prev <-> next
[2021-02-16 18:38:01] - a: But I suspect that if most of the people outraged over Trump's policy was asked a few months/years ago if there was any excuse for family separation or what amount was acceptable, the vast majority would say no excuse and no amount was acceptable. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:36:35] - a: So either that's true, and Biden is doing evil here, or there are times and places for some amount of it. I actually don't know what the "right" answer is or what I believe. It seems to me that family separation should only happen in the rarest of circumstances. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:35:11] - a: "you're kinda describing and pointing out nuance" "you are pointing out a lack of media outrage at a goal (or goalpost) that should not exist" I think we are in agreement here. I'm working with the framework that has been provided, though. The media (and lots of angry people) have made it clear that any and all family separation is evil. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:28:14] - paul: you're kinda describing and pointing out nuance. the lack of nuance in "zero-tolerance" is the real problem. trump's "zero-tolerance policy" was a problem, but so would "zero family separation is the only acceptable amount of family separation". you are pointing out a lack of media outrage at a goal (or goalpost) that should not exist. ~a
[2021-02-16 18:25:46] - a: https://action.aclu.org/petition/reunite-separated-families-and-provide-relief-now "Make systemic changes to end family separations for good" -paul
[2021-02-16 18:24:35] - a: But what I really meant to ask is not if less is good, but if a hypothetical lower amount of family separations was good. Like, are 100 family separations good? Phrased that way, it's less ambiguous. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:23:16] - a: "ok, heh, as long as we both agree that it's illegitimate" Sure? I mean, it was an oddity of the English language that I used "0.5X" instead of the word "less" because my original statement was asking something like if "less family separation is good" which, interpreted a certain way, it is. Less would be good... -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:20:10] - https://front.moveon.org/breaking-nationwide-protests-against-family-separation-announced/ "Nobody believes that there is any legislative reason, any policy reason, and certainly no moral reason to be separating these kids. This is not a political issue; this is about what’s right or wrong." -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:19:56] - paul: "we're not even a month in" 0.5X would assume an order of magnitude increase in family separation. we have had no indication that an order-of magnitude increase is reasonable. "it wasn't intended to be any kind of legitimate measure of anything" ok, heh, as long as we both agree that it's illegitimate. i mean, don't we usually use examples that are reasonable? ~a
[2021-02-16 18:15:43] - Ugh, "many families" -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:15:30] - a: I mean, it didn't say: "The policy is grossly inhumane if done to too family families". -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:14:44] - a: https://twitter.com/PedroPascal1/status/1009572721548595201 Evidence of what, exactly? That people thought that family separation was inherently awful? How about this? Or maybe the quote I pulled from the article: "Children suffered lasting emotional damage from the separations, and the policy was criticized as grossly inhumane by world leaders." -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:11:16] - a: "you have to admit 0.5X is nonsense" Why? As I said before, it wasn't intended to be any kind of legitimate measure of anything because there's no way of knowing how much Biden's administration is going to do this. We can hope it's a lot smaller and in line with what was happening in the later stages of Trump's administration, but we're not even a month in. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:09:32] - paul: "At no point...did I see any sense that there was an acceptable level of family separation" can you cite something? i'm not sure i have seen this in the media anywhere. ~a
[2021-02-16 18:09:14] - a: And it reeks of "it's okay because a Democrat is doing it to me", especially since family separation was happening under Obama previously. Yes, it was worse under Trump, but it's mighty convenient that nobody cared at all under the Democratic administrations sandwiching his. -Paul
[2021-02-16 18:08:03] - a: "the article was bullshit" Disagree. At no point during the outrage over family separation under Trump did I see any sense that there was an acceptable level of family separation and Trump just was doing it too much. The very idea of it happening at all was being routinely compared to fascism. The idea that it's okay as long as it's done less seems like a huge amount of goalpost moving to me. -Paul
[2021-02-16 16:21:31] - paul: me neither. not laudable at all. still, there's no "media outrage" for good reason: the article was bullshit. also still, you have to admit 0.5X is nonsense. the number of children being separated under the zero-tolerance policy was completely unacceptable especially when you consider that much of the damage done can't be undone. ~a
[2021-02-16 16:18:27] - a: Okay, so Biden is continuing Trump's policy from later in his administration, which still permits family separation. Doesn't seem like a laudable accomplishment to me. -Paul
[2021-02-15 20:58:08] - paul: no, not at all. there's nothing magic or benefit of the doubt about it. effectively the zero tolerance policy ended a long time ago (2018). without the zero tolerance policy the rates dropped in 2018. 0.05X is not benefit of the doubt: we already saw close to that under trump post-zero-tolerance. ~a
[2021-02-15 20:55:16] - a: I'm a little unclear on exactly how much turnover there is when new administrations take power, but it seems like this edict came from the top down. Aren't most of the lower level administrators and agents on the ground still the same ones who were around during Trump's administration? -Paul
[2021-02-15 20:53:55] - a: "maybe 0.05X levels of family separation is good if you account for the specifics" Isn't that giving Biden a HUGE benefit of the doubt? Do we have any reason to think that magically Biden's family separation policy is going to be just and humane? What even is the scenario where it is just and humane? -Paul
[2021-02-15 20:51:29] - a: The 0.5X was completely randomly chosen to just represent something smaller. I don't think we have any sense of what the numbers are going to look like under Biden's administration, which is what that number is supposed to represent, right? -Paul
[2021-02-15 17:44:56] - paul: "0.5X" is a bad-faith example and hurts your overall point that lowering child-separation doesn't fix the problem: (2737+1712)/12 = ~400 children per month were being separated under the policy (link). "0.05X" would have been a more realistic example. X levels of family separation is bad AND maybe 0.05X levels of family separation is good if you account for the specifics. ~a
[2021-02-15 14:33:30] - Also, as noted, the Trump administration had already stepped back from the earlier harsher measures: "most families have not been prosecuted under zero tolerance since 2018, when the separations were halted, though separations have continued on a smaller scale" so it sounds like Biden isn't changing much. -Paul
[2021-02-15 14:31:57] - Daniel: If your argument is that Trump's initial policy was worse, then you'll get no argument from me and the article agreed. But I think it can be true that X levels of family separation is bad AND 0.5X levels of family separation is still bad. -Paul
[2021-02-15 14:30:13] - Daniel: So in some cases family separation policies are good? That's a level of nuance I don't ever recall seeing previously. "Children suffered lasting emotional damage from the separations, and the policy was criticized as grossly inhumane by world leaders". -Paul
[2021-02-14 23:01:43] - If you guys really can't tell the difference between separating literally all the families vs leaving it as an option if they think the children are in danger or whatever that just seems like you being obtuse on purpose. -Daniel
