prev <-> next
[2022-05-05 15:48:57] - paul: ok well now i regret using the word useful. ~a
[2022-05-05 15:48:45] - a: Similar to abortions. We set narrow limits like health of mother. Not sure we have a questionnaire asking the mother the reasons for the abortion and deciding if it's legal or not based on that. -Paul
[2022-05-05 15:48:00] - a: "but don't we have the right to free speech and the right to assemble because it's useful?" Yes, but IMO not only for speech that is useful. Do we set limits on freedom of speech? Pretty narrow ones, usually involving immediate calls to violence. It's not based on usefulness of speech. -Paul
[2022-05-05 14:48:56] - is* not
[2022-05-05 14:48:34] - Where anyone who already carried the baby for 7 months not just deciding to abort on a whim. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 14:47:32] - Paul: If I were in charge I wouldn't put limits on the legality of it. I would trust that the woman who was carrying the baby would have thought through it more than me and would have some compelling reason for choosing her path. I think there is a natural relationship between the length of term already carried leading to needing ever increasing compelling reasons. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 14:41:30] - paul: do we ever set limits on the freedom of speech or right to assemble? ~a
[2022-05-05 14:38:19] - paul: but don't we have the right to free speech and the right to assemble because it's useful? ~a
[2022-05-05 14:37:30] - a: But secondly... it seems odd to base a "right" around usefulness. Free speech? Sure, if it's useful speech. Right to assemble? Only if the protest is useful. -Paul
[2022-05-05 14:36:44] - a: I guess I struggle to wrap my head around judging the legality of abortions around "usefulness". Firstly, I don't even know how one considers the usefulness of an abortion. Is it based on affluence? Poorer people have more useful abortions because they can less afford the child? -Paul
[2022-05-05 14:28:48] - paul: i view this mostly an issue of rights. but i don't consider a fetus as having rights any more than i consider a testicle or a fallopian tube as having rights. ~a
[2022-05-05 14:26:18] - paul: "what is the reason for limiting abortions" i don't know. ~a
[2022-05-05 14:25:39] - paul: "So third trimester abortions shouldn't be legal?" are you talking about medically necessary abortions or otherwise? i don't have strong opinions on third trimester abortions that aren't medically necessary. they're not very useful, so i kinda don't care how the law decides them. sending people to jail over it does seem dumb though, so hopefully it's either legal or a small fine. ~a
[2022-05-05 14:10:14] - Maybe the line is the moment the woman gives birth. I guess it's slightly less arbitrary than most other lines, but it just seems wrong to me (again, excluding edge cases like where the health of the mother is in danger). -Paul
[2022-05-05 14:01:18] - Daniel: I understand the woman might have a compelling reason, but should it be legal? That's what we're talking about, right? It's certainly a tough line to draw, but it has to be drawn somewhere. -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:49:41] - That was also where I wonder if better funds / efforts could be put into adoptive / foster systems to make those options seem a better choice to further reduce late term abortions. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 13:46:16] - Paul: I think for a third trimester abortion the woman will already have decided to carry the baby for 7+ months and then will be changing their mind and I think they will have had a compelling reason and feel that much worse for their decision. Again (without research) I would imagine the number of 'casual' third trimester abortions to be extremely low. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 13:43:19] - https://reason.com/2022/05/04/a-qualified-defense-of-letting-states-decide-on-abortion/ I don't fully agree with everything here, but I feel like it's an interesting thought exercise about how maybe a one size fits all national level decision on abortion isn't the best approach. -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:41:13] - aDaniel: It sounds like the biggest difference in thinking between me and you two is that I view this mostly as an issue of rights. Do women have a right to control their body? Does the fetus have rights at some point? Whereas it sounds like for you guys it's more an issue of practicality? Is that accurate? -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:39:13] - Daniel: "if there is a compelling enough reason for a woman to feel like its neccessary to abort and they are willing I don't think I would stand in their way" Even if it's a third trimester fetus? -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:38:27] - mig: Yeah, Reason had a thing pointing out that stuff like Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage is a right) was essentially overturning precedent. Heck, I'm sure Roe v Wade was precedent overturning at the time as well. -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:36:44] - a: Also, what is the reason for limiting abortions? Usefulness? It doesn't have to do with the rights of anybody? -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:36:22] - a: So third trimester abortions shouldn't be legal? That's still a fetus, no? You said, "you should be able to abort a fetus" -Paul
[2022-05-05 13:34:24] - a: Its irrelevant potentially to the courts decision. I think its relevant overall for a governments legitimacy. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 04:30:36] - daniel: regarding the will of the people. the will of the people is sometimes irrelevant, though right? especially when you're dealing with the courts. ~a
[2022-05-05 04:28:37] - mig: yeah, i agree. it is still interesting context. ~a
[2022-05-05 00:24:00] - "Either court precedents are sacrosanct or they aren't. You can't be selective about it." I agree with Miguel that in principle prior rulings aren't set in stone forever and even laws can change over time. I think the trick with this one is that it doesn't represent the will of the people and that the way this court came to be has some serious sheninigans attached to it. -Daniel
[2022-05-05 00:22:27] - I would amend my position by noting that probably early term abortions are more "casual" (and I'm still not sure that is the right word) but that those are also the least objectionable. -Daniel
[2022-05-04 23:57:30] - a: but back to the earlier statements by justices. Every nominee, democrat or republican, is going to give you a weaselly answer if you ask them what are you going to do if you get the opportunity to rule on case X or Y. That's just how the nomination hearing process goes. - mig
[2022-05-04 23:51:43] - And it's pretty hard to reconcile the current griping about the sanctity of SCOTUS ruling precedents when much of this same crowd wants to do away with Citizen's United. Either court precedents are sacrosanct or they aren't. You can't be selective about it. - mig
[2022-05-04 23:49:35] - a: the statements are when you analyze them are pretty much non answers to the question. At no point do any of the justices right out and say explicitly "I will not overturn Roe V Wade, or PP v Casey." - mig
[2022-05-04 23:35:26] - ... better and more viable option for an otherwise viable fetus. -Daniel
[2022-05-04 23:35:00] - I don't know the research but I think in general I don't see abortion as a casual decision for most women so I would be willing to put very few limits on them and if there is a compelling enough reason for a woman to feel like its neccessary to abort and they are willing I don't think I would stand in their way. Perhaps as part of that more funding could be put into adoption awareness and the foster system so that women felt that was a...
