a very weak second. None out of the campaign done, but no momentum. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:47:46] - Xpovos: "Trump will continue to do well barring some kind of black swan event." His entire campaign has felt like a black swan event to me.
-Paul[2016-02-10 12:47:38] - Unless Bush can steal South Carolina, I don't see an "establishment" candidate getting even 200 delegates. Trump and Cruz should each be over 200... maybe both over 300... So that's my early prognostication. The Republican nomination comes down to Trump or Cruz unless (and possibly even if) Rubio and Kasich drop. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:45:34] - Super Tuesday: 689 delegates up for grabs. Texas has the crown with 155. All 689 are some form of proportional (if awarded at all, Colorado's caucus is non-binding). Cruz should do well in Texas (obviously). Trump will continue to do well barring some kind of black swan event. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:42:33] - Trump: 21, Cruz: 10. Everyone else: Less, a lot less. South Carolina will at 50 to one candidate (winner take all) and Nevada will scatter another 30, probably fairly broadly. It's entirely plausible Trump wins South Carolina and takes a lions share of Nevada for a commanding early lead going into Super Tuesday. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:42:07] - Trump: 21, Cruz: 10. Everyone else: Less, a lot less. South Carolina will at 50 to one candidate (winner take all) and Nevada will scatter another 30, probably fairly broadly. It's entirely plausible Trump wins South Carolina and takes a lions share of Nevada for a commanding early lead going into Super Tuesday. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:38:34] - So, because of NH's bizarre definition of "proportional" Trump is probably going to walk away with 14 delegates while Kasich gets 3 and Cruz, Bush and Rubio each get 2. These are miniscule numbers for the convention, but added to Iowa we get our first real pictures. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 12:32:49] - with numbers like these, it reminds me of the commonly espoused good advice: stop buying (as many) individual stocks! really, only like 3% of my net worth is in individual stocks, and i expect that percentage to shrink in the future, not grow. ~a
[2016-02-10 12:19:39] - a: Heh. I have some LinkedIn (down ~50%) and Twitter (although I bought only recently so "only" down ~35%). I'm eyeing GoPro if only because I have to imagine somebody would be interested in buying them out at such a decreased valuation. I really hate buying just on the hope of a buyout though. -Paul
[2016-02-10 12:09:18] - i passed on linkedin (-50% this month), twitter (-60% since ipo), and groupon (-90% since ipo!). i wish i had passed on go pro (-60% since ipo), but luckily i didn't buy much of it. ~a
[2016-02-10 11:32:09] - a: But, still, it seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. If I had some cash, I would probably consider dollar cost averaging down, but alas, I have better uses for my cash right now. -Paul
[2016-02-10 11:31:29] - a: Near as I can tell, it was a stock that had a ton of expectations for future growth built into the price, and even though they recently had a great quarter, their forecast for the year was a little bearish, so instead of people expecting them to continue to have amazing growth, it now is priced more "appropriately". -Paul
[2016-02-10 11:26:55] - ouch. is that -50%? wtf happened? ~a
[2016-02-10 11:24:25] - a: It's hard to tell for sure, but eyeballing the graph on my Scottrade page it looks like my self-directed portfolio is down around 28% for the year. Having shares of LinkedIn did NOT help.
-Paul[2016-02-10 11:18:29] - paul: ytd, the nasdaq is down 14%. although that seems crazy (!) to me, there were tons of years where the *WHOLE YEAR* we were down by way more than 14%. 2000: -40%. 2001: -15%. 2002: -33%. 2008: -40%. wtf, crazy land. ~a
[2016-02-10 10:38:47] - mig: I've got my fingers crossed. I bought 25 "yes" shares on PredictIt last night.