[2021-02-14 13:46:23] - a: Assuming Trump was the one tweeting from his account at the time, I would say you're correct in any reasonable way. Not sure if legally you would be. -Paul
[2021-02-13 18:10:16] - apparently there was a serious spat about "fight to the death" in the senate yesterday (friday). it was about whether donald trump said "fight to the death" or not. if i said that "trump said 'fight to the death'" but trump actually tweeted "fight to the death", am i strictly incorrect? ~a
[2021-02-13 16:42:44] - Daniel: So.... family separation is okay as long as it's not done in every instance? Or done in moderation? I guess I'm not sure what the big distinction is. The rhetoric from when Trump was in office was that the policy was like the Holocaust so this kind of nuance now is puzzling. -Paul
[2021-02-12 20:37:11] - mig: I mean in the case of abusers its obviously not monstrously evil? So I'm not sure where we coming from with that stance. If you add the work systemic in front then sure I think we can start from that stance. Its an important word that makes a lot of difference b/w the two policies. -Daniel
[2021-02-12 19:21:13] - re - previous discussion about Cuomo and nursing homes. This seems relevant. - mig
[2021-02-12 19:13:43] - daniel: if we're coming from the stance that "family separations are monstrously evil". that's a distinction without a practical difference. - mig
[2021-02-12 18:50:51] - I think "Family separation remains an active policy" is technically true though misleading in the spirit of things vs 'Systematic Family separation no longer an active policy though family separation can still occur'. The first implies no change which doesn't seem accurate. -Daniel
[2021-02-12 18:48:35] - paul: "remains an active policy" seems like a potentially misleading statement when the article itself lays out the differences. Its still on the table but is no longer systematic. FTA: "To be clear, I have no interest in drawing a false equivalence between what Trump did and what Biden is doing". -Daniel
[2021-02-12 18:38:43] - https://reason.com/2021/02/12/biden-family-separations-mexico-border-trump-zero-tolerance-media-outrage/ Family separation remains an active policy under Biden administration. -Paul
[2021-02-12 16:19:53] - paul: i have no idea why the mj etf has been so volatile. i noticed south dakota is having some issues with a governor fighting the voter initiative? i mean, south dakota is so small. who cares? but, i guess south dakota is near canada (where most of these stocks are traded). ~a
[2021-02-11 20:08:53] - yeah its weird that i'm up for the week. ~a
[2021-02-11 20:08:12] - yikes. ~a
[2021-02-11 20:07:22] - a: MJ all over the place today and yesterday. What the heck kind of ETF did you pick?
-Paul[2021-02-11 17:50:41] - Daniel: Sure, and we'll never know. It just seems odd to me to think that a violent mob (urged on by the President who is facing a lost election) murdering politicians in the line of succession would somehow appear more legit than said President doing pretty much anything else (like his attempts to strong arm elections officials). -Paul
[2021-02-11 17:19:58] - Paul: In the case that members of Congress are murdered and so that now Congress' position is one of support for Trump. Maybe the military intervenes but also maybe not cause the executive and legislative bodies are in agreement? I don't know. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 17:11:51] - Daniel: Which is which? It seems like Congress is less likely to say yes after the capitol attack... unless they say "no" because all of the "yes" votes were murdered, in which case I go back to that being pretty bad looking too. -Paul
[2021-02-11 17:07:35] - I think the difference is the position of Congress. In one Congress says no you are wrong to trump. In another *maybe* they say yes! you are right. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 16:48:49] - paul: hmmm. i guess i forgot that he actually did declare himself the winner. oof. i dunno man. what a shit-show. ~a
[2021-02-11 16:44:06] - a: I mean, is non-violently declaring yourself the presidential winner really that much "worse" than inciting a mob to storm the capital and murder the exact people necessary to keep you in power? Hard for me to see why the military would frown on one but approve the other. -Paul
[2021-02-11 16:22:27] - a: yeah I don't think I am that far away from you. I think its probably a question of degree and how you word it. What are the chances Jan 6th leads to fall of US? I don't know but certainly less than 50% (just to pick a big safe number that hopefully even Pierce could agree to). But anything greater than 0% seems like a big deal since we haven't had that in a long time. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 15:54:30] - paul: "where Trump declares himself the next president regardless of the election results" the indirect method has a higher chance of success. the direct method has major problems: one of which is that the military would have turned on him quickly if he went direct-coup. (where i disagree with pierce and daniel is how likely/plausible the indirect plan could have succeeded) ~a
[2021-02-11 15:53:22] - daniel: i understand your point. i'm not sure. i just wanted to rule out really unlikely scenarios. ~a
[2021-02-11 15:29:02] - I think that is the point about the veneer of legality that Pierce was alluding to below. If Trump throws it all out the window then maybe people do object or stand in to do something. But if the mob kills people and Congress is suddenly backing Trump staying on as pres then its suddenly a lot more grey for the military to be all NOPE. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 14:55:03] - mig: Right, like the mob was awful and terrible but from a standpoint of thwarting the peaceful transfer of power.... that phone call might've been worse in my mind. Or maybe even some other action behind the scenes that we might learn about later where a general told him that he can't bomb California to get rid of their electoral votes or something. -Paul
[2021-02-11 14:52:08] - paul: he did kind of try to do it directly (call the georgia secretary of state), and was pretty much told "no." - mig
[2021-02-11 14:42:07] - The hope there being that either congress or SCOTUS or the military would step up and be like: "Um.... I don't think so". If any of those would be willing to do that there, why wouldn't they do that in the Jan 6th scenario too? -Paul
[2021-02-11 14:41:13] - Like, even the worst case scenario of this mob having killed the 5 people necessary to screw with the line of succession doesn't seem nearly as bad as a situation (which could've easily happened without the mob) where Trump declares himself the next president regardless of the election results. -Paul
[2021-02-11 14:40:13] - Sorry if this has been addressed and I missed it, but I guess my hang-up with all of this talk of America failing is that if Trump was really serious about a coup, then why not just do it instead of this indirect rile up a mob to storm the capitol and ultimately accomplish not much strategy? At the time he was commander-in-chief and his party held enough of congress to save him from impeachment. -Paul
[2021-02-11 14:26:44] - I'm also not as confident as Adrian that R's would still vote the "right" way if they had majorities in both houses and Trump and a mob outside. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 14:25:41] - I don't think its likely Jan 6th leads to America failing but I do think its the most plausible failing point we've had since the civil war? That I can currently think of. -Daniel
[2021-02-11 14:24:46] - a: Does plausible have to mean likely? -Danielk
[2021-02-11 03:15:31] - pierce: regardless, do you at least feel like you're stretching reality some? that we've driven from the likely scenarios into the unlikely scenarios? ~a
[2021-02-11 03:14:48] - pierce: your point is that a few democrats have been killed, so republicans realize that they can all vote to object to 10 states electors? and 100% of the republicans do so? still, that doesn't help trump get to 270. you're going to have to spell it out for me. ~a
[2021-02-11 03:12:39] - "they could've extended the certification past the drop-dead date" drop dead date? you mean january 20th? its been a while since i read the necessary amendments. if its not january 20th at noon, that is news to me. ~a
[2021-02-11 03:09:04] - (sorry about the mangled tags below) - pierce
