prev <-> next
[2021-11-02 19:26:22] - paul: you've * completely * changed the scenario in your scenario. for the analogy to be complete: biden says "It's clear Trump's campaign is spiraling out of control and they are resorting to last ditch efforts to sneak out a win". and trump is like . . . uhhh, my campaign??? how is this my campaign? it's the washington project that did this. ~a
[2021-11-02 19:26:19] - to make him look bad? -Paul
[2021-11-02 19:26:13] - a: I get that technically the fact check is right, but at the same time I could make the argument that technically the tweet was right too "reports are indicating". I'm looking more bigger picture versus in the weeds. Is the important takeaway from this whole fiasco whether or not the democratic operatives worked on McAuliffe's campaign? Or that democratic operatives tried to pretend to be white supremacists supporting Youngkin... -Paul
[2021-11-02 19:23:36] - a: "where is the evidence that this was the mcaulliff campaign?" I don't know if there is any, but is that distinction terribly important? Like, if a bunch of Trump supporters beat up some Biden supporters at a rally and Biden denounced "Republican violence" but it turned out those Trump supporters weren't registered Republicans, do you think we would see fact checking about that? -Paul
[2021-11-02 19:22:29] - a: but right, there's no evidence that the McAuliffe campaign had any involvement. I'm skeptical of their denial for the reasons I stated earlier, but obviously, there's nothing concrete. If we knew the identities of all the actors involved, that might make things more clear but "shockingly" no one seems interested in the finding that out. - mig
[2021-11-02 18:46:42] - https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abzaj/lincoln-project-posed-as-charlottesville-white-supremacists-at-youngkin-gop-event posted before but the byline is pretty important: "The Lincoln Project acknowledged they were behind the stunt after VICE News identified one of the people in the photo as a DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE."(emph mine) - mig
[2021-11-02 18:45:39] - paul: I find the politifact "fact-check" to be pretty wanting. The article seems very curiously uninterested in the identities of the people who actually participated in the stunt, which possibly could undercut claims by VA Dem Party and the McAuliffe campaign that they weren't involved. - mig
[2021-11-02 18:33:58] - paul: "It's clear McAuliff's campaign is spiraling out of control and they are resorting to last ditch efforts to sneak out a win". where is the evidence that this was the mcaulliff campaign? ~a
[2021-11-02 18:08:39] - https://reason.com/2021/11/02/glenn-youngkin-terry-mcauliffe-trump-randi-weingarten/ I suspect people here won't like this article much, but I think it touches on a lot of stuff described here and also that I've been arguing on Facebook. McAuliffe wants to make this election a referendum on Trump, but I think it's more accurately a referendum on VA's opinion on their education system. -Paul
[2021-11-02 18:07:31] - a: If that's the case, I guess it comes down to what the definition of a democratic operative is? I mean, heck, couldn't the Lincoln Project be theoretically called democratic operatives if all their activity is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican? -Paul
[2021-11-02 18:06:13] - a: Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking if the truth of that tweet is mixed? If that's the question, then I guess. I honestly don't know if the truth is definitively out yet. I know the Lincoln project claimed responsibility for coordinating, but I also heard that the people posing were democratic activists. -Paul
[2021-11-02 16:53:30] - you agree with me that it's "mixed"? ~a
[2021-11-02 16:53:01] - paul: this is why i think its important that snopes and politifact start with an initial reporting (hopefully one that is popular). check out this screenshot. snopes would use "mixed" here because there's some true stuff and some false stuff here. you agree, paul, that this was clearly not 100% true, right? ~a
[2021-11-02 16:41:26] - I say a youngkin wins by < 5%. ~a
[2021-11-02 16:37:44] - https://twitter.com/EchelonInsights/status/1454157176210173952 Here's my election day prediction: Youngkin wins by > 5%. -Paul
[2021-11-02 16:36:44] - a: It's like, even when there is clear misinformation on the left, the fact check always goes against the right. -Paul
[2021-11-02 16:36:20] - a: I just think it's funny that a bunch of anti-Youngkin people (we can set aside whether they were technically Democrats or not) dressed up like white supremacists to pretend to be supporting Youngkin and it was picked up and spread by media and the McAuliffe campaign.... and the only thing the fact checkers were interested in checking was whether they were Democrats or not. -paul
[2021-11-02 16:27:34] - or whether lincoln project was involved? i can't guess why you're mad, sorry
~a[2021-11-02 16:16:21] - paul: you think it should be whether youngkin was involved? ~a
[2021-11-02 16:15:15] - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/01/facebook-posts/virginia-democratic-party-mcauliffe-campaign-not-i/ As near as I can tell, there is one politifact check on the whole Lincoln Project thing, and it's about whether or not it was Democratic staffers were the ones who pulled the stunt. -Paul
[2021-11-02 15:37:11] - nobody has used the word ragrets yet? sounds like something pierce would have referenced. ~a
[2021-11-02 15:27:17] - "sounds like regret to me" haha yes, good point. but seriously though, no ragrets. ~a
[2021-11-02 14:53:17] - a: Yup, sure, it's not a good look for any politician to be happy about an endorsement from Trump. I agree. But I don't recall seeing any ads from Youngkin even mentioning his Trump endorsement and none of the rhetoric I've seen from him screams "Trumpian". This seems like a case of a Republican needing to play nice with the former President and most popular member of the party to not turn off the base. -Paul
[2021-11-02 14:22:08] - paul: youngkin got the endorsement from trump. and he said he was proud to accept the endorsement from trump: trump is the one that said "very fine people on both sides. both sides" about a * virginian * white supremicist rally where they were literally chanting "jews will not replace us". these connections aren't relevant? i don't think youngkin is racist, but i do think he's depositing the checks as it were. ~a
[2021-11-02 14:21:56] - a: But, yeah, I agree that my style of investing isn't for everybody or all stages of life. I'm sure I'll get more conservative as I get closer to (or into) retirement. For now, though, I'm still interested in making riskier bets for outsized reward. -Paul
[2021-11-02 14:21:04] - a: "you say this like i regret my decisions" It wasn't necessarily intended to be, but you DID say "i typically don't get rich.
" which sounds like regret to me. 
-Paul[2021-11-02 14:20:11] - Daniel: And there's the little matter of our current Democratic governor having been caught in blackface along with the democratic attorney general. If you look at the current tickets and discard the narrative, it seems like the "racist" charge sticks easier to one side. -Paul
[2021-11-02 14:18:35] - Daniel: I get your point and mostly agree, but is there a point where the commonly accepted narrative should get questioned a bit when it runs up against specifics? I haven't heard of any questionable racist stuff in Youngkin's past, and the Republican ticket is a white male, black female, and Cuban male, which is more "diverse" than the two white males and Lebanese female for the Democrats. -Paul
[2021-11-02 14:11:08] - i did let bitcoin run pretty far, but back when i did that i was at a different place. ~a
[2021-11-02 14:09:00] - paul: "letting my winners run" you say this like i regret my decisions. i don't. letting my winners run is something i'd generally like to avoid. in general, if i'm "letting my winners run", i'm also opening myself up to risk. and at this point in my life, i'm happy limiting some kinds of risk. ~a
[2021-11-02 14:06:41] - a: Yeah, one of the most important lessons I took away from my time at the Fool was letting my winners run. I still own over 91% of my Shopify shares despite it being up over 3,000% and being a double digit percent of my portfolio. -Paul
[2021-11-01 20:39:34] - daniel: yah! i typically re-balance my shares super-often. the downside to this, though, is that even when i hit big (like nvidia or tesla) i typically don't get rich.
