Lurker > red sox 777

Ah, 2 elections lost. I guess that would do it.

I don't get why the Tory party is getting rid of him. Do they really think they have a better alternative for winning the next election?

What happened in TYDE? It went up 35% and down again in minutes.

Lopen posted...

This is incredible.

Tyde is getting average 2m volume when in theory there are only 1.5m shares in the free float. Obviously some holders sold but it's still a lot of volume.

BBIG was moved down by the market maker to the 1.4 range to account for Tyde which promptly quartered in value meaning it should be back closer to $1.70 and it's just not. Short positions and cost to borrow just continue to go up and up and up and it just doesn't matter.

I either picked the absolute best stock or absolute worst stock to invest in. Got nothing more I can do at this point. Just gotta watch and know that these tricks don't work forever. If the July chain expires I'm not dead, just my aspirations for being a millionaire off the play lol. +100% is still pretty attainable at even modest price moves but man.

This is so crazy. I'm convinced if it moves +50% it'd move +500% at this point but can it move up at all?

Yes, it's either up or down. It shouldn't be able to hold these current levels. If it goes to zero in a short enough time then all the shorts make up their high interest rates to borrow.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Thread on WV v EPA:

https://twitter.com/jessejenkins/status/1542545048218152960?s=21

So I guess they thankfully didnt actually kill Chevron (basically the ruling still sucks, but could have been much worse).

They ignored it completely. I didn't want to read the whole thing so I just did ctrl+f for the word "Chevron" and it only came up once in the whole majority opinion, and that only as an indirect reference. The second time it appeared in the document was already in the dissent.

I think we should have a constitutional amendment to cap the number of justices on SCOTUS at 9. We can also have a minimum at 3 - if the number falls below that and the Senate refuses to confirm a nominee, then the President can choose any duly confirmed federal judge to fill the seat without further confirmation to SCOTUS. If the President refuses to nominate anyone or to choose an existing federal judge after the Senate rejects his nomination, the Senate can choose an existing federal judge.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wow, 538 actually has the Senate as a tossup:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/

Huh. If only Trump didn't push his fraudulent fraud claims, the Rs would already have a majority. The Rs should have a big natural advantage in the Senate but for whatever reason, it's been remarkably hard to convert that into a long enduring majority.

Lopen posted...

Interesting that they're trying to pin BBIG Price and Tyde Price so their combined total (with BBIG weighted 10x) is roughly the same as what BBIG closed at.

This is not how spinoffs work and never has been. In my experience the spinoff company usually drops minimally if at all. I think this is going to get exploited today. It takes too much coordination for this illusion to hold and BBIG probably has some people buying more down here.

I thought that's exactly how spinoffs would work in theory. The spinoff should not change the total value held by shareholders from the spinoff if the market is pricing things efficiently.

No matter how far something has fallen, until it hits 0 it can still fall another 100%.

Also, it's kind of an interesting theoretical question. What if, let's say, a state amended its constitution to deny redistricting powers to its legislature. Say, the new state constitution created an independent commission to draw the districts. That body could be elected, or not, but in either case, its authority would flow directly from the new state constitution rather than any act of the legislature.

In that case, the new state constitution would appear to be on its face directly in contradiction to the federal constitution, which says that the districts are to be drawn by the legislature.

Hypo 2: The new state constitution anticipates this problem, and names the new election district commission "the Legislature." However, it is not given any of the normal legislative tasks. Will that pass federal constitutional muster?

masterplum posted...

I give extremely good odds Kavanaugh and Roberts vote this unconstitutional.

They have been boring conservative and not crazy conservative fairly consistently

I wouldn't. The Supreme Court has already approved this theory once - this was the basis of Bush v. Gore - that the federal constitution overrides the Florida constitution in giving the power to the legislature only.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

if a historian in a future civilization is asking that question, it must be a really poor one who takes quotes completely out of context

And if they are, they'll know exactly why they got that way. Because of Hillary. Yup.

Also, I can imagine historians in some future civilization relitigating the 2016 election. Would we have gone down a completely different path if Bernie had won the nomination? What would have happened if Hillary hadn't called a quarter of the country deplorable? It may be that 2016 was the fulcrum of history for the 21st century.

LMS, you're not American right? Most women in the US work.

Up.

The primary source Congress as authority for its laws is the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Until the 1930s, the Supreme Court was strict with the Commerce Clause, generally striking down laws Congress passed that were not directly related to interstate commerce (or for which there was authority under a different enumerated power). In 1918, the Supreme Court reached the most extreme limit of its Commerce Clause jurisprudence in Hammer v. Dagenhart, striking down a federal law that banned child labor used to manufacture goods that were traded across state lines, holding that the Commerce Clause does not allow Congress to regulate manufacturing, only trade.

Now that the Supreme Court appears to be fully committed to originalism, should it reconsider the entire body of cases since the late 1930s regarding the Commerce Clause and go back to the pre-1930s interpretation?