[2021-02-11 03:08:00] - and now we have literally just seen how the rest of them behave with a slight shift of the wind. if it seems possible that protecting trump might work, even in the face of the literal words of the constitution saying otherwise, they're on board. - pierce
[2021-02-11 03:07:49] - later that day, the world they saw was one in which they were physically threatened by trump's supporters and that attack had failed. bending to the political winds and voting against the challenges was even easier, especially for senators. but even then, people like brooks and gaetz were playing it as the democrats' fault and an antifa false flag attack. - pierce
[2021-02-11 03:07:28] - a: but really, not any<em> of them? before the attack it was, by political practices, inevitable that the electoral count would be certified, since the democrat-controlled house would reject any challenge. so as a senator, supporting a challenge gives you all the bad press of disenfranchising people <em>and makes you look impotent. even then, cruz and hawley bent the knee. - pierce
[2021-02-11 03:07:00] - a: if I remember correctly, with mandatory debate times and recesses, if there had been house+senate supported challenges then they could've extended the certification past the drop-dead date. the actual legal validity of that would've been in question, but see below about things being "legal enough". remember that giuliani accidentally left a voicemail for the wrong senator, saying they were going to challenge "10 states, not 3" - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:59:30] - things could have been delayed. i'll grant you that. i'm a little surprised they even decided to handle the electoral votes the morning of the 7th. i'm a bit surprised they didn't wait a week, or something. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:44:36] - they did support those principles. they, almost all of them, voted no on the very few objections that were presented. no, republican senators wouldn't vote to support a fucking coup. not all of them. not any of them. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:35:25] - the aftermath of the attack and this impeachment trial are the easiest opportunities they'll ever have to take the "high road" and say that Insurrection is Bad M'kay. not only are they not advocating that, they're actively voting against it on procedural issues like the constitutionality vote. if they can't support those principles when it's easy, they definitely wouldn't if the coup succeeded and presented an ongoing threat. - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:32:10] - delay, maybe. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:30:14] - possible but unlikely. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:29:59] - no. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:29:37] - a: dear lord, you don't think it's even plausible that republicans, already deferential to trump and now under both violent and political duress, might've supported the outcome of the coup if it was slightly more successful on any of the following metrics: assassinations that gave them control of congress, delay or prevention of the electoral vote certification, or disruption of the presidential line of succession? - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:21:15] - just to be clear, they weren't being asked whether they thought trump was guilty. they were being asked whether the senate could try the impeachment. the constitution fucking says "the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments". the impeachment (in the house) is unquestionably valid, he was still in office when it happened. - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:19:33] - "shows how they'd react to a more successful trump coup" it does not. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:17:53] - (*only six senate republicans, but the house republicans are less moderate than the senate so I stand by my point) - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:17:11] - only six republicans voted that the impeachment trial was constitutional. it's clearly, textually constitutional. it's obviously in the spirit of the constitution, or a president could commit impeachable conduct in the last days of their presidency with impunity. the fact that almost all of them voted against that even when they're not being immediately threatened shows how they'd react to a more successful trump coup. - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:12:47] - pierce: "assuming craven republicans would vote to protect trump" wait, 100% of the republicans? i'm the one confused. you think 100% of the republicans would vote to protect trump? that's implausible: only 6 republican senators voted yes on both objections. ~a
[2021-02-11 02:12:20] - to my "elephant in the room" comment below, a common theme among all of these incidents is that it didn't matter if the coup was objectively legal. it only had to be legal enough (the business plot trying to install a shadow president), convince people that the coup was more legal than the alternative (mussolini's use of the monarchy), or convince people that the previous laws no longer applied (spain or germany). - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:06:47] - and The Business Plot: When Rich Fascists Almost Took over America. - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:06:16] - The Birth of Spanish Fascism, Part 1 and How Fascism Won the Spanish Civil War, Part 2. - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:05:59] - Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch, Part 1 and Part 2... - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:05:34] - I won't use this as a substitute for further debate, just making a recommendation: the Behind the Bastards podcast just wrapped up an exceptional miniseries on fascist coup attempts (successful and failed) in history, Behind the Insurrections. Mussolini's March on Rome... - pierce
[2021-02-11 02:04:44] - a: I'm still confused. assuming craven republicans would vote to protect trump, as indicated by their votes even when they're not threatened with violence, the attack would only need to kill enough democrats to give republicans a majority in both houses, to reject enough states' electoral votes to prevent biden from getting 270. what am I missing? - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:55:09] - pierce: if the coup had succeeded. you mean if the mob had killed 144+1 congresspeople and 87+1 senators? yes, 306-20-11 would have still kept biden above 270. ~a
[2021-02-11 01:52:51] - and we're arguing around the elephant in the room, which is that the capitol attack only needed to succeed enough. enough uncertainty, enough of a path to continuity of government (even if that means a second trump term), enough justification to treat anyone protesting it as a rioter (plenty of examples of trump abusing that power in the BLM protests even when it wasn't challenging his actual authority as president) - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:52:08] - so if the coup had succeeded, were there enough electoral votes yet uncounted to prevent biden from getting to 270? - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:51:35] - a: correct me if I'm wrong, but the objections were made progressively. AA passes, BB is challenged, debate BB for a while, BB passes, CC passes, DD is challenged, debate for a while, etc. - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:44:09] - pierce: you'd have to kill 282-138=144 congresspeople and countless senators just to object to 20 electoral votes. ~a
[2021-02-11 01:42:59] - pierce: "not every republican had announced support for challenging the states' electoral votes, I think that's pretty naive" no, that is not my point. my points that with hindsight we know that not nearly enough states had their electors objected to, let alone had the objections get anywhere near to sustaining (121 to 303 for 11 electoral votes, 138 to 282 for 20 electoral votes). ~a
[2021-02-11 01:38:38] - if your point is that not every republican had announced support for challenging the states' electoral votes, I think that's pretty naive. only six senate republicans voted that the impeachment trial was constitutional, even though he was impeached while in office and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:34:53] - a: can you be more specific about the point you're making with that link instead of just saying "lol no"? the republicans had a majority in the senate (the georgia runoff winners hadn't been seated). the democrats had a fairly thin majority in the house. a challenge to a state's electoral votes needed a majority in both houses. killing a couple of democratic members of the house gives them both majorities, no? - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:33:32] - which, of course, he wouldn't do. ~a
