prev <-> next
[2020-10-15 19:32:50] - a: I'll make a bet with you on ARKK vs VTSAX over the next 5 years.
-Paul[2020-10-15 19:31:31] - a: Sure, and I totally get that we can't KNOW what the future will hold and I agree that plenty of times we will be wrong. I just think that we can make some educated guesses that will be right more often than not. Hard to believe that Sears and airlines and Ford and Exxon and all sorts of other businesses are just as likely to do well as other companies like Amazon and Square and Tesla. -Paul
[2020-10-15 18:48:55] - mig: /shrug. Trying to work with Trump seems different than praising / defending Trump. I mean Pelosi tries to work with Trump too. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 18:35:37] - a: he reached out to both sides, with democats saying "we'll get back to you after the election." which seems like a dismissive response to me. - mig
[2020-10-15 18:24:52] - o'shea jackson, hah. it never occured to me that he might have a real name. well, it seems weird. trump is likely to lose, right? why would you do this now? "every side is the darkside for us here in america." so very true. ~a
[2020-10-15 18:20:38] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/10/15/ice-cube-trump-plan-contract-with-black-america/3665606001/ burn the heretic. - mig
[2020-10-15 17:54:54] - huh, lame. ~a
[2020-10-15 17:52:39] - i applied to vote by mail twice this year, but they didn't send me a ballot either time. then i showed up in person and they were like, "oh! you applied to vote by mail!" yes, yes i did. where is my ballot? ha ha - aaron
[2020-10-15 17:41:45] - aaron: nice! good for you for waiting, hopefully its not that long all the way through early voting. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 17:40:33] -
i don't like voting early because (in my area) early voting has much longer lines than voting on election day. this time i voted by mail, and i might do that from now on. ~a[2020-10-15 17:39:11] - i voted yesterday! showed up at 1:00 p.m on a weekday and waited in line for two hours. i have no idea what the lines will be like on election day, but i have to imagine we'll be looking at 6+ hour lines, maybe even something insane like 30-60 hour lines, it could be crazy - aaron
[2020-10-15 16:09:20] - hmmm. i'm on the fence. ~a
[2020-10-15 16:04:32] - a: I think if I had the answers to those questions then I might have a different investment strategy
My guess would be that on a historical / macro level the IT industry has reshaped the economy of everything? in the last 30 years. Will it continue to do so to the same degree over the next 30? Maybe? Maybe eventually everything is digitized and there isn't the same growth room for IT anymore at some point. /shrug. -Daniel[2020-10-15 15:57:41] - (the fact that amzn isn't in vgt has always annoyed me) ~a
[2020-10-15 15:54:00] - daniel: to *keep* playing both sides of this argument . . . what about vgt? why does vgt always beat vtsax? shouldn't there be times where vgt does not beat out vtsax? i guess its too bad vgt doesn't go back to 2000? ~a
[2020-10-15 15:41:02] - a: Nice! -Daniel
[2020-10-15 15:32:52] - daniel: yeah my individual portfolio is a retirement choice. i know you can't see it, but it beats the market every year (sometimes by ridiculous margins). in 2017 my individual portfolio beat the market by 33%, in 2020 so far its beaten the market by 45%! ~a
[2020-10-15 15:27:32] - a: I think its some luck of the draw - some the inherent nature of risk. Your 5 fund portfolios are riskier if one company tanks but if that doesn't happen then you're good. The stock challenges are an interesting thing to watch / participate in but I don't think they are a great analogue for our retirement choices. I think PVTM is a better comparison and has beaten the market so good for Paul on that front. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 15:23:42] - daniel: to fight the other side of this argument . . . why does my individual portfolio *always* beat out my index portfolio? shouldn't that not be the case? why do you and matt herndon *always* lose the stock-picking challenges? shouldn't that not be the case? was it just luck of the draw? ~a
[2020-10-15 15:13:10] - paul: even if you can do it sometimes and i can do it sometimes, many can't. many lose lots of money. it's kinda sad, actually. "it's not for everybody" is a bit of a cop-out. "it's not for the people who think its for them" seems better. ~a
[2020-10-15 15:12:22] - Pickup trucks aren't going anywhere and maybe Ford pivots / innovates / figures out something. The point is that we don't know what the future holds. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 15:09:42] - i'm a moderate, as you know. i hold lots of individual companies. but i can't deny the logic of index funds. predicting the future better than the market is hard. ~a
[2020-10-15 15:08:06] - paul: some companies pivot well and some do not. their market cap will include people's guess as to how well they will pivot. i heard word on the radio that BP is getting out of the petroleum game . . . or at least rebranding/refocusing on a future where climate change is a worry. ~a
[2020-10-15 15:06:21] - a: I can understand not being sure between Tesla and Ford, but it boggles my mind to think that companies like Ford or Exxon or Wells Fargo have as good a chance of outperforming the market over the next 5-10 years as any other company. -Paul
[2020-10-15 15:03:30] - i can't say for sure the ford trucks won't be a thing in 30 years. ~a
[2020-10-15 15:02:57] - ford's market cap is 29b compared to tesla's 400b. ford's revenue is 130b, tesla's 25b. it's hard to predict the future, and maybe 29b is high, but i'm not sure that it's too high. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:57:34] - paul: that is correct. they won't equally perform obviously, but assuming that "tech" is going to outperform "railroads" totally ignores that tech is (potentially) overvalued compared to railroads! ~a