[2022-05-04 22:13:10] - i know that calling this "lying" is VERY overstated. but it's still interesting context: https://v.redd.it/b1ateveo1hx81 (tl/dr it's 75 seconds of supreme court judges asked during their nominations about roe). ~a
[2022-05-04 22:12:11] - paul: yes, i think there should be limits. the limits set out in roe seem to make sense to me. in my opinion, the usefulness of abortion increases then decreases with time. it's very useful much after the pregnancy is detected, then its usefulness decreases after that time. limits set in roe seem to fit in with this pretty well. ~a
[2022-05-04 22:11:44] - paul: that is right. i agree with miguel that it is good policy. in places with safe and accessible abortions, there is not a small drop in crime, there is a large drop in crime. the lives saved is measured in the millions and the dollars saved is measured in the billions. if you follow christianity as described in the bible, or you do not, it seems like it's a solid system. ~a
[2022-05-04 20:32:36] - a: No problem I wasn't offended. Just a little confused. Maybe it would help if you explained a bit your stance? You said you think abortion should be safe and accessible. Any limits? -Paul
[2022-05-04 16:12:41] - mig: (i'm not making an argument exactly, just googling things) apparently animal abuse can get you a class 6 felony. i'm guessing both (fetal death and animal death) also can have civil penalties. ~a
[2022-05-04 16:04:07] - mig: that makes sense, i guess. class 2 felony. 5 years minimum, wow. ~a
[2022-05-04 15:57:38] - paul: sorry i was flippant, paul. it wasn't my intention to offend. i'm sure i was confusing the issue, but i wanted to remind you maybe that i think abortion should be safe and accessible. ~a
[2022-05-04 15:55:19] - keep in mind though a fetus already has some form of limited person status already. You hurt or kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies you will be charged for the fetus’s death. - mig
[2022-05-04 15:52:19] - a: Then why the flippant return to "you should be able to abort a fetus"? I mean, if you should be able to abort a fetus, why does it matter if we give it citizenship? It feels like we're back to square one. -Paul
[2022-05-04 15:52:15] - It's sincere (except the voting one, and maybe one other I forget). ~a
[2022-05-04 15:51:28] - a: Because it kind of seems like the latter: "I'm going to throw out a bunch of odd, somewhat related edge cases to try to make your position look silly without addressing the root issue" -Paul
[2022-05-04 15:50:41] - It's sincere. Like Miguel I think abortion is good policy, but if you remove it then that should be contingent on other policy. ~a
[2022-05-04 15:47:59] - a: "for one, you should be able to abort a fetus" So, is any of this a sincere debate over the legality over abortion, or is it just intended to try to show how ridiculous the idea of a fetus being a person is? -Paul
[2022-05-04 15:44:35] - a: Putting aside the legal/ethical arguments for a moment - I do think keeping abortion legal is good policy. Roe wasn’t the ideal way to achieve that as exemplified by what just happened (what scotus giveth can also taketh away). - mig
[2022-05-04 15:35:10] - mig: what are your thoughts on roe? do i even need to convince you of this, or are you just mad about the alternative arguments about personhood? do you think states *should* (not should be allowed to) make abortion in the first or second trimester illegal in some/many situations? ~a
[2022-05-04 15:30:53] - mig: gotcha! ~a
[2022-05-04 15:30:29] - a: these feel like gotcha arguments and posing these to a pro-lifer i don’t think are all that persuasive. - mig
[2022-05-04 14:55:48] - i'm fine suggesting that a fetus is different form a 15 year old in key ways: for one, you should be able to abort a fetus. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:54:46] - "confused by logistically how some of these would work" as usual, paul, we're here to address your confusion. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:51:38] - a: Yeah, that's fine. Again, I'm not against, just confused by logistically how some of these would work. As much as I would love a single set of rules for all "persons", it's undeniable that a fetus is different from a 15 year old in key ways. -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:48:16] - paul: you can still make it contingent. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:47:32] - Daniel: " think the theory is if the fetus is "a person" then from that stems other questions related to its 'personhood'." Sure, I get that, but we have plenty of cases where people are undoubtedly people but don't have certain benefits just by virtue of being a person. Citizenship is contingent. Child support is contingent. -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:46:30] - paul: "things should be judged on their own merits" that's fair. delete my statement and replace it with daniel's. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:46:00] - a: "without having a bunch of rights added that attempt to overcome it" Is that ever how it works, though? Like, when laws are passed regulating something, do we typically throw a bone to those same people affected? Seems like things should be judged on their own merits and not tied to other things to try to make up for a group getting harmed. -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:41:21] - yah. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:39:08] - I think the theory is if the fetus is "a person" then from that stems other questions related to its 'personhood'. Eg citizenship, insurability, child support etc. -Daniel
[2022-05-04 14:37:26] - paul: "allowing a fetus to vote" oof sorry, i shouldn't have muddied the waters with that one. i don't think fetuses should vote. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:36:37] - paul: "I guess I don't fully understand why all of these HAVE to follow" they don't. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:36:18] - paul: "Are you saying the fetus shouldn't be deported with the mother because it should be a citizen" yes. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:35:52] - paul: "Different countries make different rules" i'm fine just discussing the US rules. that is fine with me. "Seems like it can easily be a separate conversation, though" i don't think we should take away this right that has been in place for generations, and affects every part of someone's life, without having a bunch of rights added that attempt to overcome it. a separate conversation is fine, but they're intertwined imo. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:35:44] - a: I guess I don't fully understand why all of these HAVE to follow? Some of these are tied to things like birth, but some aren't. It can, and often is, a separate conversation. Maybe it would be simpler to tie everything to a single point in time, but some things are just not really possible (like allowing a fetus to vote). Is that your ultimate point? -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:33:34] - a: "pregnant mothers are deported every day" Okay.... and the fetus with it. Are you saying the fetus shouldn't be deported with the mother because it should be a citizen? -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:32:45] - a: "yes, but should it? if we're going to count it as human, we should probably change this" Sure? Not super familiar with citizenship rules, but I don't think it tends to be universal. Different countries make different rules. Seems like it can easily be a separate conversation, though. -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:16:23] - paul: "responsibility to support, rights to visit?" to be clear, i think this is true in both genders. both parents have the responsibility to support, and rights to visit. obviously pre-birth, things get a bit messier, but i like it when things are as equitable as possible. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:15:09] - paul: "How much, if any, responsibilities / rights do fathers have for kids?" responsibility to support, rights to visit? i understand that "visiting" is a weird activity pre-birth. i dunno? ~a