[2021-02-11 01:33:07] - pierce: "then it's presumably grassley". ok. so grassley would be president. not exactly an amazing scenario, but trump becomes a private citizen in this scenario and can't become president for four years unless grassley picks trump as his vice president. ~a
[2021-02-11 01:24:45] - pierce: "they only have to kill a couple of members of the house" lol no ~a
[2021-02-11 01:22:25] - if they interfere enough that certification goes past the drop-dead date, theoretically pelosi becomes president, but if she'd been killed then it's presumably grassley or one of trump's appointees. if you disagree, that's another constitutional crisis. if some semblance of the rules stays in place it probably ends up somehow in the supreme court which is controlled by conservatives including three trump appointees. - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:21:55] - a: as I've pointed out a couple of times, even if pence survives they only have to kill a couple of members of the house (which had a much narrower margin of safety) to prevent certification. - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:18:06] - pierce: "and we have a constitutional crisis" wait, do we? i'm not sure that we do. it'd be bad, really bad, but the constitution clearly spells out what happens when the electors fail to get confirmed. still, they'd get confirmed though. the protesters go home eventually. ~a
[2021-02-11 01:13:36] - (and does he have enough support from the military or the cabinet or the populace to pull that off? I doubt it... I don't think there are many pence loyalists anywhere) - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:12:37] - a: there are lots of scenarios. trump, giuliani, and others were saying in their speech that pence had the power to "stop the steal". legally, that's bullshit, but they'd seeded the discourse with that narrative. maybe pence goes along with it out of fear after the attack, and we have a constitutional crisis. maybe pence survives, but they kill enough democrats to tip the scales, as I described. does pence turn against trump? - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:09:12] - a: pelosi and grassley didn't have dedicated secret service protection. they have security details from the capitol police, I believe. also, go ahead and ask JFK or reagan about the flawlessness of the secret service... and they actually reported to JFK and reagan, as opposed to pence who was on the shitlist of the secret service's boss. - pierce
[2021-02-11 01:03:27] - pierce: "pence...that he'd have both the courage and support to depose trump mid-coup?" i'm not sure what you mean. maybe i don't follow this scenario. let's say the insurrectionists were able to, say, kill the president pro tempore and pelosi. what happens next? pence decides to override the certification electors? ~a
[2021-02-11 01:00:09] - a: and whether that specific gallows met regulatory standards for lynching someone is pretty goddamned irrelevant when the crowd was demonstrably willing to kill people, and had plenty of alternative means to do so. it looked enough like a functional gallows to indicate to people in view that they were ready for that outcome. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:57:10] - not only do i not think they would have been able to kill pence, i don't think they would have been able to kill pelosi. "hang mike pence" doesn't change anything: many of them DID want to kill mike pence and many of them wanted to kill pelosi. i just don't think they would have been able to kill either of them, let alone both of them and a specific set of four other officials that also have secret service protection. ~a
[2021-02-11 00:56:45] - and let's not overplay our confidence... even though pence was one of the few elected officials in the line of succession, he was still chosen by trump. do you really think after barely surviving an attack where trump had specifically singled him out as a target, that he'd have both the courage and support to depose trump mid-coup? - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:55:52] - a: according to this, we have 2:22pm for pence escorted out, and 3:03pm for photos of rioters on the senate floor. 41 minutes would be considered scarily close if it was an attack on a foreign embassy or something, and even here it's not a comfortable buffer; the video of schumer's security detail leading him down a hallway and immediately retreating demonstrates that security in general didn't know which areas had been breached. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:41:55] - pierce: how many minutes. ~a
[2021-02-11 00:41:13] - pierce: "they're still just people, not an impenetrable force field". i'm using your requirement of plausibility. the secret service being unable to get pence out of danger is possible, but highly unlikely. ~a
[2021-02-11 00:39:57] - pierce: i'm serious. the gallows outside the capitol was very dumb, and in bad taste, but not a literal threat. people putting up a gallows has happened in other recent protests as recently as 2020 ~a
[2021-02-11 00:37:17] - yes, he had a secret service detail. the secret service reports to the president, to the point where they had to restaff for biden's personal detail out of concerns that trump had fired anyone disloyal to him. and even if they were perfect professionals, they're still just people, not an impenetrable force field. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:35:42] - a: "Chansley left a note on the Senate Chamber dais, where Vice President Mike Pence had been presiding over the secession just minutes before, warning, 'it's only a matter of time, justice is coming,'" according to prosecutors. minutes before, dude. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:34:16] - a: are you serious? they built a fucking gallows outside. they were chanting "hang mike pence". they maimed and killed people. trump had specifically focused his attacks on pence in the previous days and in his speech. you don't think that meets the criteria to be plausible? - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:31:31] - pierce: there may have been a ton of people that went to the capitol with the intention of killing pence, i just think there's no way in fuck they would have succeeded. i did watch the testimony today. ~a
[2021-02-11 00:30:09] - the house impeachment managers have done an amazing job making their case with video. this is (hopefully) a permalink to this part of their testimony (click "Watch from Beginning"). A lot of new security video is presented demonstrating how fucking close this was, leading up to around 5:28:45 which is a truly harrowing video of the crowd crushing an officer. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:27:30] - pierce: it's weird you use the word "plausible" but seem to ignore the plausibility of pence being murdered. i think that's insanely implausible. ~a
[2021-02-11 00:08:01] - and no, I don't think it's plausible that congressional republicans, faced with that level of intimidation and the looming possibility of trump remaining president, would've chosen that moment to make a moral stand. they're overwhelmingly failing to do it now, without that imminent threat. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:05:07] - this isn't theoretical "they would've had to kill a hundred people". I'm pretty sure they'd have had to kill less than ten people to tip those scales. - pierce
[2021-02-11 00:00:04] - if those people had been killed, it could've been exacerbated by the chaos of delaying the electoral certification, preventing it, or worse: killing a couple of democratic representatives so that the republicans control of both houses of congress, and can reject the states' electoral votes. this would lead to a vote by state delegations in the house, which would lean republican even though democrats have more actual members. - pierce
[2021-02-10 23:58:36] - a: correct, that's my point. every elected official who can succeed trump was in the capitol and at risk from the mob. everyone else who could succeed trump was appointed by trump. - pierce