Especially now that the Supreme Court has set precedent that if it wasn't foreseen in the early 1800s it can never matter.

The dissent interprets the majority as saying the opposite - that if something was unforeseeable in the late 1700s, then the existing constitutional provisions may apply - but if something already existed in the late 1700s, how that thing is treated will not change by itself just because society's opinions on it change. I believe the dissent is understanding the majority correctly.

The Constitution literally says it can be changed and how that is to be done. It's not the Constitution's fault that Democrats want it to say something else but refuse to take any steps toward amending it.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule based on what's popular. It is not a democratic institution. It is not supposed to be. It never was supposed to be.

It tried to be for a few decades and apparently what that led to was Democrats in Congress and the state legislatures deciding they no longer had to do their job, because the federal courts were supposed to do it for them. That era is over, today.

I want to say that the whole diamond hands concept is ridiculous. You sell when it's at a price where there are better things to invest in. If that never happens then you keep holding, like Warren Buffett, but once that happens you sell. There's no sense in holding just to prove you have "diamond hands."

I looked at FUBO - wow it's down more than 90% from a year ago. Not surprised though as pretty much every tech company that fits a similar profile is down in the area of 80-95% from peak.

This was quite a good week. 5 green days in a row. Not sure when was the last time I saw that.

Manchin would just get replaced by an actual Republican.

masterplum posted...

Yet

What could there be to enforce? The conservatives would have to abandon their commerce clause jurisprudence of decades and agree with the liberals to allow a total federal abortion ban. And that would only be implemented if Congress voted for it and the president signed it, in which case the federal DOJ will be handling the enforcement.

Jakyl25 posted...

Isnt Roe still basically informally dead even with Roberts attempt to thread the needle opinion? Like what the fuck sort of nuanced position is states can restrict access to abortions based on whatever reason they want but they cannot ban them?

Roberts actually said he was for overturning Roe (he calls the viability standard its central holding). He just isn't for deciding the question of whether abortion can be banned at any time in the pregnancy. His position was that it's not necessary to decide that question to decide this case, so SCOTUS should punt on the question.

I think it's kind of silly. It would be like the Brown v. Board of Education court saying, we think that separate but equal cannot be applied to elementary schools, but we can decide this case without deciding the question of whether high schools can be separate but equal, so we refuse to decide that question. Come back when you are in high school and we'll hear your case then.

Corrik7 posted...

I didn't see from anyone but was it 5-4 or 6-3?

6-3 to uphold Mississippi's law and overturn the viability standard of Roe v. Wade. 5-4 to find there is no constitutional right to abortion.

Jakyl25 posted...

There was a media scrum with Manchin a few weeks ago where he declared he would do all he can to protect the right to an abortion, but then someone asked about ending the filibuster and he still said no, lol

Those are entirely consistent. The Democrats may need to filibuster the Republican bill to ban it nationwide.

Also if Democrats had spent the last 50 years trying to legislate the traditional way instead of putting all their eggs in the SCOTUS basket they wouldn't be in the position they're in today. We have a generation of Democrats that counted on SCOTUS to change the laws for them. Instead of Congress and the state legislatures. This is antidemocratic and ought to stop.

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

Quoting today's opinion. A federal ban on abortion solely within a single state is probably unconstitutional as it would not fall within any of Congress's enumerated powers. At least under the conservative interpretation of the commerce clause. I've seen no indication that the conservatives will make a u-turn on their commerce clause decisions.

Also frankly the idea of bodily autonomy being a protected right is sort of a joke as long as we have laws banning drugs, restricting alcohol, and requiring seat belt use - if people really have a right to bodily autonomy, surely they would have a right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. I think those are actually closer to a lot of the other major decisions that have focused on bodily autonomy, because they are victimless crimes or crimes in which the only "victim" is the person doing those things.

So this is a much less appropriate place to apply the slippery slope argument than it might appear. Because there are already things further down the slope that have already happened.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Does this illegalize abortion completely or does it only do so in states that don't specify it?

Looks like the conservatives are striking back!

The decision on its own doesn't illegalize anything. It allows states that want to ban it to ban it. About half the states have preexisting laws that ban it, or laws that automatically go into effect when the Supreme Court declares they are allowed.

Jakyl25 posted...

So your theory is that the 6 that overturned Roe and Casey here:

1.) Believe that abortion is murder
2.) Contrived an unrelated originalist reason to repeal Roe and Casey to further that belief, a line of reasoning that could be copy/pasted to lots of decisions
3.) Dont believe that those decisions are immoral enough to be worth repealing

Just making sure that this is where your argument stands

1 seems reasonable - maybe not for all of the 6 but at least a majority of the 6 and maybe all 6. 2 is reasonable although I wouldn't use the word "contrived" which generates the feelings that the originalist explanation is somehow not legitimate. 3 is also reasonable, although it doesn't apply to all 6.

