prev <-> next
[2021-12-01 19:51:44] - the senate has the power to accept or reject federal nominees but how they go about it is completely up to the senate. - mig
[2021-12-01 19:49:45] - paul: exactly. (totally irrelevant to my overall point, which i guess we agree on, but "taken a vote and voted down" isn't a foregone conclusion. often/usually senators vote for "highly competent" nominations even when they go against their party. mitch mcconnell knows this as well as anybody. he didn't take a vote because he knew garland might receive consent.) ~a
[2021-12-01 19:49:26] - mig: officially is that so? ~a
[2021-12-01 19:49:14] - a: the advice was “pound sand” - mig
[2021-12-01 19:44:59] - a: Ah, you mean not even taking the vote. Yes. I agree on that. Even if just for optics they should have taken a vote and voted down. -Paul
[2021-12-01 19:42:43] - paul: "consent doesn't always have to be given" 1. they didn't give advice. this is constitutionally required. 2. they didn't check if consent should be given or not! maybe #2 is a bit "in the weeds", but #1 is very clear-cut and completely ignores the "politically motivated" detail. ~a
[2021-12-01 19:40:55] - a: Was Mitch McConnell an unfair jerk? You won't get any argument from me. But consent doesn't always have to be given. He didn't give it for Garland and he did for Amy Coney Barrett. That seems like it fulfills the constitutional requirement, even if it was entirely politically motivated and a jerk move. -Paul
[2021-12-01 19:16:41] - it's not lost on me that some how mitch mcconnell made today happen. it's weird that we argue about what is constitutional today and what is not . . . when the constitution also says that mitch mconnel was supposed to give advice and consent during the nomination process and he maliciously and intentionally failed this meager constitutional requirement. ~a
[2021-12-01 19:07:52] - paul: ok. i guess we'll have to wait what they say exactly? everything kavanaugh has said applies to 0-15 weeks as well as 15-28. so, i'd bet that 19 states would immediately try to ban most abortions at every number of weeks (zero and on). ~a
[2021-12-01 19:05:16] - a: You could be right about 28. I was basing it off this line from the article: "moving up the viability line from the current 22 to 23 weeks". I don't know much about where the line is in terms of federal protections. -Paul
[2021-12-01 19:03:41] - aw man, i have that backwards, don't i. uuuuuuuuh. yeah. fuck. ignore that. ~a
[2021-12-01 18:59:57] - paul: regardless, i'll ignore the confusion about 22 vs 28. 0-15 was already considered federally unprotected by roe v wade. so moving from 28 to 15 is literally removing 100% of the federal protection grated by roe v wade. using 15 as the "new" number is an overturning most literally. you would have definitely won the bet, if it is changed to 15, and we had made the bet. ~a
[2021-12-01 18:56:27] - paul: where did 22 come from? most definitions i've seen use 28 (but sometimes 26 or 27?). ~a
[2021-12-01 18:53:12] - a: Sorry, that was worded poorly. I was referring to the movement of the line from 22 weeks to 15 weeks. -Paul
[2021-12-01 18:52:36] - a: Even though abortions would still be federally protected for a little under half of a typical pregnancy (a change from a little over half)? -Paul
[2021-12-01 18:44:28] - paul: yes. ~a
[2021-12-01 18:26:40] - a: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-oral-arguments/index.html As a hypothetical exercise, assuming SCOTUS does not overturn this Mississippi law (which sounds like it mostly bans abortions after 15 weeks), would you have considered this an overturn of Roe v Wade per the bet we were considering? -Paul
[2021-12-01 16:44:53] - https://www.wisn.com/amp/article/bodycam-video-producer-stopped-following-rittenhouse-jury-bus/38395455 “we’re just trying to find out where the jury is staying for …. reasons.” - mig
[2021-11-30 21:29:42] - https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32753004/sources-virginia-tech-hokies-zeroing-penn-state-nittany-lions-dc-brent-pry-coach New Hokies head coach. -Paul
[2021-11-30 20:46:43] - paul: okgood point, but i guess i'd just say that it depends. of course, i agree that young adults are the worst to give money to. but more importantly everybody is different. some people will just be better at finances than others regardless of their age (i've seen tons of old people that are shitty with money). i know we're veering away from the tax-code conversation, but like i said before, i wouldn't want to defend the tax code. ~a
[2021-11-30 20:44:22] - a: Really? I would think that giving money to your kids (who presumably are at least halfway responsible and could really put the money to good use in terms of paying down debt or buying a house or saving for retirement) would be far better than giving it to grandkids who might be teenagers getting ready to make bad money mistakes with credit cards or blow it all on a lambo. -Paul
[2021-11-30 20:34:10] - i'm not defending the tax code. i'm not defending turbotax and intuit either (they're making the problem much worse and its corruption of the worst kinds). but it all kinda makes sense: giving money to your kids seems like a very inefficient way of helping out your family to the point of having the opposite effect of the goal. offspring with shit-tons of money end up being spoiled (and worse) ~100% of the time. ~a
[2021-11-30 20:30:37] - https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/family/what-is-the-generation-skipping-tax/L5mfqiA5z Today I learned that it can make tax sense to skip a generation when planning out inheritance. I hate the tax code. -Paul
[2021-11-30 16:14:23] - https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/11/virginia-public-school-enrollment-drops-again-nearly-4-since-pandemic-hit/ Fairfax county public school enrollment down. -Paul
[2021-11-30 16:04:35] - paul: yes the hard thing about using "adjusted close" is you have to go back an adjust old numbers. adjusted close solves a lot of hard situations, but it's not magic. i noticed that i caught up with you on 2020 (that's the current document, but the other tab). amd went up after 2020, and rdfn went down (i hold rdfn IRL oof). ~a
[2021-11-30 15:40:07] - a: I was looking through the old "Stock Market Challenge" spreadsheet and feeling a little disappointed by my performance. I dug in a little deeper on 2018Q3 and... I don't think the Tesla stock split is being accounted for (not that I would expect it to, it's a dead document as far as I'm concerned) but it's crazy that even without that it is up 200%+ -Paul
[2021-11-29 19:37:07] - a: Not enough free time. -Paul
[2021-11-29 19:16:59] - paul: ¿por qué no los dos? ~a
[2021-11-29 19:11:04] - a: https://twitter.com/RampantDisc/status/1465357384767836160 I've got another advent activity I'll be working on. -Paul
[2021-11-29 18:47:24] - adventofcode starts back up in ~30 hours (tuesday at midnight) if anybody is interested. ~a
[2021-11-29 18:25:52] - paul: no, that is not right, sorry. check out example.eth. you can put a btc address. you can also put github, twitter, reddit, etc etc handles as well. ~a
[2021-11-29 18:23:26] - a: But it's only for ethereum, right? I couldn't use it as a convenient shortcut to my bitcoin wallet, right? -Paul
[2021-11-29 17:58:50] - paul: (name lookup made me think of another thing it buys you. you can change wallets / ip addresses without needing to manually update people with your new wallet address / ip address) ~a
[2021-11-29 17:57:34] - paul: what does having a domain name get you? or an email/IM handle? it gets you name/lookup without an ip address or dozens of incomprehensible characters? plus free censorship resistance: your name lookup can't be seized or shut down. i mean, it's by no means mandatory, but it does buy you convenience. ~a
[2021-11-29 17:45:36] - a: Yeah, but, what does getting access to pessen.eth get me other than preventing others from having it? I have a bitcoin wallet without having to register pessen.btc or whatever. -Paul
[2021-11-29 17:26:49] - also the prices look super low. ~a
[2021-11-29 17:12:40] - paul: "equivalent of a domain registration". you're ignoring all of the benefits of cryptocurrency that definitely apply: censorship resistance, lack of government corruption and oversight, decentralized (more-so than domain names), verifiability (jfc, everybody uses an unencrypted connection to verify dns nowadays). ~a
[2021-11-29 16:33:42] - a: Right, yeah, I knew you were going to wish that moped was a car.