[2021-02-10 23:52:42] - pierce: what-now? i remember you making an argument like this in january, but i don't remember the details. non-elected officials can succeed trump. ~a
[2021-02-10 23:43:38] - paul: I think I mentioned it at the time, but on January 6th the Capitol had the top three members of the presidential line of succession: VP Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate President Pro Tempore Grassley. importantly, those are the only elected officials that could succeed Trump, everyone else is an appointee. so with a few killings (fewer than actually died that day) they could've negated any attempt to displace Trump. - pierce
[2021-02-10 21:40:06] - paul: all of the above? other things as well? in general? a few people are documented as trying to "murder" (its a quote) senators, congresspeople, vice president pence, and multiple people on the presidential line of succession. none of them are being tried for felony murder. i thought if you commit a felony and somebody dies, the charge is different? ~a
[2021-02-10 21:39:48] - Paul: re anthem there might be contractual issues? I'm under the impression that like the DoD pays for all those anthems? So there might be something where Cuban has to via league agreement. I'm not 100% on that though. -Daniel
[2021-02-10 21:31:02] - a: "the january 6th storming of the capital was the closest the united states has come to complete failure during my lifetime" Fail in terms of... democracy? Peaceful transition of power? Both? Something else? -Paul
[2021-02-10 21:28:42] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/10/nba-requires-teams-to-play-national-anthem-after-dallas-mavericks-halt-ritual.html I first read about the Mavs not playing the anthem this morning and thought it was interesting.... now I am 100% on the side of the Mavs. -Paul
[2021-02-10 21:21:56] - paul: "I mostly don't care" i shrug, because i know the outcome doesn't change anything of substance, but i do care. the january 6th storming of the capital was the closest the united states has come to complete failure during my lifetime. the impeachment trial is showing evidence that had not been earlier released to news agencies. ~a
[2021-02-10 21:05:39] - paul: "now he is gone". 1. its very unlikely to happen, and if it does happen, maybe it should: but, he can come back. impeachment conviction prevents (or can prevent) that legally. 2. current members of the senate should go on record on if he should be convicted. 3. i also shrug. i agree with you. the outcome is unlikely to matter, and the outcome is unlikely to agree with me regardless. i guess the historical record matters? ~a
[2021-02-10 21:02:27] - a: Nah, I'm fine if it ends in conviction. I mostly don't care, though, because I guess I don't see the point. He should've been removed the first time, now he is gone, so... *shrug* -Paul
[2021-02-10 20:56:49] - (i'll assume that you aren't arguing that you think trump's impeachment shouldn't end in conviction?) ~a
[2021-02-10 20:39:16] - "their base probably largely thinks he is innocent" this number is largely changing. i can grab some links if you want. ~a
[2021-02-10 20:37:45] - paul: in order: 1. the point is that people who break their oath in the last few weeks of their term are required by the constitution to be impeached and removed (if possible) and barred from holding further office. 2. no. 3. no. 4. yes. ~a
[2021-02-10 20:36:11] - a: Basically, I am cynical all around.
-Paul[2021-02-10 20:35:50] - a: I feel like Republicans won't have a hard time explaining their vote because their base probably largely thinks he is innocent. Also, they didn't seem to have a hard time explaining their votes last time around and that felt like a good case for removal then. -Paul
[2021-02-10 20:34:45] - a: I haven't been paying attention to impeachment proceedings at all. I guess I'm a little unclear what the point is? Does it permit civil suits against him or something? Is it so he can be historically shamed? Is the basis for the second impeachment that he instigated the riot? -Paul
[2021-02-10 20:28:14] - the republicans that vote against conviction, will have a hard time explaining their vote, i think. ~a
[2021-02-10 20:27:48] - i've been listening to the impeachment proceedings the past two days. does anybody want to argue that trump's impeachment shouldn't end in conviction? i assume it won't end in conviction, but there are some insanely fascinating arguments today and yesterday. watch the video from yesterday if you haven't seen it. ~a
[2021-02-10 19:42:03] - paul: ahhhhh i understand. of course you're doing the right thing here. west ox road is bullshit. i wouldn't trust myself at 8 years old near west ox road. with or without a parent. but i walked to my elementary school in annandale when i was 8. alone. there were ZERO west-ox-sized roads near me and my school in annandale, but this is maybe my *real* point: why do we have so many roads like west ox in/near loudon/pwc? ~a
[2021-02-10 19:35:49] - a: "what's the implication here? i don't get it." That things that I would be comfortable doing by myself I am not comfortable doing with my kids, both because they are more unpredictable (will they jump out into the road? I don't know!) and because I am more protective of them than I am of my own life (is this fish bad? I'll try it and see, but not taking a chance feeding it to my kids). -Paul
[2021-02-10 19:16:36] - oh also the crosswalks are the worst. i've almost been hit by cars crossing roads on west ox. ~a
[2021-02-10 19:15:27] - i agree that west ox is bullshit, if it matters. the sidewalks are too small, too close to the highway, the speed limit is too high, and there are too many car lanes. if people want a highway, they should have gone over to the parkway, imo. ~a
[2021-02-10 19:14:32] - "walking like a foot or two away from a road with cars going 50+ mph with young kids" what's the implication here? i don't get it. ~a
[2021-02-10 19:13:45] - i don't follow. can you word it differently? ~a
[2021-02-10 19:12:57] - a: One more example of the dangers of the metric system. I might consider walking to the hospital for a non-emergency sometime, but I think things are a little different when it involves walking like a foot or two away from a road with cars going 50+ mph with young kids. The idea of doing that is a little anxiety inducing. -Paul
[2021-02-10 18:42:42] - paul: "the next time I need an ER visit I will consider walking" you can joke if you want, but i do walk to the hospital near me pretty regularly (about once per year). the one time i did have an emergency, i did drive, and i think that's fairly normal. ~a
[2021-02-10 18:41:17] - yeah i think i made a mistake. i saw 1.6 miles and thought it was 1.6 km, sorry. ~a
[2021-02-10 18:40:42] - a: Oh, the hospital, yes, the next time I need an ER visit I will consider walking.
More seriously, we do have dentist appointments there, but I don't know how I feel about walking along West Ox road for most of that mile. -Paul[2021-02-10 17:53:49] - a: I don't go to any of those pools or parks. The Giants are 1.7 and 2.5 miles away respectively. Thoughts? -Paul
[2021-02-10 17:50:37] - paul: i looked around, thinking you might reply in this way. the still pond pool is within 1 mile of your house. so are all the parks along franklin farm road. the giant closest you is within ~1 mile of your house. right? so is fred crabtree park. the hospital is not within one mile, but it's really close. thoughts? ~a
[2021-02-10 17:47:17] - a: That might work for people living in cities though. -Paul
[2021-02-10 17:46:57] - a: Sure? But I just spot checked and I think the shortest trips I take in my car are roughly 1.7 miles so walking half of those would result in a net increase of zero walks and net decrease of zero car rides. *Shrug Emoji* -Paul
[2021-02-10 15:49:16] - paul: this tweet reminds me of our previous conversations we've had where you (more or less) argued where the car was your only option. biking/walking for all trips shouldn't be the real goal? merely walking half of the trips under one mile could be a goal? just focus on the trips under one mile? is this a reasonable way of thinking about the situation? ~a
[2021-02-10 14:13:06] - Pierce: "I bet I'd pick one that really annoyed you" That gives me a good idea for your $8 winnings. Maybe I'll donate it to Trump's defense fund in your name.