Thomas is off on his own island here. Notice how he cites his own concurrences - not a past majority opinion. Thomas has maintained for many years that the entire area of substantive due process is error. I didn't remember that at first and did a bit of a double take on reading it. At first it seemed like there was a grammatical error but then I realized he meant that no application of substantive due process is ever correct, not that substantive due process cases needed to be looked at again to see if they applied it correctly.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Is it just me or does the right in America hate the left more than vice versa? I REALLY don't want to demonize people solely for their politics.

No. The left hates the right too.

Minimum wage laws harm people who are unable to find work at that level of pay but could find a job paying less than that. This can mean the difference between having food to eat and a place to sleep or not. Unless the government is going to backstop those people by giving them enough cash to make up for their unemployment, the minimum wage law is harming them.

And I would argue that once you have universal income (or cash welfare for the poor) in place, you do not need a minimum wage law.

So basically, this idea that how much wealth you end up with is entirely driven by circumstances you have nothing to do with is wrong. Yes, it is mostly driven by the wealth of the family into which you are born - but not entirely. It might be something like 65% birth, 25% luck, 10% your skill and work. But 10% is still not nothing.

Inviso posted...

Also, this is dumb as hell. If the median savings account in this country only has $4,500.00 OVERALL, how exactly do you expect people who "start with nothing" to save $5,000.00 a year?

Because people don't want to keep more money than that in a savings account earning basically zero interest. The $4,500 is an emergency fund. Above that, they transfer the money to a brokerage account, or a retirement account, or into a house. In my example, if you just save the $5,000 a year in a savings account, you won't come close to ending with $1.5M at age 65. It'll be less than $200k, unless savings account interest rates pick up from the zero or slightly-above-zero they've been at the last 14 or so years.

And I expect people to start with nothing at age 30 because many people at that age have no savings despite having had through their 20s a salary that is in absolute terms several times what their parents had at the same age. That's normal - cost of living has increased a lot. But if you are spending mostly on essentials, and not expanding your spending to whatever your income is, eventually your income rises faster than your expenditures. Because your income is going up based on both inflation AND real economic growth AND increases in experience/seniority, while your cost of living is only going up based on inflation. Realistically, if you're working in an industry that values experience, your savings will go up more than the 3% a year in my model after age 30.

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah this isnt happening by the time millennials reach 65

Sure it will. I just did a calculation. If a 30-year old starts with nothing and saves $5,000 a year, with increases of 3% a year, and invests in an index fund with a rate of return of 9% per year (the long run S&P average), by age 65 he has more than $1.5 million.

This doesn't even take into account the issue of inheritances. By age 65 a person may have already received an inheritance.

Jakyl25 posted...

Also you neglected to mention that his mom apparently has a net worth of $20 Million?

Okay $20 million I'll agree is rich, but did she become that rich before or after her son became super rich?

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats not rich to you?

These days $2 million isn't even close to rich. That doesn't even cover a house in some places. Comfortable? Sure. Rich, no.

Which wealth class contributes the most to society as a whole?

So in a free market, the natural response to more people buying big TVs and less food is that the TV prices can go up and the food prices can go down. Those consumers are saying that TVs are undervalued at current prices and food is overvalued. And the market will use that information to price these things more accurately to maximize total happiness.

If the government tells people they have to buy something, it increases the price of that thing because it creates artificial demand for it. While taking away demand from something else which hurts that thing's price.

Amazon could also provide better working conditions.

Who was the nicest person in Game of Thrones?

Plus I think Hillary had the same position as the majority of Americans on basically every single issue. That was part of why she lost - people thought it was unlikely that anyone would just happen to agree with the majority of Americans on every single issue, so she must be lying to get votes.

Vote away!

Just going to say - a law of things in law are not cut and dry, as much as one or both sides of the argument would like you to believe that they are. So people can disagree, and it doesn't mean anyone is necessarily wrong.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

They ruled that the Lawyer statement saying Amber perpetuated a hoax was defamatory. If it was defamatory then it had to be false and intended to harm her, but if it was false then the jury is saying she didnt perpetuate a hoax that day? Extremely sketchy ruling.

Right. But she could have lied about the events of many other days.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

The lawyers you're talking about are people like Lisa Bloom who posted this:

https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1532837189033156608?s=20&t=1fBGYY2R0T1sGw-Wg3fW6w

And also auditioned to defend Harvey Weinstein in his court case and detailed how she would defame his accusers.

AKA you're talking about legal grifters who are just chasing the money with no morality.

I mean if she was advising her clients before this case that they could make public accusations with no risk of a lawsuit, which I very much doubt she was doing, that was bad advice. This was a trial court decision; no legal precedents were set. The jury applied existing precedent to the evidence presented.

Also it really doesn't matter what the initial impetus is for the crash; once it gets going it self-perpetuates because companies are actually losing the ability to get financing to pay for their operations without massive dilution, which is actually reducing the value of the shares. Like, the value AMC generated in 2021 by selling shares is probably far greater than the value of AMC's existing business. If that didn't happen, they would probably be bankrupt by now. These things are path dependent.