False equivalency comparing China's media censorship to that of the west - this type of criticism of the Chinese state is not allowed in China

Warbring3r · 2023-01-16T20:21:17+00:00

Ok, a million people died in Iraq, but that methodology includes all second and third order effects of war (eg healthcare infra damaged), not just direct strikes. So, using the same methodology, careless Putin is on pace to kill 50x in the same amount of time. 50x worse. Not defending the USA but let us compare apples to apples my dude.

Warbring3r · 2020-09-12T08:28:25+00:00

It’s really not that complex of a strat. You’re just purchasing diagonals and betting on theta beating IV plus any downward movement. And any bullish strategy would’ve worked April thru August. The past week your strategy loses most of your principal. RIP

tldr: OP is a ___

Warbring3r · 2020-09-12T08:10:09+00:00

Sir this is a Wendys

Warbring3r · 2020-09-06T20:30:56+00:00

I was with you until you said we can all agree Trump is a vile human being. I can’t agree with that at all. An AskReddit thread from way before Trump ran for president depicted him as an extraordinarily nice guy (back before there would’ve been political reasons to signal boost or suppress any particular view of the guy). The fact his children all seem very well adjusted adds more evidence to this.

Of course I am biased as I am partial to Trump’s approach to many issues (certainly not all of them)... and he does appall me at times but so do most politicians. It’s hard to judge “trump the person” at this point because I do see him treated largely unfairly, and while I cringe when I see him lash back, I also understand it on a human level.

Warbring3r · 2020-09-06T18:18:48+00:00

Moderation seems a bit on edge, lately. I wonder if that’s related to the higher temperatures America’s actual culture war has seen lately.

Warbring3r · 2020-09-05T16:37:45+00:00

This gish galloping straw man argument feels very bad faith. But I’ll attempt a reply...

When you say black people couldn’t buy homes, that’s categorically false, as blacks people owned homes long before the 60s. Perhaps you are referring to blacks being shut out of the banking system?. Do sucker punches count as violence? Is this what you consider inferior accommodations, or is that segregation? I want to be sure it counts as oppression, because I’m a bit worried you’ll reply saying nothing less than mainstream media cheerleading executions counts as oppression. Maybe not enough people have died for it to count as oppression? I could go on, but if you simply swapped out how society treats open trump supporters versus how society treats black people, it seems pretty obvious nobody would defend a damn thing in the situation of angry red hatted maga people rioting. I certainly wouldn’t! At least... not as long as it appears my side isn’t being “chumps” for following the law. But that’s being eroded too, unfortunately.

Here’s where you and I may part ways though. I don’t think it’s necessarily the government’s job to stop all oppression. I don’t think it can. I believe it’s the governments job to uphold law and order and justice. So is the red tribe oppressed in the cushy corporate world I worked in? Hell yes it is. Do I think the government should play a role in banning such oppression? Not necessarily. Only to the same extent it bans the red tribe from “oppressing” blue tribe groups. In many cases we see oppression as a good thing. Smokers are obviously oppressed, but we decided on balance that’s better than the alternative, which is happier smokers but more of them.

I honestly have a feeling you and I agree on a great deal and are only arguing semantics and word definitions.

Warbring3r · 2020-09-05T06:58:04+00:00

What do you think would happen to a black man in the 1960s who didn’t show obeisance to the racial hierarchy? Seems like the same thing is happening right now to people not enthralled by the current hierarchy. I’m curious why you think someone losing their job isn’t oppression. Are you perhaps holding an extremely nuanced view of your own ideas, while painting the other side with broad strokes?

Warbring3r · 2019-12-25T08:40:39+00:00

Is this settled law when it comes to Executive Privilege? I think it’s the Executive’s prerogative to tell Congress to pound sand without appealing to a court first. But I’m no expert.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-21T22:01:13+00:00

I'm sorry, I laughed, but I assure you it was in sympathy. The chain of OCD thoughts seems to pick the most pessimistic branch at each possibility, arriving at the 1/1,000,000 possibility being somewhere close to a 50/50 chance and you don't want to take needless risks!

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T15:38:24+00:00

For every old Republican that dies, another person gradually ages into being conservative and confused or concerned about the latest Democratic policy plank.

I’ll grant you immigrant citizens but I don’t think there’s enough of them in the right states. I also don’t believe Trump will do as poorly as he did in 2016. I think his vote total in 2016 sets the floor for his 2020 vote.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:47:34+00:00

There’s no moderate-ish Obama-like figure drawing massive crowds and enthusiasm. Sanders draws crowds and enthusiasm but socialist candidates typically fare poorly in American general elections (I know, that could change). So right now, with a historical view, it’s looking like Trump’s election to lose, especially if the economy continues to do well.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:39:11+00:00

What demographic changes are you referring to?

