2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
--Anyone want to post a non paywalled link to this?
There isn't any federal one lol, but lobbies managed to convince people there was one :p
There are some states that have on their books a ban on gasoline cars sale after year X, but no such thing exists at the federal level afaik
Musk is pushing for a Federal mandate. From the above CNBC article:
In February, for instance, Tesla in a filing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, urged the Biden administration to allow California to pursue stricter vehicle emissions rules than the rest of the country – an idea Trump opposes.
Months earlier, in a previous filing with the agency, Tesla lobbied the government for regulations that would ban the production of most new gasoline cars by 2035 – the so-called “EV mandate” that Trump and others on the American right have criticized.
That would be pretty stupid. If you wanted to blame a demographic (which isn't especially productive in any event), it seems like white men would be the obvious place to start, since that is the demographic that supported Trump most fervently.
Most of the "libs" whose comments I am reading are blaming the far left, who spent the last 4 years doing their best to alienate as much of the country as possible, with their divisive rhetoric and actions. In democratic nations you dont win elections by calling the majority of people fascists and racists.
And I would say this result also repudiates the idea of racialism that Jalfrezi is promoting; that everyone should coalesce and vote as racial solidarity groups. For historical reasons blacks still generally do this (I would argue not to their benefit); but IMO this election disabuses the assumption that new immigrant groups with a very different immigration story will also do this.
--Anyone want to post a non paywalled link to this?
all you need to do is go to this site and paste in the link. works for most sites (not WSJ fwiw)
anyway, here ya go:
https://archive.ph/kTnlG
Musk *was* pushing apparently for such a federal mandate when he hadn't started donating massively to Trump & republicans and when he was still trying to play both sides.
Is he pushing for it since he went allin pro Trump? because you know you can say be short a company then close the short and go long or viceversa, because things change.
True, but white men voting Trump is expected. There seems to be a particular disdain by hard lefties for the folks who got uppity and wandered off the plantation.
As I've said many times before, the Republican party doesn't have a complete monopoly on jackassery. I'm sure that there are some idiots who are super mad at black voters for supporting Kamala by one or two percentage points less than they supported Biden. Victor seems to have found a few of these idiots. (God knows how much time he spent looking for them.) But I don't know any such people personally.
Elections matter: this is coinbase stock price reaction to election outcomes (coinbase has troubles with the SEC, trump admin SEC is expected to make life very easy for crypto in general)
The french whale who went allin on trump on polymarket for 40 millions commissioned private polls
Musk definitely believes the future is green. He just believes going green should not be at the expense of economic growth, like Germany has done. FWIW, it is widely believed Biden administration did a fairly good job balancing fossil fuel production (which increased significantly) and pushing green policies without going too far as to stifle economic growth. Which is why this is not a policy area he was attacked on.
It's not a gotcha, it's "if it doesn't materialize will that be enough to admit the risk assessment was wrong".
When you talk about whether the risk materializes, you seem to be defining the risk very narrowly as something like a catastrophic breakdown in democracy. As I said before, incremental damage is a thing.
We already discussed that it's not like automatic that if a risk doesn't materialize , it was never there. I agree with that in general.
Right, which means that even if you define the risk narrowly to capture only catastrophic failure, there won't really be any basis for people to admit they were wrong, especially in a situation where we have too few observations to truly test the accuracy with which we assess these sorts of risks.
I actually think democracy will get *stronger* and already is now vs 2020. I actually believe that republicans are inherently more democratic than the democratic party, especially republican nominated judges do respect the division of power and the actual text of the constitution a lot more than democrat nominated judges, and that is very protective for actual democracy.
But anyway, for example if election day becomes a national holiday, that makes democracy stronger.
If photos ID are mandated to vote & they are issued for free, that makes democracy stronger.
If there is no government pushed censorship on social media (unlike with Biden under covid), democracy is stronger.
If fewer executive actions are ex post deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS, democracy is stronger (fewer attempts of constitutional violations = stronger democracy).
If more issues , through congressual, executive or judicial decisions, become state issues instead of federal issues, democracy is a lot stronger.
This list is an example of why this sort of discussion between the two of us is mostly pointless. We don't necessarily agree on which things are harmful, neutral, inconsequential, or beneficial to democracy. And you are willfully ignoring some things that I assume we would both agree are harmful to democracy (e.g, baseless assertions of riggage).
On the right it is not hypocritical to always take maximum advantage of other people stupidity when legally allowed to do so, it's actually a moral imperative to do so as much as possible.
That's normal ethics for us.
You didm't have to write it, we know already how you think about this.
It must feel so strange to you when confronted to people who don't follow these action (screwing everyone over to the full extent of the law).
I imagine it must be like being in an episode of the twilight zone where you think everyone is weak and stupid not to abuse it.
When I read your thoughts about this I am not shocked because it's a very common view unfortunately.
I personnally could get insane money from the gov and choose not to, cause I don't really need to.
