Lurker > red sox 777

Hard to believe the UK is actually voting on removing a prime minister for throwing a party. Our President Trump probably did 10 things worse than that every day.

Who is the best?

Vote away!

Who's your favorite Survivor player? Yes, the selection is very heavy on HVV because I think it was an amazing season.

banananor posted...

seph i'm a little curious, do you do anything with your poll results?

I am not Seph. I don't do anything with my poll results though.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

biscuit was saying "the officer heard claims is a bigot is a gay woman, so she can't be homophobic or misogynist." that's an absurd stance. doesn't matter whether heard or the cop is right.

It's unlikely, isn't it? Not impossible, but that lowers the probability considerably.

Under option 1, Republican primaries will replace general elections. All Democratic politicians will retire, immediately. Independent members of Congress will continue in office, and may run in future Republican primaries, so Bernie Sanders will remain in office. All non-Republican judges will be replaced by Republicans. Only Republicans will be able to vote in Republican primaries. You will not be able to join the Republican Party unless you were a Republican prior to the implementation of one-party rule, or if you were too young or not born yet at that time, then you cannot join unless your closest ancestor who was eligible to vote at the time was a Republican.

Under option 2, the Catholic Church will establish a hierarchical theocracy. The Pope will have ultimate authority over everything. There will be no voting. The civil government and courts will be replaced with a religious one.

Under this system, the terms of the presidents would be staggered, so that every 2 years one president would be up for election.

TheRock1525 posted...

You do realize several male celebrities came forward with stories of being abused in the early stages of #metoo, right?

And my argument is about how largely irrelevant the verdict was. Pretty much all polling sided something like 90% with Johnny. You really believe that had the verdict come back not guilty, there were all these male domestic abuse victims that were prepared to come forward but now will wilt back into the darkness?

Depp had already won the trial long before any verdict.

If this verdict didn't go in his favor when the evidence on his side was so strong, then absolutely people are going to wilt back into the darkness because they would see that the evidence can be strong and you can still lose in a court of law.

SCOTUS has an effective national cap on punitive damages (damages beyond the amount needed to compensate plaintiff, intended as punishment for defendant) of 10x the compensatory damages. In this case, that would be 100 million. The jury decided to award 5 million. Virginia apparently has a hard cap of 350k.

Virginia has a statutory cap on punitive damages of $350k? Wow, that's low. So it ends up being an $8.35 million net swing to Johnny Depp.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

There is quite literally no basis for anything you said here. Not all civil and criminal cases are the same and they all vary in how complicated they can be.

Additionally, the damages are a thing very unique. Most civil courts don't ask juries to do this because, frankly, they don't usually have a concept on how it should be calculated anyway. Especially with these number values.

I'm just saying that the damages issue is what could be taking them time. Obviously some cases are more complex than others.

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1531739594009583616?s=21

Glad that this awful law is back to being blocked, but what the fuck Kagan

It's interesting that Alito referred this to the full Supreme Court instead of just denying it on his own as he was the one the emergency petition was sent to.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I'm not terribly shocked, but this is very different than a criminal trial where the stakes are so much more enormous, so a long deliberation isn't as common.

Also this is 6 weeks. I feel like they have their minds made up enough at some point in these 6 weeks that it feels strange they're taking so long. I'd be shocked if it lasted past lunch tomorrow.

Like it seems like an easy decision on the outside, but juries are gonna jury. Hard to know what they're even talking about right now.

It's more complicated than a criminal case though, in that they have a nonbinary decision to make. It's not just guilty or not guilty, they have to set the amount of damages as well.

He's not wrong, but the idea of nonpartisan politics only last a few years before it became clear that we had a 2-party system.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

https://mronline.org/2022/05/26/u-s-federal-reserve-says-its-goal-is-to-get-wages-down/

If anyone wants example x on why I have so much rage against 'centrist democrats' - Biden and Senate Democrats lovingly gave this man a second four year term.