-Paul[2016-02-10 10:13:40] - paul: yeah according to some headlines on CNN Christie appears to be calling it quits. - mig
[2016-02-10 09:51:01] - *Sigh* I wish I could go a week without one of my stocks going down double digits. This is going to be an ugly quarter even when compared to the already crappy quarter for the S&P. -Paul
[2016-02-10 09:43:29] - Daniel: I'm guessing the field will be narrowed after SC. Christie is already all but out and Kasich doesn't appear to have much support outside of NH. Jeb! and Rubio will probably stick around with Cruz and Trump... hard to say what Carson does. My guess is he drops out after under performing in SC too. -Paul
[2016-02-10 08:54:09] - Super Tuesday has 14 states going on March 1st. 9 primaries, including Virginia, and 5 caucuses. Unless Bush, Rubio or Kasich place second or better in both Nevada and South Carolina, I think we'll see a very splintered field still. SC/Washington is on a Saturday and the following Tuesday we get Nevada. Then a week later it's chaos. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 08:51:13] - Daniel: Also Washington state, but that's a pre-primary caucus and awards no delegates. The actual delegates are awarded in the primary in May. But there will be some results and that might have some impact. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-10 08:36:43] - Which might be the problem. All of them just want to make it to be the ________ but that is just letting Trump win. -Daniel
[2016-02-10 08:36:24] - How many primaries are left before Super Tuesday? Just two? South Carolina and Nevada? I guess I had always imagined the race narrowing before then but if its still 6+ candidates by Super Tuesday I think Trumps chances skyrocket. I think if it gets down to Trump/Cruz/_______ then I think that _______ wins. -Daniel
[2016-02-10 02:25:23] - Paul: Kasich was all-in on NH and is well liked there as a moderate and fairly reasonable guy. He'd been doing well in the polls, so it's not surprising to see him follow-through. The question is can he, or Rubio or Jeb! parlay this into momentum for South Carolina. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-09 21:34:14] - And by "we" I mean "me". -Paul
[2016-02-09 21:34:05] - And by
[2016-02-09 21:22:57] - Surprised how well Kasich is doing in NH. Just when we thought Rubio might be able to break away and take the lead, the field just continues to get muddied. -Paul
[2016-02-09 21:06:32] - Xpovos: Yeah, CNN has Clinton with some ridiculous lead in terms of delegates, despite her having a razor thin victory in Iowa. -Paul
[2016-02-09 17:30:37] - Last I heard, Clinton had a virtual lock on all of the Superdelegates. That's not surprising. What was surprising was how many of them had declared for her rather than waiting. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-09 16:04:52] - mig: I don't know if you can poll them but super delegates can declare one way or another. They can switch later though if they change their mind. I think there are some places that might keep track of them. I'm pretty sure people started to keep track when it was Obama v Clinton last time because it was so close. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:43] - whoa. not sure what happened there! -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:28] - a: I think in theory, and I could be wrong, that regular delegates go to the convention with the understanding that they will initially vote for a certain candidate based on results from their state. Super delegates are not bound by anything. I think if there isn't a immediate victor then regular delegates become unbound and then can vote however. I think. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:28] - a: I think in theory, and I could be wrong, that regular delegates go to the convention with the understanding that they will initially vote for a certain candidate based on results from their state. Super delegates are not bound by anything. I think if there isn't a immediate victor then regular delegates become unbound and then can vote however. I think. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:25] - a: I think in theory, and I could be wrong, that regular delegates go to the convention with the understanding that they will initially vote for a certain candidate based on results from their state. Super delegates are not bound by anything. I think if there isn't a immediate victor then regular delegates become unbound and then can vote however. I think. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:23] - a: I think in theory, and I could be wrong, that regular delegates go to the convention with the understanding that they will initially vote for a certain candidate based on results from their state. Super delegates are not bound by anything. I think if there isn't a immediate victor then regular delegates become unbound and then can vote however. I think. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 16:03:20] - a: I think in theory, and I could be wrong, that regular delegates go to the convention with the understanding that they will initially vote for a certain candidate based on results from their state. Super delegates are not bound by anything. I think if there isn't a immediate victor then regular delegates become unbound and then can vote however. I think. -Daniel
[2016-02-09 15:45:27] - a: i don't think the delegates would want to be polled. And I'm sure the DNC and RNC wouldn't allow it either. - mig
[2016-02-09 15:33:27] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate - mig
[2016-02-09 15:32:45] - alternatively, we should just poll the delegates. ~a