[2020-10-15 14:56:17] - a: So you think every index/sector/company, has exactly the same chance to outperform every other index/sector/company over the next few years? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:55:21] - Daniel: Sure, and that's fine, but I just think it's a little crazy to think that we can't make any predictions at all about what companies might do better than others going forward. Like, what is the bull case for Ford over the next 10 years? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:53:21] - paul: i think there is a non-zero chance the nasdaq will outperform (or underperform) the s&p 500 over the next 10 years. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:52:42] - paul: outperform what? outperform the market? no i think as an industry, on average, they're likely to perform equally to the rest of the market. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:52:32] - a: Do you think the Nasdaq is going to outperform the S&P 500 over the next 10 years? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:52:00] - The whole point is that I can't / don't want to try and predict the future. So just invest in it all and you won't miss out on the winners which is generally more important than avoiding the losers. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:51:54] - a: Do you think airlines are going to outperform going forward, then? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:51:28] - I mean what if airlines develop fancy solar planes (or some other crazy thing that I don't even know to throw out there) that lets them reduce fuel consumption in some crazy way in the next 10 years. Suddenly they seem disruptive again? -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:51:09] - a: We don't have to agree on everything. You think all the various different industries are going to perform the same going forward? You don't think some are going to outperform others? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:51:09] - its that you don't like travel? ~a
[2020-10-15 14:50:01] - paul: "do you really think the airlines as a group are going to perform just as well as other companies going forward?" my god, yes. i can't imagine people being like, i don't like travel anymore. travel is boring. in 30 years. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:49:25] - paul: "likely going to be a drag on performance" i disagree with this premise entirely. on average, if these companies are correctly priced today, they will not be a drag on performance. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:48:16] - Daniel: "I don't think all airlines will go away, so then the question is which airline?" Sure, but do you really think the airlines as a group are going to perform just as well as other companies going forward? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:48:15] - paul: 1. not really, not much. airlines and railroads only account for a few percentage points of index funds. 2. why won't airlines do well in the coming years? i've often considered buying airlines. why won't banks do well in the coming years? i've often considered holding shares in individual banks (i even currently hold a few shares of bac). so, even you and i can't agree on what "disruptive innovation" to invest in.
~a[2020-10-15 14:47:39] - So, yeah, index funds do hold some of these innovative companies, but they also hold a ton of "legacy" companies that are likely to get disrupted in the coming years and that is likely going to be a drag on performance. -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:46:35] - Paul: I don't think all railroads will go away, so then the question is which railroad? Which we don't know the answer to hence index investing. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:46:08] - Paul: I don't think all airlines will go away, so then the question is which airline? Which we don't know the answer to hence index investing. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:45:41] - Paul: I don't think all banks will go away, so then the question is which bank? Which we don't know the answer to hence index investing. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:44:44] - aDaniel: I get what you're saying, but index funds also hold a bunch of companies like banks and railroads and airlines and retail stores and everything else that I think a lot of people agree probably won't do as well in the coming years. -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:41:57] - Paul: The point of index investing is that you get all the benefits of disruptive innovation along with all the downsides of disruptive innovation because you believe on net that benefits outweigh the costs. However you don't know if it will be Tesla or TelaDoc or Netflix or who so you invest in them all. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 14:41:33] - they have a long shot of a shuttered sears store which is moronic for two reasons. 1. 0% of every index fund i know about is held in sears stores and that's been the case for almost a decade. 2. if you invest in a small list of companies, and one of them shutters, like sears, you're going to see 100 times more effect from that. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:34:57] - "disruptive innovation" is usually highly weighted in index funds. look at voo or vfiax or vtsax or vt as examples. top of the portfolio: amazon, apple, google, tesla, facebook, microsoft, nvidia, etc. otoh, investing in disruptive innovation only works out some of the time. it's not about being a pussy, which is what the video implies: it's about capital appreciation, and disruptive innovation can turn out badly (remember 2000?). ~a
[2020-10-15 14:27:23] - but in the video's defense, i'm not sure paul understands index investing.
~a[2020-10-15 14:27:21] - Daniel: How so? -Paul
[2020-10-15 14:27:04] - agreed. ~a
[2020-10-15 14:23:24] - Paul: I don't think that video understands index investing. -Daniel
[2020-10-15 12:54:34] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqkZCzjdtbw I really enjoyed this video. It's short, just a tad longer than 1 minute, and I think it is best to go in without knowing anything about it. This is not spam, even though it probably sounds like it.