-Paul[2021-11-29 16:27:49] - paul: . . . though i do feel like the mopeds would be on our side in the great public-property wars of 2031. they are good for the environment, they're good for your personal finances, they're space efficient (on the road and when parked), they're fun, and most importantly they don't kill 200,000 pedestrians annually like cars, trucks, and suvs. ~a
[2021-11-29 16:27:24] - paul: HA. love it. ~a
[2021-11-29 14:23:48] - a: https://twitter.com/JimPGillies/status/1465177875083153409 This seems like something you would appreciate. -Paul
[2021-11-29 13:51:12] - a: Yuck. Gas fees and annual subscriptions for what is the equivalent of a domain registration? No thanks. I doubt anybody will be scrambling to buy pessen.eth.
-Paul[2021-11-28 17:04:48] - paul: pessen.eth is available (paul.eth is not). ~a
[2021-11-28 17:02:55] - paul: i mostly know only about ethereum in theory. i've bought and transacted a few tokens (mostly usdt), and dabbled in defi, but that's about it. i don't follow the .eth names, but i think it has to do with "web3"? here's an application where you can search for names. doing "naming" over a currency isn't new, but this seems like the newest iteration? maybe this one will catch on? ~a
[2021-11-27 17:13:40] - we should spread files using just their checksums instead of their urls. since websites can go away at any time, right? so i'd say checksum://4e270de05a027eb545467925c3070f99d2bcb530 and something would replace that checksum with a current place where it can be downloaded, right? then when that place disappears, a place where it can be downloaded can be provided? ~a
[2021-11-25 16:39:17] - So, do I need to learn more about ethereum to figure out why everybody on twitter is changing their handle to add a ".eth" to the end of their names? -Paul
[2021-11-25 16:38:26] - a: Pretty sure I am going to have to write this year's competition off as a loss. -Paul
[2021-11-25 16:37:51] - a: Yeah, been a crazy year. In retrospect, it's not surprising at all to see "the market" make a roaring comeback against the type of growth stocks most individual stock pickers prefer. Even intra-year activity has been wild. My portfolio high was like 20% higher around Feb of this year. -Paul
[2021-11-24 22:01:59] - a: as the trail played out this one seemed pretty straightforward. The guilty verdicts weren't that surprising. - mig
[2021-11-24 22:01:13] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI legal youtube guy (gets very technical here). - mig
[2021-11-24 22:00:28] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRIUHOHBQio&t=812s dan abrams. - mig
[2021-11-24 21:59:58] - a: There's the video I linked earlier, Jonathan Turley, legal analyst. - mig
[2021-11-24 20:30:53] - any thoughts on the mcmichael case? looks like the jury came back on that one today. ~a
[2021-11-23 19:54:54] - paul: also, lol, s&p500 (total return) is beating literally everybody. ~a
[2021-11-23 19:53:42] - it's so wild to me that henri and hiren were 1st for so long, and now they're in the red. ~a
[2021-11-23 19:52:15] - paul: yay 1st place. so very close to the finish line too. if things settle down some i could hold it for a month, but i doubt it. ~a
[2021-11-23 14:59:03] - mig: before you put this conversation to bed, can you answer my question? "'it's also the opinion of a lot of legal experts' i 100% believe you, but what do you mean? i'd like to read an actual legal expert give his opinion on this case. maybe it would sway my opinion or include some details on the case i missed". thanks! ~a
[2021-11-23 00:45:17] - mig: Yeah seems pretty solid. -Daniel
[2021-11-23 00:06:23] - a: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1462483705327403026 last thing I'm going to drop on this topic (for realz this time). I feel it directly addresses some of the things you've brought up. - mig
[2021-11-22 19:58:56] - mig: yes but i'd word it differently. i'd say rittenhouse didn't use force that was equivalent to the threat. ~a
[2021-11-22 19:56:06] - a: just so I'm sure are you referring to the rosenbaum being unarmed vs. rittenhouse having a gun in terms of the "level of threat"? - mig
[2021-11-22 18:40:42] - lol. just noticed this as one of the required elements for self-defense definition for illinois: "the accused used force that was equivalent to the threat". how the heck does this apply to joseph rosenbaum? ~a
[2021-11-22 18:37:41] - If you go to a bar and instigate a fight and someone takes a swing at you and you defend yourself I think you still get to claim defense if the other person swung first? It might make you an asshole for choosing to do that but I don't know that it makes you legally guilty. -Daniel
[2021-11-22 18:36:05] - maybe instigator is the word I want for Rittenhouse? He was helping to instigate things? Which I don't think is really a legal term or anything here. Just that him being there wasn't a calming effect and wasn't really intended to be a calming effect (in my mind / opinion). -Daniel
[2021-11-22 18:35:32] - daniel: and that's where I'd be taking the macro into significant account. - mig
[2021-11-22 18:34:42] - a: Yeah I was just taking that specific case as the example why I don't think Rittenhouse can just be blanket labelled 'the aggressor'. -Daniel
[2021-11-22 18:33:42] - daniel: "defend[ing] yourself when someone takes a swing at you with a skateboard is reasonable". joseph rosenbaum didn't have a skateboard. i know you know this, but i wanted to point out that one of the three didn't even have a skateboard. ~a
[2021-11-22 18:33:23] - daniel: sure, the macro is worth considering, but I think it's largely irrelevant since we reasonably know the micro details. If we were solely taking Rittenhouses word on his version of the events we'd be having a much different conversation (i.e. i'd be skeptical of a self defense claim). - mig
[2021-11-22 18:32:30] - It makes him something but I'm not sure what the right word is and I'm not sure that blanket label of aggressor is right either. I don't think I would label him an innocent bystander either though. -Daniel
[2021-11-22 18:31:43] - Even if he was being an asshole vigilante (which I understand is not how mig / paul / others would label him - but for the sake of just already assuming a negative read on his macro actions) he does still get to defend himself I think. I don't know that leaving his house with a gun to go defend a rando business makes him the aggressor in the interaction b/w him and guy with the skateboard for example. -Daniel
[2021-11-22 18:29:31] - I still think this debate hinges on the macro / micro elements. I think he aggressively(?) left his house and went to the riot with a gun prepared to be a vigilante. I think in the micro someone took a swing at him with a skateboard and he defended himself. I think being allowed to defend yourself when someone takes a swing at you with a skateboard is reasonable. -Daniel
[2021-11-22 17:30:22] - mig: "it's also the opinion of a lot of legal experts" i 100% believe you, but what do you mean? i'd like to read an actual legal expert give his opinion on this case. maybe it would sway my opinion or include some details on the case i missed. ~a
