|
Twibbit posted:Would also for good and ill end the ability of Credit card providers being able to essentially Veto who gets to do business online. I mostly view that as a positive though I am sure there are examples of them killing at least one type of shittyess before. In the sense banks would do it instead but no other changes, sure.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:CC's themselves probably won't fully die. But, the expensive perks/cashback/rewards around them most likely will. If your credit card becomes functionally the same as a debit card, except that you can float some money for a month, then they will lose a lot of the reason for using them. The entire thing that enables all the 2% to 5% cashback on all your credit card purchases is that it is subsidized by the swipe fees all the merchants are paying. The credit card companies want to give you reasons to use your card as much as possible, so they essentially give you a tiny cut of the swipe fees to encourage you to do so. That rationale kind of collapses when there are no fee options. here's the problem (and it has been the same problem for every single "replace credit cards to cut down on fees!"): why do i, the guy getting 1-5% back by paying with my credit card and have all those fraud protections, pay with your bank thing instead? so given that i'm not moving from my cc to the bank thing, why are you, the merchant, going to stop paying the CC fee?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:On a different note, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a study attributing up to 60% of the increase in the cost of housing to remote work: these are always the dumbest poo poo when it comes to "economic" "analysis" "i see, landlords only became greedy as a result of the pandemic and never before wanted to charge as high a rent as they could get away with" you see similar "i see, oil companies only just thought hey maybe we should charge high prices" and yeah that makes a lot of sense: suddenly the demand for more space has gone up - people need an extra room to work from home than they did before
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:On the latter, lol. Just reminded of that article about how China's going to collapse because they're building too many houses and it's making house prices plummet. this is badly, badly, badly misunderstanding the current economic issue in china around housing basically there are two issues. first it is the conglomerates building housing that are in real trouble. they are overleveraged and cannot borrow money - but also can't afford to finish the current apartments they're building (and in many cases already sold to buyers who are already paying mortgages). evergrande is the biggest name here but there's plenty of others. this isn't about housing prices (remember: they already sold these) - it's about their ability to borrow money to complete the projects they already have. now, that is impacted in part by the future value of the properties that are on the drawing board or not sold already, but the fundamental problem is the capital structure. they borrowed way too much money, and they designed their capital structure on the ability to continue to borrow money at very low rates - and when the music stopped (because the Chinese government realized this was a dangerous debt bubble and moved to pop it) they are hosed in the same way any overleveraged company gets when it suddenly can't borrow. in short: the issue isn't landlords, or property speculators. it's the companies building massive apartment building complexes that are in trouble. second, there are a lot of chinese regional governments that support themselves via property sales - and a slowdown in property values fucks over those regional governments. this is more a chinese governmental structure issue about having proper funding for those regional governments. this was never going to work long-term and always was going to need to be fixed at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Bugsy posted:https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1577035026373672960 He’s probably trying to get this in front of the corrupt judge who just appointed a special master for him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
I should begin by saying that this news, as reported does not make legal sense. Musk does not need to "propose" surrendering and buying Twitter at 54.20 (he is contractually obligated to buy, and Twitter is contractually obligated, and very much wants, to sell). He can just drop his counterclaims and defenses to Twitter's lawsuit and write the check. If he is "proposing" something, there's a catch of some sort involved - but the market seems to believe it's not much of one (it is very odd for him to not even demand like a dollar reduction in the price, since he could get it). https://twitter.com/kaileyleinz/status/1577329226486882304 edit: full bloomberg report: quote:Elon Musk is proposing to buy Twitter Inc. for the original offer price of $54.20 a share, Bloomberg News reports. there must be some terms in the letter that are not being reported but they are likely nuisance-value fig leafs. alternatively, they're poison pills - but I am not really sure what the value of a poison pill settlement offer would be. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Do you have more details on how this would work? musk owns like 9% of twitter (that he bought before making his offer to buy the rest) announce he is going to actually follow through, price spikes, sell off all his 9% into the spike however this is blatant securities fraud and the SEC already personally hates musk, so this would be even stupider than usual
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I can't find the excel spreadsheet someone put together on what he paid in total, but for example, the 9.2% stake was at a valuation of ($2,900,000,000/73,500,000 = $39.46). The stock price is currently $47.93, up $5.39 from before the leak. The $5.39 means he can now get $400 million more dollars for those shares. it would not be very hard to connect those dots for the SEC, and remember, they personally hate him. he would not get the rich people treatment, because they personally hate him (for doing things like pressuring law firms to fire people who came from the SEC). also, all the money musk makes here increases the damages if he loses and buys twitter. it would be an amazingly stupid, self-destructive thing for him to do - which does not rule it out, but it is far less credible than he realized he's going to lose, but is currently mad about getting dunked on twitter so he wants control today and not in a month. Robviously posted:My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. or he's dumb enough to think this would be a his deposition is in a few days/a week.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 18:30
|
|
if they deny it and claim that Twitter never really had an intention to sell.