-Paul[2020-10-14 21:54:13] - mig: It makes sense. Greenwald is often big on free speech and this seems like kinda an attack on it, despite it being from a private entity. -Paul
[2020-10-14 21:15:39] - ny post is definitely tabloid sensationalist style, i wouldn't compare it to the supermaket rags that write about bat boy. It's an established outlet, for sure. - mig
[2020-10-14 21:07:12] - Twitter is apparently going a little farther, allegedly not allowing people to even post the story link. - mig
[2020-10-14 21:05:25] - paul: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1316426185631584264 apparently this is riling up Glenn Greenwald of all people... - mig
[2020-10-14 20:12:02] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post Wikipedia calls it a "daily tabloid newspaper", so it agrees with you. Never heard the term before. -Paul
[2020-10-14 20:11:03] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States Finally found the relevant Wiki page. -Paul
[2020-10-14 20:10:33] - Daniel: Ah, okay, is the Post a tabloid? I've never really read it or anything, so I don't know. I thought it was relatively legit as newspapers go. -Paul
[2020-10-14 20:09:36] - Also I can't read stuff on that statista site
Its paywalled. -Daniel[2020-10-14 20:06:29] - Paul: tabloid? I didn't say it was wrong but perhaps might call it misleading. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 20:01:56] - Daniel: https://www.statista.com/statistics/184682/us-daily-newspapers-by-circulation/ Fourth in terms of total circulation? Seems major to me. -Paul
[2020-10-14 20:00:36] - But I do take that it is an interesting step for Facebook to take and being an arbiter of information. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 20:00:05] - Paul: "fairly major newspaper" is an interesting characterization of the post. If it was the WSJ that would be a different thing. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 19:53:51] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/facebook-makes-editorial-decision-to-limit-nypost-biden-story.html This seems like a bit of an escalation of social media censoring, especially by Facebook. It's one thing to censor posts from random people / websites, but this is a fairly major newspaper. -Paul
[2020-10-14 18:58:14] - a: there are senate rules, only need majority to pass any changes. - mig
[2020-10-14 18:40:09] - If the recent-ish history is any indication, neither side has any particular interest in making the process more fair overall, and is far more interested in how they can abuse the system to benefit whoever is in power (without considering the possibility that they will some day not be in power). -Paul
[2020-10-14 18:02:06] - mig: yeah, i figured "pie in the sky" and all. on the other hand, even "senate rules" would be better than nothing. i'm not sure if we have a senate rule about this? (again, you'd still need to get the rule passed by some sort of margin) ~a
[2020-10-14 17:58:42] - 326017 . . . ha! i'm totally going to use your MFA code to log into your websites. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:56:23] - no matter who is in charge. - mig
[2020-10-14 17:56:17] - But, I doubt the senate would ever agree to it. - mig
[2020-10-14 17:55:33] - That is far more difficult to change than senate rules. - mig
[2020-10-14 17:54:55] - a: actually you are right, a law would be meaningful different, as it would involve the house also passing it and the president signing it. - mig
[2020-10-14 17:51:42] - 326017
[2020-10-14 17:50:07] - mig: "we did kind of have that already" can you expand on this? i would want the detailed process codified in law, not necessarily the constitution. (i'm pretty sure congress can regulate itself with law, they do this all the time) i'm pretty sure this isn't happening, right? yes, you can change it, but you'd need to pass that law change. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:46:27] - a: we did kind of have that already. The problem is the law can always be changed. Really, what you want is advice/consent/more detailed process codified in the constitution, which then wouldn't easily be so changed. - mig
[2020-10-14 17:38:30] - vs, the election has already started, but whatever, yolo. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:38:03] - pie in the sky here, but it would be sweet if we made a law that defined when we could fill justice (and federal court) seats. (nominations obviously can't be restricted by law because constitution, but) the advising/consent of those seats could be defined by law. then we'd finally stop having this argument of: it's 350 days before an election, that's too soon! ~a
[2020-10-14 17:31:30] - paul: i agree, roe is unlikely to get unambiguously overturned. on the other hand, lots of unlikely things happen. look at our current president. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:30:26] - that worst case scenario is really bad for everyone (imo). ~a
[2020-10-14 17:28:29] - a: Exactly. I think we can both agree that Roe is unlikely to get completely and unambiguously overturned. I think the "worst case scenario" is something along the lines of allowing states to heavily restrict (to the point of practically outlawing) abortion centers. -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:26:01] - paul: good point. if roe vs wade is harmed, but not overturned, you'll have a hard time getting money out of me.
~a[2020-10-14 17:25:19] - a: Because, obviously, there isn't going to be a "overturning Roe v Wade act" or "SCOTUS v Roe" case.... -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:24:41] - a: 4 years with 2-1? I think I can do that. We're going to have a helluva time defining what it means to "overturn Roe v Wade", though. I suspect that might even prove impossible. Would upholding the Louisiana law count, for example? -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:23:47] - paul: more than anything, i think filling a justice during an election is legal but unprecedented. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:23:46] - paul: its her positions. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:23:31] - a: "i don't think acb is a good justice" Why don't you think she is a "good" justice? Everything I have read seems to indicate she is well respected and qualified and even largely liked. Is it just her positions? -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:22:38] - a: "what we all want" I actually don't want a moderate, at least if we're defining moderate as like a Garland type vs a Gorsuch type (which I think is what a lot of people might go to). I think Garland would've been a bad justice in a few very important ways, and I think Gorsuch is overall a much better justice. -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:22:26] - a: Sure - but on the point of Roe where Paul thinks it isn't going away that seems fanciful given the current state of the justices. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 17:20:59] - daniel: i don't buy that acb needs to be a "fair" replacement for ginsburg. she just needs to be a "good" justice, and i don't think acb is a good justice. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:19:48] - Your link Paul had it at 5-4 with Roberts siding with the liberal side. If we are replacing RGB with ACB on some similar decision then doesn't that mean it will swing the other way? -Daniel
[2020-10-14 17:19:39] - paul: i don't think she's an extremist. i would say that she's not a moderate, which is kinda what i want (what we all want) in a supreme court justice. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:18:08] - ok, lets do it. i don't want even odds though, sorry. i also don't think it'll happen, but i'd go for a 2:1 odds in 4 years (one presidential term). ~a
[2020-10-14 17:18:07] - a: Sure, I only ask about "extremist" because I thought you labeled stuff like overturning Roe v Wade and the ACA as examples of how ACB is "extremist" vs other liberal justices. -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:17:19] - a: I'm willing to bet that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned in the next 3 years.