~a[2021-11-01 20:38:48] - a: Thats a large percent. -Daniel
[2021-11-01 20:38:27] - That one was legit an accident. Sorry!
[2021-11-01 20:38:17] - paul: tesla just passed nvidia for the shares i've made the biggest % on (4200% vs 4100%). ~a
[2021-11-01 20:38:03] - Also though - "Youngkin shouldn't be blamed for a few wackos supporting him" - is a true statement as well. Just in this particular case I think the point that was attempted seems mildly redundant or something to me. Like every so often you see a story about who David Duke (think thats his name) is voting for and its some R politician. Like duh. -Daniel
[2021-11-01 20:37:59] - Also though - "Youngkin shouldn't be blamed for a few wackos supporting him" - is a true statement as well. Just in this particular case I think the point that was attempted seems mildly redundant or something to me. Like every so often you see a story about who David Duke (think thats his name) is voting for and its some R politician. Like duh. -Daniel
[2021-11-01 20:36:34] - paul: "opens supercharger network to other EVs in europe". yeah, this adds to your argument from last week: tesla isn't a car company, they're a company that also sells cars. for instance toyota does *not* sell solar panels, or wall-batteries, or car-charging networks. tesla has created a bunch of new opportunities. ~a
[2021-11-01 20:36:29] - Paul: Mostly yeah - I think most people already know that white supremacists vote R and that socialists probably vote D (assuming both find it in themselves to vote major party) and people like to point that out as a smear but I guess I'm surprised if there are swing voters out there that are just figuring it out. I guess new voters maybe who haven't paid much attention before? -Daniel
[2021-11-01 20:03:28] - Geez, what is going on with Tesla (again)? -Paul
[2021-11-01 19:16:50] - Daniel: Hmmmm, okay, I can see that. It probably makes sense that the actions of a few people shouldn't necessarily reflect that poorly on a candidate. I get the feeling that's not quite what you're saying though? It seems less like, "Youngkin shouldn't be blamed for a few wackos supporting him" and more like, "We already know Youngkin is the candidate for white supremacists, so what changes?" Is that accurate? -Paul
[2021-11-01 18:58:38] - Paul: Does it matter? Maybe? Is it new information or informative for voters etc? Probably not. -Daniel
[2021-11-01 18:50:26] - Daniel: Even if I grant your point that it's safe to assume that any Republican candidate is supported by racists and white supremacists, does it really matter much? What if a bunch of Young Republicans dressed up as McAuliffe supporters holding signs saying "Stalin was right" and "Down with whitey" or whatever. Does it matter if the majority of socialists and black panthers support McAuliffe over Youngkin? -paul
[2021-11-01 18:42:36] - a: "assumes it was mcauliffe or his campaign" Not necessarily. I believe the actors in question were VA dems not directly associated with the campaign, coordinated with the Lincoln Project (which, as noted, is complicated in terms of allegiances). Either way, they are two groups dedicated to the defeat of Youngkin and election of McAuliffe. Does it matter if they are on the payroll or not? -Paul
[2021-11-01 18:01:34] - Paul: Also not to jump in late and while I don't think its a good look / good move I also think that most (all?) white supremacists do vote R. So for your very specific statement "as supported by racist" that is probably 100%. I don't really know anything about Youngkin so don't currently have any reason to think they are racist but almost certainly supported by racists. -Daniel
[2021-11-01 17:50:52] - paul: for it to be mcauliffe or his campaign, i'm pretty sure the lincoln project would have had to have been lying, right? and taking the heat for mcauliffe? which seems like a huge stretch, why would they even do that? it seems to be unrelated to their stated goals. i guess maybe their stated goals have changed? ~a
[2021-11-01 17:43:14] - paul: i agree it looks really bad. but "tar an opposing candidate" assumes it was mcauliffe or his campaign. do you believe it was mcauliffe or his campaign? if so, why? ~a
[2021-11-01 17:42:17] - a: If it's not some kind of attempt at satire... then it looks REALLY bad. -Paul
[2021-11-01 17:41:48] - a: "you seem to be stuck on this" Well, I'm "stuck" on it because it's the only reasonable defense I've heard. Otherwise it would be a deliberate attempt to tar an opposing candidate as supported by racist and spread disinformation. -Paul
[2021-11-01 16:29:28] - paul: did anyone (besides me) claim it was satire? you seem to be stuck on this. ~a
[2021-11-01 15:45:18] - I'm curious if anybody from the Lincoln Project admitted to what was going on publicly before they got caught. Would be a little suspicious if the "it was satire all the time" explanation came out only after they were outted. -Paul
[2021-11-01 15:40:14] - And considering the main McAuliffe strategy this entire time seems to be "Youngkin = Trump"... I dunno, it's hard to believe there wasn't some coordination? But I suppose it's possible. -Paul
[2021-11-01 15:38:53] - a: it's all a little weird. The person who claimed they coordinated it had a tweet where they retweeted the serious news coverage with a shocked face (https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1454232299231383560). That seems to indicate that if they WERE intending for it to be satire the entire time.... they first wanted to stir the pot a bit. -Paul
[2021-11-01 15:34:25] - a: Yeah, it's definitely a little weird and more nuanced than just saying "VA Dems". The Lincoln Project is a lot of ex-Republicans, but they have been hardcore for the left for the past few years with a lot of funding from liberal groups. -Paul
[2021-11-01 15:09:25] - if it matters, it looks like they (the democrats involved with the stunt, and the lincoln project) are all going to be punished for this. it'll be a close race, and a move like this will very likely tip the scales in favor of younkin. ~a
[2021-11-01 14:38:58] - ok. ~a
[2021-11-01 14:38:35] - a: on top of that VA dem blue checks were trying to boost the signal on the stunt almost as soon as it happened. It strains credulity that the VA Dem party or the McAuliffe campaign wasn't aware of it beforehand, if not outright coordinating with the Lincoln Project. - mig
[2021-11-01 14:36:13] - can we at least call them "VA activists"? seems a bit disingenuous to refer to them by party when it sounds like the party ownership is mixed. ~a
[2021-11-01 14:35:19] - ah ok, i didn't know that. i just saw that it was the lincoln project paying the bills / managing the stunt. ~a
[2021-11-01 14:34:34] - a: almost all of the people identified at the torch stunt work for democratic party aligned orgs. - mig
[2021-11-01 14:22:35] - paul: "the VA dems trying to paint a Republican as racist using a hoax". the lincoln project is super-separated from the dems, right? repulican republican republican republican republican. how can you say that the va dems are trying to paint anything as an anything? ~a