[2021-11-22 17:14:43] - paul: but even if it was. "wearing a gun" != "wearing a dress". in summary the gun/dress analogy is a problem for two reasons: 1. a gun is not a dress and they shouldn't be treated the same way. 2. he didn't only bring a gun to a riot. ~a
[2021-11-22 17:13:22] - paul: "whether they brought a gun to a riot or not" this wasn't all he did. ~a
[2021-11-22 17:12:48] - Attacking somebody is wrong, whether they brought a gun to a riot or not, just like raping somebody is wrong regardless of what kind of dress they are wearing. -Paul
[2021-11-22 17:11:37] - a: I'm not saying that Rittenhouse putting himself in a bad situation justifies him shooting others. That makes no sense. I'm saying that just because he put himself in a bad situation, it doesn't mean he can be attacked and not defend himself. -Paul
[2021-11-22 17:09:09] - a: The dress analogy isn't an actual legal defense, it's a logical flaw (or at least that's how it should be in my opinion). It's not being used to defend Rittenhouse, it's being used to defend his attackers and claim it wasn't self defense because they were allowed to attack him. -Paul
[2021-11-22 17:07:55] - a: And I'm saying that same logic is being applied here because people are saying because Rittenhouse put himself in a bad situation (in this example, he's wearing the dress), then it's acceptable / excusable to attack him. -Paul
[2021-11-22 17:06:48] - a: Right, you're trying to use the metaphor to work for your argument and I'm trying to apply it to mine. The "dress" argument is that if somebody puts themself into a bad situation (ie, wearing a provocative dress), then they have brought upon themselves what happened to them and thus it's... I don't even know, excusable? -Paul
[2021-11-22 16:18:54] - a: "you, and miguel, and a whole jury say he's not" it's also the opinion of a lot of legal experts. - mig
[2021-11-22 16:11:49] - paul: you keep trying to put words in my mouth. i say he's the aggressor. you, and miguel, and a whole jury say he's not. but using the "dress" analogy is total bs in my opinion. ~a
[2021-11-22 16:10:15] - paul: that's right. if you are an aggressor, you can't be using self-defense. if you put on your raping dress, and try to rape some people, you can't claim self-defense when people decide they don't like being raped. ~a
[2021-11-22 16:08:28] - a: You said he gave up his claim of self defense because of the situation he put himself in, right? -Paul
[2021-11-22 16:07:57] - a: "evidence included a lot of video of him pointing his gun at many people. not all of them were threatening him" I would probably have to see that video in context. Obviously there are acceptable times to point a gun at somebody, right? If somebody is trying to break into my house? Just as obviously, it can be very inappropriate as well. Did the jury see the video? -paul
[2021-11-22 16:07:12] - paul: you have a paraphrasing fail. i said no such thing. he didn't get what he deserved. i said his claim of self-defense is shaky at best and (before friday) murder, at worst. ~a
[2021-11-22 16:05:49] - a: "the difference with your comparison" Yeah, but I'm not the one doing the comparison, you are. Paraphrasing, but you are basically saying that he got what he deserved for putting himself in that situation (ie, attacked). I am saying that seems similar to saying a woman got what she deserved for wearing a certain dress. -Paul
[2021-11-22 15:21:39] - mig: it's relevant because paul literally asked me the question. maybe paul was referring to the three specific people that he shot? if so, i guess i missed that. ~a
[2021-11-22 15:20:21] - a: there's no evidence the specific people who attacked rittenhouse were provoked in any way before they went after him. Yes he pointed his gun at people earlier. That's bad. But unless that was right before he was attacked, I don't see how it's relevant. - mig
[2021-11-22 15:11:37] - paul: victim blaming requires you to actually blame a victim. ~a
[2021-11-22 15:10:51] - paul: "shouldn't have worn that dress": the difference with your comparison, is rittenhouse was the one who was doing the raping, he was not the one being raped. like miguel, you confused the victim with the victimizer in your analogy. ~a
[2021-11-22 15:08:05] - paul: yes. evidence included a lot of video of him pointing his gun at many people. not all of them were threatening him: many of them were people who were threatening the property he was protecting. he only shot the people who threatened him back. ~a
[2021-11-22 15:08:04] - Daniel: I had similar thoughts about "shouldn't have worn that dress" comparisons. It can both be true that somebody was acting irresponsible and put themselves in a situation where there is an increased likelihood of bad things happening to them AND that it's wrong for bad things to happen to them. -Paul
[2021-11-22 15:06:28] - a: "if you provoke them into a response" Is there any evidence he did so? I haven't been following the trial much, but from what I've heard he was open carrying, and that seems to be the extent of his "provoking" people. -Paul
[2021-11-20 17:53:32] - https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1461775482496724998?s=20 this statement feels ... very irresponsible. I'm not sure the DOJ even has the authority to do what he's asking. It's fine to not like the verdict I guess but it's concerning to see some people seem to be morphing into 1/6 insurrectionists. I thought undermining faith in our institutions was a "very bad" thing, but I guess not if it's for the "correct" cause. - mig
[2021-11-20 17:22:34] - a: https://attorneyholcomb.com/va-self-defense-laws-what-you-need-to-know/ are you sure? He many have been guilty of some things. Pointing his weapon at people definitely sounds like he'd be guilty of. But his claims of self defense seem to fit under virginia's statutes. This article could be dated though. Also defendants never have to "prove" anything, simply provide enough reasonable doubt. - mig
[2021-11-20 12:14:56] - mig: "virginia may be the last state that requires a defendant to prove that he or she was acting in self-defense". wow, til. i'd guess the verdict would have turned out differently here? ~a
[2021-11-20 11:46:54] - mig: "it does straddle perilously close to the 'well she shouldn't have worn that provocative dress' type arguments". i think you're confusing victim-blaming with victimizer-blaming. they are not the same. ~a
[2021-11-19 22:22:17] - mig: I get that. You're probably right. Sometimes I'm sure I will still think things along the line of "shouldn't have worn that dress". It doesn't make it 'right' I guess? But sometimes still true/prudent. -Daniel
[2021-11-19 21:24:05] - daniel: I really don't like playing those "well if he wasn't there this wouldn't have happened" games. Ultimately he had a right to be there just like anybody else, and legally he had a right to be armed (as others who were also armed there), even if his reasons for being there were silly and/or stupid. Personally, I feel it does straddle perilously close to the "well she shouldn't have worn that provocative dress" type arguments. - mig
[2021-11-19 20:22:31] - He was found not guilty but I would guess those people would be alive if he had stayed home. Though maybe they would have picked a fight with someone else. Hard to say. -Daniel