|
Mendrian posted:I would posit a more nuanced position on recommendation programs: yeah, I would also say that "this poorly thought out product design causes measurable harm" is the essence of products liability, and there's not really a good reason it shouldn't apply to the recommendation algorithms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
quote:On October 3, 2022, the Reporting Person’s advisors sent a letter to Twitter (on the Reporting Person’s behalf) notifying Twitter that the Reporting Person intends to proceed to closing of the transaction contemplated by the April 25, 2022 Merger Agreement, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein and pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing contemplated thereby, provided that the Delaware Chancery Court enter an immediate stay of the action, Twitter vs. Musk, et al. (C.A. No. 202-0613-KSJM), and adjourn the trial and all other proceedings related thereto pending such closing or further order of the court. The foregoing description of the letter is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit S and incorporated herein by reference. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922105787/tm2227435d1_sc13da.htm (the "Reporting Person" is Elon Musk) musk is utterly surrendering, not even trying to get a ransom for it. i am still wondering if there's a trapdoor in the "eh fine i'll close...changed my mind!" but that would be a tremendously bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Tremendously bad ideas haven't stopped the big-brain-haver from making a kiddy submarine then screaming about the people saving lives actually being pedophiles. i say it would be a tremendously bad idea not because i believe musk to be incapable of bad ideas (lol he got high and bought twitter at double its value) but because if he tried that he would wind up in an even worse place than he is now so it would be funny
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Do we have other examples of companies being liable for the measurable harm of a third party's products? Not trying to be cute, just unfamiliar with similar situations. Yeah - it's the way that products liability works.. The way products liability works is that anyone in the chain is liable. So take, say, talc. It is alleged talc powder contains asbestos because mined talc is generally contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos powder is, uh, not great for your heath. If you get mesothelioma (a cancer effectively only caused by asbestos) and you believe talc powder caused it, you can sue (a) The place you bought it (say, a pharmacy); (b) The manufacturer (say, Johnson & Johnson); or (c) the mine that originally supplied the contaminated talc. You, as the injured party, can sue anyone in that chain and generally products liability is strict liability: the pharmacy is liable to you even though they had no idea asbestos was in it. It becomes their problem to turn around and sue either the manufacturer or the mine and say that party is required to indemnify them, as the real wrongdoer. So the normal way liability would work, exported to Youtube, is if Youtube is serving up nonstop ISIS propaganda, even by accident, and that causes harm, Youtube is liable. It can turn around and sue whoever put the videos up if it wants, but the fact they're in Syria and don't have any money is Youtube's problem, not whoever was harmed. Section 230 (arguably) overrides normal products liability rules (which, incidentally, are usually state law, not federal law) to change that default rule to say only the original uploader is liable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:It seems like the whole impetus of the lawsuit from Musk's perspectivewas that musk thought he could catch Twitter on discovery worse than they could catch him. you're overthinking it the impetus of the lawsuit was musk sobered up and realized he bought twitter at double what it was worth, while tesla stock (where all his wealth is) was sliding. so he said gently caress you im not going to do it because, well, he didn't want to. unfortunately for him, he signed a binding contract (he may not have understood this, he seems to not really grasp the M&A process), so twitter sued him to enforce it. because he has lots of money, he said "make this go away" to some high-priced lawyers and they charged him lots of money to give it the ol' college try because when you're on the hook for $44 billion for something worth, maybe, $22 billion, spending a few tens of millions for a few percentage points of chance you can get out of it is very much worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I doubt dipping/chewing tobacco was big where I grew up but nonetheless our health classes still showed photos of people's mouths, jaws, etc. destroyed by mouth cancer. Just to drive the point home that it wasn't safe. it would be a stupid thing to do because it'd open them up to more damaging products liability lawsuits (juries are sort of less sympathetic to tobacco users figuring it's their own drat fault) but stupid thing to do doesn't mean it wouldn't be done. one tobacco company tested a cool new material for its filters for a few years: asbestos. as you