[2022-05-04 14:13:09] - paul: "I haven't heard anybody discussing deportation of fetuses so I can't really say" pregnant mothers are deported every day. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:12:43] - paul: "Isn't citizenship usually determined by place of birth" yes, but should it? if we're going to count it as human, we should probably change this. "What kind of child support would a fetus need?" i think you probably know this better than me. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:12:14] - a: Are they? I haven't heard anybody discussing deportation of fetuses so I can't really say.... -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:11:26] - a: I'm fine with entertaining the idea of child support, but would hope there would be some corresponding rights to go with said responsibilities. -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:10:45] - paul: it seems telling that people want to restrict reproductive rights are wanting to make only that change, but no others. ~a
[2022-05-04 14:10:33] - a: Isn't citizenship usually determined by place of birth? What kind of child support would a fetus need? Pre-natal vitamins? This particular one seems like it gets into a different issue: How much, if any, responsibilities / rights do fathers have for kids? -Paul
[2022-05-04 14:07:25] - paul: when a women gets deported she is sometimes carrying a fetus, that should maybe now be considered a citizen? after conception, if we're going to consider it a human, the man involved should probably support the human or pay child support? ~a
[2022-05-04 06:05:57] - a: I'm not necessarily opposed, just confused. How does a fetus get deported? Who is paying child support to who? Does a pregnant mother get to drive in the HOV lane? -Paul
[2022-05-04 00:51:41] - paul: if we treat fetuses as children, i think we should definitely go all the way: yes, we *can* put arbitrary age limits but we should not. if we're going to treat it as killing children, they should get child support, they should count in their parents taxes as children income tax credit, you should be able to get them life insurance, they should count in the census, they should count as us citizens in deportation cases. ~a
[2022-05-04 00:43:06] - wow, nice! shit and you are right behind #2-#4. ~a
[2022-05-03 22:55:58] - https://www.wealthbase.com/posts/c55d362b-fb47-444e-b16d-e5db2a82ae47?entry_point=user_share_link&user=paul_essen Not sure if others will be able to see this, but I'm currently ranked 5th out of 4k+ players. I imagine it won't last for long. -Paul
[2022-05-03 22:50:10] - a: We put (relatively arbitrary) age limits on all sorts of things. And income limits. I don't get the suicide question either. Who is committing suicide? -Paul
[2022-05-03 22:48:42] - a: I'm not sure I understand your question. Why doesn't who get income tax credits? Or why can't who vote? The fetus? Because... it's underage? Sorry, I'm trying to understand. But whatever interpretation makes no sense to me. -Paul
[2022-05-03 22:34:07] - mig: oh huh. so . . . fetuses aren't babies? (sorry, i'm asking from their perspective, i'm not being a jerk) ~a
[2022-05-03 22:33:30] - a: Unless we are talking about most extreme sects of the pro lifers, I'm pretty sure they want it to be considered an offense, but not a capital one. - mig
[2022-05-03 22:28:44] - paul: apparently there's a civil penalty (a fine of sorts?) for causing a miscarriage in the bible. it's literally not a capital offense. i don't understand american christians. ~a
[2022-05-03 22:23:31] - paul: is numbers 5:11-30ish a description of how to perform an abortion? it's line 22 where they get into the meat of how to perform the abortion, but the rest of the context is important IMO. why are christians pro-life if it's literally not in the bible? ~a
[2022-05-03 22:22:15] - if that's the case, (i mentioned this earlier today and didn't see a reply) why don't they get child support or income tax credits? why aren't they counted on the census? why can't they vote? (i mean that last one is dumb, but i think maybe all kids should be able to vote). and the thing about attempted suicide . . . ~a
[2022-05-03 22:20:27] - a: I suspect, if it were medically feasible, most pro-life (another loaded term) people would probably be fine with a 2nd trimester c-section to remove the fetus and put it somewhere else it could grow. -Paul
[2022-05-03 22:19:03] - a: And yeah, that's yet another complicating factor, right? The last thing a libertarian wants to do is to try to control what somebody does with their own body! But if we're being technical, people aren't really trying to force a birth, they're just saying you can't kill a living thing inside you. -Paul
[2022-05-03 22:16:55] - a: "probably only going to hurt our relations" Really? I don't think it will. I like to think we can disagree civilly... I think "forced birth" is a slightly loaded term (as is most verbiage around abortion), but I also don't think it's entirely incorrect. -Paul
[2022-05-03 18:49:37] - paul: probably only going to hurt our relations, but i'll put this out here anyways: "forced birth". is this framing entirely incorrect? i guess it's incorrect in some situations. you (not you, but the voters, governors, and lawmakers of some states) *will be* forcing someone to give birth against their will. and birth, it's my understanding, is pretty traumatic? and often very unhealthy, dangerous, or fatal for the woman. ~a
[2022-05-03 17:00:37] - paul: right, but the same people that want to make abortion more difficult, are the same people that put in place OTHER policies that make unwanted pregnancies increase. ~a
[2022-05-03 16:59:31] - a: My point wasn't that SCOTUS should make adoption easier, it was that maybe instead of having thousands of activists on both sides laser focused on swaying the opinions of 9 people, they can spend some time on other solutions that just might have a bigger impact. -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:58:05] - a: playing devil's advocate here - but the SCOTUS argument right now is that assuring access to abortion isn't their job either. - mig