[2021-11-01 02:17:06] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynO-bqU6tUk Another great (IMHO) Remy video: Trigger night. I'm really hoping he is in blackface for this one, but it's hard for me to tell. -Paul
[2021-10-30 02:20:11] - This story really has it all: the VA dems trying to paint a Republican as racist using a hoax, despite the fact that their sitting governor is the one that was caught in blackface. And then of course there's the whole idea of people spreading disinformation online... except this is apparently the okay kind to spread. -Paul
[2021-10-30 02:16:47] - https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1454232299231383560 Still, there's weird stuff like this, and the fact that lots of people are making their twitter accounts private now. At the very least, I feel like anybody who originally spread the disinformation should make a public retraction with the truth. -Paul
[2021-10-30 02:15:48] - Going back to the Lincoln project thing: I guess the fact that they had a black person as one of their... actors? makes it a little more obvious they weren't necessarily trying to trick anybody. -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:52:10] - a: I don't understand what four suicides have to do with the seriousness of what happened that day. Can you explain? -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:51:38] - a: A horrible event, yes. Dangerous. Yes. Totally irresponsible by Trump. Of course. But I just struggle to see it as some kind of fundamental assault on democracy that we need to ponder for decades as opposed to a mob of idiots with a half-baked plan charging the capital. -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:49:43] - a: Like, even if everything had gone right for them and according to plan, then they burn the election results and leave and Congress and the SCOTUS shrugs and says, "I guess Trump gets to stay as President now"? -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:47:40] - a: But their entire plan, if there even was one, seemed to be limited to charging the capital without any kind of serious weaponry (flags and zip ties don't count) and then taking selfies behind a podium while wearing a viking helmet? -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:46:13] - a: I agree that there was probably intent, but was it serious? I know it was dangerous, and intense, and there's reason to believe that IF they had gotten their hands on somebody they would've done harm. -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:44:56] - Even if it was intended to be satire the entire time, they probably should came out publicly and said so once it started getting taken seriously. -Paul
[2021-10-30 01:44:20] - I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it's a little hard for me to believe that the intent behind this was satire the entire time and not a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a hoax that they are only saying was satire now that they were caught in the act. -Paul
[2021-10-30 00:45:11] - a: "The Lincoln Project acknowledged they were behind the stunt after VICE News identified one of the people in the photo as a Democratic operative." This reads to me that this stunt was initially not intended to be satirical thing, but then the Lincoln Project pivoted to that stance once the people involved got identified so quickly. - mig
[2021-10-30 00:40:36] - “What happened today is disgusting and distasteful and we condemn it in the strongest terms. Those involved should immediately apologize,” Terry for Virginia Campaign Manager Chris Bolling told VICE News in a statement. - mig
[2021-10-30 00:40:31] - a: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abzaj/lincoln-project-posed-as-charlottesville-white-supremacists-at-youngkin-gop-event apparently it was some folks affiliated with the Lincoln Project. - mig
[2021-10-29 22:55:29] - a: fwiw, the va democratic party is disavowing, citing it's in poor taste (I agree). - mig
[2021-10-29 21:15:25] - mig: if it wasn't satire, it was a very bad idea. if it wasn't satire, the backlash from that could have been huge. ~a
[2021-10-29 21:11:22] - ok. ~a
[2021-10-29 21:11:08] - a: I'm not convinced these people were doing this for the purposes of satire. - mig
[2021-10-29 20:25:10] - paul: if it was more an out of control mob, and not a grave threat to the government, i seriously doubt we would have seen four - fucking FOUR - suicides. how can you explain the four suicides? ~a
[2021-10-29 20:17:44] - paul: hopefully you saw some of the "new" footage that was released during the second impeachment trial. there were extra videos of what happened on the inside of the building that made it (more) clear that it was less of an out of control mob, and more of a coordinated insurrection. you don't have to take my word for it, though . . . they all love to tell you about their intent. ~a
[2021-10-29 20:15:25] - paul: a healthy dose of both. but for the people that entered the building, i tend to think it was more of the former. especially when you consider how close they got to their objective of hurting pence/pelosi. and i *do* feel like they would have straight up murdered them if they somehow (hypothetically) found them without their armed bodyguards. some of the weapons they brought with them (like the zip-ties) were for serious business. ~a
[2021-10-29 20:09:33] - a: Re: January 6th. Do you think it was a serious, coordinated attempt to overthrow the government by either Trump or the rioters? Or was it more an out of control mob? I tend to think it was more of the latter, which is still bad (particularly with Trump whipping everyone up). -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:59:04] - yes. i agree it's a problem. ~a
[2021-10-29 19:58:07] - a: Especially when done by party operatives in a closely contested election? -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:57:37] - a: Satire is fine, and I get that it doesn't need to be obvious to everybody. But can we at least agree that it's a problem when your satire is picked up and spread to hundreds of thousands of people as truth? -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:26:59] - paul: 2025 < 9 years. still . . . if we're *not* talking about january 6th in 2024, i'll be pretty disappointed. january 6th was bad. very bad. "existential threat to the independent legislature" is what we saw. the executive, which was already too strong imo, got even stronger on that day. i can't imagine much worse really. if january 6th isn't in our kids history books in 20 years i'll be super surprised. ~a
[2021-10-29 19:25:59] - its kinda the point. ~a
[2021-10-29 19:25:52] - paul: no. satire doesn't need to be obvious to everybody. ~a
