prev <-> next
[2020-12-09 15:57:56] - a: I think a lot of people still think of nuclear as both dangerous AND dirty (in terms of getting rid of waste). -Paul
[2020-12-09 15:57:32] - a: If it is close right now, why would anybody want "dangerous" nuclear vs safe and clean solar/wind/hydro? -Paul
[2020-12-09 15:57:05] - a: Sure, it's by no means a slam dunk that renewables will win out over nuclear in the short or long term. I guess my thinking is that nuclear seemed even more obviously better 10-20 years ago but didn't really win out (either because of PR or government regulations or whatever), so it seems like that time might have passed. -Paul
[2020-12-08 20:49:27] - from yesterday, trump administration officials passed when pfizer offered months ago to sell the u.s. more vaccine doses. behind a paywall. this administration makes the 180-degree wrong decision 100% of the time. its amazing actually. the article is full of other wrong decisions. ~a
[2020-12-08 20:17:36] - paul: i'd like to question an implication: "I wonder if nuclear can compete". i honestly don't wonder this. it is *close* in the united states: 2017. in other countries, nuclear is MUCH cheaper. (i know dominion is a US company, but still it looks like nuclear is still cheaper and "sort-of" better for the environment). ~a
[2020-12-08 20:05:38] - paul: they have a very diverse portfolio of energy types, but i hear your complaint: they are nuclear heavy and (relatively) low on the renewables. dominion in 2019 vs united states in 2018+. ~a
[2020-12-08 19:57:33] - a: I know nothing of the company itself, but how much exposure does it have to renewables? I'm really leery of energy stocks because it seems like we might have reached an inflection point where renewables are cheap enough that it's beating out lots of other sources of power and I wonder if nuclear can compete. -Paul
[2020-12-08 18:56:36] - paul: a stock i'm thinking of buying a small amount of. stock ticker d. (dominion energy). its been very flat for the past five years. and it went up a lot 2000-2015. thoughts? i'm basing my entire decision on the fact that something like half of their electricity generation is nuclear (and, i know we've talked about nuclear power, but there are a lot of pros and cons). ~a
[2020-12-08 14:48:21] - Daniel: I should be good. -Paul
[2020-12-08 14:25:07] - yep! ~a
[2020-12-08 13:59:00] - a: good for sc2 tonight? -Daniel
[2020-12-07 17:36:12] - yah, good point. luckily we'll probably never know their motivations. ~a
[2020-12-07 17:34:17] - a: To your first question then answer (to me) is yes it matters. Intentions aren't the only thing and maybe aren't even the main thing but if motiviations are bad then the odds of a good thing happening again in the future are worse. Ideally motivations and actions are both aligned to be "good" (though good is subjective often and especially in politics). -Daniel
[2020-12-07 17:30:42] - mig: does it matter why people do the right thing when they do the right thing? i guess its one thing for them to pass legislation knowing it'll fail in the other house, still, i'm not sure if i care if georgia is the reason good things are happening. ~a
[2020-12-07 17:00:26] - It would make me sad if the GA runoffs was the actual impetus for this vote. - mig
[2020-12-07 16:58:10] - Daniel: Like, Democrats were against legalization for 30 years and Republicans are against it for 32 years and we're asking why Republicans were against it for those 2 extra years? Maybe for the same reason both parties were against it for 30. Gateway drugs and making people lazy and yada yada yada. -Paul
[2020-12-07 16:56:09] - Daniel: Sure! I am 100% not excusing Republicans. They should support marijuana legalization. They should've done it years ago. Decades ago. My point was that I don't understand why it's puzzling to wonder why Republicans are against it now when pretty much all politicians were against it just years ago. -Paul
[2020-12-07 16:54:28] - Paul: I partially understand where you are coming from in the both parties were wrong for decades so its understandable for one party to still be wrong for a few more years but also I think its fair to immediately hold it against one party once the other one switches. For any issue as soon as one party aligns and one doesn't I think its fair to question the reasoning. -Daniel
[2020-12-07 16:47:20] - Daniel: Do you mind handling it still? Not sure I can consistently come back just yet. -Paul
[2020-12-07 16:47:04] - a: "ok, but i changed my argument." Yes, but after my answer. I am not at all saying two wrongs make a right. I am saying both are/were wrong. I've been saying both were wrong for decades.
-Paul[2020-12-07 16:13:48] - Paul: Do you want me to keep sending sc2 emails since you were able to return or do you want to take them back over? I'm fine either way - just checking. -Daniel
[2020-12-07 15:21:55] - I mean good news. But I'm a wee bit skeptical this moves the needle for the GA runoffs. - mig
[2020-12-07 15:14:28] - 228-164? that's a lot of abstains (or not present?). - mig
[2020-12-07 15:01:09] - paul: "I don't see much use in singling out that one thing" this is maybe the single worst argument i've ever seen you use here. you don't see much use in repealing one law when other things that shouldn't be illegal exist? . . . ?! . . . you basically have argued we can't ever make small, incremental, change. we have to stop where we are: or, what? fix everything in the world at once? ~a
[2020-12-07 14:57:06] - paul: "Your question, though, was ..." ok, but i changed my argument. did you miss that part? but if pressed, fine: i'll remind you of your favorite argument. two wrongs don't make a right. just because democrats said in the past that "drugs are bad" in the past doesn't make it right today when republicans are saying it. ~a
[2020-12-07 14:32:12] - a: But, there's still a ton of things on the books now that I can't believe are illegal (similar to marijuana) so I don't see much use in singling out that one thing. Lots of people are wrong about a lot of things politically.