might imagine there have been...a lot...of lawsuits over those cigarettes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:As ever a key part is to identify what the problem actually is. YouTube continuing to host Nazi indoctrination material to the point where the algorithm actually promotes it to create more Nazis is the problem. that's not correct, and this sort of smearing the difference between liability for hosting user-provided content, and liability for recommended content is a core problem in any of these discussions section 230 represents a reasonable policy judgment - that it is not possible for any internet service hosting user-provided content to effectively screen it all, and so the choices are basically (a) no user-provided content sites; or (b) no liability for the mere hosting of such user-provided content sites. you can tweak around the edges of exactly how you do (b) but ultimately the volume of any user-provided content site means you have to pick one of those. you can have something DMCA-like where there becomes an obligation to take stuff down once you're notified, perhaps. here's the thing: that is not what we are discussing here. amazon lumping suicide packs together is not mere liability for hosting user-supplied content (it is an open question if anything amazon does w/r/t its store should be considered section 230-ish). youtube's algorithm deliberately serving you extremist videos of one flavor or another because it recognizes those as driving "engagement" is not merely hosting user-supplied content. there's a good policy argument that user-published content is a social good overall, even if there's quite a lot of bad content. but importantly - and people deliberately blur this - those arguments do not apply to algorithmic recommendation. you can make similar arguments that if algorithmic recommendations expose the creator of the product to ordinary products liability claims, then you will get no algorithmic recommendations. there's two problems with that. first: it is not at all apparent that algorithmic recommendations are the same social good as self-published content. second, algorithmic recommendations are profit-seeking activities and as such have (as we have seen) a potential to tend towards creating negative externalities in search of profit. it is in youtube's financial interest for you to get hooked on extremist content, because assholes watching nazi videos watch a lot of them while people watching cooking videos watch a couple. youtube wants you to think there is no option between forcing them to pre-approve each and every video uploaded to the site (in practice, largely ending the product) or allowing their algorithm to keep trying to find which flavor of extremist videos will get you hooked. that's not the case: youtube can have the right to not get sued every time someone uploads a nazi video they didn't know about, but be liable for what their algorithms decide to serve you up. we would be impoverished if some rando couldn't upload a video of, say, how to do some esoteric electronics project they were interested in that maybe a thousand people will ever watch (something that would not be cost-effective to allow if all videos had to be manually screened). we would not be impoverished if that video didn't have "auto-play" after it where the algorithm tried to figure out what would hook you best if that algorithm couldn't be forced to stay away from extremist content. it is worth noting as well that it is precisely that recommendation algorithm that generates so much nazi youtubes. because it recommends them, making them profitable to make, and creating a whole ecosystem of them!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:You miss my point of identifying what the problem is. The Nazi youtubes should all be deleted and their creators identified, investigated and prosecuted as terrorists. That is entirely a different problem from the Amazon algorithm identifying and recommending item combinations used for suicide. I disagree. The way you're framing "what the problem is" plays into the goal of immunizing the algorithms - and the youtube recommendation algorithm is specifically known to promote extremist right-wing content, and, thus, monetize it and encourage the creation of more of it. Sure, you can try to go after Nazi youtubers except (a) you'll quickly find out that they shift to non-extradition countries (like, say, notable proponent of right-wing and nazi ideology Russia); and (b) the first amendment generally prohibits the criminalization of mere speech and as a result it is highly unlikely that prosecuting the video uploaders is going to do much. You'll just wind up with people being on the right side of the "incitement to imminent lawless action" that's the standard for criminalizing hate speech under US law, and Youtube gleefully recommending those videos and asserting that it cannot be sued for products liability under Section 230 for those recommendations. The Amazon recommending suicide kits and Youtube's recommendation promoting extremist content (because it is more "engaging") are both issues where a for-profit recommendation algorithm is being asserted to have Section 230 immunity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