[2022-05-03 16:57:07] - a: "the death of a baby plus a jail sentence, seems more awful" Hmmm, I don't know. Did we let Derek Chauvin off because the only thing worse than George Floyd's death was his death and a jail sentence? I mean, I guess we can get into whether jail should be for punishment or protection but that seems like a different issue. -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:51:50] - paul: "Better access to birth control? Make adoption easier?" jfc, yes. but i don't think that's the scotus's job. ironically, making abortion more difficult will make unwanted pregnancies increase, so they're doing their part. ~a
[2022-05-03 16:50:14] - paul: "anything in the whole world more awful and heart wrenching than the death of a baby" the death of a baby plus a jail sentence, seems more awful. "regulating them and taking away their freedom" yeah, i was about to go here next. what are your thoughts on child support for fetuses? what are your thoughts on the child income tax credit for fetuses? should attempted suicide include (something similar) to attempted murder charge? ~a
[2022-05-03 16:50:11] - a: Honestly? I think the SCOTUS fight here is a distraction and the real solution is to put in place other support systems or alternatives to reduce abortions. Better access to birth control? Make adoption easier? Other? I don't know. -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:48:58] - a: And to complicate things, I'm well aware that making something illegal doesn't make it go away, and often times it just makes things worse (see the drug war). -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:48:17] - a: And at some point, that bundle of cells with no particular rights becomes a baby with rights and it is murder to kill it. I believe that point is before birth. Beyond that, I don't really know where to draw the line. Once there's a heartbeat and you can feel the movement, it really becomes hard to think of it as a non-living thing. -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:46:44] - a: Yeah, mostly. Basically, I feel very strongly for both sides. Obviously, as a libertarian, I hate sending people to jail and regulating them and taking away their freedom. At the same time, I don't know if I can think of anything in the whole world more awful and heart wrenching than the death of a baby. -Paul
[2022-05-03 16:09:36] - "I really don't know" that's fair. i also am not 100% set on some specifics. i sometimes remind myself that we're literally sending people to jail. and that doesn't make the decision any easier, but it is a perspective i often forget. "I tend to think 2nd trimester abortions start to feel like something approaching murder" so 1st trimester, less so? you'd be not-ok with your state sending people to jail for 1st trimester abortions? ~a
[2022-05-03 15:37:13] - a: "do you think states *should* (not should be allowed to) make abortion in the first or second trimester illegal in some/many situations?" I really don't know. Abortion is such a tough question for me on all levels. Outside of "life of the mother" concerns, I tend to think 2nd trimester abortions start to feel like something approaching murder. -Paul
[2022-05-03 15:33:28] - a: Most of those things you listed aren't big flashpoint culture war stuff (beyond gun control, and that's a bit unique in that the 2nd amendment has basically been around for forever and wasn't added on in "recent" history). -Paul
[2022-05-03 15:13:43] - paul: since i can't find your opinions on roe, i'll ask (maybe again, sorry): do you think states *should* (not should be allowed to) make abortion in the first or second trimester illegal in some/many situations? ~a
[2022-05-03 15:11:37] - lol, just found this quote searching for opinions on roe: "i agree, roe is unlikely to get unambiguously overturned. on the other hand, lots of unlikely things happen [...] ~a" ~a
[2022-05-03 15:09:25] - i'll agree that abortion rights are more controversial than gay rights or the civil rights movement. if i propose some other similarly-controversial stuff would you consider those as analogies? gun control, rights to not be vaccinated during a pandemic, prayer in schools, school vouchers, CDC using (/abusing) its rights? none of those things are codified and are receiving greater cultural acceptance either. how are they different? ~a
[2022-05-03 15:06:22] - a: But despite 50 years for opinions to change, the country still seems as divided about abortion now than they were when Roe was decided. -Paul
[2022-05-03 15:05:36] - a: I think you misunderstand me. It's not necessarily about leading to other rights. It's about the codifying of constitutional rights usually accompanying greater cultural acceptance. We have Obergefell v. Hodges AND more people accept gay marriage now. There is no significant movement to undo gay marriage. -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:58:36] - "plan b pill will be out the window tomorrow." Given that there was support on the right to actually make BC available over the counter (which democrats scoffed at), I very much doubt this. - mig
[2022-05-03 14:52:10] - paul: there's very strict rules for what can get passed with only a simple majority. Generally, things that are actual policy changes can't be included in those type of bills. - mig
[2022-05-03 14:50:15] - paul: . . . regardless, i'm not sure it matters. why do rights need to lead to other rights? ~a
[2022-05-03 14:49:39] - paul: if abortion were illegal, it would be the thing they would try at the state level. they would try to curtail reproductive rights, make contraception much much harder to get. plan b pill will be out the window tomorrow. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:48:43] - paul: i couldn't disagree more. revolving around (not trying to imply causation) abortion rights are contraception rights, women's health rights, and reproductive rights: a fuckton of people are itching to make ivf illegal. it *def* won't have the same kind of broad-spectrum appeal as an abortion-ban. because the "right" people desperately "need" ivf. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:36:34] - a: Yeah, I guess you're right. How about this? Usually SCOTUS decisions follow (or lead to, not trying to imply causation) cultural changes. Right to gay marriage went with greater acceptance of gay rights. Ditto for civil rights movement. Doesn't seem to have happened as much for abortion? -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:25:16] - that doesn't seem odd to me. seems like congress MO to me. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:24:07] - a: I also saw this, but I also saw allusions to there maybe not even being 50 votes. It just seems a bit odd that a controversial 50 (!?) year old SCOTUS decision that remains controversial enough half a century later that it might get overturned.... apparently never got enough support in Congress for a law to get passed? -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:09:06] - paul: it's also unclear to me, i just saw references online that the filibuster must change for this to pass. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:07:52] - a: Well, they got other stuff passed without 60 votes, right? I guess I'm unclear on what needs a majority and what needs 60 votes. -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:05:43] - it's possible, but it won't happen unless the filibuster is changed. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:04:21] - paul: "Congress passes a law making it illegal to outlaw abortion" they won't do this. why would you think they would do this? ~a