(Republicans are still worse. By a mile. Never a bad time to remind people of this when I am complaining about Biden)

I mean in fairness he didn't say that until after getting a second term. Not sure how Biden could have predicted that.

Vote away!

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

25 seconds in

One of many reasons why they should be allowed to publish the identity of criminals regardless of whether they are over 18 or not

Yet another in a long line of Trudeau neutering our criminal justice system. Their Bill C-75 caused a massive spike in theft/assault/robbery etc because they basically replaced the bail process with "promise to appear" for their court date for pretty much everything except murder. So now when some crackhead breaks into your shed and gets caught, they are back in the streets within hours as long as they pinky swear to show up for their court date. It's made it impossible for police to keep shitheads off the street.

Getting rid of life without parole closes the loop and basically makes it so that none of our laws have any real consequences. I don't know what the Liberals are thinking, or how they can be confronted with the hard facts and statistics yet still continue down this path, but here we are. It's crazy how your choices on where to live is either a shithole where meth addicted criminals can act freely without fear of repercussion, or theocratic hellhole where everyone has assault rifles and schools are regularly shot at.

It's crazy how one "side" of politics spends all of their energy making criminals/drug addicts/homeless people feel better at the expense of everyone else, while the other "side" is focussed on lining the pockets of the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Is it too much to ask for taxation on the rich, and using those funds to clean up the streets and throw all these career criminals that add nothing to society in jail to rot?

Aren't there sentences between life without parole and release with no consequences?

Yeah, this week has been pretty good. Hopefully it's the start of the next bull market.

The Canadian Supreme Court finds life without parole to be cruel and unconstitutional. Excellent!

Dear US Supreme Court - life without parole is cruel, unusual, and was not imposed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It was either the death penalty, or something much lighter. Not this idea of a living death.

StartTheMachine posted...

Curious if anyone with far right family members has talked to them about this. Do they care? Are they feeling the same anger and desire to do something? Universal background checks poll at 90 percent. Two thirds of people are for assault weapon bans and I think it was even a slight majority of Republicans (but correct me if I'm wrong). The complete and utter inaction just makes me question our entire system. I don't understand how we can allow our so-called leaders to have zero accountability whatsoever to what the public demands. I mean, we've known this for over a decade but on an issue like this with little children being murdered...it's just so upfront, so blatant, so disgusting.

I hope there's a massive protest outside that NRA conference tomorrow and I hope the media keeps covering this issue, instead of moving on like they always do.

38 states is a high enough bar that people don't even start talking about it. But I think that's got to be step one. Let's talk about a constitutional amendment. There is no other way to change things here.

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes but the argument is that it has supposedly shown to harm kids mental health to be physically isolated?

Not that active shooter drills dont also harm their mental health

Perhaps socializing can be organized in smaller groups.

Has anyone proposed permanent remote-only school yet?

Moonroof posted...

This has been a green week overall, the first in many. @red_sox_777 , what are you in?

Currently in:

ZM
UBER
MP
ASTS

I was pretty close to buying BBBY 2 days ago but now it's up like 15% since then so I guess I missed the boat.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Does that really accomplish anything? You just need to drive 2 hours to the next state, roll up to the local grocery store and purchase a bazooka, 20 pistols and a couple ARs

Yes, it does. And it might possibly have some nonzero chance of passing. It would still be very difficult, but I can at least imagine red states deciding that giving more power to the states can't be bad and that this doesn't threaten their right to own guns.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

If we take the 2nd amendment literally, it does not grant the right to keep and bear firearms. Just Arms.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/4/AAOJ0pAADRG4.jpg

Arms includes firearms and other weapons. That is its literal meaning.

Maniac64 posted...

The right to have weapons as part of a well regulated militia is expressly protected.

The right to individually own as many guns as you want and carry them around on your own is not.