(obviously kidding). -Paul[2021-02-10 14:12:35] - "term limits" hmmm, i wonder if any (big) companies have anything like this, that is an interesting concept. ~a
[2021-02-10 14:11:45] - a: "lots of times when an executive is changing jobs, there is a transitional period" Agreed, but I feel like that is often when the current executive is voluntarily stepping down and maybe has even handpicked their successor. In this case, we're talking about an executive who is either fired or forced to step down due to term limits. -Paul
[2021-02-09 22:27:59] - ...but personally, the ego boost of doing pretty well was enough. if the prize was $50 or so I might've asked you to donate it to a charity on my behalf (I bet I'd pick one that really annoyed you). and obviously there's some level where I'd claim the prize for purely financial reasons. - pierce
[2021-02-09 22:23:32] - paul: (a more serious answer to your question) I played for money because if someone else guessed really well, I'd enjoy contributing to a modest reward even if my guesses had completely faceplanted. and if they used that reward to send your kids to Harvard that's fine by me. but . - pierce
[2021-02-09 22:17:45] - and since we'll never have policies making ourselves 100% coup-proof (since coups are by definition willing to circumvent those rules), we don't have to over-optimize for that in particular. limiting the extent to which a lame-duck leader can disregard the will of the electorate is one of them, including by limiting the time they have to do that. - pierce
[2021-02-09 22:17:16] - I mean, the transfer of power is one of the hardest political problems throughout history, but the U.S. has actually done pretty damn well with it. the few presidents before trump who had a sufficiently devoted base and/or sufficiently cynical thirst for power (I'd suggest washington, lincoln, FDR, kennedy, nixon, and reagan) resigned, died, or were term-limited before facing a close-ish election loss. - pierce
[2021-02-09 21:38:20] - and if the winner is genuinely still in doubt until the day of certification (but still assuming good faith on behalf of both parties), the new administration could invite members of the previous administration to help effect the transition after the fact. - pierce
[2021-02-09 21:38:01] - so, assuming both are acting largely in good faith: we're usually confident about the winner within a day or two of the election. therefore the outgoing team should be willing to onboard their replacements before official certification, and (within reason, generously interpreted) defer to them for political determinations. - pierce
[2021-02-09 21:36:53] - a: if either administration is acting in bad faith, then the transition period isn't going to be very productive anyway and we should reflect the will of the electorate as early as possible in the process. I hope you'd agree with that. - pierce
[2021-02-09 21:26:21] - paul: the real money was the friends I made along the way. - pierce
[2021-02-09 21:08:52] - paul: i'm not sure i agree. lots of times when an executive is changing jobs, there is a transitional period. ~a
[2021-02-09 20:41:43] - I know I'm late to this, but I always thought it was a little weird to have the delay between the election and the inauguration. Obviously, as mentioned, there are some logistics to get through, but it seems like as soon as we know the results for sure the transition should take place. When companies fire employees they don't typically let them stick around for a few weeks.
-Paul[2021-02-09 20:40:13] - Pierce: That's very kind of you to donate to my girls' college educations, but if you didn't want to win money why did you play for money?
-Paul[2021-02-09 17:59:23] - maybe this is why pierce donated his winnings to paul's family . . . he wanted to avoid becoming this guy? ~a
[2021-02-09 17:46:24] - you're making the transition shorter, and i'm not sure there is any benefit to doing so. you may be making things worse. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:45:56] - pierce: is there any real benefit from changing the date from january 20th to december 14th? the administration could've done the pardons (and maybe even executed those prisoners) before the 14th if it really wanted to, right? ~a
[2021-02-09 17:43:24] - strictly speaking, yes. trump executed three federal prisoners (first time in 130 years a lame duck president has done so) and issued a shit-ton of pardons after the 6th, so there would be value there as well. it's also not a consitutional requirement to wait until january 6th. the states' electors voted by december 14th, we don't transport them to DC on foot, so we could easily shave like three weeks off the lame-duck session. - pierce
[2021-02-09 17:28:07] - or january 7th if we want to get all technical. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:27:34] - january 6th, this time around
~a[2021-02-09 17:27:08] - "the instant the result is certified" oh, are you talking about the electoral college certification, then? that happens only a few days before the 20th. i'm guessing you're not? ~a
[2021-02-09 17:25:42] - a: I specifically addressed all of those points. see "some time lag" and "the instant the result is certified", and "a smooth transition helps" in my comments below. - pierce
[2021-02-09 17:24:33] - meh, that was paul. i'm guessing what biden did was neither undermining nor dangerous. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:23:41] - a: we're using generic words like "undermine" or "dangerous" to describe concerns about biden acting independently as president-elect, even though we're not talking about federal workers disobeying trump, and thus not challenging the president's constitutional authority. those words only make sense, then if we're talking about the principles involved in a presidential transition. - pierce
[2021-02-09 17:20:27] - "all authority should instantly be transferred to the president-elect" this would create such chaos. i know you said that, but i'd like to focus on that. the transition exists the way it does for good reason. like, votes have to be counted. electoral votes have to be counted. electoral vote has to be confirmed. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:17:18] - pierce: you keep saying "in theory", which is fine i guess, but i kinda don't care about theory. i care about practice. i care about how the constitution is written. your theory means bunk when in practice literally everybody in power except donald trump is following the constitution. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:15:33] - a: but in principle, authority is derived from the will of the electorate. as soon as they lose the election, in theory all authority should instantly be transferred to the president-elect. the only reason not to do that is because a smooth transition helps the incoming administration wield that authority, and we've historically been able to trust the outgoing administration to be helpful and deferential. - pierce
[2021-02-09 17:03:46] - pierce: "the outgoing administration isn't helping with the transition or is actively interfering with it, then I see it as them undermining the new president" agreed, sort of. the outgoing administration has exactly 100% of the authority. they still shouldn't undermine the new president, of course. but they have all of the authority to do so if they think its the best thing to do. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:02:45] - pierce: the presedent-elect has exactly zero authority. so i'd reverse it. the winner has no real value after the election, other than transition. ~a
[2021-02-09 17:01:09] - so if the outgoing administration isn't helping with the transition or is actively interfering with it, then I see it as them undermining the new president, rather than the new president undermining them by pursuing his or her own measures independently. - pierce
[2021-02-09 17:00:17] - is there any real value in the loser remaining the president for any time after the election, other than helping with the transition? I get that there's some time lag for counting and reporting, but if we could seamlessly drop in the new president the instant the result is certified then that would be more representative of the will of the electorate. - pierce
[2021-02-09 16:44:27] - Ted Cruz telling ICE to get cages ready during transition is wrong. Ted Cruz talking to media about how he is going to go nuts on caging kids jan 21st as a deterrent to immigration and ICE seeing that and starting to buy cages probably ok. -Daniel
[2021-02-09 16:42:51] - I do think there is some wiggle room to talk about what your policies will be and what not. I'm also not sure the examples listed were equivalent (one telling a company the US will in the future pay them appropriately vs one telling a us gov agency to start doing something). -Daniel
[2021-02-09 16:41:02] - a: I think paul is right to some degree here. There is a transition but you do have to be careful to not act as pres yet. Its one of the (many) things that Trump got in trouble for early on (his behavior during transition period). -Daniel
[2021-02-09 16:19:39] - paul: "setting up a precedent of a President-to-be undermining the current President seems a little dangerous" dude transition is a thing. or at least its supposed to be. undermining, sure, that's definitely a bad idea. but, transition is called transition for a reason. its because its a transition. you have zero real hard authority before noon on the 20th, but you can start discussing things with people. ~a
[2021-02-09 15:44:32] - the chessen girls will be drawing down on that balance for years to come. ~a
[2021-02-09 03:57:32] - your kids are also eligible for this enormous windfall, if you so choose. - pierce
[2021-02-09 03:56:11] - because of the stupidity of that reasoning, go ahead and use the $8 to buy a fancy beverage for yourself and/or gurkie. I didn't earn it.