[2021-10-29 19:25:10] - a: I've got a screenshot, if it matters. If it was truly a plant, and it was very not obvious to everybody that it was, then it seems pretty scummy to me. How many people are going to have the takeaway that white supremacists showed up to support Youngkin now? -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:22:48] - a: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1454125262606635012 Not everyone got the message. The tweet is deleted now, but an NBC News Legal Analyst with over 500k followers retweeted it appealing to Virginians to vote against this blatantly racist display. -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:20:48] - "is a decade to heal from an honest to god insurrection unreasonable?" Depends on what you mean by "heal"? If that means we have to talk about January 6th and Trump daily for the next decade, then yes? I'm already tired of all the talk of January 6th. If we're still talking about it 9 years from now I swear I'm completely swearing off mainstream media. -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:17:16] - they were democratic plants, and everybody is like "oh my, democratic plants", and i'm here just like "ha, nice burn". ~a
[2021-10-29 19:16:25] - mig: Yeah, I would like to learn more about that. Is that Democratic plants? It seems really bizarre. -Paul
[2021-10-29 19:07:45] - mig: james fields was sentenced to life in prison only 2 years ago. ~a
[2021-10-29 19:05:27] - mig: maybe if you don't see that it is satire, that would be considered scummy, but that's otherwise a powerful message. Unite the Right 2 was like 3 years ago (4 years ago since the first one). this is some timely shit. charlottesville is *in* virginia. only miles away from richmond. the head of younkin's party literally said "very fine people on both sides". i've never seen a less scummy stunt. ~a
[2021-10-29 18:59:19] - paul: "He already should have faded from the political sphere" naaaah. he'll probably be a big thing in the news until well after 2025 at least. is a decade to heal from an honest to god insurrection unreasonable? cnn is especially bad about "trump news" though. just stay off of cnn and msnbc? i used to use cnn a lot for news, then i realized that all they ever talk about is trump. ~a
[2021-10-29 18:36:32] - Inlcusion must come before everything, I suppose. - mig
[2021-10-29 18:35:56] - Though I guess it is kind of hilarious that even if it was supposed to be 5 "white supremacists" whoever sent these actor people had to include a black person and a woman in the group. - mig
[2021-10-29 18:32:12] - paul: https://twitter.com/holmes_reports/status/1454094826824212485 there's also really, really, scummy tactics like this. I mean seriously, this is such an obvious stunt by the McAuliffe campaign (or at least dem friendly people) it would be hilarious if it wasn't so awful. - mig
[2021-10-29 18:24:46] - https://twitter.com/LisaMarieBoothe/status/1453415918923563011 stuff like this is also bothersome. I'm getting really sick and tired of Democrats talking about Hispanics as if they are entitled to our votes. - mig
[2021-10-29 18:18:53] - a: "after trump fades from the political sphere" I guess that's what is frustrating to me. He already should have faded from the political sphere (he's still banned from most social media and stuff, right?), but as I've noted before, all CNN seems to want to talk about every day is Trump. -paul
[2021-10-29 18:17:21] - paul: the other bothersome thing about McAuliffe is that while technically a person can be elected governor in non consecutive terms in VA, the general practice is for VA governors to be one and done. The VA Democratic Party couldn't find anyone else? - mig
[2021-10-29 18:09:13] - paul: after trump fades from the political sphere, this scheme will fade as well. in the mean time i'm totally fine with it: it's low-effort BS, but after the trump presidency and january 6th things got kinda weird there for a while, and i think it'll take time to heal. ~a
[2021-10-29 17:45:26] - a: His entire campaign seems to be: "My opponent is a white supremacist who wants to end democracy. Don't vote for him." I really hate that style of campaign normally, but especially now. I'm really tired of the overheated rhetoric and the Godwin's Law type of argument used by the left where they just try to tie all their opponents to Trump and think that's all they need to do. -Paul
[2021-10-29 17:42:59] - a: Youngkin obviously has some problems too, but I feel like I agree with him on at least a few of the issues. "where I am emotionally" Something like 90% of the media I have seen from McAuliffe is all about "Youngkin = Trump" and just trying to hammer that point home over and over again. -Paul
[2021-10-29 17:41:13] - i mean this isn't terribly surprising if it focuses on an issue where you disagree, right? ~a
[2021-10-29 17:40:30] - a: "the local issues most important to me" The race seems to have come down to differing opinions on education (at least in Northern Virginia). I find myself opposed to almost everything I've heard from McAuliffe on the issue (even his flyers sent to me meant to make me want to vote for him make me dislike his position). -Paul
[2021-10-29 17:38:46] - a: I am 100% certain that there are people out there (and probably more than a few) that would not see that as satire. How is the native american costume not cultural appropriation, for instance? -Paul
[2021-10-29 17:37:36] - a: "is this strictly true?" Quite possibly not. But you don't think that if a million ballots were cast for an election and 100k didn't vote for one candidates on the ballot for one of the most prominent races.... that it wouldn't get noticed? -Paul
[2021-10-29 17:13:47] - a: I'm sad to say I can actually see certain people doing this unironically. - mig
[2021-10-29 16:54:51] - like, the bottom row is more of a stretch, and the "leave our property immediately" screams satire. but, some people are weird? ~a
[2021-10-29 16:53:49] - satire . . . i hope
~a[2021-10-29 16:52:43] - paul: "the local issues most important to me" can you say what you mean here? also here? "where I am emotionally"? ~a
[2021-10-29 16:49:41] - paul: in other words, some states let you have your information in a write-in section tabulated, and some states do not let you have your information in a write-in section tabulated. as far as i can tell, virginia is in the second section (but 24.2-644 is all i've been able to find so far, and it doesn't specify what happens in non-presidential sections). ~a
[2021-10-29 16:48:06] - paul: "A vote for NOTA has a better chance of being logged as an objection vote" is this strictly true? i've been looking around and (at least for presidential sections) they're both equally likely to be logged as an objection vote (~0%). ~a
[2021-10-29 16:13:23] - a: In my mind, not voting can be interpreted as apathy. A vote for NOTA has a better chance of being logged as an objection vote. -Paul
[2021-10-29 16:12:37] - a: Is "NOTA" not counted? Probably. I don't know. My hope is that if enough people write-in "NOTA" then it gets tabulated somewhere, but I could easily be wrong. "so its no different than not voting" Maybe, but it's barely different from voting.