-Paul[2020-10-14 17:15:50] - paul: wow ok, maybe i was completely wrong with the "like a year" thing. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:15:19] - paul: "is the very idea of overturning Roe v Wade some super radical extremist position?" no not at all. it is a minority view and that is what i would call it. but also (and i'm ready to try to back this one up here), it's the minority view and the wrong view. but i wouldn't use the word radical or extremist. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:15:08] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Medical_Services,_LLC_v._Russo Here is the most recent abortion related case I could find. It looks like it took like 4 years to work its way up to SCOTUS? -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:14:50] - paul: long time = like a year. especially if you're smart and you (as a movement) start more than one case. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:14:24] - i didn't use the word "directly"
~a[2020-10-14 17:14:05] - a: I disagree. I don't think you can magically make a court case make its way directly to the Supreme Court the millisecond ACB is on board. Wouldn't any such case have to work its way through the lower courts first? Doesn't that typically take a long time? -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:12:32] - i probably didn't need to embolden like dozens of words, sorry. ~a
[2020-10-14 17:11:32] - paul: "A court case would have to work its way up to them and be accepted" this *absolutely* will happen. you start this shit with a lawsuit. and its insanely easy to start a lawsuit. you do *not* need to wait for this to happen, you can and will *make* it happen the millisecond you're ready. it'll take a few months to work through the courts, and maybe you'll need to do it more than once, but it will get there *soon*. maybe 2021! ~a
[2020-10-14 17:11:18] - And I know the message board has a certain viewpoint on this, but is the very idea of overturning Roe v Wade some super radical extremist position? Yes, it is a minority view, but it is still one held by a fair number of Americans. (https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:09:21] - Daniel: "Like can Paul actually say with a straight face that ACB doesn't want to over turn Roe?" Did I say that (legit question, I can't remember)? I believe she would probably like it overturned, but that's a far cry from actually being able to overturn it, which is at least partially my point. A court case would have to work its way up to them and be accepted. Roberts already seems pretty hell bent on not rocking the boat. -Paul
[2020-10-14 17:02:47] - Daniel: "One is limiting with the goal of practically extinct and the other isn't." I think a lot of people in a lot of states, prior to the Heller decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller), would disagree with that assessment. -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:59:52] - Daniel: Maybe this time will be different? Maybe there's finally the votes of people willing to overturn established precedent? It's possible. But I just don't think it's something that seems so inevitable that it should provoke a knee-jerk life or death reaction to every Republican nominee like it does. -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:58:32] - Daniel: So, no, I don't think Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republicans are all eager to roll back Roe v Wade and I don't think there is some imminent danger of it happening if ACB gets on the court, just like how I didn't think it was going to happen with Alito and Kavanaugh... -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:57:42] - Daniel: Yeah, I think Adrian got it. It feels like every time a Supreme Court Justice is nominated by a Republican, everybody on the left screams about how it means the end of Roe v Wade, and if anything hasn't the Supreme Court been pretty friendly towards abortion rights as of late? (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html) -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:47:48] - a: It had naive as a misspelling with the red squiggly and the autocorrect version has the fancy i. naïve. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 16:47:19] - Paul: "certain civil rights as well" - oh? -Daniel
[2020-10-14 16:45:08] - (off topic, but naïve with the fancy ï in it? did your keyboard add that or did you go out of your way to find it?) ~a
[2020-10-14 16:43:53] - a: As a logical position I can accept that R party != SC nominees but that also seems very naïve in a real world sense. Like can Paul actually say with a straight face that ACB doesn't want to over turn Roe? If so thats crazyland to me. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 16:42:37] - Also I get that its entering the grey area but the idea that states want to make it so there are like maybe two clinics that offer abortions if they are hospital grade and if the doctor has admitting privs at the nearby hospital and etc vs you can't own some types of guns isn't the same level / type of limiting. One is limiting with the goal of practically extinct and the other isn't. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 16:42:00] - daniel: not to speak for paul, but R's want to overturn roe vs wade. however, their supreme court nominees won't necessarily want (or not want) that. ~a
[2020-10-14 16:40:45] - Paul: I'm confused - do you actually thing they don't want to overturn Roe? Thats like one of the central goals of R's as party isn't it? Like I don't think its even a question? But you think maybe they'll just be like nah? -Daniel
[2020-10-14 16:37:21] - paul: america does. so i guess i'll stick with that. (not in every case, but in this one) ~a
[2020-10-14 16:35:37] - a: Do you consider overturning the ACA "extreme"? -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:34:53] - Daniel: And you said "I don't think its remove so much as allow states to limit", but that's often the case with the rights that other side wants to remove too, right? The court isn't talking about blanketly outlawing abortion, it is taking on cases about states trying to restrict abortion. -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:34:01] - Daniel: Property rights, gun rights, depending on the justice, it can be certain civil rights as well. -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:33:05] - a: Despite the influx of "Republican" nominees. Heck, did RBG think Roe v Wade was decided wrongly? -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:32:41] - a: But, has ACB said she would overturn Roe v Wade? I mean, this is a consistent boogeyman of the left for forever when it comes to the SCOTUS. Every time it's about how a bunch of old white men are going to take away "a woman's right to choose" and I don't see the court as any closer to doing that now than it was before. -Paul