- pierce[2021-02-09 03:55:09] - literally my thought process was "lady gaga did a fairly formal, non-theatrical anthem at the inauguration, so they'll probably do a fancier and longer one in contrast at the superbowl. also, biden won so they might use blue gatorade to recognize that." - pierce
[2021-02-08 23:59:03] - Pierce: Also, congrats on your dominating, wire-to-wire win in the prop bets! I have no idea how you predicted blue Gatorade. How can I send you your $8 in winnings?
-Paul[2021-02-08 23:56:31] - I guess it doesn't matter much if it starts a few days early or on inauguration day.... maybe there isn't a huge amount of harm. Also, this is all speculation anyway.
-Paul[2021-02-08 23:55:47] - Going back to Biden's deals... even setting aside legality, is that something we should be okay with? I know we all hate Trump and think he was incompetent, but setting up a precedent of a President-to-be undermining the current President seems a little dangerous. What if Ted Cruz is President elect in 4 years and secretly tells ICE to start prepping new cages for immigrant kids (to pick a worst case scenario)? -Paul
[2021-02-08 23:52:58] - Pierce: Saw the ad. Wasn't a fan, but probably not for the same reasons you weren't. Felt like it was trying way too hard, and went on too long. I don't mind leaving out Alaska and Hawaii if it means a commercial about re-uniting America isn't filmed in Canada (or maybe the Pacific Ocean?). Also don't mind an older white Christian being in an ad. -Paul
[2021-02-08 22:17:03] - also fun to contrast it with the 2016 WWE ad where John Cena explores how the "average american" is definitely not an older white male cowboy. because the WWE is obviously best known for its rejection of racial, religious, and gender stereotypes. - pierce
[2021-02-08 22:07:20] - here's the ad and here's the comment-y central roast of the ad. - pierce
[2021-02-08 22:05:26] - and just driving the political point home, the "middle" is fucking empty except for this abstraction of a person, wistfully looking around at the dirt and the american flag and his jeep and cowboy hat, and definitely not having any opinions on abortion, or racism (in fairness, there are no Black Lives around to worry about whether they matter), or fascism, or jewish space lasers, or satanic pedophiles. - pierce
[2021-02-08 22:05:01] - did any of you see the superbowl ad from jeep, with springsteen narrating? I feel so bad for the onion because the best satire is sincere these days. the "ReUnited States of America" is represented by an older white guy living near a christian chapel in the geographic "middle" of the country (excluding the five millionish people in hawaii, alaska, and territories, plus their map forgot there's an upper peninsula in michigan) - pierce
[2021-02-08 22:04:25] - yeah, I wanted to include "simplistic" with "hypothetical" but it didn't make the cut for the character limit. - pierce
[2021-02-08 21:45:48] - ok i buy it. i don't agree with your specific scenario, it seems to be too simplistic about how pfizer is making doses and distributing them around the world. but, still, i imagine that biden could be "immediately productive" in general based on the lack of "explicitly interfering". paul, i change my mind. i do think i could give biden partial-praise for the 2m/day doses over the weekend (10% praise!). ~a
[2021-02-08 21:35:39] - if joe could say "trust me, on january 21st you can start sending invoices to the CDC and vaccines to the states and you don't have to worry about being stiffed or no one being there to pick it up" then that would make a Pfizer feel a lot more secure about overproducing leading up to that date. this is an entirely hypothetical example, but it's the type of dynamic that would make the change in administration immediately productive. - pierce
[2021-02-08 21:34:32] - a: to my point a few weeks ago, even if trump wasn't explicitly interfering with the pandemic response, the fear of contradicting his public messaging was probably slowing it at the federal level. as you said, things were being done at state and local levels, which meant a lot of redundant administrative overhead and risk for the suppliers and the recipients. - pierce
[2021-02-08 21:20:51] - paul: I strongly assume they'd stop short of involving existing federal workers who weren't authorized to help, but Biden has enough contacts from almost fifty years in national politics that I'm sure verbal agreements would be enough. - pierce
[2021-02-08 21:16:31] - a: what we really need is a valve-sponsored burger grill/console so we can have the Steam Ham Machine. - pierce
[2021-02-08 21:13:42] - pierce: "hit the ground running" specifically what does this even mean when it comes to putting the vaccine into arms though? on january 21st (and 22nd ...), 100% of the vaccines going into arms were done by people at the state (and county) level. ~a
[2021-02-08 21:13:35] - Pierce: Would that be... legal? I guess maybe verbal agreements would probably be okay... -Paul
[2021-02-08 21:11:39] - I'm genuinely not asserting without evidence that this is what happened. but it's possible that after realizing the Trump administration would resist the transition, the Biden team assumed the worst, and started making contacts and plans independently so they could hit the ground running. I bet a lot of companies and individuals would've been so relieved to deal with people taking the pandemic seriously that they'd eagerly help out. - pierce
[2021-02-08 19:56:28] - from december, kfc announces the ‘kfconsole,’ a gaming console that can heat chicken. yesss. ~a
[2021-02-08 18:04:26] - paul: the field?