the idea would be that it is not that the youtube algorithm showed you an extremist video that would potentially make it liable. it would be the nature of the algorithm selecting and promoting extremist content, while not warning users of that behavior. like it is fine to sell a thing that explodes as, well, a thing that is intended to and does explode according to its specifications. it is not ok to sell an exploding child's talking stuffed animal. even if the reason they explode is the same! so "most recently uploaded" and "top ten viewed" would not be problematic because, well, they do what they're advertised to do. they're not personalized recommendations from youtube trying to find the extremist content most likely to hook you. this is something that ordinary liability law should be able to handle rather than a 230-like safe harbor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
Edward Mass posted:Total is $965,000,000. That's a lot of cheddar. man bankruptcy would look good for him right now, if only he hadn't already done it and already pissed off his bankruptcy judge already
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
note that the $965 million appears to be compensatory damages they haven't gotten to the punitives yet, i think?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah, they don't do punitive until the verdict is reached. So, they are doing it in a few days. This is entirely compensatory. i wouldn't bet on it punitive damages routinely get knocked down on appeal based on multipliers of compensatory damages, as essentially a legal matter. the supreme court (and many states) basically say above a certain multiple of compensatory damages, punitive damages aren't allowed. I don't recall what the supreme-court approved multiple is but just pretend it's 5:1. that would mean if compensatory damages were $1m, any punitive award over $5m is getting knocked down on appeal, pretty much as a matter of law. compensatory damages, however, are a fact issue the jury was given to determine and have a very high burden to overturn. in essence it is easy for an appeals court to say "this is legally wrong, redo" because the standard is "de novo" or, in english and non-legalese: if the appeals court thinks the trial judge got it wrong, they change it. the appeals court owes basically no deference to what was decided on legal grounds. however for factual issues, it is considerably harder - especially for facts found by a jury. you basically have to find that no reasonable jury could have found those facts. remember, the measure of compensatory damages are, essentially, "you are indifferent between bad thing happening + you getting this money, vs it not happening at all" and i gotta say i find it hard to argue that there is any amount too high for "you were tortured about your dead young child who was murdered" and I don't see CT judges feeling like arguing that either evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It really depends. We are in pretty much uncharted waters. If it wasn't Alex Jones, then I would assume that the it would get knocked down a bit. $90 million in damages for defamation of a regular person making $50k per year and death threats is pretty wild in any other scenario. I think the fact that it is Alex Jones is going to make people hesitant to do that. none of this is economic injury though. how much they make isn't relevant - what's relevant is what amount of money is needed to ameliorate the harm caused. that does mean that yes, alex jones killing these people would probably have resulted in lower damages though. i'm not a CT lawyer though (or defamation lawyer) so perhaps there's CT cases on point limiting what defamation damages can reasonably be. it's certainly possible they get tweaked around the margins but i don't think jones has nearly enough money for that to matter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Do nothing? Lol. Didn’t the assassins gather in Miami before setting out? It’s basically assumed that the assassination was orchestrated by the US. At the very least, the US was involved. i don't believe it is basically assumed the assassination was orchestrated by the USexcept in conspiracy-theory dominated insular communities, but you could always try posting support for the idea that sane people draw that conclusion of note, virtually everyone who commits a crime that involves multiple people that is committed on american soil first gathers in the united states before committing that crime and i do not believe it is generally considered, among sane people, that all crime in the US is orchestrated by the US government
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:I wouldn't call basic reasoning a "conspiracy theory" especially given the U.S history of Haiti intervention which can be charitably described as "stomping them back down whenever they get too uppity" i would appreciate the "basic reasoning" that went from "the assassins gathered in miami" (as well as a reliable source on the details of that) to "many sane, sensible people believe the US orchestrated the assassination" or "it is sane and reasonable to conclude the US orchestrated the assassination" so that i can evaluate your characterization of that reasoning
