prev <-> next
[2016-11-30 12:04:07] - Ugh, I hate our tax code and how it makes us try to jump through hoops like this. -Paul
[2016-11-30 12:03:50] - Daniel: Hmmm, well that seems bad. So if my traditional IRA is worth $100k, then when I try to switch to a Roth, it looks like I had an income of $100k for that year? That seems like it would not be beneficial for keeping me in a low bracket.
-Paul[2016-11-30 11:44:03] - Paul: As long as you drop a tax bracket when you retire it can work in your favor. However I think the converted money counts as income so it might bump you back up. -Daniel
[2016-11-30 11:42:59] - Paul: Yes you can do that. Yes a fair amount of people already do that. http://retireby40.org/roth-ira-conversion-ladder-minimize-taxes/ -Daniel
[2016-11-30 09:58:48] - mig: yeah i like SU&SD! their web site has good reviews too. they like a lot of the same games i do - aaron
[2016-11-30 09:22:51] - If I convert that traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, now I'm just paying a 20% tax on those contributions and getting the distributions tax free. Shouldn't that save me a bunch of money all around? Is that what I should be doing right now? No Roth stuff (since I'm presumably at my highest tax bracket) and convert to Roth later? -Paul
[2016-11-30 09:21:23] - Let's say I contribute $10k a year to a traditional IRA right now. Let's say my tax rate is 40%. I'm currently saving that 40% ($4k) on taxes for my $10k contributions because it's a traditional IRA. Let's say I retire in 30 years, and now my tax bracket is 20% (since my income is lower). -Paul
[2016-11-30 09:19:51] - Daniel: I have a theoretical question about roth vs traditional IRAs. You can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth by just paying the taxes on the contributions at any point, right? So let me present a hypothetical situation: -Paul
[2016-11-29 13:49:24] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyRhIGDUKdIOw07Pd8pHxCw a pretty good board gaming channel that's been providing some good amusement for the last couple weeks. - mig
[2016-11-29 12:33:10] - mig: I'm sure Stein and her supporters would still prefer Clinton to Trump. Yeah, we probably won't remember this all in 4 years, but we definitely wouldn't remember Stein in 4 years without this. -Paul
[2016-11-29 12:27:25] - paul: and I mean yeah, she's getting publicity, but is that really going to do any good? Who's going to remember this in 4 years, especially if it changes nothing? - mig
[2016-11-29 12:24:23] - paul: enforcement could be a problem, but making it illegal is easy. there are even laws on the books (regarding securities) that a judge could argue apply. ~a
[2016-11-29 12:21:34] - paul: I mean, yeah it could prevent Trump from being president, but Stein was one of Clinton's harshest critics. It's just mindboggling she's going through all this effort when Clinton is the only person who stands to really benefit. - mig
[2016-11-29 12:17:34] - mig: Publicity. This seems like 10x the publicity she was getting during the election. It also probably doesn't hurt that there's a slim chance it could prevent Trump from becoming president. -Paul
[2016-11-29 12:13:45] - Can anyone explain to me why Jill Stein is so gung ho about getting these recounts going? What is she possibly getting out of this? - mig
[2016-11-29 12:08:51] - paul: probably not make it illegal outright, but non-authoritarian governments could certainly put hurdles on normalizing it as a currency. - mig
[2016-11-29 11:46:27] - a: Implying bitcoin will be illegal in most countries in the future? I have no doubt at all that would be true now if bitcoin were something easily shut down. How exactly does a non-authoritarian country easily make bitcoin illegal, though? -Paul
[2016-11-29 11:05:55] - paul/mig/aaron: my constant worry is highlighted by this article. governments, when given the choice between making cryptographic currency illegal and making their own currency fair, will always choose the easier of the two. i think we'll look back to the 2010s as a time when bitcoin was legal in most countries. it's a cencept too easily vilified. ~a
[2016-11-29 11:00:25] - paul: true, but luxury is really a relative term here. - mig
[2016-11-29 10:59:24] - It's bad PR, if nothing else. -Paul
[2016-11-29 10:59:03] - mig: I mostly don't have a problem with that ethical question, because I place the blame on the socialist government for creating the problem. However, maybe it's the socialist in me, but it does seem a little... shady... that these people are essentially buying luxury items while many of their neighbors are starving. -Paul
[2016-11-29 10:54:29] - mig: ah, yes, that is a fair point. especially if "wasting" electricity is something that their culture (and/or laws) frowns upon. as a response though, i'd wonder, is mining, say, gold a "waste" of electricity? ~a
[2016-11-29 10:53:00] - that's not to say there isn't some government scapegoating going on. or that ultimately the government price controls are one of the roots of the problem here. - mig
[2016-11-29 10:51:32] - sure, you are doing what you can to survive, but at the potential cost to others. - mig
[2016-11-29 10:51:15] - also, this usage could have consequences as the price controls have caused rationing of power, and these mining cpus have the potential to exacerbate the problem. - mig
[2016-11-29 10:50:21] - the ethical question is taking advantage of what is effectively subsidized electricity to make money from bitcoin mining. If electricity in venezuela was subject to market forces, this form of income wouldn't be feasible. - mig