[2022-05-03 14:03:52] - Question: What would be the practical difference if Roe gets overturned but Congress passes a law making it illegal to outlaw abortion? Is that even possible? -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:02:39] - paul: understood, ok. ~a
[2022-05-03 14:02:30] - (Not sure which justice is likely to be most on the fence) -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:02:15] - a: If you're a.... Gorsuch? and on the fence about what to do and you see people marching and burning you in effigy.... you might think twice. -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:01:40] - a: Pressure after the fact, sure, but less so before. I mean, there were photos of barriers set up in front of the Court last night after the leak to prevent any breaches. -Paul
[2022-05-03 14:00:53] - a: In addition to wanting to keep confidentiality so the justices can feel free to speak openly to each other. -Paul
[2022-05-03 13:59:55] - isn't there already public pressure on the court? . . . regardless, i think i understand. ~a
[2022-05-03 13:59:20] - a: As I understand it, the decisions are not set in stone, so a leak like this could compromise the process by putting public pressure on the court. -Paul
[2022-05-03 13:58:14] - for a hot minute, i thought mig was arguing that it was super bad that the supreme court was overturning roe. and i was like "wow, cool" ~a
[2022-05-03 13:56:52] - mig/paul: why is the leak bad? i get that it makes them seem unprofessional, but other than that? ~a
[2022-05-03 13:41:01] - mig: It's a dumb thing to compare it to, no doubt. In many ways they are polar opposites, but between this and the flare up with the whole "Gorsuch won't wear a mask because he wants Sotomayor to die" thing the SCOTUS can't be happy with how rumors keep swirling. -Paul
[2022-05-03 13:20:52] - paul: definitely hyperbolic. But it's pretty super bad. - mig
[2022-05-03 13:15:10] - mig: Yeah, I saw somebody refer to the leak as "worse than Jan 6th" which, while on the surface seems kind of hyperbolic, I can almost understand. It's very precedent shattering. -Paul
[2022-05-03 13:14:31] - a: Yeah, I can't imagine any payment type that wouldn't make me nervous. That's why I am only really considering selling to people I know. -Paul
[2022-05-03 12:06:48] - paul: the this was published is pretty insane. - mig
[2022-05-03 03:41:03] - . . . and regarding anything other than cash, i wouldn't accept that either. ~a
[2022-05-03 03:33:48] - i def wouldn't. $4k in cash made me very nervous. $11k in cash (or more) seems like way too much. ~a
[2022-05-03 03:33:00] - a: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/roe-v-wade-supreme-court/index.html Good thing we never made that bet. Looks like I was 100% wrong. -Paul
[2022-05-03 03:32:10] - a: Yeah, it's not even necessarily the stabbing that has me concerned.... it's the getting scammed. I guess I need a certified check? How do I know it's legit? Could I even accept > $11k in cash? -Paul
[2022-05-03 02:22:26] - i hope by the time i have to buy my next car, the used-market is back to normal. maybe i can hold out a few years. ~a
[2022-05-03 02:18:27] - paul: i'm replying to something you posted to facebook. i've bought and sold stuff in cash for 4k and i was super nervous (i made sure to have audrey there to call the ambulance if i got stabbed). i don't think i'd ever buy or sell anything in cash for much more. ~a
[2022-05-02 22:08:59] - gotcha, yeah. I guess I never really believed or disbelieved that story. just sorta expected it to turn into something, and then it didn't. which was usually the deal with trump bullshit. slick Willie didn't have shit on slick donny. ~a
[2022-05-02 20:09:17] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier Stuff like the Steele Dossier? -Paul
[2022-05-02 19:10:19] - paul: what outlandish stories about trump are you hesitant to believe? ~a
[2022-05-02 19:00:27] - a: Yeah. I am always a tiny bit hesitant to believe outlandish stories about Trump because it seems like people like to make up stories about him a lot, but this one felt on-brand enough that I totally buy it. -Paul
[2022-05-02 18:39:46] - paul: thank you for that! yes i agree this was bad, and dangerous . . . and 100% on-brand? "lawsuits filed by protesters who were forcibly cleared out of Washington’s Lafayette Square" unless i'm misunderstanding what cnn is talking about, i don't think they were cleared out of lafaette square. i think they were cleared out of (what is now) black lives mater plaza. minor quibble, maybe, but the protesters weren't even in the park! ~a
[2022-05-02 18:33:48] - a: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/esper-trump-protesters/index.html You were saying you wanted me to point out more dumb stuff from the right. I think we can both agree this was bad and dangerous. -Paul
[2022-05-02 16:52:34] - paul: you can call me whatever you want. subsidizing things that are bad for society will always be a travesty. ~a
[2022-05-02 16:50:56] - paul: "it sounds like you're saying more iBonds" i'm not. but . . . i suppose i am. ~a
[2022-05-02 16:50:43] - a: Now you're sounding like a libertarian. -Paul
[2022-05-02 16:50:29] - a: Either way, it sounds like you're saying more iBonds.
-Paul[2022-05-02 16:50:09] - Hmmm, I think those index funds are probably close to 100% stock focused. A fair amount of VTSAX. Probably some international index funds. I know I have a tiny bit of real estate.... index? etf? Not sure what it was. -Paul
[2022-05-02 16:04:07] - paul: what if all (most? more?) parking was privately owned? ~a
[2022-05-02 16:02:59] - paul: what if all (most? more?) roads were toll roads? ~a
[2022-05-02 16:00:54] - paul: "we don't need to rehash this argument for the 100th time" . . . maybe i can tune the conversation differently? i don't want to focus on bikes. or individual decisions. i'd prefer a discussion about how transportation money is allocated. ~a
[2022-05-02 15:58:04] - paul: "index funds". index funds is pretty general. i assume your index funds are not "balanced"? ~a
[2022-05-02 15:56:48] - paul: (if you hire a retirement planner, this might be the first thing that they will point out) ~a
[2022-05-02 15:55:25] - paul: "you shouldn't be THAT surprised" i guess i'm not surprised that it's not 33%. i'm more surprised that it's 1%? in the past you alluded to your wife having some more normal investments. ~a
[2022-05-02 15:49:12] - paul: "my life would be absolutely miserable without a car" yes, but i'm talking about nova and wmata planners, i'm not talking about you. ~a
[2022-05-02 15:46:43] - paul: "It frees up people to travel much longer distances in much shorter time with much more convenience" hard doubt. "bike everywhere" fuck bikes. fuck cars. it's about walking and public transportation (and sometimes cars) for the most convenience and efficiency and environment and mental health and ETC?! ~a
[2022-05-02 15:46:37] - a: "a four person family should be able to live on zero or one cars if the vdot/wmata/etc planners hadn't fucked up our public transportation options" Yeah, hard disagree, but we don't need to rehash this argument for the 100th time.