[2016-02-09 15:31:59] - i thought the delegates were told who to vote for. ~a
[2016-02-09 15:24:28] - err state primaries. - mig
[2016-02-09 15:24:15] - a: the convention isn't going to be really based on polling. It's basically all the delegates who aren't tied to state conventions deciding who to back, isn't it? - mig
[2016-02-09 15:18:42] - i guess "california democratic primary" isn't the same thing as the convention. hmmm, does 538 have polling for the overall primary (convention?)? ~a
[2016-02-09 15:16:15] - ooof. the nh primary on the other hand, is pretty wild. ~a
[2016-02-09 15:13:32] - paul: 538 has high chance of trump winning nh. also, i still don't see this poll that you guys were talking about last week regarding sanders. ~a
[2016-02-09 12:02:34] - mig: And I'm still a believer Bernie wins for the Democrats, despite Clinton closing the gap. Didn't she get a surprise win against Obama in NH last time, though? -Paul
[2016-02-09 11:10:27] - mig: So you're on record for Rubio winning the NH primary? I could see it being any of three people (Trump, Rubio, Cruz), but I think I'll lean Trump, despite his under-performance in Iowa. -Paul
[2016-02-08 14:08:06] - mig: you're right. (because i'm dumb) i was thinking you were mad that she get around to putting the maker of the video in jail. ~a
[2016-02-08 13:49:53] - totally kidding, of course. your position is well thought out and enlightening. thanks! ~a
[2016-02-08 13:49:02] - aaron: too nuanced! ~a
[2016-02-08 13:44:07] - mig: i mean i think they're both strong arguments on their own, it just seems nonsensical to connect them. like why do politicians lock up drug dealers, and then provide powerful addictive opiates legally in hospitals? those are two good points independently but the connection is tenuous and (imho) weakens both arguments. - aaron
[2016-02-08 13:38:34] - mig: i don't really think the idea of deliberately sending classified data to wikileaks in the name of freedom of information is at all comparable to accidentally having an insecure email password, or sending classified data on an unclassified network out of convenience or malice. i think it's totally rational to condemn one and not condemn the other - aaron
[2016-02-08 13:11:56] - I'm probably with Daniel. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call her despicable, but I try to give politicians the benefit of the doubt that even when I disagree with them, they have the best interests of the nation or other people at heart, and with Clinton, I don't think that's the case. I think she is a not-so-good person with a hunger for power. -Paul
[2016-02-08 12:21:49] - Expressing concern about Edward Snowden exposing classified data that "might help terrorists" while at the same time grossly mishandling classified data herself, not out of some well intentioned end like Snowden, but out of a selfish desire to get around FOI transparency laws. - mig
[2016-02-08 12:17:01] - I don't know about "despicable" but Hillary has a lot of things that have swirled around her. I would definitely not have a problem calling her shady. Is she more or less shady than other politicians? Hard to say. She might have just had more attention paid to her than others. I'm certainly more aware of her shadiness than other politicians. -Daniel
[2016-02-08 12:07:36] - a: the free speech implications of that promise don't bother you at all? - mig
[2016-02-08 12:05:39] - big financial companies like Goldman Sachs by invoking 9/11 and at the same time trying to present herself as a "voice for the 99%". I could go on and on, but I'd rather not fill up the entirety of the message board today. - mig
[2016-02-08 12:04:36] - clinton said she would do something and then didn't do it, like every politician ever, burn her! and, backing gay marriage, but not quickly enough? seriously wtf? ~a
[2016-02-08 12:01:13] - a: The list of objections to Clinton goes far beyond just her stance on encryption. Like I dunno, her political opportunism in backing gay marriage, voting for the iraq war and never really admitting it as mistake, promising a family member of a victim of Bengahzi that she would help throw the maker of that weird anti-muslim video to jail. Defending her ties to ...
[2016-02-08 10:29:39] - despicable human being? that might be a little far. i won't vote for her because of the encryption thing (my hot button). but that doesn't mean i'd call her a despicable human being. to me, that seems like hysterical screeching as well. ~a
[2016-02-08 10:00:33] - It's getting quite sad that this is what progressive political ideology has devolved to, seeing all these Clinton supporters screeching about how you're a sexist (if male) or gender traitor (if female) if you don't support Clinton. Because it doesn't matter that Clinton is a despicable human being, we have to have a woman president, dammit! - mig
[2016-02-07 14:45:34] - https://reason.com/blog/2016/02/07/feminist-scholar-young-women-are-support though it looks like Hillary supporters are clearly panicking. - mig
[2016-02-05 16:14:44] - paul: I'm still more "worried" (to use the term rather loosely) about a potential indictment than Bernie Sanders. - mig
[2016-02-05 13:30:02] - a: Yeah, looks like it might not include the poll that was released today. -Paul
[2016-02-05 12:58:07] - mig: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/ i guess this doesn't appear to have polling data from today, but i otherwise don't see any major changes from the last few weeks? ~a
[2016-02-05 12:44:19] - mig: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-losing-national-lead-bernie-sanders-poll/story?id=36733595 Cue the Ron Paul "It's happening!" meme.