[2016-11-29 10:47:20] - mig: explain the ethical question, please? i read the article and didn't notice anything about ethics. ~a
[2016-11-29 10:47:15] - mig/aaron:
~a[2016-11-29 09:19:47] - mig: dang that's an interesting article, really interesting to see how bitcoin ties into everyday life for some people, and how it acts as a replacement in countries where the official currency is no good. i think the US dollar still serves that purpose in some countries but i understand how bitcoin is easier to hide - aaron
[2016-11-29 08:59:19] - http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous-world-of a fascinating article about how bitcoin helps some people survive in Venezuela, and an interesting ethical question in how they're able to make money mining coins (when mining for profit generally isn't possible anymore). - mig
[2016-11-28 18:00:34] - skip list is also fun. ~a
[2016-11-28 17:45:38] - yeah the "extensions and applications" is a fun section to read once you know what a bloom filter is. ~a
[2016-11-28 17:25:58] - I hadn't heard of a bloom filter before, interesting stuff! -Daniel
[2016-11-28 17:21:15] - daniel: * the messages are very small and there aren't that many of them. * there's also a part of the system that prevents sending lots of messages (spam). * there are lots of solutions i can think of on how to scale: have messages go to subgroups instead of to every network participant. you could do this pretty easily with a bloom filter. ~a
[2016-11-28 17:09:06] - "Outgoing messages do not contain the explicit address of the recipient of the message. Therefore, every network participant attempts decryption of every message passing through the network even if the message was not originally intended for that network participant." Doesn't that get super inefficient? Like would this scale up well? -Daniel
[2016-11-28 16:50:21] - mig/paul: on the other hand, i'm on bitmessage and that would at least fix #2. i'm at BM-2cVpxXqJutgKSucvKztwwg1V5x5PdXCfFh if you want to chat. ~a
[2016-11-28 16:35:32] - mig/paul:
i'd say "ok, lets encrypt everything always. let's just encrypt at the fucking network interface level" but i don't think that even solves everything. 1. miguel's article implies they are "legally" hacking servers and hacking clients, so encryption doesn't solve this. 2. social network analysis doesn't even require hacking. ~a[2016-11-28 15:36:19] - a: There's enough reporting on this I would say this is actually a thing that is happening. - mig
[2016-11-28 11:32:47] - a: I've at least heard of zerohedge before, so that's something. I know the UK is pretty big on surveillance, so this doesn't shock me too much, if true. -Paul
[2016-11-28 11:32:33] - a: not a much better source, but probably more reliable. The UK has been always a step ahead of the US when it comes to the surveillance state. - mig
[2016-11-28 11:14:39] - "Food Standards Agency" (an agency of the UK) as well as 47 others have access to the browsing history of every. british. citizen. wtf. source is pretty unreliable, so take it all with a grain of salt. if true, that's pretty messed up. ~a
[2016-11-28 00:02:24] - Omg Omg so fun! But how do we add new words?! ~a
[2016-11-25 13:37:58] - https://quickdraw.withgoogle.com/ google tries to guess what you're drawing - aaron
[2016-11-23 16:05:05] - daniel: regarding the stock market: "no capital goes anywhere. This is basically a closed system" i often think about that. when a stock goes up in price, it's not like that directly means the company now has more money to do stuff with. when i buy stock, it's often from another investor who (indirectly) payed a much smaller amount of money to the company. ~a
[2016-11-23 14:52:27] - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-jack-bogle-interview/ Interesting interview with Jack Bogle (founder of index funds and Vanguard) -Daniel
[2016-11-23 12:53:19] - I think they would be stupid and hypocritical. -Daniel
[2016-11-23 12:53:04] - mig: I think their is the potential for hyprocisy but I don't think we are all the way there yet. If there are irregularities then sure we can take a look (I'm not sure yet that there were? ) but if there weren't or they get looked at and turn out to be nothing then I think we continue on with Pres Elect trump. If huffpo etc can't get on board at that point then...
[2016-11-23 12:48:42] - daniel: I'm not ragging on Clinton herself here. Mostly on the outlets like nymag, huffpo, slate who've jumped on this story. - mig
[2016-11-23 12:47:00] - I don't know that I have an opinion yet on whether or not she should do anything, but I'm not sure its the same as Trump. -Daniel
[2016-11-23 12:46:35] - mig: I mean the biggest difference is that Clinton hasn't done or said anything? I think its different to point at something specific and say whats up with that, than to question the legitimacy of the entire voting system as a whole. -Daniel
[2016-11-23 12:29:19] - and it's spreading like wildfire amongst butthurt publications despite the very little substance behind the allegations. - mig
[2016-11-23 12:28:00] - daniel: I don't think it's different at all. There's accusations flying without any real basis in fact (and the people behind this admit there's no real evidence) other than, "this doesn't look right to me". - mig
[2016-11-23 12:24:03] - -Daniel
[2016-11-23 12:24:00] - mig: I'm not sure about this stuff with people thinking the vote was hacked or whatever in WI/MI/PA but I think its different than Trump. He was just stating the whole system was rigged and that he might not believe the outcome. If he had said I will challenge any voting irregularities but otherwise accept the outcome I think that would have been received better.