[2021-11-19 20:21:10] - I think in terms of the verdict from what I know I might have voted the same way and definitely not surprised. In terms of if I was a friend / family member of Rittenhouse I would definitely be like what the fuck is wrong with you why are you out there with a gun being a jack ass. -Daniel
[2021-11-19 18:42:48] - mig: "self defense claim would be hella sketchy" i'm glad you see that there is room in the middle. i also see issue with his self defense claim, but i'm willing to accept the verdict. i guarantee the members of the jury saw the evidence in a more-fair light than i did. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:40:48] - paul: "Is your argument that carrying a firearm in an area with rioters means it's perfectly acceptable for that person to be assaulted and they are not allowed to defend themselves". if you provoke them into a response, and shoot anybody that responds, you can't claim self defense. aggressors can't claim self defense, that's like literally one of the elements of self defense. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:38:36] - him), and we were just taking Rittenhouse's word, then yes the self defense claim would be hella sketchy. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:38:32] - a: "have you been watching any fox news?" And have you been on twitter or watched any other news channel? Everybody is talking about how he was fake crying and comparing him to Kavanaugh and if he gets acquitted then it's moving backwards in race relations (despite the fact the victims were both white). -Paul
[2021-11-19 18:37:48] - a: as a last note, I do find bringing up that he was pointing a gun at people earlier in the day as one that is reasonable. If that directly led to the altercation where he shot those people (as in it happened right after pointing his gun), then there's no legitimate claim of self defense. If there was no other evidence presented about the encounter (rosenbaum lunged at him, huber was hitting him w/ a skateboard, gaige pointed a gun at ..
[2021-11-19 18:37:23] - a: Is your argument that carrying a firearm in an area with rioters means it's perfectly acceptable for that person to be assaulted and they are not allowed to defend themselves? -Paul
[2021-11-19 18:36:36] - paul: if anything seems to be working for him in many people's eyes. i think we'd disagree about the exact percentage, but come on, have you been watching any fox news? matt gaetz literally wants to hire him into the house of representatives. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:36:28] - a: "if you're guilty of putting yourself in a bad situation by provoking, you can't argue self defense" Uh, false? I mean, is there any legal basis for this? How is this like, "Well, if you didn't want to get robbed you shouldn't have gone into a bad neighborhood"?-Paul
[2021-11-19 18:34:54] - a: The color of his skin, if anything seems to be working against him in many people's eyes. The media often overlooks / excuses clear bad behavior based on skin color, but it's very often non-whites. Trayvon Martin? Michael Brown? -Paul
[2021-11-19 18:34:43] - paul: "It's clearly self defense, even if he might be guilty of putting himself in a bad situation" i love this summary, because its the perfect contradiction. if you're guilty of putting yourself in a bad situation by provoking, you can't argue self defense. (without this new hindsight i guess) ~a
[2021-11-19 18:33:35] - mig: more-so, he's been acquitted by a jury of his peers, so that was timed perfectly with our discussion going in circles. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:33:24] - a: "but whether it's self defense seems like a crazy question to me. the only reason we're even discussing self-defense is because of politics and the color of his skin" I'm amazed (but I guess not too surprised) how differently we see this. It's clearly self defense, even if he might be guilty of putting himself in a bad situation. -Paul
[2021-11-19 18:32:46] - mig: i noticed that too. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:32:35] - paul: "why [were] the only people he shot the ones who were attacking/threatening him". i feel like the prosecution went over that like a dozen times but: he brought the gun, he created the danger, he provoked other people. he threatened people, when the threatened him back, he shot them. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:32:31] - a: this discussion is starting to go in circles, and it's getting tiresome. we'll agree to disagree. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:30:09] - a: "he was there to start a fight. he anticipated violence. he was there for violence" This seems to require a lot of mind-reading on your part that I'm not sure there is a lot of evidence to support. If he was there to pick a fight and to start violence, why was the only people he shot the ones who were attacking/threatening him (who again, were people with really sketchy backgrounds)? -Paul
[2021-11-19 18:27:20] - not really? but yeah, i thought you'd like to know the news. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:27:01] - a; then this discussion i suppose it's moot. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:20:44] - mig: rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:13:17] - a: https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/judge-dismisses-count-accusing-kyle-rittenhouse-of-violating-curfew-because-state-prese it's arguable there was actually a curfew in effect. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:11:57] - mig: "what specifically does that mean?" he was carrying a rifle that wasn't his, across state lines no-less, he anticipated violence, he lied about why he was there, he lied about being an emt. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:10:16] - mig: "many other people were around past curfew" other people breaking the law doesn't make it a legal behavior. the curfew was there specifically to avoid this. literal. situation. ~a
[2021-11-19 18:09:25] - "evidence shows rittenhouse was there ready to rock" what specifically does that mean? - mig
[2021-11-19 18:09:00] - a: yes. many other people were around past curfew. So I don't see how that's relevant. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:07:18] - "he was never charged for being around after curfew" it's irrelevant information if you aren't charged? ~a
[2021-11-19 18:06:49] - a: he was never charged for being around after curfew. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:06:41] - mig: isn't that tweet just blatant hypocrisy? ~a
[2021-11-19 18:06:27] - a: an unarmed assailant can absolutely deadly to someone up close, even if they happen to be armed. To say that someone can't claim self defense because they are armed and their assailant wasn't is wrong. There's no exception for that in any self defense law that i know of. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:03:05] - https://twitter.com/EnesKanter/status/1461380967197814785 shots fired. I usually roll my eyes at some lebron bashing but this one is wholly deserved. - mig