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:France and US and any international org that took payment pay it into a fund, to be split evenly between all living Hatian individuals (maybe even for a yet-to-be born new generarion) in US dollars or currency preference in any bank the individual wants with a card+ID attached to that account. you don't, uh, see a large variety of incredibly obvious flaws in this proposal to deal with a country that currently does not have a functioning government and needs humanitarian aid among the most obvious: you can't eat money, especially electronic money
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
selec posted:If the government isn’t functioning why do we think it’s qualified to represent a nation well enough to request aid? if a nation needs humanitarian aid is relatively observable, both to an outside observer and to a government that still exists but cannot maintain its authority sufficient to put down armed gangs. if there are people who are arguing that haiti does not need humanitarian aid, they can argue that themselves. i assume you are not making that argument, but if you want to do so i will admit i was wrong! solving "how do you effectively administer humanitarian aid in a country with a weak/failed government" is a complex and difficult question. one could debate it reasonably and credibly. one could also argue "just airdrop money to everyone in electronic bank accounts, problem solved!!!!" that is such a libertarian approach to humanitarian aid (if we give people money the free market will establish security and food importation and distribution) that it sort of baffles me how we're even discussing it; i do not need to have a well-structured plan for how you effectively deliver humanitarian aid to laugh until i am hoarse at that idea
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
selec posted:There are tons of other countries with military and civilian aid groups that do not have a multi-century history of theft and domination over one of the poorest nations on earth. You’d literally just have to keep the US and France out to alleviate like 95% of the creepy overtones of constant oppression and theft these two nations have perpetrated. Send some Koreans! Send some Chinese! Send the Pope’s Swiss guard. Hell put Cuba in charge of a coalition. so you are not against, to pick a completely random example with absolutely no connection to past events, a UN led force composed of, say, Sri Lankan military units (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
selec posted:Why would we pick at random when there are many qualified militaries without a specific negative history on the island? i am not surprised you are trying to deflect and claim that a clear counter-example to your poorly thought out argument is a "rape joke" but here is the issue: your proposal has literally been implemented before and it is being cited by people supporting you against intervention. so, I am pushing you to resolve the contradiction and to think harder than your "just pick anyone else besides the US" failing to take in mind, well, literally anything including how professional such forces are
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Bear Enthusiast posted:Doesn't seem to be any other explanation for why they picked Sri Lanka as an example. it is an incident specifically being discussed in this thread, in between selec posts, that specifically rebuts his idea of "just pick anyone BUT the united states" that somehow he did not integrate into his thinking despite it being literally right there and being used by his posting buddies this is why i described it as "to pick a completely random example with absolutely no connection to past events"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
selec posted:My idea is not to pick anyone at random, it’s to specifically exclude previous colonial and military oppressors of Haiti, which would naturally include Sri Lanka. You’re just lying about my arguments now to cover your disgusting impulsive joke. it's a succinct illustration of just how little thought you put into the "idea" your "idea" is just pick anyone at random except cross certain nations off the list because, uh, your dim idea of history, poorly understood is to assume somehow that united states soldiers and french soldiers are intrinsically going to make everything worse so we look in the past, when there was a un force, with pretty much random nations. how did that work out? well, it turns out that picking the militaries of random countries is not, in fact, a panacea. that you could not grasp the obvious nature in which that previous incident invalidated your idea and not that "oh well we forgot to add sri lanka to the Bad Nations list" even after it is pointed out just icing on the cake