-Paul[2022-05-02 15:45:41] - a: Yeah, because I think bonds suck, so you shouldn't be THAT surprised.
-Paul[2022-05-02 15:45:34] - paul: you're deciding if it's the right time for a car loan (because inflation and interest rates). i'm arguing that in northern virginia, a four person family should be able to live on zero or one cars if the vdot/wmata/etc planners hadn't fucked up our public transportation options. instead of deciding whether to get a car loan, you'd be deciding whether to get a car period, if virginia (and the us in general) hadn't've fucked us. ~a
[2022-05-02 15:45:18] - a: I think you sometimes underestimate the positive impacts cars have had on the world. It frees up people to travel much longer distances in much shorter time with much more convenience. I guess it's nice that you feel like you never need to drive and can bike everywhere, but my life would be absolutely miserable without a car. -Paul
[2022-05-02 15:44:34] - paul: yes. vanguard typically has someone who is planning on retiring in 2030 with something around 33% bonds. your allocation is about 33% shy of that?
~a[2022-05-02 15:43:45] - a: "i honestly doubt that is your allocation?" Very possible I am missing something. Most of my retirement funds are either in index funds, or ARKK or TMFC, or I invest in individual stocks. No target date funds to my knowledge. I guess you're surprised by the lack of bonds? -Paul
[2022-05-02 15:41:57] - a: "it does suck virginia planners thought that we need a car (and almost always a car loan) to live in virginia?" ...huh? I don't think my decision has anything to do with Virginia planners and much more to do with.... I think it's time to get a new car? -Paul
[2022-05-02 15:36:50] - oops! https://i.redd.it/nw49zlyvl0x81.jpg . . . i sometimes wonder how life would be today if the car hadn't been invented. or if it had been invented differently. ~a
[2022-05-02 14:58:05] - gotcha ok. both of those make sense. ~a
[2022-05-02 14:56:49] - a: Russia's military apparently has major major logistical/communication problems that necessitates their generals being close to the front lines. On top of that we ... might be feeding them intel on where their generals are. - mig
[2022-05-02 14:39:02] - paul: if i had that allocation, and had 10 years until retirement, i'd definitely go for "Other" in your list. i'd probably put some money into a target-date or balanced fund. (or specifically focus on the parts of target-date and balanced funds that you seem to be missing) ~a
[2022-05-02 13:54:57] - oh you said you weren't counting cash, so ignore the last question. ~a
[2022-05-02 13:54:15] - paul: wow! i honestly doubt that is your allocation? do you not have a 401ks or iras that are invested in target-date-retirement (or similar) mutal funds? do you not have any "balanced" funds of any kind? do you not have an e-fund? ~a
[2022-05-02 13:51:55] - paul: yes, i agree, it does suck virginia planners thought that we need a car (and almost always a car loan) to live in virginia?
~a[2022-05-02 13:51:42] - a: Uh, 10+ years until retirement (unfortunately). Probably something like 4% crypto, 1% iBonds, 95% stocks right now in terms of investments (not counting real estate or cash or whatnot). -Paul
[2022-05-02 13:49:47] - a: Yeah, I've been trying to think about how inflation at that level, if it were to persist for even just like another year, would affect how I act. It honestly made me ever so slightly less apprehensive about taking out a car loan for 2.25% for 5 years. -Paul
[2022-05-02 13:48:31] - paul: that depends entirely on your current allocation (and your years until retirement), imo. ~a
[2022-05-02 13:47:04] - This is all related to a question that I had: If you came into possession of a few thousand extra dollars for investing for the long term. What would look most appealing right now? Stocks? iBonds? Crypto? Other? -Paul
[2022-05-02 13:29:33] - mig: gotcha. so nine might not be that big of a deal? on the other hand, i'm a bit surprised that so many generals are on the front lines? ~a
[2022-05-02 13:24:19] - a: we've got approximately 700 across all branches. - mig
[2022-05-02 13:19:43] - nine. wtf, how many generals does he have. and how many generals has ukraine lost? is nine a lot? nine sounds like a lot. ~a
[2022-05-02 13:18:09] - 9% interest sounds pretty great, but i have to keep reminding myself that it's a 0% real change. all of the market-historical stock gains averaging out at 10%/year are now something around, 1%/year real, oof. ~a
[2022-05-02 13:12:56] - paul: "people rushing to try to buy before April ended then" yeah, uuuuuh, i don't know how intra-month interest works, sorry. so i can't know why they'd care about this. ~a
[2022-05-02 12:51:49] - a: Thanks.... and sorry? That's weird. Why were people rushing to try to buy before April ended then? I guess to try to squeeze in one more month of interest? Is that even how it works? You just need to own for a few days in the month to get a full month of interest? -Paul
[2022-05-02 01:51:07] - paul: nope to the last part. for the ibonds you bought in december, the rate changes take effect on december 1 and june 1. btw thanks for making me look that up. ~a
[2022-05-02 01:40:10] - The rate for iBonds reset every 6 months, right? So the iBonds I bought in December of last year should have been getting ~7% annualized and starting in May should get ~9% annualized? -Paul
[2022-05-01 02:56:50] - https://www.wealthbase.com/ Somebody finally made it? Although when I entered the CNBC contest, I couldn't find Sea Limited, so maybe they don't have great coverage. -Paul
[2022-04-28 18:43:02] - a: It'll rebound if it doesn't blow up first.
-Paul[2022-04-28 18:30:53] - i am, in fact, insane. i'm saying these things because we're 1.5 years out of 5 years. arkk will rebound (imo). ~a
[2022-04-28 18:30:00] - a: " i still think you'll win the arkk bet" No offense but.... are you insane?