[2021-11-19 18:01:55] - mig: "legally, I think it's 100% false". can you explain this part? ~a
[2021-11-19 17:59:52] - mig: "I'm not sure if the defense can hold objections at that point" they definitely can and did. "the argument being made is that you can't be acting in self defense if your assailant is unarmed", i understand why you did it, but you removed the rest of the context: evidence shows rittenhouse was there ready to rock, and provoked the situation. after curfew. ~a
[2021-11-19 17:56:36] - a: it was during closing arguments I think, and I'm not sure if the defense can hold objections at that point. I isolated that statement because the context of the argument being made is that you can't be acting in self defense if your assailant is unarmed (references being made to bringing a gun to a fist fight). I reject that argument and legally, I think it's 100% false. - mig
[2021-11-19 16:55:50] - mig: you cut off the rest of the sentence? (also, less important, but this was a quote from a lawyer, and there was no objection, so i think there is at least some legal knowledge behind it) ~a
[2021-11-19 16:54:38] - “ you lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun”. that is 100% false. - mig
[2021-11-19 16:11:21] - paul/mig: is it at all relevant that the homicide was after curfew? as someone who's been out after curfew, i can say cops are pretty serious about curfew. it's not just unenforced red-tape. ~a
[2021-11-19 16:06:03] - paul: it's nuanced insofar as any situation is nuanced. but whether it's self defense seems like a crazy question to me. the only reason we're even discussing self-defense is because of politics and the color of his skin. this is racial progress? ~a
[2021-11-19 16:04:21] - paul: "you lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun, when you are the one creating the danger, when you’re the one provoking other people". ~a
[2021-11-19 16:04:10] - paul: "That doesn't explain why he was there". he pointed an ar-15 at demonstrators multiple times (there is video of this, but there are also a lot of witnesses). he lied about being an emt, and provoked people multiple times. he was there to start a fight. he anticipated violence. he was there for violence. ~a
[2021-11-19 16:02:10] - Anyway, I'm not trying to paint the man as a saint. I just think it's a pretty nuanced case that the media has done a horrible job reporting on and that it's reasonable to expect he should be found innocent and because of how the media reported on it people might get mad at the result. -Paul
[2021-11-19 16:00:36] - a: "he anticipated violence" That doesn't explain why he was there. Also, considering what was going on, that seemed like a pretty safe thing to anticipate. -Paul
[2021-11-19 16:00:04] - a: "has a black person ever even tried anything like this?" Probably? But obviously not any case I know about. But there's plenty of cases of people being valorized by the media when the facts turned out to be that they initiated violence against somebody and were pretty clearly in the wrong. -Paul
[2021-11-19 15:58:08] - paul: "why do you think he was there" he anticipated violence. ~a
[2021-11-19 15:57:43] - a: "he didn't care about the property" I don't know how you can know that. Wasn't he cleaning graffiti from walls before the shooting? It sounds like you think he wasn't there to protect property or render assistance, so why do you think he was there? -Paul
[2021-11-19 15:57:39] - paul: "who was there to provide medical assistance" he wasn't there to provide medical assistance. he was carrying a rifle that wasn't his, *because* he anticipated violence, and pretended to guard an empty building owned by a business he had never heard of, while lying about being an emt? has a black person ever even tried anything like this? i'm like 1000% sure the cops would have shot him on sight. hard disagree is right. ~a
[2021-11-19 15:54:49] - a: "this is correct: i don't think that." Oof, wow. Hard disagree. Two convicted felon white rioters attacking a black kid who was there to provide medical assistance? I absolutely think there would be screaming from the rooftops that this person should be innocent of all charges and hailed as a hero. -Paul
[2021-11-19 15:46:04] - paul: "the trial has established that he didn't shoot anybody for destroying property" sorry ok, maybe i misstated my position, because i agree he didn't shoot anybody for destroying property. he didn't care about the property. i also think he shot at (unarmed) people who were aggressive towards him. but, still not self defense. ~a
[2021-11-19 15:42:16] - paul: "you don't think if his race was different that this would be covered VERY differently and the people lined up to defend/attack him would be very different?" tucker carlson's coverage would be different, that's for sure. but, that aside, this is correct: i don't think that. if you change literally nothing about the situation, except the race: if anything the overall coverage would be "*fuck* no, this was not self defense". ~a
[2021-11-19 15:32:07] - a: "you can't shoot someone on the street for destroying property. so why was he there? it's not irrelevant" Not entirely sure why this was directed at me, but I am pretty sure the evidence in the trial has established that he didn't shoot anybody for destroying property. He shot at people for attacking him and/or threatening him with a weapon. -Paul
[2021-11-19 15:30:15] - Because I think it would be. -Paul
[2021-11-19 15:30:05] - a: "seems like you're trying to make a dig, but i don't buy it" Uh... not necessarily a dig, but an observation. You don't think if his race was different that this would be covered VERY differently and the people lined up to defend/attack him would be very different? -Paul
[2021-11-19 13:58:00] - mig: "That by itself doesn't make him an aggressor" i agree, but it is a contributing factor. pointing his gun at people, shooting them, and then them dying made him an aggressor. if the back story was irrelevant, it wouldn't have been introduced in trial. "even if he was playing pretend guard, so?" it goes to an overall explanation of events: kyle rittenhouse went out of state primarily in anticipation of violence. that's the "so?" ~a
[2021-11-18 21:36:02] - and even if he was playing pretend guard, so? That by itself doesn't make him an aggressor, and if we are going to argue and accept his mere presence at the protest caused him purposefully put him in the position to be in a potentially fatal altercation then literally nobody who attends a potentially violent protest can ever claim self defense if they are attacked. - mig
[2021-11-18 21:32:23] - a: because it's what ... he did? He said he wanted to be there to provide medical assistance. he did. You and I might find it weird he decided to stand guard over a business he had no personal connection or any knowledge of, but it matches what he stated he was there for. Whether he was "pretending" is based on what I've seen and read, an opinion. - mig
[2021-11-18 21:27:37] - mig: Agreed with mig on the prosecutor being either like super terribad at his job or trying to get some shenanigans through. All the reports I heard about that were not kind to the prosecutor. -Daniel