[2016-11-23 11:57:19] - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html weren't people flipping their shit when Trump was musing about potentially not accepting the election results? - mig
[2016-11-23 08:52:35] - Yeah, +1 for basically ignoring everything he says (as best as possible, obviously it's hard when he's as offensive as he is) and trying to judge him by his actions. -Paul
[2016-11-22 11:10:37] - mig: i loved that sketch. ~a
[2016-11-22 09:58:39] - I guess he missed the "Bubble" sketch, though, if he was looking for some satirization of liberals/progressives. - mig
[2016-11-22 09:56:15] - but I agree with andrew, I think honestly ignoring him (on twitter) at least is probably the best policy. - mig
[2016-11-22 09:55:42] - a: perhaps he's yearning for the Fariness Doctrine? - mig
[2016-11-22 09:41:25] - these stage magician tendencies make me hate him even more if that was even possible. ~a
[2016-11-22 09:10:29] - a: I'm going to do my very best to ignore everything Donald Trump says and instead focus on what he's actually doing. I think he might have picked up some stage magician tendencies. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 18:19:38] - paul: god, i didn't even realize that the president elect also felt the need to mention that he didn't like his portrayal on saturday night live? "It is a totally one-sided, biased show - nothing funny at all. Equal time for us?" what the hell does that ending even mean? he wants a private company to satirize republicans and democrats with equal time? ~a
[2016-11-21 15:22:49] - work. It's not that another priest or the local ordinary wouldn't have the capacity to perform the sacrament, it's that there needs to be a more public atonement. Abortion doesn't have that need for public atonement. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 15:22:13] - mig: The buearacracy of forgiveness is still in play for certain offenses. The ones I get to spend most of my time thinking about in this sense are the ones committed by priests, so that's a bit more understandable. When a priest commits a grave sin, particularly in a public or scandalous way, it's somewhat reasonable that the human institution goes through more leg
[2016-11-21 15:20:41] - I'd say one of the problems it poses is that... not all priests are "high quality". But then again, neither are all bishops, so probably pretty close to a wash there, honestly. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 15:20:09] - mig: Eh. It's not groundbreaking, really. The only concern is that it somehow normalizes abortion as OK, which isn't likely to happen. Even if it somehow degrades it in terms of severityt as a sin, most priests will work that out through the process of Reconciliation. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 14:31:06] - xpovos: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0 is this really as groundbreaking as it sounds? I must admit though, I'm intrigued at the level of bureaucracy going into the concept of forgiveness. - mig
[2016-11-21 13:17:48] - mig: silly, but also the entire reason people are still talking about it. ~a
[2016-11-21 13:01:00] - I thought the most notable takeaway was Pence's response. Seemed pretty admirable to me. -Paul
[2016-11-21 12:57:52] - all in all, not something worth getting all worked up about either by trump or anyone else. - mig
[2016-11-21 12:56:03] - a: oh right, the tweets. Yeah that was pretty silly. I looked at the incident though and I thought the Hamilton people were being kind of douchy. - mig
[2016-11-21 12:48:15] - paul: lots of people are right. he's his own worst enemy. otoh, he's somehow potus, so he must be doing something right. ~a
[2016-11-21 12:47:07] - a: Lots of people are saying somebody needs to take Trump's phone away so he doesn't keep tweeting like this. I say give him two phones. The more he tweets, the less he can do other stuff.
-Paul[2016-11-21 12:46:25] - mig: "The Theater must always be a safe and special place." he's totally serious? this isn't jokes? "The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!" no, no, i don't seen an apology coming any time soon. ~a
[2016-11-21 12:46:18] - Xpovos: I didn't even intend it like that when I first wrote it, but after I saw it, I let it stand.
-Paul[2016-11-21 12:45:32] - mig: it didn't seem like that big of a deal to me until the tweets saturday: "Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing. This should not happen!" Cameras BLAZING. like guns . . . blazing, miguel. their cameras were like guns. ~a
[2016-11-21 12:45:21] - Paul: Haha. Black and white. I see what you did there. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 12:38:58] - The Hamilton thing is more black and white. With Sessions, it's probably more acceptable to have nuanced reactions to it. -Paul
[2016-11-21 12:37:50] - mig: I think it will suffice until the next thing that Trump/Pence does to annoy some segment of the whimpering classes. Honestly, I'm surprised that the Sessions nomination hasn't gotten more play. I mean they've been all over it, but not as much as I would have expected. Maybe they'll redux that next? -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 12:30:53] - jesus, people are still talking about that hamilton/pence. was it really that big a deal? - mig
[2016-11-21 12:25:22] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Controversy The Golden Rice controversy is especially frustrating. -Paul
[2016-11-21 12:25:11] - Xpovos: I didn't read all of it (skimmed some), but I'm mostly on board with what I read. I personally wouldn't be so... hard? on the left versus the right, as I think both have their flaws, but I do agree with the idea that the science issues on the left is potentially more dangerous. -Paul
[2016-11-21 10:57:30] - sure, passing the ACA was kind of bold i guess. - mig
[2016-11-21 10:56:16] - paul: in Libya he tried to claim we weren't all that involved ("kinetic military action"). - mig
[2016-11-21 10:54:18] - mig: I wouldn't call him a coward. He was plenty bold and (I would even say recklessly so) when it came to pushing through Obamacare and ignoring popular opinion when it came to Libya. That's what makes it more frustrating to me. He only seems to have a backbone for stuff I disagree with him on.
-Paul[2016-11-21 10:51:10] - a: it has probably been my #1 pet peeve on the president. He's a coward. He will never make a stand on anything unless he knows it's 100% politically safe to do so. - mig