-Paul[2020-12-07 14:30:24] - a: "why not if i'm also ok bashing democrats for being decades late?" If you're willing to bash democrats too, then great. Your question, though, was "remind me again why republicans are against cannabis decriminalization?" -Paul
[2020-12-07 04:42:47] - paul: both parties are decades late: you're right, of course. but you say i shouldn't be so quick to bash republicans for being decades late? why not? why not if i'm also ok bashing democrats for being decades late? remind me again why politicians are (or were recently) against cannabis decriminalization? ~a
[2020-12-06 16:30:43] - a: And that's including Democrats too. I wouldn't be so quick to bash Republicans for being a few years late to this when, in my opinion, both parties are decades late. -Paul
[2020-12-06 16:28:34] - a: Does there need to be? That's been the default position for most politicians and most Americans for decades now. I'm old enough to remember when libertarians were widely derided from all sides for being for drug decriminalization. -Paul
[2020-12-04 21:41:28] - daniel: that's the . . . straw man, i agree. is there a more nuanced explanation? is there an explanation that takes into account that a "drug war" has been historically unwinnable? or one that takes into account that treating drug abuse and drug addiction as a healthcare issue has relatively positive results? ~a
[2020-12-04 21:37:48] - a: DRUGS BAD. Is why I think R's are against it. Degrades the moral fabric of America. -Daniel
[2020-12-04 21:26:45] - amash? he wasn't part of their primary process, and he was considered an "independent" until this year, so its not exactly a standard situation. ~a
[2020-12-04 21:22:31] - "The final vote was 228-164, with most Democrats joined by 5 Republicans and an independent to pass the legislation." I believe that "independent" is actually a registered Libertarian... -Paul
[2020-12-04 21:13:48] - or it might even change the outcome of the georgia elections? remind me again why republicans are against cannabis decriminalization? ~a
[2020-12-04 21:09:59] - the house just voted to decriminalize cannabis. groundbreaking legislation even if it'll never pass the senate. i saw some randoms on the internet guessing that this was done in the off chance that both democrats win in georgia (warnock and ossoff). then, mitch won't have the power to shitcan it. ~a
[2020-12-04 03:18:06] - Daniel: Still in better shape than the Wizards.
-Paul[2020-12-03 18:00:32] - I'm not encouraged by any of the moves since the end of the 2018 season. I would have tried to keep that team together. Oh well. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 17:54:51] - mig: WB decided to move on from Houston. In theory if Wall is the 2016 version thats an upgrade on 3 pt shooting and D at the PG spot. Both are on bad contracts so the trade market for WB is tiny and Wall is part of that market. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 17:51:09] - Daniel: Like, at some point I think you have to realize the problem isn't with your other guard and maybe you need to get a center or 3 and D wing or something. -Paul
[2020-12-03 17:50:38] - Daniel: Yeah, it seems a little... odd that Houston has gone through like 3 all-star (and in some cases, probably future hall of famer?) point guards in 3 years. -Paul
[2020-12-03 17:48:31] - what in tarnation? why would houston agree to that- mig
[2020-12-03 16:52:09] - now the trolls are coming from inside the house ~a
[2020-12-03 16:43:17] - a: Normally picks are like top 14 protected or only convey if its 20+ or things like that. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 16:42:49] - a: You can put conditions on draft pick trades so it only actually moves (conveys) to the other team if certain conditions are met. So for example (cause I don't remember exactly) we only get their first round pick if its the 28th pick exactly. So in that example if they don't end up getting the 28th pick we don't get it. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 16:40:29] - you said you don't remember the details, so speculation is fine. i'm not even sure what convey could mean in this context. ~a
[2020-12-03 16:40:09] - wasn't that likely to convey why? ~a
[2020-12-03 16:39:23] - a: I don't remember the details but its a protected 1st that people thought wasn't that likely to convey. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 16:37:54] - paul: you didn't mention the first-round pick. is that not worth mentioning? i'm just asking: i'm not sure if its worth anything. ~a
[2020-12-03 16:36:35] - I didn't like the Westbrook trade. Harden is still our guy but I don't know that these two trades (cp3 for WB and then WB for Wall) reflect well on Harden. Like you gotta make it work and not just have these type of players not work out. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 16:35:38] - Paul: Though I still just want CP3....
-Daniel[2020-12-03 16:35:28] - Paul: TBD - if we get 2016 Wall then maybe us? If we don't you. I don't think we get 2016 Wall. -Daniel
[2020-12-03 16:11:35] - Daniel: Wall for Westbrook. Who got the better deal? -Paul
[2020-12-02 17:43:14] - daniel: my takeaway here is kernel development is hard: even large companies (literally the largest in the world!) should consider it a problematic undertaking. my second takeaway: nothing connected to the internet is safe. don't assume anything on your non-air-gapped computer or phone will stay there. ~a
[2020-12-02 16:25:07] - This was on reddit but if you guys didn't see it - its pretty crazy. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/iphone-zero-click-wi-fi-exploit-is-one-of-the-most-breathtaking-hacks-ever/ -Daniel
[2020-12-01 17:10:39] - Daniel: Sorry, didn't see this until now. Tonight probably works a tiny bit better anyway. Thanks! -Paul
[2020-12-01 16:12:46] - i didn't know she played. ~a
[2020-12-01 16:08:58] - a: Andrea voted tonight. -Daniel
[2020-12-01 16:02:45] - a: Yeah I was hoping you would be a tie breaker. Paul any insight on which might be better even if you aren't 100% committed? -Daniel
[2020-12-01 15:50:33] - i'm free both. tonight dewey can't do and tomorrow mark can't do?