-Paul[2016-02-05 12:01:25] - a: Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I don't think the spirit of Pierce's sign was that your beliefs need to fit on two signs or even three. I took it not as your beliefs have to fit on a 1 foot by 2 foot sign (printers can print really small), but that they should be well thought out and in depth, not just empty slogans. -Paul
[2016-02-05 11:57:38] - a: Uh, I think there is a large grey area in between uninformed and completely knowledgeable? I'm trying to add more information to the debate (for lack of a better term). I don't understand why you are confused. -Paul
[2016-02-05 11:53:35] - "Yes, and it took a lot of willpower not to bring that up because I thought the same thing" . . . i'd have a very hard time fitting that entire oatmeal comic onto one sign. ~a
[2016-02-05 11:44:37] - "I don't know enough about NN to take an informed stance" yet here you are . . . making an uninformed stance?
seriously, though, what are you doing? what was the point of your reply to nina's comic if not to make an informed stance? ~a[2016-02-05 11:41:28] - a: And I'm not trying to say I'm Mr. Know-It-All. I fully admit that I don't know enough about NN to take an informed stance. -Paul
[2016-02-05 11:40:40] - a: And I'm not even necessarily talking about Nina, either. I just feel like far too many people take their cues from sound bites like web-comics or Facebook posts or even stuff like the Daily Show and think they're suddenly knowledgeable enough about the topic to start definitively saying that the government should force millions of other people to do something.-Paul
[2016-02-05 11:38:30] - a: If you (and I must stress that I'm using the general "you", not referring to you specifically) can't bring yourself to fully research (or at least go beyond a web-comic) a pretty complicated and far-reaching topic like NN, then I kind of think maybe you shouldn't be petitioning the government to start regulating the internet. -Paul
[2016-02-05 11:35:14] - a: I know, the problem is that it's <insert extreme qualifier adverb here> boring. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to feel too bad about it. It seems like a pretty crappy counterpoint.
-Paul[2016-02-05 11:33:27] - Xpovos: Yes, and it took a lot of willpower not to bring that up because I thought the same thing.
-Paul[2016-02-05 11:22:35] - paul: 4 minutes shorter isn't the main problem. ~a
[2016-02-05 11:21:30] - To be fair, this all seems to have started when Cruz (or a surrogate posting as Cruz) used Twitter (AKA The Devil's shorthand for liars) to post a necessarily truncated and un-nuanced position against government intrusion in the form of net neutrality. So ultimately, I think everyone's on the same page. -- Xpovos
[2016-02-05 11:19:38] - Paul: This is the Nina that married the "If your beliefs fit on a sign, think harder." Pierce? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-05 11:07:36] - Xpovos: Along with the video, I wrote a little blurb about how I felt the topic was more complicated and nuanced than the comic let on. As a result, I'm getting wrecked/rekt/whatever by Adrian and Nina about how overwhelmingly boring my video is and why couldn't it be 4 minutes shorter. -Paul
[2016-02-05 11:06:12] - Xpovos: Because after Nina posted the Oatmeal comic explaining Net Neutrality to Ted Cruz, I posted an (apparently offensively long and boring) video of a Cato podcast where they go into much more depth and nuance on the topic of NN than the aforementioned comic. -Paul
[2016-02-05 10:41:03] - Wait. What? Why is Paul getting rekt on the Book of Faces? -- Xpovos
[2016-02-04 15:36:20] - wrecked. ~a
[2016-02-04 15:00:35] - and it's spelled rekt, by the way. - mig
[2016-02-04 14:56:11] - a: you have a strange definition of "wrecked". - mig
[2016-02-04 13:45:17] - paul: yep. wrecked. ~a
[2016-02-04 13:14:39] - a: I think it speaks to something that nobody is actually attacking the content of what I posted, just that it's too long and boring. Also, I feel like I'm stuck in a hard place where I'm being told that my info isn't accessible enough, but I KNOW that if I apologize, people are going to take it as: "Sorry you're too stupid. I'll dumb it down for you next time". -Paul
[2016-02-04 13:10:16] - a: I haven't caught up fully yet. I'm a little baffled. Am I seriously getting attacked because my video is 5 minutes too long?