[2021-11-18 20:18:05] - mig: "i believe the property protection claim was genuine as well" all the evidence seems to contradict his property protection claim. why do you think it was genuine? ~a
[2021-11-18 20:14:47] - daniel: right it wasn’t his only reason, but i believe the property protection claim was genuine as well. - mig
[2021-11-18 20:14:05] - mig: "An AR wouldn't be my choice" i think this is what daniel means. ~a
[2021-11-18 20:13:28] - daniel: other medics that were there were armed. An AR wouldn’t be my choice but it didn’t seem to impact him giving aid (his general incompetence at it did though). - mig
[2021-11-18 20:08:29] - There was speculation that the prosecution was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial (which would essentially be a do-over) due to how badly the case was going for them. While it doesn't impact whether Rittenhouse is truly guilty or not, it's still really concerning, and I find it hard to believe anything coming out of the prosecution is in good faith at this point. - mig
[2021-11-18 20:08:09] - And then the prosecutor, right after that, attempted to go into a line of questioning that was inclined not to allow (which caused the angry reubke i linked earlier). Those both seemed to be big enough deals to cause a mistrial w/ prejudice - mig
[2021-11-18 20:07:45] - There's also the issue of pretty severe prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. For starters, the prosecutor questioning the defendant's right to remain silent, which I didn't know was a big deal, but makes sense after reading about it. - mig
[2021-11-18 20:06:40] - It might have been a motivation but seems simplistic to say it was the only reason he was there. -Daniel
[2021-11-18 20:06:34] - and while standing guard over a building that belongs to a business you've never heard of is certainly weird, it does not a) make you an aggressor, b) negate a claim of self defense if you are attacked. - mig
[2021-11-18 20:06:07] - "Genuine" seems like a strong word for someone who brought an AR with them. My guess is most EMT's don't do that. -Daniel
[2021-11-18 19:34:42] - so while he lied about being a certified emt, and didn’t do a good job of providing medical assistance, his claim of being there to provide medical aid appears to be geniune. - mig
[2021-11-18 19:32:39] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-shooting-survivor-20211108-wh3owxxotbfgjhlofdmyoneak4-story.html?outputType=amp “ Grosskreutz said he saw Rittenhouse providing medical assistance, noting that Rittenhouse didn’t appear to be a trained medic, in large part because he was wearing gloves in an unsanitary manner.” - mig
[2021-11-18 19:19:15] - mig: was he acting as an emt? ~a
[2021-11-18 19:15:20] - mig: why was he there? it's not irrelevant. ~a
[2021-11-18 19:14:40] - a: "you can't shoot someone on the street for destroying property." TRUE! But that doesn't impact his right to be there or his right to be armed. Guns are still useful deterrents to prevent violence. He also didn't shoot anybody who was destroying property, only those who posed physical threats to him. - mig
[2021-11-18 19:01:02] - mig/paul: you can't shoot someone on the street for destroying property. so why was he there? it's not irrelevant. ~a
[2021-11-18 18:53:50] - mig: read up on the trial and come back to me. (jk) he had never heard of car source. (he had never been to car source. he had never bought anything from car source. he had never worked at car source. the owners of car source weren't there defending the empty building.) again, he had never heard of car source! how or why would you genuinely defend an empty building? he lied about protection of the business. ~a
[2021-11-18 18:52:34] - a: Hah, so I was still pretty far off. It's how you know I didn't cheat. I should've realized it was dumb putting Intel below IBM, but I also know Intel has been going down a ton. The only thing I knew for sure was Rivian > Ford, because that seems crazy. Surprised Target is that high. -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:40:58] - a: “he lied about protection of the business” please elaborate. - mig
[2021-11-18 18:39:53] - paul: "this is racial progress" seems like you're trying to make a dig, but i don't buy it. ~a
[2021-11-18 18:39:30] - paul: your rittenhouse situation is completely different. you've changed more than the races. "protect people" does *not* apply. you also forgot to mention that he was going to lie about why he was there (he lied about protection of the business), and who he was (he lied about being an emt). worst of all "tossing him in jail and throwing away the key?" came out of nowhere. change only the races and i'd def agree it wasn't self defense. ~a
[2021-11-18 18:32:53] - paul: trespassing is not generally a felony. this was a felony. yes, i do think it's the right sentence, but i was surprised by the sentence. ~a
[2021-11-18 18:28:47] - paul: wow! yeah, great job on rivian, but since i put it up yesterday, it's dropped a bunch
i picked a bunch of companies with pretty similar market caps so that was pretty mean of me and it means the answers will change a lot. today it's intel, target, rivian, square inc, ibm, bp, uber, ford. ~a[2021-11-18 18:28:29] - That he lied about being a certified EMT is a bad look, but since some of this testimony is supported by video/photo evidence and other testimony, it's not materially relevant to his guilt or innocence in my eyes. - mig
[2021-11-18 18:28:10] - Is it weird he travelled to WI armed to guard a business he never heard of? Yeah that's weird to me. But I'm not sure how this makes him an aggressor by his mere presence. He didn't threaten anyone and no shooting occurred until he was attacked. - mig
[2021-11-18 18:26:26] - I imagine for the vast majority of people, the sides would be completely reversed, which is absolutely bonkers to me. This is racial progress? -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:26:03] - Then imagine he is attacked and threatened by a bunch of white people (at least of which are felons, as I understand it). He shoots and kills them. Would the same people be advocating for tossing him in jail and throwing away the key? Would the same people be arguing for his innocence? -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:24:42] - Re: Rittenhouse. I like to imagine what the "sides" would be here if the races were scrambled a bit. Imagine a majority black town being rocked by violence from out of town instigators. Imagine a young black man deciding he would go there to try to protect people that the police have decided not to protect. -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:23:27] - a: "the qanon shaman just got 3.5 years of jail-time... but i can't say it isn't deserved" Interesting. So you think it's the right sentence? It seems pretty high for what equates to non-violent trespassing (as I understand it, he was not one of the violent offenders), even if that trespassing was the US Capitol. -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:21:50] - a:"without looking it up, order these companies by their market cap:" Oof, okay. Here we go (from largest to smallest): rivian, square inc, ibm, intel, uber, ford, target, bp. I'm guessing I am way off since I know a lot of these have had big moves (either up or down) the past year or so. How did I do? -Paul