[2016-11-21 10:41:08] - a: that are un-libertarian, but whenever he has the chance to do something libertarian that is perfectly within his power, he suddenly claims his hands are tied. -Paul
[2016-11-21 10:40:29] - a: That's part of what makes libertarians (or at least me) so frustrated with Obama. He often seems to say the right thing in terms of being for civil liberties and whatnot, but he just doesn't follow through with his actions (NSA, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc). In addition, he seems perfectly willing to bend the rules to do things... -Paul
[2016-11-21 10:38:25] - I suspect only Paul will really enjoy this. It's a bit lengthy. http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html -- Xpovos
[2016-11-21 07:56:14] - from the yes-you-can dept. hah. what an asshole. i mean, he's not just wrong, it's obvious he's knowingly lying. ~a
[2016-11-20 11:36:58] - Gotcha that makes sense. ~a
[2016-11-18 21:08:54] - Store credit is also taxable in that situation. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-18 21:08:27] - Prizes are absolutely taxable. Many game show prizes are left uncollected because the taxes make it unpalatable. People are often just playing for the opportunity to be on TV. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-18 18:06:24] - mig/daniel: "in that case you aren't technically paying for anything" i'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. whether money is used in the transaction matters not. barter transactions are required to be taxed. so if cash is not envolved you still pay taxes. winning a prize is possibly done differently though, i'm not sure. ~a
[2016-11-18 16:39:47] - I guess we could look at some real-life application. Let's say you go to a magic tournament, win it, and the prize is store credit? Is that something that could be considered income? - mig
[2016-11-18 16:38:30] - in the other case there's nothing monetary either. You're essentially using your gold to purchase store credit (for lack of a better word). Sure, battle.net translates to a monetary value in $, but is not usable outside of blizzard products or services. - mig
[2016-11-18 16:36:38] - the only monetary transaction is the person who buys the in-game token w/ cash, which is taxed and accounted for. - mig
[2016-11-18 16:35:51] - daniel: in that case you aren't technically paying for anything. You're using in-game currency to buy an in-game item to extend your subscription time for 30 days. - mig
[2016-11-18 16:28:04] - a: You can already pay for your wow subscription in wow gold. I guess online subscriptions aren't taxed or something? I've honestly never thought of the tax implications for any of the F2P schemes before. -Daniel
[2016-11-18 16:11:45] - daniel: i guess that's fine if you don't mind cheating on your taxes. i'll visit you in texas jail. ~a
[2016-11-18 15:51:40] - There is apparently discussion that you can use wow gold to translate into battle net $$. This in theory I think means you could play wow and eventually buy overwatch with wow gold. Clearly the way to go. -Daniel
[2016-11-18 15:33:35] - paul: no x-platform play on overwatch, btw. - mig
[2016-11-18 15:17:05] - aaron: Ah, okay. I guess it's a bigger discount on console, then. It looks to be $35 across all platforms. Thanks! -Paul
[2016-11-18 15:07:30] - paul: The base price is $40 on PC, I'd just wait and purchase it in the future if you ever want to play it. But I've heard it's pretty fun. - aaron
[2016-11-18 14:13:08] - Looks like Overwatch is on sale on Amazon for $35 (all platforms). Is there any chance people start playing it in the near future and I should buy it now? Or should I wait? -Paul
[2016-11-16 15:29:06] - a: New show, new host. Seems like a substantially different format, too. http://thedianerehmshow.org/wamu-introduces-1a -- Xpovos
[2016-11-16 15:18:20] - paul: there was only a small bump after the election. ~a
[2016-11-16 15:17:22] - xpovos: how so? she's retiring. so the show, with her name on it, is ending? i don't think that's especially weird. they'll come up with a new show and a new person to fill that slot? ~a
[2016-11-16 14:58:31] - a: Sure, but this sounded like a lot more than retirement. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-16 14:30:48] - a: I would love to invest more in bitcoins, especially in a Trump future (was there a big bump after the election?). Only problem is I still think that, in terms of best return for an investment over the long term, stocks are probably the way to go, and I'm not investing as much in them as I would like either. -Paul
[2016-11-16 14:17:15] - she's been planning on retiring for a while. ~a
[2016-11-16 13:59:33] - Wow, so apparently there was an announcement today that the Diane Rehm show will be terminating soon? -- Xpovos
[2016-11-16 13:26:25] - paul: i definitely use them as both. i use it as a currency: i spend about $1500/month on my bitcoin debit card and another $200/month in other places. i use it as a store of value and an investment: i also hold lots of bits i don't spend that i'm hoping won't go down in value. ~a
[2016-11-16 13:04:03] - paul: 270 electoral votes. ~a
[2016-11-16 13:00:00] - a: I did notice the rebound. Unfortunately, I only have, what? $100 in bitcoins roughly? Even less? Never enough money to invest in all the things I would like to.
I guess you see it more as a currency than an investment, though, right? -Paul[2016-11-16 12:59:01] - a: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-mexico/ Although it's not that simple. According to 538, Johnson had a 0.2% of winning New Mexico. Some electoral "tie" scenarios involved Johnson winning NM or McMullin winning Utah. What if that is considered a win to people? -Paul
[2016-11-16 12:56:56] - a: Okay, sounds good. Now we need to figure out who sets those odds. 538? They'll need to get more accuracy, then, because their projections said Johnson had a "<0.1%" chance of winning. We need to know if it's <0.1% or <0.01%
-Paul[2016-11-16 12:40:42] - paul: dunno if you've been watching your bits, but we recovered from that dip a few months ago and some. +10% in 3 months. ~a
[2016-11-16 12:10:39] - or if you'd prefer we could use 0.01% chance. regardless, save some catastrophic events that did not occur, johnson had about a 0% chance of winning. ~a
[2016-11-16 12:08:40] - 0.1% chance. if you're voting for somebody that has less than 0.1% chance of winning, then you're voting for someone who can't win. ~a
[2016-11-15 16:26:33] - And with that, I'm out.