(i don't have an answer for you, sorry) ~a[2021-02-08 18:03:51] - a: Okay, so what gets the most credit right now? State governments? The CDC? Fauci? Something else? The state governments seem like perhaps an obvious answer, but I also have heard about crappy jobs they are doing so I don't know what to think. -Paul
[2021-02-08 16:20:37] - if it stays at (7-day-average) above 1m/day then i'm fine giving biden credit in a few months. . . . assuming he continues to abstain from actively disrupting that effort. (something we all know trump would not have been able to do) ~a
[2021-02-08 16:18:26] - paul: "Maybe?" no. its too soon, imo. again i'm totally fine ruling out both administrations based on what we've seen so far. ~a
[2021-02-08 16:17:48] - undertaking.... whoops. -Paul
[2021-02-08 16:17:38] - a: I mean, you've worked with the federal government. Does it seem likely that such a huge undertaken was done so well and quickly considering the transition from one admin to another (and I think we can all agree the transition likely wasn't smooth). -Paul
[2021-02-08 16:16:35] - a: Yes, you did answer that, but it felt necessary to include for completeness sake. I am not joking about ruling out presidential administrations. Even if we assume the Biden admin was lying, could they be given credit for vaccine administration going relatively well just two weeks in? Maybe? But seems like a stretch. -Paul
[2021-02-08 15:10:43] - paul: "So that seems to rule out either presidential administration" i can't tell if you're joking here or not, but 1. it sounds like we mostly don't believe biden on this. and 2. i'm totally fine ruling out both administrations based on what we've seen so far. ~a
[2021-02-08 15:03:22] - "Trump?" didn't i just answer that though? ~a
[2021-02-08 15:02:46] - a: We heard from the Biden admin that there was no plan, right? So that seems to rule out either presidential administration. -Paul
[2021-02-08 15:02:00] - a: 2020 American" is pretty vague, though. Is it the CDC? The pharmaceutical companies? State governments? Federal bureaucracy? Biden? Trump? -Paul
[2021-02-08 14:59:29] - paul: "Who (or what) do you credit most for that?" i specifically said "2020 america" to answer that question. i'd like to keep it general, because i'm sure we all could agree most of the vaccines came about despite donald trump instead of because donald trump. ~a
[2021-02-08 14:52:59] - For those who missed it, Tesla added some BTC ($1.5 billion) to its balance sheet. -Paul
[2021-02-08 14:52:41] - a: Who (or what) do you credit most for that? -Paul
[2021-02-08 14:02:38] - paul/mig: what i think needs to be talked about more is how well the US is doing at vaccinating americans (2020 america can take some credit here). this weekend, super bowl weekend, we vaccinated 2 million people per day. the US is finally number one at something good: we have the most (total) vaccinated doses. china is close. we're #2 in vaccinated doses per capita (UK is #1 by far) of countries larger than 10m. ~a
[2021-02-06 02:41:45] - paul: the diminishing returns of eternal lockdowns is something that should be talked about more, but there’s just more motivation to demonize red state governors it seems. - mig
[2021-02-05 17:54:46] - https://reason.com/video/2021/02/04/what-can-mickey-mouse-can-teach-us-about-covid-19-lockdowns-fail/ Haven't had the chance to watch the video yet, but here's another article comparing and contrasting Florida's response to COVID with California (and more broadly, looking at if long term lockdowns seem to work to prevent the spread). -Paul
[2021-02-05 14:52:57] - mig: I'm tempted to get it, even though it looks like it's nothing new. Would be awesome if I could convince the kids to play. -Paul
[2021-02-05 14:46:47] - mig: It does look good and has been awhile so might be fun to go through them again. -Daniel
[2021-02-05 03:40:20] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-acBAH6Yups i'm pumped. - mig
[2021-02-04 20:37:55] - mayor of dc just announced that the "troops and barriers should stay through impeachment then be gone after continuing threats over". not very specific, but still its nice to know that once the impeachment is over the troops and huge fencing will leave. probably doesn't include the barriers around lafayette square, but that (while annoying) is less concerning. ~a
[2021-02-03 21:30:45] - daniel: adjusting tax brackets is inflationary: why are our tax brackets adjusted for inflation? ~a
[2021-02-03 21:26:06] - a: I think the more nuanced answer would be its a factor to consider in adjust minimum wage. Like raising and lowering the prime rate isn't a yes / no its a how much and when and over what time. Minimum wage is probably similar. -Daniel
[2021-02-03 21:21:33] - daniel: this is half true, but using this logic, would you agree we should never change the minimum wage? ~a
[2021-02-03 21:20:41] - a: Adjusting the minimum for inflation is itself inflationary? -Daniel
[2021-02-03 21:19:54] - does anybody have an argument *against* having the minimum wage being adjusted for inflation (say annually, or every other year)? for the sake of argument, please ignore where the minimum wage should be, and even ignore whether there should even be a minimum wage? if you had agreed on a having a minimum wage, why would you ever have the minimum wage *not* adjusted for inflation? ~a
[2021-02-02 20:42:54] - https://twitter.com/CashApp/status/1356621841545261062 Here's another brokerage that is reporting problems with their clearing house in terms of halting buys of certain securities. -Paul
[2021-02-02 19:53:48] - daniel: two words, pink sheets ~a
[2021-02-02 19:48:42] - Daniel: Hopefully that's a joke.
I was more thinking about Gamestop and how I personally wouldn't have touched that at all during this time but I can see how it could be tempting to try to profit on it either going up or down. Personal experience is often the best teacher. -Paul[2021-02-02 17:34:21] - paul: maybe I should take a look at these penny stocks? Is that my take away there? Paul's investing advice is great! -Daniel
[2021-02-02 17:06:54] - paul: this is a very interesting perspective! i like it. it seems like it explains my experience "transacting" in bitcoin. i had to day-trade for years before i decided day-trading was dumb. daniel will have to learn the hard way, like we did, decades ago. ~a
[2021-02-02 17:03:38] - Daniel: Which is just my way of saying to try not to get too discouraged if things don't work out early on. You can think of it like tuition.
I think a handful of companies I invested in decades ago when I was starting filed for bankruptcy. -Paul[2021-02-02 17:02:32] - Daniel: https://twitter.com/BrianFeroldi/status/1356647169818841097 Some investors I follow and respect think you almost have to make a series of mistakes early on to really learn what works and what doesn't. Like, you can be told not to do penny stocks a hundred times, but until you try a few times and mostly lose money, the lesson won't sink in. -Paul
[2021-02-02 16:48:14] - daniel: worded differently: high risk high reward scenarios are not always gambling. they're sometimes gambling. ~a
[2021-02-02 16:47:54] - daniel: what you're doing may be gambling, but my individual portfolio has never (almost never) included gambling decisions. i won't invest in something that includes hoping for a bag-holder. i would only invest in a company where i would see a long-term viability. ~a
[2021-02-02 16:46:07] - Definitely still gambling though. -Daniel
[2021-02-02 16:45:57] - a: Up still but definitely less as gamestop came back down. I decided I was ok just letting that ride out and if its lost thats fine. Its been educational to pay more attention and have the vested interest to see how more things work on a detailed level. -Daniel
[2021-02-02 16:38:50] - daniel: how has your "gambling" been doing this week?
~a[2021-02-02 16:15:36] - That's for SC2, btw. -Paul
[2021-02-02 16:15:29] - Daniel: Tuesday and Wednesday both work about equally well for me, I think. Wednesday might be slightly better. -Paul
prev <-> next