~a[2020-12-01 15:50:03] - a: Tonight or tomorrow for SC2? -Daniel
[2020-11-30 19:08:13] - paul: "Was Biden talking about packing lower courts too?" i don't know. ~a
[2020-11-30 19:07:32] - a: Wait, is it non-scotus judicial appointments or all judicial appointments (SCOTUS included)? I know your precedent was more expansive, I was more referring to the fact that I thought most people have been talking about SCOTUS. Was Biden talking about packing lower courts too? -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:54:02] - (the one exception, Stephen Breyer in 1980 was being appointed to the US court of appeals. ignore all that scotus stuff in the 90s
) ~a[2020-11-30 18:51:54] - its not scotus no. the 123 year precedent is about non scotus judicial appointments. and no it has nothing to do with "justices just didn't tend to die or retire in election years". it has to do with a pretty normal precedent: usually we were like . . . ok, you lost the election: so lets wait a few weeks for the next guy before we start filling vacancies. ~a
[2020-11-30 18:50:05] - a: But I guess it also feels like we're muddying the waters a bit. We're mostly talking about SCOTUS, right? Is this precedent (when applied to SCOTUS) mostly because justices just didn't tend to die or retire in election years until recently? -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:48:31] - a: Yeah, it's a legitimate question on my part since I don't know a ton about this, but it sounds kind of suspicious, right? Like, once it was done 40 years ago, doesn't the precedent reset to then? Regardless, though, I don't know if the number of years something is a precedent is the main way I judge things, though. How many years or precedent do we have of recognizing gay marriage? -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:31:30] - paul: maybe that there have been six appointments since the election? jesus i didn't realize it was six. ~a
[2020-11-30 18:30:36] - paul: no clue. here's another link that seems to discount the exception as well. maybe because of his position in the senate? or that he eventually became a supreme court justice? bad journalism? why would two articles make the same bad journalistic choice though? no clue, man. ~a
[2020-11-30 18:24:47] - a: "The lone exception was when the Senate confirmed future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was then the chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, to a circuit court in 1980." Why doesn't that exception count? -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:19:54] - paul: it was in the news only a little. i posted it earlier: here is the link about the 123 year precedent. the 151 year precedent is the one not yet broken (the democrat one that is moot: regarding changing the number of seats in the supreme court). ~a
[2020-11-30 18:19:52] - paul: nothing to do with garland. ~a
[2020-11-30 18:16:27] - a: Wait, what wasn't in the news? The whole Garland fiasco? -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:16:11] - a: Since you revisited it, though, I am curious what the 151 year precedent you are referring to is. -Paul
[2020-11-30 18:15:58] - no i meant it wasn't in the news. ~a
[2020-11-30 18:15:40] - a: "the precedent was broken, and nobody seems to care" I assume you aren't referring to me, because I've said a number of times that what Republicans did was bad and a jerk move and other stuff. -Paul
[2020-11-30 17:57:16] - meh. we haven't moved onto anything in particular. "you say 'democrats are proposing worse things' without saying why you think its worse". 123 year precedent vs breaking a 151 year precedent and whatnot. on the democrat side its pretty moot because i don't think they'll have the senate any time soon. on the republican side, the precedent was broken, and nobody seems to care, so there's that. ~a
[2020-11-30 17:54:10] - Sorry, I missed a bunch of conversation while basically being completely out last week. I saw a few things directed at me, but I don't know if it makes sense to follow up at all like a week later or if we've all moved on.
-Paul[2020-11-27 21:13:26] - yah. ~a
[2020-11-27 21:12:44] - a: Probably. That's a reasonable interpretation, but an uptick from 'nearly zero' could still be a very small event. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-27 18:18:23] - xpovos: imo, if biden dies now, there will be a huge uptick in faithless electors. many of them will see it as their job to pick a living president. ~a
[2020-11-27 18:17:10] - Again, to clarify, if Biden dies now Harris is next up as POTUS still. It's just even harder to challenge legally after December 14th. The suit is probably tossed out in both eventualities, but the judge laughs harder as he does it on December 16th. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-26 19:34:42] - a: Sure, but I'm totally OK with calling him President-Elect at that point. And we have a clear progression path that if Biden dies on, say, December 16th, Harris will be POTUS next. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-26 15:28:55] - xpovos: on that note, even after december 14th, crazy scenarios could still happen. given his age, some of those scenarios aren't even all that unlikely. he won't be president with 100% certainty until january 20th: so is it still a "fact" after december 14th that he'll be president? ~a
[2020-11-26 15:26:02] - xpovos: "Is a fact a fact if it's 99.99% true?" its an interesting thought experiment. when we get into high certainties like that, it becomes a "technicality" at some point, right? like, yeah, it's a fact. sort-of.
~a[2020-11-25 21:36:07] - a: To clarify my apparent contradiction, I don't think the media is wrong to say Joe Biden won the presidential preference poll. But calling him President-elect is inaccurate; but not misleading. It's probably a distinction without significant merit, but I prefer to keep at the civics lessons. Just the journos don't listen to me. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-25 21:27:17] - a: Hmm. Interesting question. Is a fact a fact if it's 99.99% true? Genuine question. I'll definitely agree that the media statements are MORE true than Trump's. And that's probably been the case consistently since 2015, at least. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-25 15:06:25] - Yeah saying the voters voting doesn't matter is a weird take to me if you agree that they determine how the electors will vote. -Daniel
[2020-11-25 14:51:29] - xpovos: "it's no more factual than anything Trump is saying". do you actually believe this? the media says biden won the election (and that nothing is certified). with, say, at least 99.9% certainty, 270 or more of the electors will vote for biden. trump is saying he won the election (in a literal sense). with, say, less than .1% certainty, 270 of the electors will vote for trump. how is one no more factual than the other? ~a
[2020-11-25 14:39:39] - mig: "this might be as close as we get to him conceding" ok but i asked about the attack on the election integrity though. i can't relax, this really does matter, and the damage has nothing to do with concession and everything to do with the attacks on the election integrity. his public statements (on twitter and in press conferences) are multiple times per week. ~a
[2020-11-25 12:35:25] - a: sure, it's unofficial, and the media is saying whatever it wants too. But it's no more factual than anything Trump is saying, so why are we rewarding them? -- Xpovos
[2020-11-25 12:33:50] - considering the transition to a Biden administration has officially begun, we can maybe relax a bit. Trump still hasn't officially conceded, but this might be as close as we get to him conceding from a practical standpoint. - mig
[2020-11-25 05:31:09] - "there is no president-elect, and there won't be until 12/14" hmm, i think i disagree again. its an unofficial title and its meaning is unofficial on any date. "president-elect has been used by the media for decades" ... "Politicians have applied the term to the declared winner, even soon after election night" (wikipedia). ~a
[2020-11-25 05:28:16] - i mean, yes, it matters. i've stabbed you and you have like an 80% chance of dying. if you had said that the electoral college is the final say, or after the election technically nothing is set in stone, or there are highly unlikely scenarios where kanye could still become president, sure. but the election doesn't matter? why work as an election official then?