-Paul[2016-11-15 16:26:25] - a: I've asked this question (what is the threshold for a wasted vote?) many times to many people and never gotten any kind of satisfactory answer because I don't think anybody can provide one. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:24:37] - a: I just think the whole idea of a wasted vote as most people use it is stupid and frankly a little insulting. It's a way of people trying to guilt/pressure others into voting THEIR way by saying your opinion and your vote just isn't worth as much as theirs is. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:23:05] - a: The Libertarian Party got major party status in New Mexico. party recognition in Oklahoma and ballot access in Texas and Arkansas because of their vote percentages. Were votes for GJ there wasted? How about votes for HRC in Texas, a state she lost by almost 10 percentage points? -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:21:28] - a: And I still want to know where the line is between a vote counting and a wasted vote. Almost everybody agreed that Trump was going to lose. His chances were exceedingly small. Was a vote for him wasted? Where does the chance of winning need to be to flip from a worthwhile vote to a wasted one? -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:16:09] - a: It's almost like saying, "Because you don't play the lottery, I guess you don't like money". -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:15:29] - a: But the statement hinges on the idea that a single vote makes a difference, which, as I've said all along, is an idea I reject. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:14:04] - a: Okay, well, I don't know how the cake analogy works with that statement. Besides, isn't that just a logical fallacy? I would push back on them to prove their point. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:12:58] - a: Because you're trying to turn one vote for a 3rd party into millions. I'm saying one vote is one vote, just like one bite of cake is one bite of cake. One bite of cake doesn't make you fat. One vote doesn't count. IF you eat 1 million cakes, then you get fat. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:12:50] - paul: i didn't say anything like that. i said "if you're voting for someone who can't win, then you don't care who wins" (although it makes me sad, and i disagree with it, i have a hard time with the logic of it all). ~a
[2016-11-15 16:11:57] - a: If I understand your cake analogy (and I fully admit I don't think I do), it should be saying: "Eating one bite of cake will make you fat because eating one bite of cake is equivalent to eating 1,000,000 cakes". -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:11:46] - paul: well the problem with that argument is we didn't know for sure that hillary was going to win virginia. polls had her only barely winning. in fact, to drive that point home: it was pretty fucking close. ~a
[2016-11-15 16:10:33] - a: Are you talking about giving HRC all 3rd party votes nationwide? That would probably swing the election to her, but that also seems to be absurd. Why not just give Gary Johnson all HRC votes instead? -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:10:27] - i don't think that's the cake analogy. the cake analogy is: you got fat because of the bites of cake you ate. one bite of cake doesn't make you fat. but . . . you got fat somehow: each bite played a part in making you fat. your dollar analogy doesn't work because . . . unless you say the homeless person *did* become a millionare. (somebody won the election) ~a
[2016-11-15 16:09:44] - a: Are you just referring to people who voted third party? I'm not sure that logically makes sense to only count them, but even if you did, I don't think your analogy works. HRC won Virginia. Even if we gave all 3rd party votes to Trump, she still won Virginia. What point are you trying to make? -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:07:25] - a: Giving a dollar to a homeless person doesn't turn them into a millionaire because everybody else will magically give them a dollar too. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:06:42] - a: Also, that's still not how voting actually works. Whether or not I vote has no bearing on if other people vote. They are independent events. I get the philosophical points behind it, but there's no real practical application. I also can't think of any other area in life where people routinely use that logic. -Paul
[2016-11-15 16:04:17] - *part. ~a
[2016-11-15 16:04:06] - paul: i don't follow that last port. even if you take the cake analogy to this situation it doesn't work: we won't be eating NEARLY enough cake to get fat by eating johnson cake. ~a
[2016-11-15 16:02:15] - a: Right, and if we use that exact same logic, then a vote for a third party also matters. You can't have it both ways where a single vote doesn't matter for third parties but it somehow magically does for major party candidates. -Paul
[2016-11-15 15:55:49] - paul: we've argued this logic back and forth before: of course one vote taken by itself doesn't matter. but if one vote doesn't matter in general, then no one vote matters, and no votes matter. make a cake analogy, and getting fat. in the end, votes matter: one vote matters. all votes matter. black lives matter. qed. ~a
[2016-11-15 15:43:10] - or Stein. - mig
[2016-11-15 15:42:53] - a: Well what context are we talking about here. Are we talking about justification for a person who generally votes Libertarian but is otherwise horrified by Trump and doesn't find Clinton that objectional? Or a disaffected progressive who is considered (or did) vote libertarian? - mig
[2016-11-15 15:10:05] - a: It's precisely because my vote does matter that I need to vote for the candidate I want--not against the candidate I hate more. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-15 15:08:20] - a: "paul, one vote not mattering is illogical." How so? -Paul
[2016-11-15 15:07:44] - a: I just don't get how people determine "somebody has a chance to win" or what counts as a "wasted vote" when we're talking about a single vote in a sea of millions. -Paul
[2016-11-15 15:07:07] - paul/mig/xpovos: i actually tried all of these things guys, none of these arguments worked: they were all refuted with logic that i can follow! paul, one vote not mattering is illogical. and you can know that the odds of someone winning is statistically inprobable. ~a
[2016-11-15 15:06:48] - a: You mention Xpovos' state was VERY close. Assuming you meant Virginia, then didn't HRC win by 200k votes? On one hand, that's pretty close, on the other hand, that's a ridiculously large number when we're talking about worrying about the effect of one vote. -Paul
[2016-11-15 15:02:26] - a: Without reading everything else that was said (so sorry if I repeat), I would start with challenging the idea that we know who can and can't win before an election and follow it up with my old stand-by of a single vote not mattering. -Paul
[2016-11-15 14:50:36] - a: I guess I'd echo Xpovos's points. I didn't really care who won this election, though. - mig
[2016-11-15 14:37:35] - I went back to ~4 years ago on the board and we were having some pretty similar conversations, actually.
-- Xpovos[2016-11-15 14:33:08] - xpovos: lets plan for 2020. i promise not to vote for hrc in 2020?