It feels like the day we made that bet was the top for ARKK, and I even was kind of iffy on the bet when we made it. Do I think I have a chance? Sure. But it's clearly a huge uphill battle right now. -Paul[2022-04-28 16:38:37] - paul: i promise i'm not dunking on arkk (on that note, i guess i should also give the context that i have 42 shares of arkk and my cost basis is 113 per share). but, it is interesting to see this ad again 1.5 years later. ~a
[2022-04-28 16:06:55] - paul: i still think you'll win the arkk bet. i never should have made the arkk bet. it was dumb of me to give you even odds. but, it's interesting to think about these times: where -50% on a whole portfolio, when the rest of the market has gone up, isn't even the worst likely outcome? ~a
[2022-04-28 13:46:09] - paul: i think there will be a stark difference between what he says and what he does. yes, i like that tweet, but it's just a tweet. i doubt he will do this. i doubt he will tell us what he actually will do: make changes that help him. BUT even if i'm horribly wrong, how would his idea even work? where will you store the private key where only you have access to it? ~a
[2022-04-28 00:17:59] - a: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519469891455234048 Have you been following some of the things Musk has been musing about in terms of improvements for twitter? I suspect you would actually agree with some of them. -Paul
[2022-04-28 00:17:24] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/23/opinions/surprising-solution-to-gun-violence-ludwig/index.html I didn't agree with all of this, but I thought this was a good, thoughtful examination of things that could be doable that might help reduce gun violence. -Paul
[2022-04-27 19:30:09] - paul: the sweetening of the pot would have to often be large though. you're already signaling you want to let them out of a loan that is unfavorable to them. ~a
[2022-04-27 19:29:05] - paul: i guess they'd have incentive if you were to sweeten the pot. for instance, offer a change of rate, or a flat-fee (points) payment. ~a
[2022-04-27 19:19:32] - paul: yeah, i agree they have no incentive.
~a[2022-04-27 19:17:59] - a: Right, I should've specified that you would have to transfer the old house to the new house in terms of what is held as collateral for the loan. I guess the bank wouldn't really be incentivized to do that, though. -Paul
[2022-04-27 17:00:42] - paul: ibkr has the best rates i've seen. not sure how to work out a line of credit, but we're probably too poor for that. ~a
[2022-04-27 17:00:06] - paul: if you really want a flexible loan, but don't want to pay unsecured prices, i think you'll proabably love a margin loan (or even better a "line of credit" based on your margin holdings). they let you do some crazy stuff with money at some pretty crazy low rates. and everything is secured by your margin holdings (so if those holdings ever evaporate, you run into some fun situations) ~a
[2022-04-27 16:55:45] - obviously in both of those latter scenarios you'd have to get the bank to either assess the new owner or the new property. but, again, at least it'd stay as a secured loan in both of those scenarios. ~a
[2022-04-27 16:54:50] - paul: no definitely that's not allowed because it'd be an unsecured loan. another thing you CAN'T do but it at least is closer to what you're talking about is a *transferable* loan. (where it transfers from one owner to another). most loans are non-transferable, but that's at least closer to something that could be "worked out". "transferring loan from one property to another" is another thing you can't do
but is reasonable. ~a[2022-04-27 16:01:54] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9881213/Unearthed-video-shows-naked-Hunter-Biden-claiming-Russian-drug-dealers-stole-laptop.html Wait, is all of this stuff real? Not sure the reliability of the daily mail. This seems.... like relevant info considering current geopolitical tension between Biden and Russia. -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:19:37] - Net result is you still have a mortgage, but it's on a house you no longer own. I realize there are some serious issues with that, but wonder if those issues could get worked out. -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:18:58] - Random aside: Lots of talk about housing inventory getting more constrained because people who have locked in low mortgage rates don't want to move and give up those rates. Is it possible to sell your house and NOT pay off the mortgage but use the proceeds to buy a new house? -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:18:14] - And so, allowing pretty much everybody except for some targeted banning of specific people and topics (which absolutely seem politically aligned) seems contrary to the idea of freedom of speech. -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:16:56] - It would be one thing if Twitter billed itself as some super narrow and specific forum, ie: "A place for liberal journalists to discuss how to end hate speech" or something like that. But to me twitter has pretty consistently billed itself as a communication platform for anybody. -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:15:44] - Daniel: So, in this instance, I think twitter banning people is absolutely impactful to freedom of speech, but not applicable to the 1st Amendment since they are a private company and can do what they want. -Paul
[2022-04-27 14:14:59] - Re: Freedom of Speech. The terminology I try to consistently use (although I sometimes slip up) is to say "1st Amendment" when I refer to government regulation of speech and "free speech" or "freedom of speech" when talking about the general cultural openness to different types of speech. -Paul
[2022-04-27 01:15:07] - (oops, i was replying to your first message. i didn't see the second one. but i agree with that one too.) ~a
[2022-04-27 01:14:17] - daniel: agreed. or even worse, would be the politicans (and to a much lesser degree judges) who are for sale. ~a
[2022-04-27 01:12:05] - Mostly I think I don't agree with the seeming fundamental premise that twitter = "THE town square" as if there weren't other options (Facebook, Newspapers, Instagram, Reddit, WhatsApp, TikTok, NPR, etc). -Daniel
[2022-04-27 01:10:02] - I wouldn't equate anything to do with twitter to do with freedom of speech. If twitter bans people willy nilly or whatever I think it makes them assholes potentially or whatever but I don't think people's ability to get their opinions out in the world are curtailed. I'd find it a much bigger deal if Verizon / Google / ATT ISP type people were bought by Musk with the intent to censor / limit content. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 23:39:13] - paul: i'm not sure which of the two dominant parties is more for regulation of speech compared to the other. but i definitely wouldn't call either of them defenders of free speech. on the other hand, i probably wouldn't call myself a defender of free speech. ~a
[2022-04-26 23:35:47] - paul: "who I thought were supposed to be defenders of free speech" oh? ~a
[2022-04-26 23:19:08] - Let the Babylon Bee refer to the biological gender of transgender people? Not censor a story about a sketchy laptop belonging to a presidential candidates son during an election? -Paul