[2020-10-14 16:31:38] - a: Sotomayor considered her ethnicity an important part of her job. Many moderates consider this extreme. -Paul
[2020-10-14 15:27:36] - mig: which part of the constitution forbids this? i assume if we call the ACA a tax instead (which is politically hairy), the individual mandate is fine then? ~a
[2020-10-14 15:26:39] - a: I'm unaware of a right to do business unimpeded and am also unaware of anyone losing their right to donate. There might be limits and there is the whole corporations are people thing but again I don't think anyone is going to lose their right to donate to a campaign. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 15:26:34] - a: Because of the individual mandate, which I still believe is unconstitutional, despite the ruling. - mig
[2020-10-14 15:26:14] - mig: overturned . . . by the supreme court? like the constitution specifically forbids the aca? this is an interesting position. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:25:07] - mig: why. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:24:59] - daniel: the rights to donate to political campaigns. the rights to do business unimpeded (by regulation, by tax, etc). ~a
[2020-10-14 15:23:58] - a: we don't agree on this obviously, but the ACA should be overturned. - mig
[2020-10-14 15:23:46] - Paul: What rights are liberal justices trying to remove? I can think of maybe guns but then I don't think its remove so much as allow states to limit. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 15:21:12] - "many moderates consider this extreme" i probably should have gone further: "(from polling) american in general consider these to be bad changes" ~a
[2020-10-14 15:20:54] - https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/09/david-souter-the-supreme-court-justice-who-built-the-trump-court-218953 "Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, argued that Souter was “almost Neanderthal” and that confirming him would “end freedom for women in this country.” - mig
[2020-10-14 15:19:42] - paul: i think you'd have a hard time finding examples of this in kagan or sotomayor. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:19:27] - paul: i know about that john roberts vote, but i'm not sure what you mean other than that. lets take barret as an example. she wants to end roe vs wade, that's not an exaggeration. she would vote to overturn the affordable care act, that's not an exaggeration either. she considers her religion to be an important part of her job. many moderates consider this extreme. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:17:51] - I don't have a good way to judge if Kavanaugh or Alito are more extreme than Kagan or Sotomayor... -Paul
[2020-10-14 15:17:00] - As mentioned, Souter and Kennedy were Republican nominees, and Kennedy is kinda infamous now for being the "center" recently. Roberts also has gotten a lot of flack for appearing to prefer moderation over principle. -Paul
[2020-10-14 15:15:30] - a: Who do you consider "recent" nominations on both sides? Because Republican nominees have a history of being "disappointing" in terms of how liberal they end up leaning on the bench. -paul
[2020-10-14 15:15:03] - they don't call us (slash them) bleeding hearts for nothing. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:14:10] - But I do think that speaks to the larger issue that, for Democrats, sometimes these issues seem more like issues of right vs wrong and good vs evil and life and death instead of just a legitimate political disagreement. -Paul
[2020-10-14 15:13:52] - yeah, even i'd disagree with that one. i'd say instead that specific, recent, liberal nominations are more moderate than specific, recent, conservative nominations. ~a
[2020-10-14 15:11:46] - Daniel: Ooooh, I would strenuously disagree with that idea. -Paul
[2020-10-14 15:05:29] - Also I'm not sure that liberal justices are trying to take people's rights away? -Daniel
[2020-10-14 15:04:17] - mig: I mean "aside from Garland" is a pretty huge qualifier. -Daniel
[2020-10-14 14:49:17] - obama's SC justices went through pretty smoothly, aside from Garland. It's weird how R nominated SC justices universally get treated with apocalyptic rhetoric (even Souter did), I keep getting told its the Rs that are partisan ogres . - mig
[2020-10-14 14:34:50] - a: What has the senate split looked like during the respective terms? Hasn't the senate been pretty evenly split during Trump's term? Did Obama have a bigger margin (both for and against) during his term? -Paul
[2020-10-14 14:07:18] - true. but joe biden was only the vp ~4 years ago. i think the votes on supreme court justices were pretty bad 4 years ago, right? (allito had 42 senators vote against, and thomas had 48 senators vote against, bork had 58 senators vote against, harriet miers, etc) ~a
[2020-10-14 13:59:19] - a: Not just the senate. A lot of things are different. Look at the progression of votes on Supreme Court justices, for instance. -Paul
[2020-10-14 13:22:20] - i know the simple answer is "the senate was different then", but i find it mildly interesting that pence has voted as a tie-breaking vote in the senate 13 times in just one term, and joe biden did it zero times over two terms. ~a
[2020-10-13 19:09:38] - understood, thanks. ~a
[2020-10-13 17:37:55] - a: It was an attempt to explain why we might be seeing what we are seeing here, not an attempt to justify it. -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:37:39] - a: No, I agree. I think I did not explain myself right. I don't think it SHOULD matter, necessarily, but I think it probably DOES realistically matter. I think journalists / the media, being imperfect human beings, are probably more likely to default to NOT terrorist as a term for people within the country and more likely to default to terrorist for foreigners. -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:30:15] - i agree with you here on all your statements except one. "foreigner vs people from their own country". i'm not sure terrorists should only be "foreigner". it seems like its even worse where we (in the united states) sometimes label terrorists as "foreign looking" or "non-christian". this seems problematic to me. ~a