~a[2016-11-15 14:31:45] - #1 got me into trouble as well. i think maybe i could try some #1B "chicken or the egg" or "bootstrapping" arguments to suggest that "we think they can't win because we think they can't win". anyways, #1B is problematic too because it's just an argument that doesn't change the results for a specific year. it's too much of a long-term view. ~a
[2016-11-15 14:30:28] - xpovos: ironically i *didn't* vote for obama in 2012, so you counted as two votes. maybe we should have talked before the election? ~a
[2016-11-15 14:29:18] - Typing with a bandaid on a finger = lots of typos. Sorry. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-15 14:29:04] - a: I was wrong about that, actually. Virginia was much closer than I expected. And there was a point last week when I thought Trump might actually win it. I was mostly concerned about the prospects of a recount at that point, though. That's probably just the election officer in me. -- Xpovois
[2016-11-15 14:27:14] - Fun fact, though, I cared less who won THIS election than I did 2012. For me, Trump and Clinton are both so abominably bad that it makes very little difference. Whereas as much as I hated Romney, I had a clear preference for him in 2012. Sufficiently, in fact, that my mental calculus led me to vote for him in 2012. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-15 14:26:02] - xpovos: although i agree with you on both points, i think #2 got me into trouble. because your state was VERY close. ~a
[2016-11-15 14:25:44] - I determined that Clinton was likely to win my state by a handy margin so my vote was largely meaningless, either for or against her--it doesn't matter. The margin was too large for my vote to be significant. Then I worked election day and stayed up for the results to see how crazy my country was going to get. I cared a lot. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-15 14:24:39] - a: Refutation point #2. Even if I assume my candidate will lose (I usually do) I can still vote for him and care who wins. Take this election. I cared very much who won, but I voted for Johnson knowing he would not win. I did this based on a mental bit of calculus determining the likelihood of each candidate winning, and of each candidate winning my state. -- Xpovo
[2016-11-15 14:22:31] - a: Refutation point #1. Unpopular and statistically unlikely candidate = can't win. That's definitely not true. Gary Johnson COULD win, he just needed to have enough people vote for him. Just as Clinton, Trump and Stein could all win. McMullin arguably couldn't win, except on loopholes. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-15 14:14:49] - paul/mig: "if you're voting for someone who can't win, then you don't care who wins." how do i refute this logic? i need a response to this. assuming i do care who wins, and i (didn't) don't want it to be trump, and i start with the premise that clinton isn't a bad choice (*please* just assume this), how can i justify not voting for clinton? ~a
[2016-11-15 14:02:20] - that's exactly correct. ~a
[2016-11-15 14:00:57] - a: Ok, nice, I think that'll do it. To make sure I'm understanding correctly, if I wanted to estimate the number of whites who voted for Trump, I would take the popular vote total (127 million?) and multiply it by 0.7 (whites) and then by 0.58 (voted for Trump)? Does that sound right? -Paul
[2016-11-15 13:56:42] - a: Hmmm, good point. I guess it's all based on exit polling. Okay, I guess I'm looking at estimates based on those exit polls then. I'm basically trying to compare the results from this election to the past in terms of vote totals, but since turnout (and third party performance) is different, the percentages aren't helpful. -Paul
[2016-11-15 13:56:24] - leaving it as a percentage though will remind you that it's all an approximation. ~a
[2016-11-15 13:56:03] - and to get a raw number, you can multiply all of those by the total number of voters? ~a
[2016-11-15 13:54:58] - anyways, i think some exit polls (like this one) will tell you what percentage each group had in the voting population (i'm guessing that's what the number on the left is), so if you multiply the two percentages, you'll get something comparable? 48% * 53% = 23% of voters were both male and voted trump? ~a
[2016-11-15 13:51:18] - i kinda . . . *has* to be percentages. like if you want raw numbers it'll only be an approximation right? agreed? since this information requires exit polling to work at all? ~a
[2016-11-15 13:49:02] - Does anybody know of any place where I can find good numbers on the 2016 election in terms of total votes and demographics? It can even just be Trump/Clinton with no third parties. Basically I want to see exactly how many women voted for Clinton or Latinos voted for Trump (not percentages, numbers). Bonus points if it contains data from past elections. -Paul
[2016-11-15 13:36:21] - not that it makes much of a difference, but i thought it could be like a subsidy instead of a penalty. ~a
[2016-11-15 13:35:18] - how? ~a
[2016-11-15 10:37:00] - a: well there's a difference in compelling the payment of taxes to help fund something, and compelling an individual to directly act in some way under threat of penalty. - mig
[2016-11-14 16:09:51] - i dunno. maybe it isn't. anyways, i'm very on-the-fence about the whole thing. ~a
[2016-11-14 15:55:43] - a: I mean, didn't you just say that people are stupid? How exactly is democracy going to be improved by encouraging more stupid people to vote?
-Paul[2016-11-14 15:51:47] - a: It really depends on your definition of moderate, but I would potentially be against that. Moderate could mean (and often does when it comes to US politicians) that they are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Just because you pull ideas from both sides doesn't mean you pull the correct ones.
-Paul[2016-11-14 15:41:40] - svg ~a
[2016-11-14 15:32:57] - paul: second bonus response: i'm sure you know australia has this. some believe it favors moderate politicians. who would be against that? ~a
[2016-11-14 15:30:50] - paul: bonus response: it's no stupider than voting for djt for president. ~a
[2016-11-14 15:29:55] - paul: your mom is stupid. ~a
[2016-11-14 15:28:28] - mig: we have subsidies for sugar production. is sugar production an obligation? ~a
[2016-11-14 14:40:26] - a: Right, and I think (no offense) that is a pretty stupid idea. If the only way you can get people to vote is by threatening to punish them (tax them) or reward them with money (tax-break), then I really think you're basically just going to get a bunch of uninformed voters and I can't see how that helps democracy at all. -Paul
[2016-11-14 14:38:47] - well a tax on non-voters is pretty explicitly a penalty for not participating. If you are attaching a penalty to the act of not-voting, how is that not an obligation? - mig
[2016-11-14 14:35:04] - mig: meh, i dunno. not an obligation exactly. but encouragement is something governments . . . do . . . pretty regularly. whether i like it or not, most governments think sugar crops should be subsidized. and corn in the form of ethanol. and how the government decides exactly what should be taxed how is a complete loss to me. should voting be any different? ~a
[2016-11-14 14:32:28] - a: so you don't believe voting is actually a right, but rather an obligation, then? - mig
[2016-11-14 14:32:25] - or a tax-break for voters? ~a
[2016-11-14 14:31:17] - paul: i do not, no. you said "in your mind". i said "in my mind". legally/morally, i don't think there are any rules regarding how people should decide. "I think that's their own decision" i agree with that. it is (currently) their own decision whether to vote or not. on the other hand, i'm not totally against the idea of a tax on the non-voters.