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I feel like you have to be wary of anything done by Rolling Stone, but this is a weird story. I wonder what Meek was up to. that he isn't saying a goddamned thing and immediately quit his job says to me it's not something like "he had classified documents" or other freedom of the press sort of things, and is instead a normal criminal investigation if it was the sort of thing that was being insinuated - investigating him because he is going to publish something that the government would not like - his lawyer would be having his news org fighting it and being in the public eye, not having him resign and keep his mouth shut evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I keep hearing about how Facebook is supposedly in danger but they seem to be doing just fine in terms of userbase. Their main problem seems to be lighting money on fire trying to establish the Metaverse. facebook is a tremendously, incredibly uncool thing among anyone younger than 30 or so and it is steadily bleeding even the people who are over 30 but not yet boomers mostly just sort of keep it around from when it used to be cool it is now a boomer paradise nobody else wants to be involved with, which is fine for the present but because it's value comes from the network effect it also tends to collapse exponentially that's the reason they keep desperately buying whatever the new social network is but instagram has also started to fall off too
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Devor posted:There will be a very interesting crop of lawsuits when the content moderation stops. i'm not sure there will be, because of section 230 that said, there is a reason nobody ever wants to use the "twitter, but without moderation" clones
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:I can't find an economics thread, but if the inflation is due to corporate price gouging, why have the markets been reporting losses per quarter and the stock market been so low? (a) inflation is not due to corporate price gouging. corporations always want to raise prices. they like money! they always want more! inflation is what happens when they can raise prices; because many times they cannot. right now they can raise prices, because demand (in dollars) is higher than supply. this is like when people say that oil prices are high because oil companies are greedy. they're always greedy! that's not an explanation! (b) the stock market is going down for two reasons. first, as interest rates rise, it makes more sense to buy bonds than to buy stocks. stocks are risky, but generally produce a better return than bonds. but as bond interest rates rise, that difference becomes smaller so you'd rather have less stocks. second, the point of interest rates rising is to curb demand in the economy (by making it more expensive to borrow) and thus economic growth will slow, which means less future earnings for your equities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Okay, history high profit margins. Cool. Why is the economy contracting then? if you want people to explain a specific quote it might be helpful to link it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
it’s because voters don’t like the idea of repealing the debt ceiling and there’s an election in two weeks I feel like that shouldn’t really need to be explained that two weeks before an election is not the time to take unpopular positions even if they are right given that the lame duck period is right there
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I highly, highly doubt any action will be taken during the lame duck period, for the same reason nothing was done until now. I've heard that kind of reasoning many times. you can make whatever predictions you want and then assert the people in your head are doing stupid things for stupid reasons all you want, i won’t stop you when it comes to why Biden is saying things that are popular instead of things that are not popular two weeks before an election, it is because saying things that make voters mad is a very stupid strategy two weeks before an election cat botherer posted:Besides, how much worse would it look in the long run to immediately flip-flop on it being "irresponsible?" who cares, compared to winning an extra senate seat or two or a few house seats plus as a practical matter you cannot repeal the debt limit during the lame duck but you can raise it (with reconciliation), giving an ideal easy out from that minor flip-flop that takes place as far from an election as possible
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
incidentally the correct debt ceiling thing to do is to raise it to one sextillion because that sounds funny and so when republicans try to use it in ads viewers will assume it’s a joke, and it works under reconciliation
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
why graham is popular with republicans is not really that he is a true believer it's that he's not, and he has been compelled to humiliate and abase himself repeatedly, which is a demonstration of their power
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's official tomorrow. lol that musk fired the GC who, presumably, he is mad at for making him close on twitter
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's official tomorrow. Post says the deal closed already and that's why he could fire the execs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/27/twitter-elon-musk/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f001
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2022 02:01
|
|