[2020-10-13 17:27:25] - To me, the primary goal of terrorists is to sow terror among a large group of people (often to some political end). If that's the best way to describe the kidnappers, then so be it. -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:26:19] - a: Okay, like I said, I haven't been following that story at all, so maybe they should be labeled terrorists. I mean, language is a tricky thing, right? It's a thin line between looting and scavenging in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Protestors vs rioters. Terrorists vs freedom fighters. Lots is in the eye of the beholder. -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:19:36] - they had multiple ieds. they purchased some explosives (or tried) and made some devices. they found places on a bridge to bomb. they were planning on taking explosives into the capitol building. i'm not sure kidnapping is the right term to use here. ~a
[2020-10-13 17:14:53] - a: Not "need" to be, but I imagine people are biased to lean more towards calling something terrorism when it involves foreigner vs people from their own country. -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:14:06] - a: I guess my thinking is that if your primary goal is to kidnap somebody (but you blow stuff up in service of that goal), maybe you're less a terrorist and more a.... I dunno, kidnapper? Guess it depends on your motivations too in terms of politics or something else. Were the Whitmer kidnappers mostly focused on blowing stuff up? -Paul
[2020-10-13 17:13:51] - terrorists need to be foreign? ~a
[2020-10-13 17:12:43] - a: I don't know about militia group. I'm sure there is a domestic / foreign aspect to it to, which I think you are getting at. Did the media generally call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? I know that's muddled because they initially thought it was foreigners, right? -Paul
[2020-10-13 16:49:27] - taking another tack, the gretchen whitmer plot definitely wasn't as targeted as you might believe from the title of the plot. ~a
[2020-10-13 16:41:07] - so, if osama bin laden had targeted george w bush instead of random new york / virginia citizens, he would be a member of a militia group? even though it probably sounds like i'm being sarcastic, i'm like 50% legit seriously asking. ~a
[2020-10-13 16:31:05] - a: I haven't been following the kidnapping plot, but I feel like usually the end goals are a little different? Like, terrorists are about doing a lot of destruction to innocents to advance a goal. Kidnapping a governor (who presumably they don't consider innocent) seems more targeted? -Paul
[2020-10-13 16:20:24] - worded differently, "militia" and "terror cell" have very different connotations and bring out very different reactions in the electorate. so, how does a newspaper/writer/podcast-host/social-media-user/etc decide which word to use? ~a
[2020-10-13 16:17:39] - i know the words "terrorist" / "terrorism" get constantly politicized. but why aren't we calling the people involved with the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, terrorists? (the wikipedia article definitely does use those words liberally, but the lamestream media does not). they had explosives that they were going to use in a state capitol building / on bridges / etc. ~a
[2020-10-13 14:58:00] - i imagine you might be that good. you've been playing a lot and getting better. also, the pool of currently playing people is constantly changing (usually getting slowly better, but not always in the short term). ~a
[2020-10-13 14:36:41] - a: I'm not sure how else we ended up there. We definitely aren't that good
-Daniel[2020-10-13 14:26:33] - daniel: i agree with your logic but it only takes you so far . . . i imagine they fill from top down in the diamond league too: if you were bronze players they wouldn't put you in the masters league even if you showed up the first second and just lost to a platinum player
~a[2020-10-13 14:24:35] - a: Our theory was we got in early and they fill in from the top down? There were no teams below us in rank when we got placed. -Daniel
[2020-10-13 14:12:28] - hah, that is weird. i can't think of why losing would increase your category by so much. i guess your old category was drastically off, but why wouldn't they have upgraded you last season? you were platinum or diamond last season? ~a
[2020-10-13 14:10:23] - a: We're pretty sure it's a weird fluke. A new season started, so we played one game to get ranked and lost to I believe a platinum team... and somehow got placed into Masters. -Paul
[2020-10-13 14:07:51] - paul: honestly i think i miss most sc2 nights because i hate email. i look every few days and see, oh i guess i missed another game
~a[2020-10-13 14:06:42] - paul/daniel: congrats! you seemed to have skipped over diamond entirely? honestly, if you're losing to rushes from gold and winning on everything else, i think that's still a strategy in and of itself, right? prepare to lose to a rush, and always go for the late-game plan? (i think those have always been your strong/weak spots) as long as you aren't playing people who know that is your strategy, it seems like a good system. ~a
[2020-10-13 13:58:49] - Daniel: We're Masters players who routinely can't fed off simple rushes from gold players (speaking solely for myself). -Paul
[2020-10-13 13:53:05] - Paul: We're officially masters even if we aren't legit masters? -Daniel
[2020-10-13 13:50:03] - a: We've missed you in SC2. Daniel and I are legit Masters in 2v2! (We're totally not legit Masters). -Paul
[2020-10-13 13:49:18] - But if Trump does win this time around, I'm not sure there is any other explanation other than the "silent trump supporter". - mig
[2020-10-13 13:49:05] - But he also acknowledged that it is also possible they are making the same mistakes and discounting his chances again. Election day could be interesting! -Paul
[2020-10-13 13:48:28] - No, haven't been watching the polls much. There was a good fifth column podcast where they talked to a polling expert, though, which I found interesting. The idea is that the pollsters might be overcompensating for 2016 when they didn't accurately poll Trump support and there's a chance Trump support is overstated this time around. -Paul