~a[2016-11-14 14:27:09] - paul: I wonder surmise both Kaepernick and myself are very cynical about the the perception that the act of voting is some sort of civic virtue. - mig
[2016-11-14 13:58:21] - It just seems like such a weird mindset people have. Billions of dollars are spent trying to convince people to vote a certain side. Facebook friendships are ended over political opinions expressed. And yet we still want to encourage people who might want to vote for the opposition to vote? Bizarre. -Paul
[2016-11-14 13:56:49] - a: But you do have the moral authority to tell people to research and vote? I'm not sure I see the difference. I would prefer anybody who is planning for a candidate that I don't like to not vote, but I also am not going to try to encourage anybody to vote or not vote, as I think that's their own decision. -Paul
[2016-11-14 13:47:59] - paul: well, i definitely wouldn't word it that way, of course. i don't have the "moral authority" to tell people what research they need to do before they vote. if they want to vote on a book by its cover, that's entirely up to them and their god. ~a
[2016-11-14 13:39:01] - a: Also, the flip side implication to me is that if you don't do research and aren't knowledgeable, you shouldn't vote, right? -Paul
[2016-11-14 13:38:26] - a: That's a far more involved argument than is implied with the typical get out the vote campaign. I'm less opposed to knowledgeable people doing research and voting, but nearly all the campaigns I see make no mention of researching. It's just "Vote!". -Paul
[2016-11-14 13:07:24] - paul: no, not even a little. here's what it equates to, in my mind: "please, do the research. learn about all the candidates and their platforms. find the candidate/platform that best equates with your views on how the government should run. then, vote for that person! if you come to a different conclusion on who that is from adrian: that is expected and allowed." ~a
[2016-11-14 13:01:28] - a: I don't know. It's not necessarily a stance that I have (obviously, since I vote). I am fairly sympathetic to it, though. Some of the most compelling arguments to me are ones about vaccinations, because an individual decision can harm the majority pretty easily. -Paul
[2016-11-14 12:59:11] - a: Fair enough, your amazingly relevent video convinced me.
It's an important distinction. I still think it's a weird sentiment, though. If you are saying "No matter who you vote for, vote please", aren't you basically endorsing the idea that it doesn't matter who they vote for (in your mind)? I just don't get it. -Paul[2016-11-14 12:53:45] - . . . anything that affects you in any way? ~a
[2016-11-14 12:50:50] - paul/mig: does the majority have the "moral authority" to decide anything? ~a
[2016-11-14 12:49:23] - paul: (whether semantic or not) it's an important distinction. to simplify, you could just leave the qualifier out and just say "vote, please". would that make you happy? ~a
[2016-11-14 12:49:01] - Daniel: At the risk of speaking for Miguel or Kaepernick, I think the point is that some people don't believe that the majority (through the government) has the moral authority to decide how you live your life, even if they "allow" you to vote in it. So voting in the system legitimizes it in some fashion. -Paul
[2016-11-14 12:47:39] - paul: in fact, have this youtube link that almost literally says that. ~a
[2016-11-14 12:47:24] - a: I... guess? I mean, I understand the semantic difference, but don't they mean the same thing in the end? If somebody says you should vote regardless of who you support, aren't they also saying it doesn't matter who you vote for? That's part of why I think it's ridiculous. I don't want Trump supporters to vote.
-Paul[2016-11-14 12:45:07] - paul: "you should vote regardless of who you support" != "it doesn't matter who you vote for" ~a
[2016-11-14 12:35:46] - "the oppressor isn’t going to allow you to vote your way out of your oppression" - isn't that the point of our system that you can vote in new people if you disagree with the system? Maybe I misunderstand who the 'oppressor' is in his reasoning but if its the gov then isn't voting how you change the gov? -Daniel
[2016-11-14 12:10:11] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/49ers/2016/11/14/colin-kaepernick-voting-would-have-been-hypocritical/93786182/ I've had some mixed feelings about the whole Kaepernick protest thing, but I find this worthy of respect. - mig
[2016-11-14 11:46:21] - a: Here's two I found with the statement in the headline: http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/Opinion/2016/02/27/Felkins-Regardless-of-who-you-support-it-s-important-to-just-vote and http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinion/editorial-regardless-of-whom-you-support-voting-is-a-civic/article_7e2ced50-24d7-5014-8294-ae60335b5df6.html -Paul
[2016-11-14 11:44:15] - a: Really? It's super rare that I see any non-partisan campaign to get out the vote that DOESN'T explicitly state that you should vote regardless of who you support. That's why the Joss Whedon one was actually almost refreshing in that it made it clear you should vote.... and not for Donald Trump. -Paul
[2016-11-14 11:33:12] - I would support ranked voting systems. Hopefully it goes well in Maine and spreads to other states. -Daniel
[2016-11-14 11:27:41] - i don't think anybody is saying it doesn't matter who you vote for. ~a
[2016-11-14 11:16:01] - Or finally getting people over the crazy idea that everybody should vote.... even if it doesn't matter who you vote for. -Paul
[2016-11-14 11:15:32] - I think part of it is that I see so many much bigger problems with our democracy and voting methods that getting rid of the electoral college seems like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I'm much more into implementing ranked voting systems over first-past-the-post or somehow getting rid of gerrymandering... -Paul
[2016-11-14 10:59:55] - All that being said, I'd certainly be in favor of nudging states to move away from winner take all formats for electoral vote allocation. - mig
[2016-11-14 10:55:27] - As with most things in government that don't directly follow "majority rules", I'm mostly ok with the Electoral College. It's hard to take the complaints seriously, since the only seem to come up when one side is unhappy with the results. - mig
[2016-11-14 10:53:58] - xpovos: because it's the worst system except for all those others that have been tried? ~a
[2016-11-14 10:49:14] - a: So why do we let them vote? - Xpovos
[2016-11-14 10:05:57] - a: I mostly agree, but people are also tribalistic (see the anti-war movement) so I'm hopeful at least Democrats fight back. -Paul
[2016-11-14 07:45:19] - paul/xpovos: people are stupid, nothing will change. ~a
[2016-11-13 20:46:13] - But I'm 100% with Xpovos. For years, libertarians have been begging both parties to stop expanding the powers of the presidency and to imagine their worst nightmare becoming president and having the powers that the past two presidents have claimed. Now we've seen that come to pass. -Paul
[2016-11-13 20:44:44] - Maybe I'm weird, but I'm mostly ambivalent about the electoral college. I understand why some people feel strongly against it (particularly now). I'm not as clear why people would necessarily feel strongly for it. -Paul
[2016-11-13 11:21:02] - My greatest hope is that Republicans AND Democrats will agree, finally, that we've placed too much power (and too much importance) on one man/one position. My greatest fear is that they don't. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/11/glenn-greenwald-trump-will-have-vast-powers-he-can-thank-democrats-for-them/ -- Xpovos
[2016-11-13 11:19:38] - The electoral college IS a disaster for democracy. It's a God-send for a republic, though. -- Xpovos
[2016-11-13 10:58:23] - a: Maybe he still believes that.