[2021-11-18 18:03:59] - which, coincidentally, is exactly what the evidence shows rittenhouse decided to do. ~a
[2021-11-18 17:54:45] - daniel: agreed (with your first message but not the second one). the law can't ignore how you got there. it can't and doesn't look at just the micro situation, as you describe it. if you're the aggressor, self defense can't be claimed. you literally cannot just go out looking for threatening people to kill in the hopes that they threaten you. ~a
[2021-11-18 17:51:55] - I don't know enough about the law but I think in my head it hinges on some of these macro / micro distinctions. I think in the macro Rittenhouse was not looking to be a peaceful observer. I think in the micro he was defending himself (in at least two of the three instances). -Daniel
[2021-11-18 17:50:40] - a: I think those are all the macro reasons why its dumb. But in the small scale of someone is clearly angry with you and is trying to take a gun you are holding so I'm worried they might shoot me isn't crazy. -Daniel
[2021-11-18 17:39:55] - mig: i've walked near violent protests before. even across state lines. the idea of bringing an ar-15 with me over the potomac? or with the idea that i'd "guard" a business i had never heard of? or to lie about being an emt? then later call the whole thing self-defense? it totally and completely defies credibility. you'd say i was insane. or that at the very least that it wasn't even borderline self-defense. ~a
[2021-11-18 17:35:12] - mig: the prosecution is required to show that rittenhouse is an aggressor, or that he put himself in that position purposefully. they've definitely done this: rittenhouse went across *state lines* with someone else's ar-15 semi-automatic rifle, with the *anticipation* of violence, he went there to pretend to guard an empty building owned by a business he had never heard of, he lied about being an emt, somehow this is self-defense? ~a
[2021-11-18 17:14:55] - As daniel mentioned, the 3rd guy was armed and by his own admission was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he shot him. - mig
[2021-11-18 17:14:26] - The 2nd man was beating Rittenhouse with a skateboard (i.e deadly weapon) as he was on the ground. This wasn't in dispute at the trial so saying he was "unarmed" is false. - mig
[2021-11-18 17:12:23] - The 1st man who was shot is probably the murkiest. It was established that the man threatened Rittenhouse and others earlier that day (nobody disputes this). They were also in near close quarters when he was shot. Even if you are unarmed (which we only know with hindsight now), you can still be a deadly threat even to someone with a gun if you are up close. He could have had a knife or been trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun. - mig
[2021-11-18 16:29:37] - well I think I know that first part - I could be wrong
-Daniel[2021-11-18 16:28:45] - i haven't followed all of it but I know that at least one witness said they had pointed a gun at rittenhouse before rittenhouse shot him (obv not one of the deceased). Someone else I think tried to grab the gun maybe from Rittenhouse? So I think there is some things that do suggest some level of self defense. Though I think the macro setup as adrian alluded to does not. -Daniel
[2021-11-18 15:37:06] - mig:
. . . ok? i've read up on it some. he came from outside the community, carrying a rifle that wasn't his, because he anticipated violence, and *pretended* to guard an empty building owned by a business he had never heard of, while lying about being an emt, and killed two unarmed people. if this is self-defense, i'll eat my hat. ~a[2021-11-18 14:02:06] - a: read up on the trial and come back to me. I'm not going to bother discussing this until you do. - mig
[2021-11-18 13:40:10] - mig: was he was acting in self defense? i haven't been following the trial but i'm pretty sure he put himself in that situation right? "a person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense as a justification". also, in wisconsin you have a "duty to retreat except in one's home or vehicle or workplace". again, i haven't been following the trial. ~a
[2021-11-18 13:11:42] - a: if rittenhouse was acting in self defense, why would he get any jail time at all? - mig
[2021-11-17 19:25:04] - rittenhouse and gaetz will likely get less time combined even though both of those guys (likely) ruined dozens of lives by their actions. ~a
[2021-11-17 19:23:31] - the qanon shaman just got 3.5 years of jail-time. seems much longer that i would have expected, but i can't say it isn't deserved. ~a
[2021-11-17 19:20:25] - paul: without looking it up, order these companies by their market cap: bp, ford, ibm, intel, uber, square inc, rivian, target.
~a[2021-11-17 18:16:53] - mig: it definitely isn't a progressive case, but i feel like nobody likes paying (income) taxes on the same dollar more than once. uncapped-salt-deductions will mostly go to the rich, but i'd still defend it. ~a
[2021-11-17 18:13:18] - paul: "If you want to make the argument that the rich should pay more both in absolute terms AND relative terms, then make that argument" i am, and i do. ~a
[2021-11-17 17:19:18] - Is there a progressive case for uncapped SALT (federal tax breaks for state and local taxes)? - mig
[2021-11-17 17:10:55] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/16/second-biggest-program-democrats-budget-gives-billions-rich/ while we are talking about “fair” share this was a fun little nugget. - mig
[2021-11-17 15:50:06] - Daniel: The church example is a valid one. Jesus was big on the idea of a progressive tax system. I can't think of many other places in life where we do it, though. -Paul
[2021-11-17 15:49:13] - a: If you want to make the argument that the rich should pay more both in absolute terms AND relative terms, then make that argument. But don't try to convince me that somehow it's unfair that high income earners pay more in absolute terms and by percentage but... not enough more? -Paul
[2021-11-17 15:47:46] - a: I wasn't putting my foot down to be cute. I think it's gotten a little bonkers how much language has gotten warped now to where words are violence and everybody is a Nazi/white supremacist and an unwanted hug is sexual assault and having some people pay more is fair. -Paul
[2021-11-16 22:01:32] - a: Sure - just an example that percent based giving idea is quite old. -Daniel
[2021-11-16 22:01:07] - Fair in my head is a much more subjective thing and if everyone were treated equally in terms of taxes that would be deemed unfair by me as evidenced in Adrians apple example where one apple means a lot more to someone than to another. However that does more complicated with options for apples that have their value determined by others in a market setting, lol. -Daniel
[2021-11-16 21:59:53] - daniel: tithing was the first example i thought of too! christian church is not exactly a great example of what's right and virtuous, though
~a[2021-11-16 21:58:49] - Even the church doesn't say for everyone to pay the same flat rate when it comes to tithing. Its percent based. Just as example that this concept predates our current gov. -Daniel