[2020-10-13 13:47:37] - I'm not sure 2016 proved there were "silent trump supporters", just that the media had a huge blindspot, and possibly a lot of undecideds just decided to pull for Trump for whatever reason. - mig
[2020-10-13 13:44:08] - mig: worded differently, wouldn't you already say that the "silent trump supporter" is a real thing? because of what happened in 2016? fivethirtyeight said that trump had a chance of winning in 2016 of 1/3. ~a
[2020-10-13 13:42:31] - mig: "I am curious to find out if the concept of the 'silent trump supporter' is a real thing or not". if the odds state that there's a 1/8 chance of trump winning, and trump wins, is it because the polls are meaningless? (the "silent trump supporter" is indeed a thing?) or is it because the 1/8 chance landed? 1/8 > 0, right? ~a
[2020-10-13 13:34:54] - a: no, what goes into the oddsmaking is a little more interesting than the polling itself. - mig
[2020-10-13 13:22:18] - mig: sorry, i meant polls in general. the odds of winning are taking into account the electoral college (fivethirtyeight). or, are you saying you think his current odds of winning are meaningless? ~a
[2020-10-13 13:22:11] - I am curious to find out if the concept of the "silent trump supporter" is a real thing or not. - mig
[2020-10-13 13:20:35] - a: not really, national polls at this point are kind of meaningless. - mig
[2020-10-13 12:46:30] - have you guys been watching the polls? trump's odds of winning is 7 to 1 against (12.5%). it's only slightly lower than his odds in 2016. ~a
[2020-10-13 12:37:10] - favreau is an entry in a very long list. ~a
[2020-10-13 12:36:13] - no, daniel. do not engage
there is no favreau. ~a[2020-10-12 20:41:44] - Favreau: I'm very excited about the American Cent Assocation. Can you tell me more! -Daniel
[2020-10-12 18:39:55] - I side more with Daniel about Lebron not solo-ing it, but to Miguel's point, the Bulls were still decent after Jordan retired the first time, whereas when Lebron leaves his former team tends to fall apart. -Paul
[2020-10-12 16:17:14] - Oh yeah overall for Lebron, just saying that for his championships though that he didn't do it solo still. Kyrie was there for that. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 15:42:07] - And there was twice LeBron left, with the Cavs just completely bottoming out both times. - mig
[2020-10-12 15:41:37] - daniel: that's a point for LeBron? Made the finals again even with Kyrie gone. - mig
[2020-10-12 15:22:13] - Kyrie left first though right? I think? -Daniel
[2020-10-12 15:18:26] - daniel: I would say more than a focal point? Cleveland went from title contender to absolute trash after LeBron left. The Heat did fare a little better after LeBron left but it was still a major drop off. - mig
[2020-10-12 15:04:28] - mig: Sure, I know it existed before (hence why I said "again"). My point is that they didn't call it the Miami Lebrons or anything like that. It was always talk about the big three he had assembled (both in Miami and Cleveland). I guess this time around he "only" had a big 2. -Paul
[2020-10-12 14:46:17] - I also dislike the "finals record" argument. It seems to imply that making the finals and losing is somehow worse than not making the finals at all, which seems kind of silly. - mig
[2020-10-12 14:38:41] - Kyrie? Love? LBJ the focal point for sure but not solo. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 14:38:07] - daniel: I would say LeBron's Cavs championship was him taking the team solo. - mig
[2020-10-12 14:31:57] - I don't think anyone really goes solo on their way to a championship. Hakeem in 94? Maybe someone else somewhere but I think its generally the exception. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 14:30:43] - Duncan / Parker / Manu. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 14:30:41] - paul: That was just a symptom that some segment of the media, thought LeBron was some sort of Great Satan or something. - mig
[2020-10-12 14:29:40] - that concept existed long before lebron did it. Pierce/Allen/KG? Kobe/Shaq/Payton/Malone? - mig
[2020-10-12 14:29:15] - MJ games played: 1,072. LBJ games played: 1,265. So assuming that number continues to grow and considering that MJ's Wiz years were not his greatest thats a lot of games for LBJ in his corner. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 14:27:48] - mig: True, and he probably was great earlier in his career than MJ. But MJ also played college, whereas Lebron didn't. -Paul
[2020-10-12 14:27:07] - I mean, Lebron is kinda the reason the media started using the term "big three" again after "the decision". That's hardly going solo. -Paul
[2020-10-12 14:26:20] - Lebron has probably played "longer", by playing the so many finals and the postseaon became longer (first round was Bo5 in MJ's time). - mig
[2020-10-12 14:25:39] - mig: "essentially carry his team solo year after year" See, this is where I disagree strongly. I think the biggest strike against Lebron is that he didn't accomplish much on his own until he started assembling super teams around him at various stops. -Paul
[2020-10-12 14:20:10] - Daniel: Re: Longevity. I have a hard time balancing that, too, because MJ still had the longer career in terms of years from start to finish, but he took two breaks. What could his numbers look like if he hadn't taken those breaks? Does that count for or against him? -Paul
[2020-10-12 14:19:56] - I'm not sure I've ever seen a player do consistently more with less and essentially carry his team solo year after year. - mig
[2020-10-12 14:00:59] - I agree that MJ's undefeated-ness in the finals are the major feather in his cap. I think LeBron's making of the finals is the feather in his cap. Its hard to balance those but LeBron's sustained peak would probably get the nod from me. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 13:58:59] - mig / Paul: I think I'm somewhere closer to Paul that I think its reasonably close but I'm leaning Lebron. I think the longevity is really the kicker for me that LeBron is still rolling this many years later. Going into the Rockets series I was hopeful because I wasn't sure LeBron could keep it up anymore and boy was I wrong. -Daniel