That's not what it says. What is says is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The part about the militia explains the purpose of the amendment, rather than limiting the scope of its command. There's some ambiguity of course but don't act like there isn't when the literal reading of it does not limit the right to militias. It's very similar in structure to the Second Commandment (citing KJV since that's the translation the framers would have used):

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

So taken literally, this means that all art depicting things that exist in reality is prohibited. But it also has an explanation of purpose that would appear to limit its scope to things which may compete with God for worship. But it does not literally say that, and hence we have widely differing interpretations from different religions/churches.

Perhaps as a compromise, the 28th Amendment can say that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states? Then, states that want to ban guns would be able to do so.

Inviso posted...

It's really not. Individual gun ownership was only created as a right in 2008 with DC v. Heller. And if we can overturn Roe v. Wade after 50 years, we can certainly overturn Heller after 15.

The right is expressly stated in the 2nd Amendment. There's a bit of ambiguity about what exactly it means but it's definitely there in some form or other. The right found in Roe v. Wade is not expressly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

Gun ownership is expressly protected by the Constitution and any substantive change on this is going to require a constitutional amendment, which requires the agreement of 38 states.

masterplum posted...

Was reading a book about habits today and it talked about how organizational change often doesnt happen until crisis occurs. I thought that was relevant to the political climate

Who knows how many of these it will take before people consider it a crisis

Usually nothing will be considered a crisis unless there is sudden change.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Imagine being PROUD of wasting tens of thousands of dollars on a useless degree, and then bragging about avoiding paying back the debt. If you sat there and made the conscious decision to get an "English Lit" degree, you are no different than the person that is making minimum wage but still wants an $80,000 pickup truck, and takes out loans they can't repay to do so.

Isn't that person winning? They got the educational experience they wanted, and then they got the expensive truck they wanted, and they didn't have to pay for it. Instead, you get to pay for it. Seems like they are winning and you are losing.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Curious to see the full story behind this. This screams to me like one of those situations where the media pushes a narrative (likely paid for by some "legal rights fund") that just straight up omits key details to drum up support from the ignorant masses. "Making of a Murderer" being the most obvious and egregious example

There isn't one. The majority decided this purely as a legal question of whether/when the federal courts can reverse a state conviction. They essentially said the facts don't matter and should never have been considered by the lower federal courts in the first place since the state courts already decided that.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jesus Christ

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1528752030772346880

Don't agree with this decision. Why do you only have a right to counsel pre-conviction? If you had ineffective counsel pre-conviction then you need effective counsel post-conviction to get the conviction vacated. Otherwise you never get to exercise your right to counsel at all because your pre-conviction counsel was ineffective!

I get the general principle here (the Supreme Court may not make or change laws in contradiction to laws passed by Congress and many many cases going back to the FDR's appointees in the late 1930s are illegitimate and need to be overturned). But this feels like a constitutional issue, where the 6th Amendment should control over any statute passed by Congress. SCOTUS has the power to decide statutes are unconstitutional, and if the statute they cite really forbids review of an ineffective assistance claim as they say it does, then it should be unconstitutional, at least as applied.

Which format do you prefer?

Wow, the Catholic Church finally excommunicated Nancy Pelosi over her abortion support.

Vote away!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/wsbchairman/status/1527005770549800967?s=21&t=D2UKedJKJ4OsvRuEo5Mdwg

The stock market is literally not real

Is this supposed to be a surprise? The stock market is mostly psychology. All capitalism is psychology. We value some things more, and other things less.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well, the general idea there is that Congress does neither has the subject matter expertise to precisely craft all regulations, nor can it anticipate every scenario that might occur for a given task (e.g. maintaining clean air and water). As long as Congress understands that its delegating this authority I dont see the issue; all regulations having to be exactly spelled out when we address a given issue maybe once every few decades would be very unwieldy.

It's a matter of degree, right?

Also, Congress should have subject matter expertise, or can obtain it. If they need to employ more people for that, they can vote themselves a higher budget. But the important thing is that Congress has democratic legitimacy in that they are elected by the people. It is really antidemocratic for elected representatives to delegate their decisionmaking authority to unelected people (and to the extent that the executive branch agencies are filling with non-political career people, they are unelected).