Inb4ImasuckerLol
all you need to do is go to this site and paste in the link. works for most sites (not WSJ fwiw)
anyway, here ya go:
https://archive.ph/kTnlG
Thanks. I actually subscribe to the WSJ, but never read it anymore. I dont read NYT either. But I appreciate Klein for being a lefty who actually tries to address issues, and not just resort to vacuous moral judgements. So try to read him when I can.
Elections matter: this is coinbase stock price reaction to election outcomes (coinbase has troubles with the SEC, trump admin SEC is expected to make life very easy for crypto in general)
Was anyone disputing that a Trump win would be beneficial to crypto holders, especially in the short term? There is a reason why Trump had so much cryptobro support.
For the record, I think this is bullshit (as in the rule itself). I shouldn't have to hire any god botherers if I don't want to. I don't think there should be any protected classes other than gender, race/ethnicity and sexual orientation.
I don’t think there’s any legislation that compels a company to hire someone to balance the numbers of religious nut jobs. Or is there?
Musk *was* pushing apparently for such a federal mandate when he hadn't started donating massively to Trump & republicans and when he was still trying to play both sides.
Is he pushing for it since he went allin pro Trump? because you know you can say be short a company then close the short and go long or viceversa, because things change.
The order of his actions doesn't really matter unless Musk withdraws his request for the federal mandate from consideration after he started campaigning for Trump.
No i am not defining that risk narrowly, for example if there is an increase in government censorship democracy can still exist in a weakened form but it would be a damaged democracy.
Same thing if there is an increase in voter suppression, or in the amount/impact of unconstitutional EO issued by the executive.
Ofc if we don't agree on what makes democracy stronger/weaker we will reach different conclusions.
I do agree that calls from the top of elections being rigged if they aren't do weaken democracy. But that happened already regardless of Trump winning or not, him winning doesn't add to that.
I suppose you don't consider Biden admin interference with social media about legal content suppression during covid a massive violation of the 1a and a severe weaking of democracy of a scale rarely seen in american peacetime history. But i do.
Even if maybe technically legal, the idea that the FBI and others contacted social media to ask to censor content that wasn't inherently criminal, even if you don't believe there were threats linked to that asking, is so horrifically antidemocratic i can't understand how you can defend that or minimize that or deny that if that stops under Trump, that's democracy getting far stronger.
It's incredible any executive agency even thinks about the idea of interacting with social media companies in any capacity unless strictly to remove criminal content or to conduct official investigations about crime, or to apply official rules of some sort. Incredible the conversation even starts.
Was anyone disputing that a Trump win would be beneficial to crypto holders, especially in the short term? There is a reason why Trump had so much cryptobro support.
Not sure anyone disputed that cripto would benefit from a Trump win, still the scale of the benefit for coinbase specifically blowed my mind
You didm't have to write it, we know already how you think about this.
It must feel so strange to you when confronted to people who don't follow these action (screwing everyone over to the full extent of the law).
I imagine it must be like being in an episode of the twilight zone where you think everyone is weak and stupid not to abuse it.
When I read your thoughts about this I am not shocked because it's a very common view unfortunately.
I personnally could get insane money from the gov and choos
Tesla is getting that money from other companies though not from governments.
Those companies wouldn't be offering the money/credits to Tesla if government cap & trade policy wasn't compelling them to do, so Tesla is in fact getting money that would otherwise go to government coffers for an effluent tax in the absence of a cap & trade policy.
same
i've seen friends do things like find a new landscaper because they noticed their old one had a trump bumper sticker or declare they'll never get another oil change at that shop again because they had a trump sign out front
or even worse, talk about cutting out certain people from their lives because they are trump supporters
i try to explain to them that their replacement landscaper or mechanic will probably also be a trump supporter and we have a lot of good mutual friends in common who i kn
Your friends sound really annoying.
Those companies wouldn't be offering the money/credits to Tesla if government cap & trade policy wasn't compelling them to do, so Tesla is in fact getting money that would otherwise go to government coffers for an effluent tax in the absence of a cap & trade policy.
Tesla is getting money that would otherwise go to *foreign governments* or *state goverments of states controlled by democrats* which voluntarily chose to have Tesla get that money instead (presumably because they think Tesla existence has positive externalities for the world which deserve to be compensated), and getting it actually increases federal government revenue a bit as Tesla profit is taxed by the federal government, and also because it increases the value of Tesla stock on which some americans pay federal taxes if they sell.
So Tesla is *helping american federal taxpayers* by accepting that money in.
I don’t think there’s any legislation that compels a company to hire someone to balance the numbers of religious nut jobs. Or is there?
Well, I guess if religious belief is a protected class, then there kind of is. As in I can't not hire someone for being religious much the same as I can't not hire someone for being black (or gay, or female).
To be honest, I'd probably struggle to come up with a consistent rationale why I should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religiosity but not on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or race. But then again, I've never really understood what the legal rationale is behind protected classes anyway. Having those 3 seems like it's not an overreach; anything else seems excessive. Being forced to ignore someone's political beliefs if they choose to make them known certainly seems excessive.