[2020-10-12 13:57:49] - mig: Specifically, I'm trying to weigh how LBJ's supporting cast (Wade, Bosh, Love, Kyrie, Davis) compare to MJ's (Pippen and Rodman and Kerr) and how to weigh LBJ's losses in NBA Finals: Should he get a ton of credit for even making it? Or should he get criticism for so often failing? -Paul
[2020-10-12 13:43:31] - mig: I would need to see a side by side comparison, but I feel pretty confident disagreeing that his accomplishments are "way" more impressive. I think it is definitely fair to debate if he might be the GOAT (ie, better than MJ), but I think even if you think James is better, that it is close. -Paul
[2020-10-12 13:40:40] - aaron: My family is not planning on going out trick or treating (sadly, since it is one of my kids' favorite holidays). We never got kids in our neighborhood before, so we weren't planning on getting any candy either. -Paul
[2020-10-12 04:12:01] - daniel/paul: offering a probably shit take: LeBron's career accomplishments are way more impressive than MJ. - mig
[2020-10-11 22:49:15] - a: i expect there will be kids trick or treating around the area. I never got many of them though in my area in previous years. - mig
[2020-10-11 17:41:36] - aaron: its hard to know 100% but I imagine the anti mask crowd will be game on? The pro mask crowd will sit it out? Thats a guess though. I think we are planning on skipping it for our family. -Daniel
[2020-10-11 15:17:26] - what is the universe doing with regards to trick or treating this year? i assume we're collectively just skipping it, right? do i need to buy candy? - aaron
[2020-10-11 00:05:33] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/10/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-to-know-stance-on-court-packing/#7dd1a3627aac look i get he doesn’t want to answer this, but the responses from Biden are getting pretty bad. - mig
[2020-10-10 04:03:29] - Pierce: Kinda? I mean, you bluff by betting and announcing that you have a strong hand (that you don't have). You don't really bluff by just calling all the way (which is the closest equivalent I can think of to what Biden is doing by refusing to even answer the question). -Paul
[2020-10-09 23:54:26] - https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article246347750.html#storylink=topdigest_latest As an example of not being interested in good faith operations. -Daniel
[2020-10-09 20:37:26] - paul: is that how you would approach a bluff in poker? just blurting out "you should fold or else I'm definitely going all in"? - pierce
[2020-10-09 20:14:53] - a: If it were a bluff, wouldn't Biden be well served to outright state the threat? Vote against Barrett or else I will pack the court? -Paul
[2020-10-09 20:11:34] - Daniel: "What if one side did start it?" Then great! You have the moral high ground. Don't ruin in by stooping to their level. But, as mentioned by others, I doubt you can get everybody to agree that one side started it. -Paul
[2020-10-09 19:26:44] - a: biden might be bluffing? I think at least the more progressive wing of democrats are quite serious about it. - mig
[2020-10-09 19:25:05] - Bork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination -Daniel
[2020-10-09 19:12:30] - Bork? -Daniel
[2020-10-09 19:06:13] - Daniel: I mean, clearly, one side started it. But at this point, we're looking at at a pre-Bork era for when it started. I don't think it's reasonable to look at a 30+ year process of escalation and complain, "but they started it," not anymore. Because, honestly, it almost certainly did start before Bork. That's just the first one I can think of. -- Xpovos
[2020-10-09 17:59:13] - I think its possible its a bluff for Biden. I don't think its a bluff for D's at large. -Daniel
[2020-10-09 17:55:01] - it's not clearly a bluff, because a good bluff can't be clearly a bluff, right? ~a
[2020-10-09 17:54:22] - mig/daniel/paul: here's a theory. the whole "court packing" threat is just a bluff. they say this to push moderate republicans and moderate democrats to consider voting against barrett: moderates who might consider the barrett situation *clear* and *blatant* hypocrisy. ~a
[2020-10-09 17:50:57] - "it's an endless stream of escalating awfulness with both sides pointing to the other saying, "they started it" - What if one side did start it? -Daniel
[2020-10-09 17:50:03] - mig: Were judges before Estrada/Bush as clearly ideological? I don't know enough about judicial history but I generally think of R's as pushing the envelope and D's responding and not the other way around. -Daniel
[2020-10-09 17:48:00] - Paul: I don't think it ends well. -Daniel
[2020-10-09 17:27:16] - paul: Rs can also point to the treatment of Miguel Estrada and the obstruction of judicial appointments during W Bush. - mig
[2020-10-09 16:35:53] - When has that EVER ended well? -Paul
[2020-10-09 16:35:05] - So, yeah, from an outsider perspective, it's an endless stream of escalating awfulness with both sides pointing to the other saying, "they started it" and operating under the assumption that they are justified doing something bad (or oftentimes worse) because they were wronged by the other side earlier. -Paul
[2020-10-09 16:33:19] - And even though it is hypocritical and all that, the Republicans held the Senate. It is within their right to vote down justices. It's not like the Democrats haven't killed nominees in the past as well. Yes, technically, court packing is also legal and has precedent, but it definitely feels like an escalation to me. -Paul
[2020-10-09 16:32:01] - aDaniel: I won't disagree at all that the Republicans are being hypocritical here and acting in bad faith, I just don't think it's as one sided or that court packing is some sort of justified response. Like Miguel said, history didn't start with Garland. Plenty of Republicans point back to Reid getting rid of the filibuster. -Paul
[2020-10-09 15:20:45] - a: Sure, that's fair. - mig
[2020-10-09 15:10:11] - mig: and to add to the immorality/incivility: "one of my proudest moments was when I looked at barack obama in the eye and I said, ‘mr. president, you will not fill this supreme court vacancy,'" (2016-08-06). jfc. ~a
[2020-10-09 15:10:06] - (sorry, 2016 not 2020) ~a
[2020-10-09 15:09:12] - mig: again, still not a promise, but he said it dozens of times in dozens of ways "the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" (the use of "therefore" is interesting here. 2020-02-13) ~a
[2020-10-09 15:05:17] - agreed. ~a
prev <-> next