-Paul[2021-10-29 15:42:39] - paul: i bet it doesn't count you as a rejected or spoiled ballot, though. otoh, the number of rejected ballots each year is staggering. literally 320k ballots?! is that even possible? ~a
[2021-10-29 15:42:09] - paul: honest question, is NOTA . . . expected? this page implies that that vote won't be counted. so its no different than not voting. ~a
[2021-10-29 15:37:02] - mig: i don't get it ~a
[2021-10-29 15:02:24] - I don't want Youngkin to win, but I DO want to send a message to McAuliffe, and the Democratic Party in general. -Paul
[2021-10-29 15:01:23] - a: Typically I go write-in "NOTA" in these cases. I figure 50/50 I do that this time around. The other 50%? I guess lesser of two evils. In this case, with the local issues most important to me and where I am emotionally? That might actually be Youngkin. I really hate how McAuliffe has run his campaign and the issues he has emphasized. -Paul
[2021-10-29 14:59:42] - a: "who did the libertarians vote for?" Yeah, yeesh, it's a mess. With the two major party candidates we have and no Libertarian candidate, I was prepared to vote third party no matter what their platform. I was excited when I saw "liberation party" but then read the platform and.... yeah.... maybe even worse than the major parties. -Paul
[2021-10-29 14:52:58] - a: As far as I can tell the LP is sitting out the governor's race? I went to the state page and couldn't find anything on a candidate for governor. - mig
[2021-10-29 14:50:03] - paul: I'm almost comfortable with the idea of putting money down on Youngkin winning. McAuiliffe's campaign has been a cavalcade of awfulness that I almost feel like it could be a repeat of the Clinton/Trump result. - mig
[2021-10-29 14:48:04] - a; #istandwithlarry. - mig
[2021-10-29 13:52:11] - paul: furthermore, who did the libertarians vote for? i wasn't about to vote for the LP (the liberation party) after reading over her platform. ~a
[2021-10-29 13:38:32] - Any predictions on the governor's race? A month ago I would've said it wouldn't be close, but it seems like Youngkin has really tapped into something with his focus on education and schools. -Paul
[2021-10-28 18:17:19] - a: The wildcard for me is probably China. I don't know if they're like 100% vaccinated because communism or like 50% vaccinated because there's still a lot of rural areas. I figured if Africa is 5%, then it wouldn't be surprising if India and Indonesia were around 10-15% and I wasn't sure if the US / Europe / etc was enough to raise it up. -Paul
[2021-10-28 17:44:15] - paul: yeah, i definitely poised the well with "5%" and "i would have guessed higher". world is ~38% fully vaccinated (probably slightly higher. some countries don't give regular updates). ~a
[2021-10-28 17:42:19] - a: Well, you gave me some data to anchor on with Africa. In questions like this dealing with the entire world, I typically think of the largest population centers like China and India and Indonesia. Wouldn't be surprised if they were low on the vaccination scale. I'll say 10-15%? -Paul
[2021-10-28 17:16:20] - do you want to hazard a guess what percent of the world is fully vaccinated? the number surprised me, i would have guessed higher. ~a
[2021-10-28 17:15:07] - "I'm guessing we didn't have a Spanish Flu vaccine within a year?" in parts of the world we still don't have a vaccine today, apparently. the continent with the second highest population, africa, 5% of the population is fully vaccinated. ~a
[2021-10-28 17:11:14] - yah. i'm just looking at growth potential. ~a
[2021-10-28 16:56:26] - a: How comparable to the Spanish Flu is COVID in terms of CFR and infectiousness? Also, I'm guessing we didn't have a Spanish Flu vaccine within a year? -Paul
[2021-10-28 16:24:18] - paul: "When you compare their current car sales with the car sales for their competition, though, you can see how there is still a ton of room for growth" this is going to be a bit of a stretch, so fair warning, but i wonder if we can apply this logic to covid? compare covid19 to 1918 flu. .06% covid19 deaths vs 5% 1918 deaths (100x). 3% covid cases vs 33% 1918 cases (10x). there is still a ton of room for growth? ~a
[2021-10-28 16:18:29] - i'm not sure that you can hire them because of it, but i really don't know for sure. ~a
[2021-10-28 15:03:09] - That is what fascinates me. I'm curious what the dividing line between it being lawfully and not is. Like, I guess you can't fire somebody for their race/gender but you CAN hire them because of it? Or promote them? -Paul
[2021-10-28 15:02:23] - "The jury learned that Duvall was a strong advocate of diversity and inclusion at Novant; he sat on an executive committee that supported the initiative and his team provide marketing for the program. That was one irony in his termination, his belief in Diversity and Inclusion. But such programs have to be run lawfully" -Paul
[2021-10-28 14:58:43] - right. there was probably an email (or a recorded conversation) that said the company was doing what he's alleges. if not, it would have been hard for him to prove anything to the tune of 10m. ~a
[2021-10-28 14:55:44] - https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/us/novant-health-wrongful-termination-white-executive-fired/index.html This is a really interesting sounding story. Obviously there's probably a lot more stuff behind the flashy headline but I wonder what the details behind this are. There must have been some type of "smoking gun" for him to have won, right? -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:59:01] - "just above her right eye" yeah, that's probably usually fatal. probably a glancing blow. the fact he shot again is also so weird. ~a
[2021-10-27 20:55:35] - a: Oh, jeez. I'm actually relieved because at first I thought the girl had died for some reason. Thank goodness she survived at least. -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:54:08] - a: https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court When FDR threatened to pack the court because they kept blocking his New Deal policies and strangely afterwards they started passing them? -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:52:05] - cop fired for shooting 9 yr girl in the head as he tried to kill her dog in a room full of kids. awfuleverything? ~a
[2021-10-27 20:32:16] - paul: (maybe irrelevant, but) when in the history of our country has scotus ever been strong-armed into anything? ~a
[2021-10-27 20:31:06] - It's such a disingenuous reading of the situation to try to strong arm the SCOTUS into doing something. It's not a tax cut if it's being against an increase in taxes. What does this have to do with faith in the Supreme Court? -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:29:45] - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/if-billionaire-tax-survives-it-may-face-legal-challenges-heres-why.html "I can’t imagine the Supreme Court wants to give the wealthiest people on earth billions in tax cuts, particularly at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in the Supreme Court" This statement makes me so mad. -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:29:40] - any new tax proposal needs to have the government telling us how much we owe them. fuck intuit. ~a
[2021-10-27 20:28:58] - a: Yeah, and everything that sucks about the AMT seems to be present with this proposal too. -Paul
[2021-10-27 20:21:57] - paul: i really know nothing about amt. it's always seemed like a dumb hack. who came up with the amt . . . i'd like to have a conversation with him about how complicated taxes are. ~a
[2021-10-27 20:20:06] - yah. many of these are examples of reasons i'm against the tax. in general i'm against it because its too easy to get around. ~a
[2021-10-27 19:25:15] - a: I'm not saying an unrealized gains tax would cause the exact same silly behavior, but it would definitely cause some distortions. Less equity and more options? Incorporating companies in other countries? Would we be taxing holdings in other countries? -Paul
[2021-10-27 19:22:21] - a: "this tax won't affect us (probably) ever." Yeah, I know we disagree on this, but I think history is on my side. The income tax has done nothing but expand in size and scope and the AMT keeps in affecting more and more Americans over time despite initially being meant to only target the wealthy. -Paul
[2021-10-27 19:14:07] - paul: the only few times i've ever done tax loss harvesting, i used it as an excuse to rebalance something that needed rebalancing anyways. ~a
[2021-10-27 19:12:15] - paul: "sell something now that I don't necessarily want to sell" with tax loss harvesting you typically do *not* sell and rebuy in 30 days. you typically sell and rebuy something similar. if you're holding individual stocks in your taxable portfolio (imo) you're doing it wrong. ~a