[2022-04-26 23:16:24] - I mean, seriously, what is the most horrible thing Musk might reasonably do with Twitter? Reinstate Trump's account? A former US President and one-time top Twitter account to a platform most Americans don't even use? -Paul
[2022-04-26 23:10:34] - And to see so many articles by liberals, who I thought were supposed to be defenders of free speech, talking about how "freedom of speech" is a dog whistle for racism or white supremacy or whatever. -Paul
[2022-04-26 23:09:19] - https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1518712403411808257 And similarly disheartening to see things like the ACLU be concerned about a "free speech absolutist" -Paul
[2022-04-26 23:07:51] - I agree with Miguel, though, it's pretty incredible to see the established media absolutely losing their minds over Musk buying twitter with the intention of having more freedom of speech. -Paul
[2022-04-26 23:04:39] - a: Your "what about the gay bakery!" sarcasm reminded me of this: https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/status/1518689040265932800 There are a lot of examples of people previously touting twitter's right to do what they want and now fretting over that same ability. -Paul
[2022-04-26 22:18:29] - oh ok. understood. you ended your words, with question marks, so maybe i thought you wanted to talk about it. sorry. ~a
[2022-04-26 22:17:47] - a: I mean, I still don't know who any of these people are. I was more interested in the video of Melber freaking out about Musk and Twitter, and not really interested in playing shooting the messenger. - mig
[2022-04-26 22:14:03] - mig: if he did indeed send 80+ busses full of patriots to help fight for our president trump, there's a chance that he indirectly transported thousands of people to jail. i just looked it up, and dozens of the people there on january 6th got 5+ years in jail. that's pretty crazy. anyways, that's turning point usa. ~a
[2022-04-26 22:13:42] - mig: ok. ~a
[2022-04-26 22:09:09] - mig: (then there's Kaitlin Bennett / real tweet who was part of some major drama, something involving defecation, before she resigned. they were also famous for "just asking questions", or ending their tweets with "curious!") ~a
[2022-04-26 22:03:45] - a: no. - mig
[2022-04-26 21:51:14] - mig: maybe you've heard of their founder, charlie kirk? imo he's famous from: this deleted tweet "sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president" (videos says "this could be the biggest event in washington dc history" . . . prescient words, charlie) ~a
[2022-04-26 19:29:58] - I honestly have no idea what turning usa is? I assume some right wing media thinger? - mig
[2022-04-26 19:28:59] - a: I have no idea who the account is, was just interested in the video embed. The guy in the video is some MSNBC host named Ari Melber. - mig
[2022-04-26 19:28:12] - I just have a hard time being motivated about Musk/Twitter cause it doesn't seem that big a deal to me. Bezos owns WaPo. Murdoch owns Fox. Someone owns CNN, NYT, etc. Sinclair owns all the local stations. Is there a news source that isn't owned by someone? NPR? Sort of? People just gotta be informed, which is a high bar but once you fail that its hard for me to be mad at the messenger. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 19:24:55] - mig: why a turning point usa link? please tell me you aren't a turning point usa fan? (i was going to say "i too love turning point usa", but figured i had overdosed on sarcasm already today). uuuh, who is the guy in this video? regardless of who he is, he does seem ill informed. ~a
[2022-04-26 19:19:25] - though this guys crocodile tears are kind of rich considering what twitter did with the NY Post's hunter biden story literally right before an election. - mig
[2022-04-26 19:18:44] - daniel: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1518777886668374016 yes, to some degree some people are worried he's going to be disenfranchising voices and influencing elections. - mig
[2022-04-26 19:15:56] - daniel: also, i agree with your second message. it's not the bakery scenario. ~a
[2022-04-26 19:05:40] - daniel: well there was a certain level of sarcasm there, sorry. but to answer seriously (to your first message), musk will ban some people. i guarantee it. and those people might be disproportionately part of protected classes. but, no, i was joking: i don't actually think he'll ban people because they're gay (etc). i hate elon musk, but not because he hates gay people or something like that. ~a
[2022-04-26 18:59:34] - a: I think its more akin to a bakery that does business with Trump is totally allowed but if everyone else decides they don't want to do business with that bakery another bakery that didn't serve Trump could easily open because there isn't anything inherently special about the first bakery other than everyone knows about it. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 18:58:03] - a: I'm confused. If Musk starts kicking off all gay people or whatever I'm sure there would be a problem. But I don't think he is planning anything that clear cut / extreme. Or that people are super worried about that? Isn't it more like he will be pro free speech and letting people just post more whatever they want? -Daniel
[2022-04-26 18:56:35] - Cause if the user base leaves it doesn't seem like it would be that hard for some company to create Twitter V2 as I currently understand Twitters features. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 18:56:33] - daniel: oh look who's all "freedom of association" now? tell me what should happen if musk decides to open a bakery? ~a
[2022-04-26 18:55:56] - Does Twitter have anything special other than some system to verify a user so that we can be reasonably sure that https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg is actually Leslie Jones vs someone pretending to be her? Is there anything else special about it in terms of actual features? I know it has a big user base. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 18:54:43] - I think users have influence over the platform the same way that workers have influence over their employer. They can accept the polices and work there (use the platform) or go somewhere else. If people don't like what Musk does then either he will change and it will be like it was before (now?) or people can leave and if enough leave then I'm sure something else will take its place. -Daniel
[2022-04-26 18:15:49] - And I feel like that's why a lot of people are being apocalyptical about the prospect Musk owning twitter, because they are probably going to lose that line of influence over the platform. - mig
[2022-04-26 18:13:33] - https://twitter.com/jack/status/755235268056092672
[2022-04-26 18:13:23] - paul: I think the thing that did stick my craw was about how a lot of the blue checks felt <a href="twitter.com/jack/status/755235268056092672">they were kind of entitled to have the ears of twitter decision makers</a>. - mig
[2022-04-26 14:48:18] - a: Yeah, I did, sorry, I meant as a past investor. Maybe a better way of putting it was: "I sold because there were seemingly no improvements and they shut down what few popular improvements they did have" -Paul
[2022-04-26 14:46:29] - paul: "As an investor" i thought you sold your twtr stock. ~a
prev <-> next