~a[2020-11-25 05:26:01] - ah, so that is what you meant. ok, then my response is this: you seem to be using a weird definition of "matters". based on "Obviously, that isn't going to happen" i can't imagine you think the election doesn't matter. if the election doesn't matter, than it wouldn't be so obvious. i guess i can come up with an analogy? i stab you. this doesn't matter because you haven't died yet. ~a
[2020-11-25 05:24:42] - But currently there is no President-elect, and there won't be until 12/14. So Trump can say whatever he wants. He usually does. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-25 05:23:24] - Obviously, that isn't going to happen. Joe Biden has the pledged electors. Pledged electors are prohibited from being faithless by punitive laws. If people tried, there'd be new, weird, lawsuits. And even that is meaningless, because it's never going to happen. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-25 05:22:31] - Electoral college election IS the only thing that matters. It's what determines who the President is. What the popular preference poll at the voting booths says is irrelevant. If EVERY elector is faithless and votes for, I dunno, Kanye... who is POTUS? Kanye. Even though he got substantially less than 1%, while not even being on the ballot in many states. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-24 20:46:44] - xpovos: "he's claiming he won an election that doesn't even matter" you had me until this. he's not saying he won pennsylvania, or won georgia, or won michigan, or won arizona. he's saying he won the presidential election. he won the presidential election. ... unless you're saying the presidential election doesn't matter (and the electoral congress election is all that matters). but i doubt that's what you mean. ~a
[2020-11-24 20:40:46] - a: It's reprehensible and damaging. But I can't say I'm surprised. I'm not upset, either. Yet. Come December 15th, I'll start getting upset. Because, right now, he's claiming he won an election that doesn't even matter. -- Xpovos
[2020-11-24 19:22:17] - any thoughts on the attack on us election integrity by a sitting president? this is also unprecedented, right? almost daily there are claims, non-figuratively, that he won the election. literally "we won the election" "I won the election!" "I WON THE ELECTION" "I WON THE ELECTION!" "this was a LANDSLIDE!" "based on our great Constitution, we win the State of Pennsylvania!" etc. ~a
[2020-11-24 15:53:26] - a: you aren't wrong about that (most justices being moderate), but thats not how the congress people view it. - mig
[2020-11-24 15:45:18] - mig: no point? sure, there is a point. most of the current supreme court members are fairly moderate. and regardless of the "point", i'm not sure that matters: to get literally every democrat to vote for this thing, you'd need to have a small number of additional seats. i'm not saying they won't pick 4 . . . i'm just saying its more likely they'd pick 2. also, that maybe nobody (in leadership) has said 4? also, that its all moot. ~a
[2020-11-24 15:39:48] - a: if they are going to expand the court, there is no point doing less than 4, given the current makeup. Flipping the majority of the court is the entire point of the exercise, and you can't do that without adding 4. - mig
[2020-11-24 15:31:28] - mig: nadler said 4 seats? i'm not sure i see that anywhere. ~a
[2020-11-24 15:30:38] - mig: how do you go from "nothing is off the table" to "adding 4 seats to the supreme court"? isn't that a bit of a stretch? couldn't i just as easily go from "nothing is off the table" to "adding 4 million seats to the supreme court"? david faris is a fucking teacher, so i'm not sure he counts as a high-ranking democrat or senator. ~a
[2020-11-24 15:29:52] - obviously, this is moot if the GOP wins one of the 2 upcoming run offs, but the intent is pretty clear if the democrats end up getting control of the senate. - mig
[2020-11-24 15:28:27] - Jeremy Nadler, high ranking house member. - mig
[2020-11-24 15:27:42] - a: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-supreme-court-packing-trump-nominee-confirmed-election/ Chuck Schumer, senate minority leader - "nothing is off the table." - mig
[2020-11-24 14:21:33] - mig: looks like the vp has voted on all kinds of low-level motions "Motion to Proceed", "[confirmation] Nomination", "Cloture Motion", etc. so still guessing, but guessing yes still. i didn't realize that the vp could only vote on tie votes, but i guess that makes sense. ~a
[2020-11-24 14:16:22] - mig: who is we? is anyone in the senate discussing these things? or are any high-ranking democrats discussing these things? do you have a source on this? "can the VP vote on senate procedure". i've only read the constitution, so i have no idea for sure; but, my guess is yes. i agree that all of this sounds extreme, but i doubt any of these things will happen (vs the republicans have filled vacancies after the lost pres election). ~a
[2020-11-24 14:12:04] - daniel: sure. ~a
[2020-11-23 22:00:50] - a: well, we'd be talking about adding 4 seats to the supreme court (any less would probably be meaningless for the democrats purposes), and nuking the legislative filibuster along with it, all done with the VP having to vote to break the 50-50 tie (can the VP vote on senate procedure?). That seems far more extreme than what republicans have done. - mig
[2020-11-23 21:59:06] - a: Wed night good for SC2? -Daniel
[2020-11-23 19:12:16] - paul: so as long as we don't call both packing, you still think its a false equivalence? like daniel, i kinda don't care what we call it, but it does seem to be breaking a 123 year precedent vs breaking a 151 year precedent. you say "democrats are proposing worse things" without saying why you think its worse. is it literally the difference between 123 and 151? or is it something else? ~a
[2020-11-23 19:09:24] - Maybe its all just side effects / unanticipated outcomes of gerrymandering where they made themselves safe R districts but that just means you get primary'ed by people further and further to the extremes and now its hard to get back to a middle ground. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 19:08:33] - I think R's see themselves as a minority who is trying to save? protect? return to? some idea of America that is in their head that they will do almost anything to pursue that goal. Trump, Roy Moore, Fox News, Gingrich, etc are all points on this scale where they just keep going further and further. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 19:06:30] - Biden 'blorstchy-boo'-ing isn't good but it gets hard to advocate for a high road when one side seems to so easily and quickly choose the low. I don't think D's are saints that are pure innocent or anything but I definitely think over my lifespan that R's have been fundamentally worse imo on concepts like ethics / fair/ norms. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 19:04:09] - I think I agree with paul that the generally accepted definition of court packing is adding seats. I think I also agree with Pierce that the intent behind it is really the thing that people care about. So if we create a new word "blorstchy-boo" that means breaking norms in order to change the ideological make up of the courts I would say that in my head R's are full speed ahead on that and that people want Biden to catch up. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 17:45:40] - Pierce: You can't just say that the Republicans have been mean to Democrats and therefore whatever measures Democrats take in response is fine because they're all equivalent. Republicans did bad things. Democrats are proposing worse things. I think both are bad. I think what democrats are proposing is worse because it IS different. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:44:52] - Pierce: The closest I have come to defending what Republicans have done is to say (with lots of qualifiers about how partisan and jerk-ish it was) that what they have done is not as bad as what democrats have been proposing. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:42:35] - Pierce: "But your positions so far are only internally consistent if your real stance is "it's okay unless a democrat does it"." I can't possible see how you can think this is my standpoint unless you are being willfully blind to the points I am trying to make. I've multiple times mentioned how the Republicans have been doing wrong (hint: the "two wrongs" were not two democratic wrongs)... -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:40:52] - "You say democrats should start winning elections..." My point with that is that if you don't like a Republican senate wielding their power to control the supreme court, then win back the senate and use it to shape it to your liking within the boundaries of the rules. Don't just grab a handful of money from the Monopoly bank and say "there's nothing in the rules that says I can't do this". -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:37:46] - Pierce: Does that mean when Republicans take back power you would think it perfectly okay for them to add some seats too.... and maybe while they are at it divide Texas into 5 states to get more Senators since that is an "equally-within-the-law idea"? -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:35:41] - Pierce: So sure, there might not be anything in the constitution about not adding 5 seats to the Supreme Court when a president doesn't like the composition and wants it to reflect his ideas better, do you really think the founders would've thought that was A-OK? -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:34:47] - Pierce: "equally-within-the-law idea of court expansion" You really don't see it as an escalation at all? The Senate's job is to approve (or reject) justices. No matter how partisan and jerk-ish it may be to reject solely on political grounds, it's still within the framework of normal behavior. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:32:27] - Pierce: You can look at google results, you can look at wikipedia, you can look at dictionary.com: They all pretty much back up the idea that "court packing" refers to a specific idea of adding seats to the court. I don't see any sort of official source that indicates any significantly large group of people think it applies to stuff outside of that. -Paul-Paul
[2020-11-23 17:30:48] - Pierce: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/court-packing You can qualify it however you want, but the definition of court packing that I am using is the one that I am pretty sure almost everybody (who understands the term) thinks of when it is used. Using it outside of that context is expanding the meaning to something different. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:28:05] - Pierce: What Biden was suggesting was exactly what is traditionally thought of as court packing: adding courts to the Supreme Court to get a more liberal composition because you don't like how the composition is now. You (and that article) is trying to expand the meaning to something else. That is what I think is unhelpful. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:26:51] - Pierce: "Calling it "court packing" is polarizing and unhelpful when criticizing the GOP's actual actions, but fine when criticizing Biden who hasn't done anything yet" It's not a brain teaser at all. It's polarizing and unhelpful when the term is used to describe something that is not traditionally thought of as court packing. It is not polarizing and unhelpful when it exactly describes that. -Paul
[2020-11-23 17:25:51] - Daniel: Because when Obama was trying to nominate Garland for SCOTUS, their position was the Republicans were evil bastards for opposing it, and then when Trump tried to do the same thing they were the ones opposing it for pretty identical reasons. -Paul
[2020-11-23 03:50:40] - You can either wield negative rhetoric to criticize problematic behavior (taking ideological control of the courts) or you can not use it at all. You can insist that all politicians honor the traditions and norms even if they could legally ignore them, or you can say the written law is the only law that matters. But your positions so far are only internally consistent if your real stance is "it's okay unless a democrat does it". - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:50:33] - So let's maybe not fantasize that democrats could control the court fairly, if only they put some elbow grease into it and convinced the majority of the people. They have. One of the only times they had a decisive advantage in the senate, after the 2008 election, they struggled to get things done because they did honor traditions (the ACA was heavily compromised and passed via reconciliation rather than end the filibuster). - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:50:06] - Combine that with stuff like the Bush v. Gore decision. Bush was given a victory in a SCOTUS decision so bad it said we shouldn't use it as precedent (spoiler: the Trump campaign is citing it in their challenges to this election). Fast-forward, Bush appoints Roberts, who later authors the decision that guts the voting rights act, allowing southern states to spin up voter suppression efforts once again. - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:52] - I did the math: if "control of the senate" was subject to the national popular vote, in the 22 senate elections between 1976 and 2018, Republicans would've only won six of them. Instead they got eleven, with some of the key democrat-controlled senates being far more narrow than they would've been otherwise. - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:46] - it's a claim that would at best be arguable in a world of perfect elections and spherical cows. A reminder that in this world, the electoral college and the senate both offer structural advantages to republicans. - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:36] - You say democrats should start winning elections, even though that's the hypothetical we're talking about, biden winning with a D-controlled senate. Or did you mean they should start winning elections and wish upon a star that conservatives will retire or die during a term where democrats control both the senate and presidency? because you expect them to adhere to norms instead of the confines of what is allowed? - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:30] - You trivialize the Garland and Barrett situations (and presumably these lower court confirmations) as "within the confines of what is allowed", but grant no such leniency when discussing the equally-within-the-law idea of court expansion. - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:24] - You base that on a "traditional" definition of a term that only had one historical usage, hadn't been in active use for almost a century until just recently, where the definition is the very thing we're debating. Your strict rule for whether the term is a valid attack is that it refers to expanding the court, even though "the court is too large" is not what anyone is attacking about it. - pierce
[2020-11-23 03:49:19] - Paul: it's such a brain-teaser trying to reconcile your positions here. Calling it "court packing" is polarizing and unhelpful when criticizing the GOP's actual actions, but fine when criticizing Biden who hasn't done anything yet. - pierce
[2020-11-23 02:55:28] - Bush Sr years. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 02:55:12] - I think Mig referenced some SC nominee from like the Bush years but I don't remember who and when I read about them it didn't seem the same to me but I don't remember the specifics at this point. -Daniel
[2020-11-23 02:54:38] - Paul: I think this came up before but I don't remember but when you say "often forgotten is that Democrats have pretty much equally been hypocrites" is there something specific you are referring to? -Daniel