[2021-10-27 19:11:16] - "We're going to end up with crazy behavior like this" we are literally not. this tax won't affect us (probably) ever. i know you'd say that it'll affect us when they change the tax law, but that's a guess based on no info. plus, i'm not sure a how an unrealized tax law would encourage one to sell. i hate arguing for the unrealized tax law, because i think it's a bad law, but your logic against it are just too much for me to ignore
~a[2021-10-27 19:04:45] - This all feels like such a silly dance. The tax law incentivizes me to sell something now that I don't necessarily want to sell, not hold it for 30 days, then buy it back? See, this is why this unrealized gains tax annoys me so much. We're going to end up with crazy behavior like this. -Paul
[2021-10-27 19:02:08] - a: Yeah, I think that makes sense. So in theory, if I had like $5k in short term gains and $3k in long term losses, I can use those losses to bring my $5k in gains down to $2k assuming I had no long term gains (in which case I would have to cancel those out first). I'm hoping options gains/losses work similarly so I don't have to worry much about matching buckets. -Paul
[2021-10-27 18:44:25] - paul: my biggest lesson learned for a taxable brokerage account is making sure that "specid" (specific share identification) is defined as the cost basis method. you're able to literally pick which lots you want sold. ~a
[2021-10-27 18:42:11] - paul: "treated the same". no they're four different buckets, but you do resolve that short term losses can cancel out long term gains and vice versa. you just cancel out the "same" gain/loss before you cancel out the "other" gain/loss. sorry, if that makes zero sense, but imo its pretty simple once you know that rule. i've never sold (or executed) a normal option. i can guess what happens but i'm sure you're not looking for a guess. ~a
[2021-10-27 18:39:43] - paul: "silly" and "due" don't give it due credit (!). i try to put myself in their shoes. i try to remember times where i was in the outgroup, and how i felt at that time. ~a
[2021-10-27 18:33:17] - Ugh, I have a taxable brokerage account so now I have to think about things like tax loss harvesting. Are short term gains/losses and long term gains/losses treated the same? Or are they separate buckets? How about gains from sales of options? -Paul
[2021-10-27 18:26:51] - a: Sounds like we almost entirely agree. The only thing I would quibble with is, "that's how subtle racism always is". Does something like that always have to be racism, subtle or otherwise? Can't it just be a silly (maybe even stupid or ill-advised) comment, like saying a coin is "due" for a tails result after coming up heads 5 times in a row? -Paul
[2021-10-27 14:59:57] - mig: the part that bugs me is that they're so entrenched in their position that they don't realize that broadcasting their obvious bias is a problem. ~a
[2021-10-27 14:44:47] - really to avoid hurt feelings more than actual fights. i get along with my extended family. ~a
[2021-10-27 14:36:34] - paul: yes, to avoid fights. yes, i agree it probably wasn't meant in a racist way, but otoh, that's how subtle racism always is. ~a
[2021-10-27 14:35:27] - paul: i don't know. the one time i was sent a check for something like that (i was forced to execute an option, and the stock was then forced to be sold, because the private company was getting bought), it didn't show up in my taxes that year. so either it was already taxed or i totally fucked up doing my taxes. regardless, my situation may have been different from yours? ~a
[2021-10-27 14:34:25] - mig: ' Correcting misinformation from a gubernatorial candidate for your local readers would strike me as at least somewhat of a priority.' - Agreed. -Daniel
[2021-10-27 14:30:40] - a: "i've been very careful around extended family members" To avoid fights? Because part of my thinking was that I felt pretty confident the statement being made wasn't a "serious" racist statement, if you will. I mean, there were a bunch of white people there vigorously nodding in agreement. I don't think the person in question is racist. -Paul
[2021-10-27 14:28:35] - a: Re: Taxes on capital gains. Yeah, I'm in the exact same boat where I suspect that there is some sort of bracket system, but not entirely sure how it works. Luckily, I have some time to figure it out. Do you know if sale of private company stock is treated the same as sale of public company stock? I'm 95% sure I already paid taxes on the "income" from getting the stock grant. -Paul
[2021-10-27 14:24:08] - daniel: the part that really bugs me is the post writer saying, "But we got busy with other stuff and chose not to do a fact check" (and yes that was their words verbatim). I'm not sure in what world that would read as a reasonable explanation. Correcting misinformation from a gubernatorial candidate for your local readers would strike me as at least somewhat of a priority. - mig
[2021-10-27 14:15:08] - paul: "extended family member". oof yeah. i gotcha. i've been very careful around extended family members. in july i spent two weeks with an unvaccinated person and didn't say one word to her about it. ~a
[2021-10-27 14:12:26] - mig: Seems they should have pushed back. There might be part that when they contacted the campaign the campaign admitted it was wrong. Had it not then Wapo presumably would have pushed back more. My guess is that after admitting they were wrong Wapo thought they would then be less wrong in the future, which seems to have been a bad assumption and not the one it should have used. -Daniel
[2021-10-27 14:10:13] - paul: worded differently, of course the government wants to avoid old BS-line about "but if i get paid more, i'll actually make less" . . . but they also want to avoid it with capital gains too. ~a
[2021-10-27 14:09:06] - paul: i don't know. i'm like 75% sure that the "tax bracket system" applies to capital gains too, but maybe not in the way you think it does. the last time i did my taxes without turbotax i had $0 in capital gains, but the last time i looked at it, the math they use to combine your income and capital gains into an amount you get taxed on is pretty complicated, and (iirc) envolves more than one "bracket" bit of math. ~a
[2021-10-27 13:29:55] - mig: Heh, and maybe that last part is the important part. With people on one part of the political spectrum it's seen as an intentional lie. On the other part, it's simply a mistake. -Paul
[2021-10-27 13:29:11] - mig: Yeah, this kind of goes to my theory about how all it takes is a slight bias in media for the end results to be wildly uneven. It could be understandable for a fact checking unit to give a politician a pass or two or to figure that COVID numbers aren't important to fact check. But I find it hard to believe they wouldn't be ALL over it if Youngkin had made a similar mistake (lie?) -Paul
[2021-10-27 13:16:37] - "We could have called out the misinformation that McAuifille was spouting, but he said he didn't mean it and we had other things to do!" - mig
[2021-10-27 13:15:48] - https://twitter.com/Cam_Cawthorne/status/1452977506601127942 this is pretty remarkable from an outfit who's tagline is democracy dies in darkness. - mig
[2021-10-27 13:06:28] - Hard switch: Long term capitals gains rates question. So, if my income is $79,999, then I can have $200k in long term capital gains that gets taxed at $0? But if my income is $80,001 then it all gets taxed at 10%? -Paul
[2021-10-27 13:05:15] - And to be clear, I'm good with that reaction. I don't think it needed to be escalated any further. I kind of think that's a perfectly fine reaction to this kind of casual "racism". -Paul
[2021-10-27 13:02:25] - Sure, context is important. It was a cookout organize by an extended family member. Speaker was extended family. Female and around 3/4 asian and 1/4 white if it matters. No idea who was in the wrong (could easily have been the car driver). My reaction was a bemused smile. I didn't feel the need to make a comment. -Paul
[2021-10-27 12:55:32] - herd . . . thanks autocorrect. ~a
[2021-10-27 12:54:17] - paul: <a herd="https://mobile.twitter.com/itskyleconner/status/1453069194799501323">40s video that requires sound to get the full explanation of what's happening</a>. i have the unpopular opinion that fsd technology will get better at a slow an asymptotic pace. ~a
[2021-10-26 21:00:46] -
if i find myself at a kkk party i'd revisit my recent decisions. ~a[2021-10-26 20:59:13] - a: I agree with "i usually regret staying completely silent when some fucked up shit is going down" - and I would probably say something as well but it would need to be a careful something and not just "white guys are awesome!" cause that probably wouldn't be the best approach (unless the party was a KKK party). -Daniel
[2021-10-26 19:21:59] - paul: "motorcycle wanted to merge" i'd also like to know if the driver was being too aggressive here? or was the rider?