-Paul[2016-02-04 13:03:40] - paul: man, you're getting wrecked on facebook. that's what you get for picking on nina. ~a
[2016-02-04 12:34:35] - a: Oh, hah, that's the QOTD thing from right below this box. I completely missed that and thought it was just a super random question. -Paul
[2016-02-04 12:28:55] - paul: also, here's the context: https://xkcd.com/984/ (last panel) ~a
[2016-02-04 12:27:27] - paul: that's not out of context, but it is sarcastic (satirical/ironic/whatever). ~a
[2016-02-04 12:24:38] - anon: the first line and the second line are unrelated (can't tell if you were joking or not
). ~a[2016-02-04 12:19:48] - I have no idea. I don't even recall that conversation. I do like this snippet taken out of context, though: "learning from the nazis isnt enough/you have to actually put them in charge now"
. -Paul[2016-02-04 11:55:13] - wait, did Pierce actually say this? " learning from the nazis isnt enough/you have to actually put them in charge now, i admit that censorware companies that list "attack based on sexual orientation" as a "block" indicator are technically incorrect about their filtering rules, but some imperfection is inevitable because of my two earlier points. - pierce"
[2016-02-03 14:27:46] - a: I think we can agree on that. I would probably put both in the lower 10% of people in the world for deserving of the Peace Prize (maybe bottom 20% for Obama). -Paul
[2016-02-03 14:25:27] - a: Hehehe, I'm sure I've done that a TON on the message board. I re-write what I'm saying a lot and sometimes it results in nonsensical statements like that. -Paul
[2016-02-03 14:13:48] - i'm not totally sure the peace prize is about literal peace. i.e. short-term peace vs long term peace? regardless though, they're now both completely unqualified imo. back when obama won it, it was less ridiculous than it would be today. regardless (my points are seeming very disjoint), trump is unqualified i guess i don't care if he's more or less qualified. ~a
[2016-02-03 14:11:02] - i'm fairly certain trump has killed exactly the same number of people as trump. (sorry, i couldn't help myself). ~a
[2016-02-03 14:06:46] - a: I'm only partially playing devil's advocate here, but why? I'm fairly certain Trump has killed (or, if we're being pedantic, ordered the deaths of) fewer people than Trump. Sure, Trumps rhetoric is about a billion times worse, but are peace prizes just about talk or actions? -Paul
[2016-02-03 13:32:47] - less. ~a
[2016-02-03 13:02:01] - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-reportedly-nominated-nobel-peace-prize?cid=sm_fb_msnbc Poll: More or less qualified than Obama was?
-Paul[2016-02-03 11:09:13] - mig: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/how-the-rise-of-isis-killed-rand-pauls-presidential-chances/ I think there is a lot of truth to this. Libertarians like to talk about how politicians are a lot more hawkish than the american public, and I do believe that's generally true, but ISIS certainly caused at least a temporary change. -Paul
[2016-02-03 10:41:05] - mig: But, yeah, now I have to get all my fun from watching the Republican establishment freak out about Cruz/Trump and the drama about whether Sanders can overtake Clinton. -Paul
[2016-02-03 10:40:03] - mig: I don't know. My guess is that it means slight bumps for Cruz and maybe Trump (the most anti-establishment candidates). 4-5% support isn't a lot to spread around.
-Paul[2016-02-03 10:13:24] - so, does this mean a bump for Cruz or Rubio or the other also rans? I can't imagine Paul supporters going to Trump. - mig
[2016-02-03 10:09:12] - very disappointing he didn't stay in longer than dipshits like Kaisch and Christie (especially Christie
). I guess I'll just have to be content with just amusing myself with the Clinton/Sanders spats. - mig[2016-02-03 09:29:26] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/rand-paul-suspends-presidential-campaign Time to go all-in on Gary Johnson. -Paul
[2016-02-02 16:44:09] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/02/rejoice-independent-socialist-bernie-san I realize it's a strech, but this is probably the best possible spin that can come out of Iowa, and it made me feel a little better as a libertarian. -Paul
[2016-02-02 16:34:31] - a: But I think the content of what they're actually saying is less hawkish than Rubio and Clinton, who both sound more reasonable while holding more hawkish policy positions. -Paul
[2016-02-02 16:33:54] - a: I think there's probably a notable difference between rhetoric and proposed policies, though, which could cause differences of opinion in terms of how hawkish some candidates are. For instance, I think Trump and Cruz use very inflammatory rhetoric when discussing foreign policy... -Paul
prev <-> next