[2020-11-22 00:27:09] - Pierce: Maybe it is a rationale, but it doesn't change the fact that it is bad and unfair and continuing down this path does not seem like a great idea. You want more Supreme Court justices? Start winning more elections. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:23:10] - Pierce: And you can point the finger all you want at the other side and cite context, but the argument still all boils down to "I can do this bad and unfair thing because the other side did a bad and unfair thing first". -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:22:20] - But Republicans can point back to Reid getting rid of the filibuster and for both Barrett and Garland, Republicans held the Senate, so no matter how much of a jerk move it was, it's still somewhat within the confines of what is allowed. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:20:12] - I get that Democrats are sore that Republicans were hypocrites about Garland (often forgotten is that Democrats have pretty much equally been hypocrites) and some unspoken rules have been broken. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:15:04] - And apparently I am so cool that I sign things twice. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:14:16] - Pierce: "what they object to is the intent: to have a larger share of people in the court than that president/party would've gotten by "traditional" means" Sure, and I can't think of anything that goes against that more than one party deciding to just add more seats to the court because they don't like the current balance and finally regained power. -Paul. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:11:27] - Pierce: "you were upset that biden wasn't pressed harder about court packing during the debate. would you say now that it was fair for him to deflect, given that it's an unhelpful and polarizing rhetorical flourish?" No. I think it is unhelpful and polarizing when referring to things which are not traditionally thought of as court packing. It is perfectly reasonable here because what was being discussed WAS court packing. -Paul
[2020-11-22 00:09:08] - Pierce: Sure, it's a term that hasn't had as much use recently, but does that really matter? I did a google search for "court packing" and the whole first page of results is pretty exclusively about FDR's attempt to add seats to the court. -Paul
[2020-11-20 21:19:25] - and since the republicans realized with garland that their base won't punish them for such shenanigans, once that line is crossed they'd be totally fine with further packing it the next time they're in power. so I think it's more likely biden might try to end lifetime appointments (which would have its own problems, but doesn't self-evidently seem like cheating). - pierce
[2020-11-20 21:19:14] - all that being said, I don't think biden will expand the court even if the democrats take the senate. the supreme court is synonymous with roe v. wade to a huge chunk of the populace, and too many democrats would end up dying on that hill in the next election (remember that the expansion would have to be approved by the house, too). - pierce
[2020-11-20 21:19:00] - you might say that two wrongs don't make a right. but one wrong has already happened, and there's a feedback loop where allowing it to stand as-is further empowers the people who chose it in the first place. - pierce
[2020-11-20 21:18:52] - so when we talk about how it's problematic for biden to expand the court, we have to talk about the context. it wouldn't be under consideration if the republicans hadn't already "cheated" in that same ethical sense, achieving the exact same intent by different (but still unusual) methods. - pierce
[2020-11-20 21:18:16] - I think it's valid for us to give the stinkeye to expanding the court for ideological reasons. I don't want it to become an okay thing to do casually. I'll reiterate, though, that changing the number of seats isn't what upsets people. what they object to is the intent: to have a larger share of people in the court than that president/party would've gotten by "traditional" means. - pierce
[2020-11-20 21:18:09] - I don't necessarily agree that it's unhelpful or inherently polarizing. it's emotionally loaded, but I think correctly so. there's a reason FDR failed even though he had such massive popular and institutional support. as you said in october, "it feels like cheating". there are enough people who care about fairness and don't approve of cheating even when they benefit from it. - pierce
[2020-11-20 20:38:36] - by the way, biden has referred to the barrett confirmation as court packing, so mine is not simply a fringe interpretation: "The focus is why is he doing what he's doing now? Why now with less than 24 days to go until the election?"/"That's the court packing ... the public should be focused on." - pierce
[2020-11-20 20:34:30] - Paul: I mean, less than two months ago you were upset that biden wasn't pressed harder about court packing during the debate. would you say now that it was fair for him to deflect, given that it's an unhelpful and polarizing rhetorical flourish? - pierce
[2020-11-20 20:24:37] - paul: "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are two of the most hammered-into-our-skulls terms in all our modern political rhetoric, and have been for decades. "court packing" was a term once, went dormant for 83 years, and only just reentered the vernacular. I don't think they're comparable. - pierce
[2020-11-20 20:15:18] - Pierce: Likewise, even if "court packing" is literally and technically correct for what is going on, I think it's a loaded term that was specifically chosen to imply things that aren't true. It's the type of rhetorical flourish which I don't think is helpful and just amps up the polarization. -Paul
[2020-11-20 20:13:16] - Pierce: Sure, I get that language is messy and imprecise, but I feel like certain phrases have implications that it's important to keep in mind. I wouldn't go around calling myself pro-choice because I believe people should be free to choose their cell phone provider if I was anti-abortion. -Paul
[2020-11-20 20:09:29] - (nevermind that the "luck of the death/resignation" nomination system is a profoundly stupid way to try to fairly balance the court, especially with so few members. especially especially if the court is willing to influence the presidential election and therefore future nominations. this is your automated reminder that three of the current justices were on Bush's legal team in 2000) - pierce
[2020-11-20 20:01:11] - in other words, people aren't opposed to court packing (as you're using the term) because they think 12 is too many justices. they're upset because it would change the ideology of the court, and especially because it would do so by breaking the "normal" protocol for such things. - pierce
[2020-11-20 19:32:23] - whereas if we define the term as "shifting the ideology of the court with unusual methods of filling seats", then it would describe something like the FDR plan, without tainting the boring expansions everyone's fine with. I think it's a better fit. under that definition, the GOP's actions qualify (and I genuinely believe that if the democrats did that same thing the republicans would be calling it court packing). - pierce
[2020-11-20 19:31:08] - Paul: limiting it to that meaning is flawed, because there are non-controversial reasons you might add seats (e.g. because the population has grown and there's a higher workload). you can expand the court when the presidency and the senate are controlled by different parties, as long as people are negotiating in good faith, and no would would complain that it was "court packing". - pierce
[2020-11-20 17:30:05] - So, sure, maybe by literal definitions this might count as court packing, but I think when those two words are used together it usually evokes a different meaning. Feels a little slippery to use those words together in such a way to evoke one thing when referring to something else. -Paul
[2020-11-20 17:27:52] - pierce: thoughts? i don't really have an opinion on what we call things. ~a
[2020-11-20 17:27:01] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 I thought "court packing" commonly referred to adding seats to an already existing body, not filling seats that already were there. -Paul