This process is self-perpetuating and likely to continue to be unless the courts get involved. If Congress believes they can pass one substantive bill a year through reconciliation at 2 a.m. after the final text of the bill was not even unveiled until 11 p.m. and none of the members have read the whole thing, because the bill is full of delegations to the executive branch so that Congress does not need to worry about the details, well, they won't worry about the details. And they'll think this is an appropriate way of governing.

LordoftheMorons posted...

I hope Im misinterpreting this and its narrower than Im reading it, but is the 5th Circuit effectively saying that all SEC enforcement is unconstitutional???

https://twitter.com/prof_jpc/status/1527003339644362756?s=21

It seems to me that the SEC should still be able to enforce through the regular courts, provided that they are only enforcing laws clearly passed by Congress and not regulations the SEC promulgated without a clear grounding in statute passed by Congress.

Generally speaking, I don't know if you've actually looked at a lot of the federal laws and regulations which govern much of life in this country and internationally, but frequently the actual laws are very very vague and basically say, the President/executive branch agencies are given carte blanche to make regulations which will operate as law. For example, Trump's ability to impose tariffs arose from this kind of vague statute that delegated authority to the President.

Congress has gotten very lazy over the last few decades with regard to drafting statutes and routinely delegates stuff to the executive branch. So when people complain that the President has too much power, a lot of that is because Congress has been handing it to him, hand over fist, for decades. It would be a positive development if the courts cracked down on this practice and told Congress that they need to actually legislate.

You can assume that if GWB is in office for a thrid term, the 2-term limit has been removed.

Actually, the GOP should run as the party of unity and love. That would make a great slogan. Unity and Love. And to prove their new direction, they can push Trump into retirement on the basis that he's too mean and divisive.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the GOP, the party of unity and love

Remember GWB said "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Yes, they have become that. Republicans might be guilty of it too.

Lopen posted...

The reason I picked $7 for my first breakpoint is to me that seems like the most bearish case you can get for the price.

It ran up to $12 last September on speculation of what's currently happening now. I put that as the bare minimum floor of what it would reach-- however that was a BBIG with about 50% less shares than there are currently, so $7ish is about the same SP.

So the thing I'd be careful about here is that the market in general has fallen off dramatically, especially for companies fitting Tyde's profile. Coinbase is down nearly 80% since last September and smaller companies usually get hit worse in these kinds of market crashes. If Tyde was trading on an exchange, it would probably down at least that much since September.

I mean BBIG is so volatile that having a stop loss feels like almost a guaranteed loss. I remember Moonroof set a stop loss on GME and got stopped out in about 5 minutes.

That's why the general guideline is don't invest (long or short) in things you don't know a lot about. But Lopen, there's no need to convince me - if you are right, the market will prove it within a few months.

Note that even if BBIG collapses to below $1 and doesn't recover, I would at that point still hold out the possibility that you were basically right and got unlucky. In which case the problem would be allocating too much to this one position rather than the position itself being a bad idea. If it surges to $16+ I am not going to be calling you just lucky. If it goes to like $7 and you don't sell anything and then it plunges back down...... well I can imagine this timeline happening but not sure what to make of it.

Today's the last day to buy to receive the dividend?

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Ok tony

This actually doesn't happen. Every judge alive is going to say "Okay we'll break after this line of questioning." They just don't break in the middle of questions. It doesn't happen.

Like ultimately this isn't a big deal and they're not going to get in trouble for it and it does happen and I wouldn't be totally shocked if Depp did it during his, but it's just extra egregious in this case that they went back and literally reconned things.

It might happen if there wasn't a rule against it. Although even if there wasn't, this still would look super bad to the jury.

I mean the thing you're trying to avoid is the following:

Opposing Attorney: Question.
Attorney: Let's take a break.
~Break, during which Witness and Attorney discuss how to answer~
Witness: Repeats answer given by Attorney.

If there's no question pending, this scenario can't happen.