"i'm fed up with white guys" is a sentiment i see targeted towards people on bicycles and motorcycles. ~a[2021-10-26 19:15:28] - daniel: i'm totally fine defending white guys that deserve being defended. i know that making my position worse by saying something dumb should be avoided, but i usually regret staying completely silent when some fucked up shit is going down. ~a
[2021-10-26 19:14:27] - So would need to tread carefully I imagine. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 19:14:15] - Paul: I think I'm with adrian there. Lots of context needed. Randomly blaming all white guys isn't great but also defending "white guys" generally isn't a socially winning position either. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 19:11:47] - paul: if someone had said "I'm so fed up with white guys", there are very few contexts where i'd be able to keep from either saying "that's racist", or simply asking "racist?" or "is that racist?". but, tell me more about the party. who was in the audience? what was the setting? was it a someone's house? were you at work? was your boss there? was your customer there? was there anybody there that you are scared of? or hate? ~a
[2021-10-26 19:04:17] - paul: it probably depends. mostly i think it depends on what specifically you had considered saying and how you considered saying it. but also i think it depends on other factors. ~a
[2021-10-26 19:02:27] - paul: yes, i agree with your statements. and this was an outlier. i think, in general, if fsd doesn't increase car-usage, then i think it'll marginally decrease road-rage. if fsd increases car-usage, then i think fsd will increase road-rage. ~a
[2021-10-26 19:01:33] - a: So, if it was racist, should I have spoken up and said something? That's basically what I hear we are supposed to do whenever we observe racism. -Paul
[2021-10-26 19:00:09] - a: Right, like I said, I don't know much about this situation. I guess I assume it's an outlier in terms of road rage or whatever. It seems to me that if 90% of people are letting cars drive themselves 90% of the time, then people would get angry a lot less and try to shoot at each other (or run them over) a lot less. -Paul
[2021-10-26 18:59:20] - racist. ~a
[2021-10-26 18:58:49] - Here's a random question this discussion reminds me of: I one time was at a party where somebody entered and said, "I'm so fed up with white guys". Short story was apparently a motorcycle wanted to merge, she didn't let him, so he kicked her car. So my question is: Racist? -Paul
[2021-10-26 18:55:37] - paul: "Is that how most road rage happens? Where nobody is annoyed at all?" no. in this case i think a jury will hopefully find that he was threatening these six people, then that he assaulted these six people, and that four people ended up in the hospital. no, i don't think things would have been any different if he had been using fsd, i think he still would have still tried to assault them, but i also could easily be wrong. ~a
[2021-10-26 18:52:14] - a: "this was strictly not a situation..." I assume you're referring to the situation I said I didn't know much about? Is that how most road rage happens? Where nobody is annoyed at all? -Paul
[2021-10-26 18:31:07] - paul: why do you think he was being annoyed by them? ~a
[2021-10-26 18:30:51] - paul: i disagree. this was strictly not a situation where he was being annoyed. it was a rural area. waller is only 50km from houston, but definitely far enough out that its 90% farmland. he drove in front of them to roll coal, not because he was being inconvenienced. he assaulted 6 people, and 4 of them ended up in the hospital. if he had assaulted 6 people with anything but a ford f-series, he'd be sitting in a jail cell. ~a
[2021-10-26 18:23:17] - a: I'm not super familiar with the rolling coal situation, but it seems like road rage would likely go down if people were just letting the car drive them everywhere all the time. Why would anybody be raging if they didn't even know somebody was annoying them? -Paul
[2021-10-26 18:21:50] - a: this made me chuckle "rolling coal in a tesla might be hard" -Daniel
[2021-10-26 18:16:13] - paul: if you've ever been in a tesla (where fsd is on the horizon), you probably know that it's insanely easy to turn self-driving off and intentionally hit someone that has made you mad. rolling coal in a tesla might be hard, but my guess is this kid had no chance of his parents buying him a tesla. ~a
[2021-10-26 18:13:51] - paul: i got your reference, but self-driving doesn't solve the rolling coal situation. it doesn't solve road-rage issues either. self-driving doesn't really solve anything here, or pretty much anywhere? i'm slowly starting to feel that self-driving has a chance of actually making some problems much worse (like sustainability of our roadways in urban and suburban areas. and pollution). ~a
[2021-10-26 18:08:14] - This is why we need self-driving. Preferably level 3 or better by 2025.
-Paul[2021-10-26 18:04:21] - daniel: i've definitely wished harm on people who regularly treat my well-being as being worth less than their convenience. ~a
[2021-10-26 18:02:24] - yeah, i've read stories online of some (crazy) people that carry on their bike. kinda makes sense honestly in its own fucked-up way. there's a deadly weapon being used improperly on purpose . . . if you can't beat them, join them? ~a
[2021-10-26 17:59:58] - a: The story of linked in that reddit thread about a cyclist shooting back at a driver who hit someone is pretty crazy too. Sadly maybe if that becomes more common dumb 16 year olds will be less likely to be dumb. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 17:53:30] - a: Yeah it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that they just want to bury the story. I'm still hopeful that doesn't happen but its hard to say at this point
-Daniel[2021-10-26 17:42:37] - paul: yes, i understand. ~a
[2021-10-26 17:41:28] - local judge in town (previously) had said he "doesn’t like your kind". like what? who says that? the driver hasn't had any sort of apology, but my guess is that was his lawyer's idea. the connections the parents have to the local government is concerning with the already fucked-up judges and cops that handle these cases. ~a
[2021-10-26 17:40:42] - Daniel: "Thats a big chunk of why we moved back to TX" I keep sending those "Buy a house in Italy for $1" stories to Gurkie but no success yet.