[2020-11-20 16:14:49] - yah. ~a
[2020-11-20 16:13:01] - a: yeah, I think "packing" is appropriate for both what the GOP is doing and what we'd talked about the Democrats doing under biden (if they controlled the senate). but instinctively it seems more fitting to the former case, to me. - pierce
[2020-11-20 16:07:14] - pierce: generally its expected that we'd be buying more luggage, then filling it. kinda moot now though. ~a
[2020-11-20 16:00:22] - mig: why does "packing" have that specific meaning to you? if anything, I would think the word more intuitively fits "filling existing empty slots" rather than "creating more slots". you don't pack your bags by buying more luggage. - pierce
[2020-11-20 15:30:07] - a: agreed. - mig
[2020-11-20 15:22:44] - ok so as long as we don't call both packing, you agree its not a false equivalence? . . . works for me. ~a
[2020-11-20 15:02:58] - a: my only objection is using the verbiage of "packing", since that is not same as filling vacancies. - mig
[2020-11-20 14:21:10] - mig: false equivalence, let's see. both are 100% legal and both are 100% against political norms. you can find differences between the two, but they both seem to be against longstanding precedent. 123 year precedent vs a 151 year precedent. seems pretty close to me. you think 123 and 151 aren't close? ~a
[2020-11-20 14:17:28] - a: is this filling a vacancy or wholesale adding a judicial position? if the former, while definitely irregular, isn't "packing", despite the false equivalence that salon is seeking to frame here. - mig
[2020-11-20 14:05:28] - mig: looks like packing the courts started early. ~a
[2020-11-19 16:55:04] -
~a[2020-11-19 16:00:30] - a: And what's a little doubling compared to the 10x that happened later? -Paul
[2020-11-19 16:00:10] - a: Hah, fair. I thought that "effectively flat" might've been hyperbolic some, but I bought at around $50 a share and a year and a half later it was basically still there, so even if it visited a lot of places in between I can hang my hat on that being flat. -Paul
[2020-11-19 02:49:06] - paul: "Effectively flat for the first 4 years before blowing up in the 5th" wtf no. 35 -> 65 then back to 35 is not efficiently flat over a few years time. you gotta turn on the logarithms, man. ~a
[2020-11-18 19:44:02] - a: Honestly, considering what has happened to most of their business lines, they have been surprisingly resilient. I'm pretty sure they WOULD be up $20 a share if it weren't for COVID. Of course, if it weren't for COVID, some of my other predictions might've been wrong... -Paul
[2020-11-18 18:59:28] - ah yes i must have looked at it wrong. i thought disney was way up. ~a
[2020-11-18 18:40:25] - a: Yeah! I've been pretty happy with them. Like you said, I was just a bit late on Tesla. Disney is the big miss this time, but if it takes a global pandemic to ruin my picks, so be it. -Paul
[2020-11-18 18:20:52] - looks like you're doing really well with your 2020 predictions (rdfn, dis, nflx, sq, btc, etc). and your 2019 tsla prediction got blown out of the water too, except you were a few days off. ~a
[2020-11-18 18:17:05] - moral victories are cheap. take them all. ~a
[2020-11-18 18:16:09] - a: In that case I am totally claiming moral victory on CFR too.
-Paul[2020-11-18 18:11:25] - yep that one was a push (i was going to wait until december to resolve that one, but i don't really care if you resolve it now). you can always declare moral victories as long as i get to keep all of the actual victories. ~a
[2020-11-18 18:09:52] - a: Bummer. We can probably resolve our bet about the 2020 election, right? I think I get the moral victory, as Republicans actually seemed to outperform Trump himself, right? -Paul
[2020-11-18 18:04:19] - heh i also forgot about it. its weird, i read through those yesterday and must have skipped over that one. no, we can't call it early, or it would have been worded differently
~a[2020-11-18 18:02:27] - a: I forgot we had a bet about btc too! "paul wins if btc/usd exchange rate is $20k (or more) on 2025-06-26 at 13:00 Eastern time (averaged across major exchanges: use coinmarketcap.com or a suitable alternative)" Can we call this early if we hit it in 2020?
-Paul[2020-11-18 18:00:58] - a: We're going to end up neck in neck in that 2017 challenge forever. Gurkie's portfolio wasn't half bad either. -Paul
[2020-11-18 17:59:50] - a: Yeah, a nice 80% or so gain in a few months, huh? I didn't even realize it had been that rapid of a rise. -Paul
[2020-11-18 17:49:40] - . . . it also means our 2017 stock market challenge is back in striking distance. ~a
[2020-11-18 17:47:37] - i think even if it doesn't make it to 20k, the run from 5k (in march) to 18k has been so quick i'd declare a partial-victory
your last purchase was so perfectly timed, hah. ~a[2020-11-18 17:44:43] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/recklessly-bold-predictions-for-2020/ Earlier on, I didn't think I had a chance for my first bonus prediction: "Bitcoin to $20k", but suddenly it is back in play. -Paul
[2020-11-17 23:52:21] - mig: that's a fair point, i'll concede that one. . . . do you think nothing should be boycottable? is boycotting an employer (a strike?) the only thing you will allow? ~a
[2020-11-17 22:57:34] - a: there's a big difference between me not wanting to be your friend vs. me trying to make sure you have no friends. - mig
[2020-11-17 22:55:08] - mig: you don't want to call it cancel culture, but why? isn't the "freedom to disassociate" the entire basis of "cancel culture"? ~a
[2020-11-17 22:54:14] - daniel: I wouldn't call it cancel culture, more of freedom to dissaociate. If there was an active effort to push the owner out like what happened to Don Sterling, that maybe would apply. - mig
[2020-11-17 21:26:12] - pierce: that's fair, but i still think in daniel's case, that counts as cancel culture. i think i'd like to point out that "cancel culture" is already a war of words in an of itself. as wikipedia mentions, recently, cancel culture, the term, "has mostly negative connotations". "cancel culture" as a wording needs to get canceled. ~a
[2020-11-17 21:23:12] - a: ...to the point where it's maybe not that meaningful a term, though. "withdrawing support" after a public figure does something objectionable? by that definition there are so many historical examples of "cancel culture" that the moral panic about it today seems absurd. even if you broaden it to also include calling for others to withdraw their support and shun the cancelee (which I think is a more accurate description). - pierce
[2020-11-17 19:37:00] - Daniel: Interesting that Harden would want to go to the Nets, then, considering their owner made some news with his own political viewpoints. -Paul
[2020-11-17 19:14:29] - daniel: yes, it counts. mostly using the various definitions here. the definitions are all pretty general. ~a
[2020-11-17 19:13:40] - I think it generally speaks more to the distaste that so many have for Trump vs other R's but I wonder how it plays out if owner politics starts to weigh on players (employees in general?) decision on where to play (work). Reportedly Harden turned down a 50m a year extension so if thats true thats definitely putting your money where your mouth is. -Daniel
[2020-11-17 19:12:02] - This is still specifically Rockets related but an interesting case for 'cancel culture'. Does it count as cancel culture if employees don't want to work for someone if they strongly disagree on politics? https://foxsportsradio.iheart.com/content/2020-11-17-tilman-ferttita-supporting-trump-leading-to-revolt-among-rockets-players/ -Daniel
[2020-11-17 17:35:00] - a: Yes... although I do wonder how much that contributed to him leaving and I give him a lot of credit for the success they have had recently. -Paul
[2020-11-17 16:26:20] - paul: joking? ~a
[2020-11-17 15:41:07] - I blame Daryl Morey's stand with Hong Kong. -Paul
[2020-11-17 15:38:18] - a: Thats who most fan's are currently blaming. -Daniel
[2020-11-17 15:37:01] - well it sounds like the "one thing" is the owner?