-Paul[2016-11-13 00:33:29] - Paul: "This election is a total sham and a travesty. The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before. Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us. We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty." -djt ~a
[2016-11-12 21:42:22] - mig: What's bizarre to me is that many liberals were outraged when Trump said he might not accept the results of the election... and now a bunch of liberals seem to be protesting the results of the election. I know it's not the exact same thing, and I'm not really accusing anybody of hypocrisy, but it's pretty similar. -Paul
[2016-11-12 20:57:33] - https://twitter.com/KarenWasylowski/status/797606073066733568 this is really the way you want to try and change people's minds, guys. - mig
[2016-11-10 14:38:15] - http://rampantdiscourse.com/2016-election-aftermath/ I've put a lot of work into this one over the past 48 hours or so. Does as good a job of recapping my thoughts on the election as I can do in such a short turnaround. -Paul
[2016-11-10 10:53:23] - paul: SCOTUS nominees can still be filibustered. That can be changed, of course, but I'm not sure McConnell will want to make such a hardball play right off the bat though. - mig
[2016-11-10 10:48:53] - mig: I've had our car key battery die. The dealership switched it for free when our car was in for regular maintenance. -Daniel
[2016-11-10 10:43:09] - a: Wow, the market totally is all over the place, though. I've got companies up 6% and down 6% for no apparent reason other than "Trump". -Paul
[2016-11-10 10:34:43] - mig: Can Democrats top SCOTUS nominations? Isn't it just a simple majority vote? -Paul
[2016-11-10 10:34:21] - mig: I think I've had it happen and I think it depends on the key. I believe some use button cell batteries that you almost certainly should buy not at the dealer because it's probably cheaper elsewhere (and I think you should be able to replace it yourself). Some might use a proprietary battery, though. -Paul
[2016-11-10 10:27:44] - Has anyone ever had the battery for their car key die? Is it possible to find a replacement battery or is this something I need to deal with a dealership for? - mig
[2016-11-10 09:46:36] - Though I guess we'll have to see who his SCOTUS nominee will be. I doubt Democrats will accept anyone who potentially could overturn Roe v Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges, either way. - mig
[2016-11-10 07:58:52] - a: Yeah, there's really no evidence to support what I'm saying, I just feel like outside of immigration (which I'm not sure is a social issue) he doesn't seem to care as much about them. There's even an article going around about how he supposedly champions LGBT rights like no GOP nominee before him. -Paul
[2016-11-09 19:19:20] - https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf this seems more substantial to what his actual agenda might be, and it's pretty light on social issues. - mig
[2016-11-09 19:17:22] - I don't really take much he says at rallies seriously. because in that environment you know he's just spewing red meat for applause lines. - mig
[2016-11-09 18:41:14] - mig/paul: i disagree there. his rhetoric is heavy on the social issues. whether he follows through (or succeeds at following through) remains to be seen, but he definitely mentions a woman's right to choose, school prayer, planned parenthood, lgbt adoption, gay marriage, etc at his events. ~a
[2016-11-09 18:19:11] - just going through all of Trump's rhetoric it doesn't seem like social issues are all that important to him. - mig
[2016-11-09 16:46:39] - Daniel: I think Roberts believes in deference to the legislature and is also a big proponent of stare decisis, or letting established precedents stay. -Paul
[2016-11-09 16:41:04] - Paul: I would admin Kennedy is a tossup to where he goes on a given issue but you don't think Roberts would vote with the rest of the conservative block? I know he broke with them on ACA but I thought that was more because he didn't want the Court to be out front on destroying recently passed legislation. -Daniel
[2016-11-09 16:38:24] - Daniel: True, although honestly, even if he nominated two justices who believed strongly in rolling back RvW or the Voting Rights Act, I'm not sure it actually happens. Alito and Thomas might join with the hypothetical two, but I can't see Roberts and Kennedy voting to overturn either. -Paul
[2016-11-09 16:35:16] - Paul: Like maybe he doesn't directly lobby for rolling back RvW or Voting Rights Act or gay rights but if he appoints a justice or two who promptly rolls those back it doesn't seem like Trump (or R's in general) should skate on that. -Daniel
[2016-11-09 16:33:58] - Paul: I think its going to be hard to call him hands off on social issues when so many of those end up going before the Supreme Court and he is going to have such a big impact on that now. -Daniel
[2016-11-09 16:28:57] - Or at least delegates to people who are good on economic issues. Obviously foreign policy is also a big worry, but he has claimed to be fairly non-interventionist, so maybe he sticks to that. A lot will be able to be told by who he picks for his cabinet. -Paul
[2016-11-09 16:27:43] - I'll offer an unpopular viewpoint. I think there's a chance (albeit a pretty small one) that Donald Trump just might ultimately end up being a good President. I'll say there's a decent chance he ends up being mostly hands off on social issues and maybe a 5-10% chance he ends up being good on economic issues... -Paul
[2016-11-09 15:50:10] - a: Apparently this is a group of states that might do away with it on their own if they can get enough other states on board. I saw it linked last night but don't know a whole lot about it: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ -Daniel
[2016-11-09 15:42:39] - a: He didn't win it yet. Isn't there still vote counting to do? Not that I expect him to overtake Clinton, though. -Paul
[2016-11-09 15:38:25] - huh, i didn't realize that trump didn't win the popular vote. i know this question always comes around at the worst times, but can we please get rid of the electoral college? ~a
prev <-> next