[2021-11-16 21:54:37] - fair != equal. They can be the same but aren't always. Just with my kids they don't get treated equally by me but I think are treated fairly by me. -Daniel
[2021-11-16 21:49:22] - paul: it's very cute that you are putting your foot down, but i honestly don't even know if i agree with sanders on this. i wish the (earned and capital gains) income tax rates were higher, but i definitely wouldn't use the word "fair" when describing it. ~a
[2021-11-16 21:47:57] - paul: it's why we have two different words: equal and equitable. literally one of those words has "fair" in the definition
~a[2021-11-16 21:46:58] - a: "i think it's almost always how we define fair" Strongly disagree. I don't know if I've ever used the term "fair" that way. In fact, it almost always means the opposite: to treat people equally. -Paul
[2021-11-16 21:46:46] - paul: options, huh. yeah, i didn't consider that they were options, but i guess that makes sense. i was thinking, i guess incorrectly, about the max long-term capital gains rate (which is 20% i believe). ~a
[2021-11-16 21:45:19] - paul: i haven't looked at his tax returns and don't really follow the tsla earnings reports. you'd know better than me. ~a
[2021-11-16 21:45:15] - https://twitter.com/heydave7/status/1460675577527025669 And I have no idea if this guy is right or not, but he's got a blue checkmark. -Paul
[2021-11-16 21:44:39] - For starters, does he even have any income? I thought he had a crazy incentive package which didn't involve salary and just involved stock options? -Paul
[2021-11-16 21:43:54] - paul: how so? i think it's almost always how we define fair: people that give what they are able. if i have five apples, and i give one to a person in need, that's generally considered different than somebody who has 5e8 apples, and gives one to a person in need. ~a
[2021-11-16 21:43:38] - I absolutely draw the line here because I think it's an utterly ridiculous idea that for taxes and taxes only we determine "fair" by how much of your income you pay, but I do think it's worth noting that even by that crazy standard Musk probably is paying more than his "fair" share. -Paul
[2021-11-16 21:42:13] - a: "why wouldn't it?" Because that's not how we determine fair in any other area of life? -Paul
[2021-11-16 19:06:29] - paul: i'm considering how to pick only five for next year's stock market challenge: gbtc, btcc-u, btc.1 (cme), bito, btf, blok, bitw, blcn, bitq, bkch, so many great options!
~a[2021-11-16 15:51:27] - Yeah I think the real issue seems to be here defining what counts as "fair" in terms of "contribution to society" and what counts as "contributing". -Daniel
[2021-11-16 15:27:49] - paul: why wouldn't it? ~a
[2021-11-16 15:27:40] - a: "by percentage of his income?" No. Why would it be by percentage of his income? -Paul
[2021-11-16 15:26:57] - a: Even if you completely discount the work he is doing to fight climate change and push humanity forward in space travel, I don't think Bernie has come close to contributing the same amount as Musk. -Paul
[2021-11-16 15:26:26] - paul: "by that metric" i'm not exactly sure if your metric makes sense here. ~a
[2021-11-16 15:26:07] - a: But by that metric I think Elon smokes Bernie as well. I find it hard to come up with anything significant, tangible or otherwise, that Bernie can claim to have contributed to society. Musk, on the other hand, has created insane amounts of wealth for a bunch of people in addition to products people love. -Paul
[2021-11-16 15:26:01] - paul: "Elon Musk will have paid more in taxes this year alone than Bernie will pay in his entire life" by percentage of his income? if so, i'm not sure that's correct. most of elon's income is unrealized. ~a
[2021-11-16 15:24:34] - a: So by that metric, Bernie seems like he's not paying his fair share, right? But maybe there's another dimension? Maybe Bernie has contributed so much to society outside of taxes that it more than makes up for the billions of dollars he is falling short? -Paul
[2021-11-16 15:23:57] - paul: as a senator he isn't, but should be, required to put his equities in a blind trust. if he invests in stuff that he writes laws on, i'm not sure how i could expect him to be objective. so he's a bit of between a rock and a hard place there. regardless, i'm not sure he only holds index funds, if you're referring to something specific, i'm not sure i have the info here. ~a
[2021-11-16 15:23:35] - a: I didn't at all say Bernie can't talk about this. He mentioned people paying their "fair" share. I was trying to address that. As near as I can tell, Elon Musk will have paid more in taxes this year alone than Bernie will pay in his entire life. -Paul
[2021-11-16 15:21:44] - a: "bernie sanders doesn't own any stocks?" I don't know, but it WOULD be a little weird for a self-professed socialist to, right?
I more meant investing in individual businesses as opposed to index funds or whatever. Seeing how hard it can be for companies to get to profitability and how easily they can be disrupted has really driven home to me how risky starting a business can be. -Paul[2021-11-15 18:32:18] - daniel and i are the two business owners here. everybody else has zero credibility on this topic
~a[2021-11-15 18:22:01] - Doing thing A can definitely give you some perspective on thing A but I don't think the idea that you have to have done thing A in order to have credibility to talk about thing A is silly. -Daniel
[2021-11-15 18:12:42] - mig: literally no credibility? zero? less credibility than who? hasn't he studied businesses? from the inside and out? for at least a few more years than you and me combined? hasn't he talked about starting and running businesses with business owners. more business owners than your and i have combined? ~a
[2021-11-15 18:10:02] - a: no one (I think?) is saying he can't discuss those issues, but I would note that I believe he has no credibility to talk about those particular topics. - mig
[2021-11-15 16:49:12] - paul: this reminds me of a conversation dee (and maybe you?) were having about whether people who have been cops are allowed to discuss cops on social media. (like ~10 years ago). no, we're all allowed to discuss the police, even if we haven't been police. bernie, whether he has contributed to society or not, is allowed to discuss businesses, especially if what he says follows logic. ~a
[2021-11-15 16:39:13] - paul: to be a business owner, you first have to work as a worker, would be an interesting counter-point to your whole, first be a business owner thing. business owners have no clue about the plight of the line-worker. elon musk was born into money, his dad owned some emerald mines in africa. ~a
[2021-11-15 16:21:10] - paul: and this ~a
[2021-11-15 16:19:55] - paul: "And for this particular point of 'who has contributed more to society', I certainly think it is relevant". how? only business owners can contribute to society? i'm not sure i follow this. as an aside, i'm slowly coming around to: traffic engineers (regional planners) affect the daily lives of everybody more than almost anybody. they don't own a business. or run one. or even work for one. ~a
prev <-> next