~a[2020-11-17 15:36:48] - So its hard to pin it down on one thing. -Daniel
[2020-11-17 15:36:34] - a: We got a new owner who is cheap, a trump supporter, not nice, and might be part of the mob. -Daniel
[2020-11-17 15:25:34] - why do they want out? ~a
[2020-11-17 15:25:08] - Paul: It looks like yes. MDA left, Morey left, Westbrook and Harden both asked for trades. There were articles about how Rivers, Gordon, and Tucker were unhappy with the org. So pretty much the whole team wants out. Sad story. -Daniel
[2020-11-17 14:14:07] - Daniel: They're trying to trade Harden? Did he request a trade? -Paul
[2020-11-17 07:34:36] - Rockets make me very sad right now.
-Daniel[2020-11-16 22:30:36] - yup! ~a
[2020-11-16 20:50:48] - a: Thursday good for sc2? -Daniel
[2020-11-16 20:14:41] - glad you enjoyed it! - aaron
[2020-11-16 20:14:29] - a: yeah! i wasn't expecting it to take off with our friends but it was at least cool to play a few games. i've played with about three different groups, it's definitely more fun when you're more familiar with the other people in the game - aaron
[2020-11-16 20:11:04] - i really enjoyed playing on the 26th. thanks for planning it!
~a[2020-11-16 20:10:27] - cool, thanks. i played on the 26th. october 10th i was busy, and, october 24th i must have just missed it! ~a
[2020-11-16 20:09:23] - a: we played on september 26th, october 10th and october 24th. you were invited to all three games. - aaron
[2020-11-16 20:02:54] - i guess maybe i did. if it was "2" games.
~a[2020-11-16 20:02:34] - i don't think i got invited to the last game. ~a
[2020-11-16 20:02:08] - we had 2-3 games though! it was fun. if you can bring 4-5 new people we can maybe give it a shot again - aaron
[2020-11-16 19:59:05] - daniel: we lost critical mass -- we're down to about 5-6 people which isn't really enough for a game - aaron
[2020-11-16 19:53:07] - aaron: Are you still organzing people to play Among Us? I know I missed the one week in October but wasn't sure if that was still happening. -Daniel
[2020-11-16 17:08:27] - aaron: Also crazy that you remember the names of kids you went to camp with when you were ten! -Daniel
[2020-11-16 16:10:22] - ha ha wait a minute! he was born in 1981? i think i literally went to summer camp with that exact Matthew Yglesias. that's wild - aaron
[2020-11-16 16:09:37] - that's a weird name, i went to summer camp with a kid named Matthew Yglesias when i was about 10 years old - aaron
[2020-11-14 22:54:02] - mig: Man, I kinda wish substack was public so I could invest in them. Almost seems like they are the future of media, at this rate. -Paul
[2020-11-14 13:45:25] - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/substack-and-medias-groupthink-problem/617102/ matt yglesias leaves vox. Kind of sad to see all these publications basically devolve into echo chambers, where even the mildest of philosophical disagreements is intolerable. - mig
[2020-11-13 23:14:42] - and strictly speaking the interstate compact doesn't eliminate the electoral college, it just makes it functionally equivalent to the national popular vote. - pierce
[2020-11-13 23:10:49] - I don't know if the idea behind the interstate compact occurred to anyone prior to 2000, but broadly speaking people probably assumed abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. so even if there was bipartisan support at the time it may not have been widespread or engaged enough to get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states on board. - pierce
[2020-11-13 23:03:30] - paul: prior to 2000, "bipartisan support" was probably because swing states got all the campaign attention; solidly blue and red states alike were getting shortchanged. 2000 was the first time in 112 years the electoral vote winner was different from the popular vote winner, and many republicans probably realized the structural advantage it gave to the party was worth the diluted attention to solid red states during the campaign. - pierce
[2020-11-13 22:46:24] - I was happy to see Colorado voted in favor of joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. (the state legislature had previously voted to join, but republicans were able to petition for a ballot referendum on it) - pierce
[2020-11-13 22:39:00] - I generally agree that electors should do what their states say they should do, but a faithless elector who defies their state to support the national popular vote winner is a bit more defensible than one who defies their state and the national popular vote to support the candidate they personally prefer. - pierce
[2020-11-13 17:26:57] - it had more support than it does today, and it never happened (so, plenty of opposition like you said). yep. ~a
[2020-11-13 17:25:53] - a: "it had bipartisan support in the 90s before bush v gore." I'm guessing it had even more bipartisan opposition? Since it never happened? -Paul
[2020-11-13 15:46:35] - paul: its only recently a liberal dream. it had bipartisan support in the 90s before bush v gore. ~a
[2020-11-13 15:46:02] - mig: were those people obama? i'm not sure i follow your comparison. ~a
[2020-11-13 15:41:10] - last year -> 4 years ago
[2020-11-13 15:40:53] - a: Ha, before I clicked through and read the article (so, based solely on the headline), I thought you were confused and were talking about the liberal dream of abolishing the electoral college.
-Paul[2020-11-13 15:40:49] - a: eh, people were actively harassing electors last year to demand them not to vote for Trump. Sore losers be sore losering. - mig
[2020-11-13 15:26:36] - trump discussed replacing electoral college with loyalists. i'm not at all surprised by this. i feel he probably only acts on 1% of the crazy thoughts he has each day. ~a
prev <-> next