-Paul[2021-10-26 17:40:00] - a: Understand the criticism, but I don't think he was trying to give an all encompassing overview in the first half. I think he was trying to quickly go over the reasons why a 100% stock portfolio might not be ideal despite seeming like it offers the best return long term. That's the reason for cherry picking different scenarios. -Paul
[2021-10-26 17:37:25] - daniel: while we're on the topic of texas, i keep looking for updates on this story (link is from conversations since thursday). i know its only been a month, but like so much of my soul believes that waiting for the story to be buried is exactly what the cops and DA want. there has been basically no movement on this. ~a
[2021-10-26 17:32:24] - yah gotcha. and it makes sense. living near family when you have kids makes sense too. but also, i think a lot of people move to cheaper housing when they retire. audrey and i definitely have considered it, but we really like our house. ~a
[2021-10-26 17:30:48] - My mortgage is like 27k and thats with a smidge of prepay. Thats a big chunk of why we moved back to TX
-Daniel[2021-10-26 17:23:47] - fwiw, every time i try to run the numbers, a static glide path is worse than having a "tent". ~a
[2021-10-26 17:22:44] - paul: which is kinda what he starts to do at 12:00. it's interesting to me that the article he quotes only looks at 60/40 (for 30 years) and 100/0 (for 30 years). i wonder what the numbers look like for 80/20? ~a
[2021-10-26 17:22:29] - paul: everything before 12:00 of that video was bad. he was cherry-picking three-ish scenarios to try the three portfolios on. i guess its fine that it was just a warm-up or whatever, but he needs to use all scenarios, from like 1900-2021. ~a
[2021-10-26 17:10:49] - 100% stock portfolio. Sorry. -Paul
[2021-10-26 17:04:17] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbOKJibpy8 I thought this was a good look at whether a 100% portfolio (both before and after retirement) can actually work. -Paul
[2021-10-26 17:03:49] - a: I've got an estimated $160k in spending (post mortgage paid off) as my conservative estimate (ie, I'm hoping that spending actually comes in lower). Could be we actually spend more or could be I am being more conservative with my estimates. -Paul
[2021-10-26 16:47:53] - maaaaybe? my total spending in retirement could be around 140 or 145 (until mortgage is paid off)? ~a
[2021-10-26 16:47:52] - a: I've got $70k a year on "Other" spending.
It is crazy how close our other estimates were. -Paul[2021-10-26 16:43:28] - a: I imagine the difference between you and I is that we spend a lot more on "misc" stuff (ie, feeding and clothing the kids and paying for classes for them and whatnot). -Paul
[2021-10-26 16:40:30] - paul: yeah, my mortgage is 50k, and i have us paying 20k for health insurance too (wow, that's a crazy coincidence. my numbers for those are 48k and 18k). still, with cost basis, which for me personally, will likely be a big percentage of my income, i imagine we will still be under 105k in most cases. (and i'll definitely roth ladder if that's the case) ~a
[2021-10-26 16:38:03] - paul: those capital gain tax changes might not affect us. the map of europe i sent is the highest bracket, so it may not be anywhere near our tax bracket. ~a
[2021-10-26 16:36:55] - a: Also, considering you JUST got done advocating for higher capital gains taxes and we're discussing taxes on unrealized capital gains, I have little faith that the tax code will remain like it is right now and am guessing it will only get worse. -Paul
[2021-10-26 16:32:47] - I still have us paying taxes because I have our spending pegged at > $100k in early retirement. Our mortgage along is around $50k per year and then I add in around $20k for health insurance. I also assumed we would likely be traveling more so I've penciled in $20k a year in vacation costs. Hopefully these are all upper bounds since I am trying to be conservative with estimates right now. -Paul
[2021-10-26 15:24:50] - a: (not an accountant but) I think so. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 15:20:12] - "if you are doing roth ladder you have to take out extra on top of current year spending" right, but if your spending plus your ladder minus your cost basis and deductions over and above the standard deduction is less than 105k, then i think you still pay 0, right? ~a
[2021-10-26 15:17:20] - But it does seem like then we'd still be lower than our current tax bracket. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 15:16:49] - a: I probably looked at some point but currently didn't realize that l.t.c.g. was 0% up to 80k. Thats solid. Yeah I think the questions will be where we are at inflation wise and bracket wise by the time we retire. Also if you are doing roth ladder you have to take out extra on top of current year spending. -Daniel
[2021-10-26 14:53:57] - daniel: "Our accountant has given us our overall tax rate the last few years so I just normally go with approximately that" i feel like i'm rethinking this to be, in early retirement, my effective taxes will be very close to 0% (because of deductions + cost basis). the only reason i'd pay any income taxes in early retirement at all, will be because of roth ladder: to take advantage of the low-tax situation. ~a
[2021-10-26 14:47:36] - paul/daniel: can we go back to the effective tax rate in retirement conversation? i talked to my financial planner and he said if your (married filing jointly) income is all long term capital gains, and is less than 105k, you pay zero income taxes? (standard deduction = 25k, and the 0% bracket for l.t. capital gains is 80k). that assumes a cost basis of 0, which is, of course, ridiculous. so, your spending could be a lot higher. ~a
[2021-10-26 14:40:44] - paul: otoh, i'd rather we just increased the capital gains. its far better in most ways. europe was the only comparative place i could find information on capital gains (sorry, i know they probably aren't a perfect comparison, but its better than nothing). here's a map. i'd propose we just increased the capital gains rate some. ~a
[2021-10-26 14:32:08] - paul: "pulling revenue forward...awful ideas". pulling revenue forward, from the beneficiaries standpoint is huge. you're not always pulling it forward a few years. you're sometimes pulling it forward multiple decades, or from, essentially infinity. or more realistically from after the beneficiaries life expectancy to now. if you don't trust the government to spend the money, i get that, and agree, but its an independent problem. ~a
[2021-10-26 14:27:15] - https://twitter.com/markbrooks/status/1453004314331566090 This is somebody I know personally who worked at the Fool. If I had to guess, probably right of center, but another concern that seems unrelated to the politics of being opposed to making the ultra rich pay their "fair share" or whatever it is. -Paul
[2021-10-26 01:26:28] - He make a lot of good points, IMHO, about making revenue a lot more volatile and also pulling revenue forward, both of which seem like absolutely awful ideas considering how terrible the government is with money. -Paul
[2021-10-26 01:25:06] - https://twitter.com/AswathDamodaran/status/1452776898489106432 Here's another take on the unrealized capital gains tax from an NYU professor known as the "Dead of Valuation". Politics unknown to me. -Paul
[2021-10-26 01:23:22] - a: And then there's things like FSD, which they charge for, and their potential for creating robotaxis in the future. There's also their solar business and insurance and supercharger network. Lots of ways to grow. 100x in 3 years? Maybe not, but they can still grow fast. -Paul
[2021-10-26 01:21:56] - a: Yeah, there's no doubt that it's hard to justify Tesla's valuation right now. When you compare their current car sales with the car sales for their competition, though, you can see how there is still a ton of room for growth (not to mention they have higher margins). -Paul
[2021-10-25 20:33:31] - paul: "what earnings could be 3+ years from now" of course. but taking that into account, it's hard to imagine the revenue going on a huge company like tesla going 100x in only 3 years, though, right? in other words, we need a revenue and spending target. preferably a revenue and spending target made by someone who can look at the current revenue and spending, and extrapolate both, in a way that's possible, to 3 years out. ~a
[2021-10-25 20:28:18] - a: "aren't spending and revenue basically the only "fundamentals" you have?" Sure, but the problem with a lot of those ratios and fundamentals is that they're all backwards looking, right? I care less about earnings now and more about what earnings could be 3+ years from now. -Paul
[2021-10-25 19:56:17] - paul: a couple of years ago, i mentioned this cryptocurrency that a guy we went to college with invented. well, the market cap just hit $40m. crazy. ~a
prev <-> next