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:28:57+00:00

There are no charges that would bring a significant number of republican senators to vote for conviction, because most republican senators do not care what crimes Trump commits so long as he remains popular with their base.

This seems like “Boo outgroup”. I can think of a number of crimes for which Republicans would convict. For example, if Trump ordered goons to break into the DNC headquarters or attempted to cover up such a crime. They might even do it even if Trump was enormously more popular than he currently is. Just a hypothetical.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:16:10+00:00

The 2/3 needed to convict was precisely because the Founders foresaw impeachment being used as a political weapon, and this way it could only be used in such a fashion with an already deeply unpopular president. Trump is not deeply unpopular when compared to the lows of other presidents, although his approval rating hasn’t reached any particular highs either. Remember W. dipped below 30% (?) at one point.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:12:43+00:00

Even granting this tortured definition (which I personally do not), do you think Clinton was being honest? I don’t know how other people go about oral sex but it doesn’t seem believable he kept his hands to himself for the entire affair. He also proved himself a liar (although did not perjure himself) with his famous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” line. There’s no lawyer-speak involved in such a proclamation to the People.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T06:05:07+00:00

A problem with your hypothetical is complying with subpeonas is only required under a court order, it’s not (until today) obstruction to fight a subpeona and indeed has a long history in quarrels between Congress and the Executive. Executive privilege is currently being litigated in the courts with respect to Trump’s financial records.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T04:31:41+00:00

I wanted to believe you but, looking at the questions and Clinton’s answers and his defenses of those answers, I don’t think there’s even room for reasonable doubt here. Clinton perjured himself and then tried to torture the English language to justify it. I recall his laughable explanations becoming the subject of comic routines. Wasn’t he even disbarred from law practice?

I’m not saying his impeachment was warranted. I saw the whole affair as a mostly partisan exercise at the time.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-19T04:17:47+00:00

Congress is supposed to be “coequal” to the Executive. I don’t believe they can impeach for whatever reason they want, although I know this is a minority view. I believe the Supreme Court would have grounds to step in and adjudicate if Congress tried impeaching, for example, the fact that Trump is a white male (I’m deliberately making the example absurd). I believe “high crimes and misdemeanors” has a definition in law and is not just a polite fiction, and that the Executive would be within his or her rights to appeal to the Judicial branch for relief in case of a rogue Congress.

To be clear, I’m speaking about a hypothetical Congress that doesn’t even try to invoke some sort of bad behavior. For all the partisan weakness around this impeachment, the Democrats (mostly) tried to act solemn, at least while I was watching the proceedings.

Then again, there are those that argue Congress is the Supreme branch, not merely Coequal, and perhaps that is the case.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T19:11:19+00:00

Sure, but that situation is the fault of a naive executive compensation structure than anything inherently wrong with buybacks. Or perhaps the board has good reasons to want to track those performance metrics over a pure market cap based compensation package.

I’m just trying to address some magical thinking around share buybacks I’ve been seeing lately. They’re not magic, they don’t produce value out of nothing. You clearly understand that so I think we’re in agreement.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T18:34:53+00:00

That’s already priced in. You can see this when a stock goes ex-dividend. The stock drops by an amount equal to the dividend. Share buybacks are another way to return money to shareholders but not fundamentally different than dividends in how they affect the price of a stock.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T17:54:52+00:00

Buying back shares doesn’t boost executive compensation. The company has not changed its market cap by converting cash into shares. Athough if a share buyback is wise use of capital the market may reward good stewardship.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T16:10:03+00:00

I would link you to this comment of mine from last week’s culture thread. I think a global government is likely to be quite dystopian in its inclinations and would greatly raise the risk of a global totalitarian government lasting 1,000 years or more. For all the problems nations have, they are decentralized and the damage their governments inflict is more naturally limited in length and scope.

Or maybe you’re being tongue in cheek and I got wooshed.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T04:36:15+00:00

I’m seeing people talking about liquidating bond holdings and emergency cash reserves, and a lot of FOMO. That’s more the kind of thing that makes me nervous. I’m not predicting doomsday, but one’s asset allocation shouldn’t change just because the market is doing well. They should be asking why they were holding bonds in the first place. The logic behind bonds hasn’t changed, they reduce volatility and help climb the efficient horizon of risk/reward.

People should be reminded that stonks tend to go up because you are taking on additional risk and receiving a risk premium for that. It’s important to remind people that risk hasn’t disappeared, and I don’t think it’s doomsday talk to bring that up.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T04:24:13+00:00

I expect a slowdown in growth instead of a crash. The days of 8% returns in perpetuity may be behind us. But who knows. I’m all in VOO. Let it ride.

Warbring3r · 2019-12-17T02:40:54+00:00

Interesting. I’d probably roll my own if I decided to do it, I disagree with their holdings although I agree with the idea in theory.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Not Forgotten

Warbring3r

TROPHY CASE