Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

bearrock

Members
  • Posts

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bearrock

  1. Yeah, it's hard to plan too far ahead in terms of retirement tax planning considering that laws may change. It's probably a good idea and enough for now to keep an eye on the common strategies and take a one time meeting with a financial or tax advisor in your 50's and another closer to the time if and when you decide to execute any strategy. As it stands now, RMD regulations on non-Roth accounts will typically make conversion in between retirement and social security a serious consideration for many people.
  2. For the average retail investors, keep a few things in mind and you'll tend to do well over the long run - Time in market beats timing the market - It's not a real gain until it's been realized - Very few fund managers beat index funds on a consistent basis (top fund managers beat the market by about 3% in a given year, but there is constant churn among the top). So unless you are lucky enough to have Buffet, Lynch, or Druckenmiller managing your money, you're probably better off with boring index funds with age/risk tolerance appropriate ratio of equity and bond
  3. A truly sham insurrection finding would be subject to multiple appeals to overturn, including SCOTUS. We have bad and incompetent judges make bad factual findings and misapplication of the law all the time. They get overturned on appeal all the time. Even a jury finding is subject to overturn on appeal if the situation warrants it. For a sham insurrection charge to stand, it would have to survive multiple appeals all the way to SCOTUS. If affirmed at every level, that's quite the sham.
  4. This is a bad argument for two reasons. First, what should save Democratic candidates from sham insurrection disqualification is by not committing insurrection. The line only works if Trump is being disqualified under a sham insurrection charge. No. Joe Biden doesn't have to worry about whacko red state disqualification because he has done nothing to be disqualified. Second, if a red state was going to cook up a sham insurrection charge, that state is too far gone to be in play anyway. Is Biden winning any state that he has a potential of being disqualified in? People who raise this line ranges from insinuate to outright claim that Trump did not engage in insurrection. Bull****. The very fact that not one court at any level of this litigation seriously questioned the lower court finding of insurrection (after a 5 day trial) should disqualify him in the mind of any voter who gives any value and credence to the principles of democracy. You can think Joe Biden is the devil incarnate. Then find someone else to head the party ticket. Trump is a charlatan, a huckster, and a traitor to this country. But we always knew that. Any voter sailing him in as the GOP nominee or voting for him in the general is complicit in Trump's insurrection. And spare me the feigned shock in the future when election denial and challenging election results by any means necessary becomes the norm.
  5. I think the good professor is giving the average voter way too much credit.
  6. And nasdaq gained 41% in the last year. Tech stocks outperform sp500 in the last year (has been true going on near 3 decades now), shocker.
  7. Definitely don't want to lump all car dealers into the same group, but in my car buying experience when I was younger, many dealers just waste so much time trying to squeeze every last dime from me as the buyer with some tactics bordering on insulting to my intelligence, that I would've preferred if the person just said hey can you do me a favor and help me pad my margin on this sale and save my time in the process. Things may have changed now, but as I got older and my time is more valuable, I have very little interest in sitting in a dealership going through one shenanigan after another. Like come on, I understand basic math, stop thinking I can't put 2 and 2 together and figure out what this change means to the overall cost.
  8. She's married. That's not enough to stop the conversation? You asked her out and she said no. Seems pretty case closed to me.
  9. Agree. I think hardcore gamers would likely buy regardless of supply shortage. Older, casual gamers like me probably would buy at launch if not too much of a hassle to get one. Regardless of scarcity, I think casual gamers would probably buy at reasonable price, but not bother with auctions and scalpers all that much. Anecdotally, I would've been fine paying whatever MSRP was for PS5 at launch or higher, but I never wanted to bother with the hassle of getting it legitimately nor go the private sale route. By the time it became readily available, I was meh on it and moved on to gaming on PC.
  10. On the Biden policy angle, I think student loan issue is another place where Biden and his administration shows their chops as competent people who just knows how to get things done in Washington. Early on, the narrative swirled around how is he going get massive student loan forgiveness past Congress. When the new law approach failed, they looked for other avenues to get a lot of forgiveness across the finish line. That's just good, competent governing as the Chief Executive.
  11. I just think the vast majority of the votes, if not almost all of them, are baked in. These two are as known as known gets in terms of their candidacy. Is there really anything left to unearth that will change people's opinion of either of them? Trump's new legal outcomes may make those who despise Trump hate him even more or reaffirm their indifference or their view that Trump is the victim of a witch hunt. Or some may plan to vote for Biden as anyone but Trump vote and some may vote for Trump for their own reasons. But I don't think there's anything between now and November that will swing who they would choose as the President. It's almost entirely going to come down to turnout. I think the malleable turnout portion of Biden's supporters are more likely to go cast a vote against Trump more so than go cast a vote for Biden. Many have made credible and persuasive arguments for why Biden has done a good job as POTUS. But if those haven't convinced a voter by now, I'm not sure what will in the future. If a voter, as it stands, feels like Biden's age and Harris as VP makes that ticket a bad choice to the extent that they will vote for Trump, my guess is that they will find a reason to vote for Trump anyway. And to that extent, if Biden campaign wants to reassure voters that Biden can still do the job (not to turn back people who left for Trump, but to assuage voters who may stay home), that's probably better done closer to November. Or it may be that the campaign doesn't feel those doubts can be assuaged or anyone feeling those doubts have not been affected to the point of risk staying home. Either way, they probably plan to run a campaign against Trump moreso than a campaign for the incumbent.
  12. Tbf, his actual quote is not that bad. I would even say it's fine and probably the norm (or should be anyway). https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/39558347/anthony-rendon-baseball-never-top-priority-me I mean how many people place job above family and ,if applicable, faith? If they do, I would say that's screwed up priorities. If it is a priority like he said, just not a top one, it's fine. If his numbers haven't been so disappointing since he signed with LA, this probably doesn't make as much noise.
  13. It's a terrible decision. Should have taken out an insurance policy. If the policy was cost prohibitive, it should've been a huge red flag and a sign that the contract may be bad idea. Having signed the contract without an insurance policy in place, you live up to the contract. Dragging a can barely lift my arm Strasburg to training camp for some kind of meaningless leverage in buyout negotiations is how you torpedo the team's reputation with the rest of the players in the league.
  14. The poll has about 40%+ support for either candidate. If I were to take a guess about why about 71% says age is an issue for Biden but only 39% for Trump, I think almost all Trump supporters would have age as an issue for Biden and age as not an issue for Trump. You would have some Biden supporters who would have age as an issue for both (but choosing Biden for other reasons). Then you have the 80 is the new 60 crowd, who doesn't view age as an issue for either. I tend to think it's a sign of Trump supporters being a lot more enthusiastic in their support of Trump vs Biden supporters in their support of Biden. Which may actually be a bigger hurdle for Dems to overcome than Biden's age. I think Dems have to hope once the general election cycle starts and Trump is fully at center stage, the small sliver of the electorate who are undecided (really? still undecided?) or lukewarm to apathetic about supporting Biden realize or remember that Trump is unacceptable.
  15. Romo broke down why Hardman had a step (the motion gets the secondary to momentarily shift their eyes towards the direction of motion, Mahomes snaps exactly when the eye shifts with Hardman turning opposite direction at snap). It's a great play design and call by Reid, executed to perfection by Hardman and Mahomes.
  16. I just hope in my lifetime, DC is lucky enough to find our Brady/Mahomes. Absolutely amazing.
  17. I just thank the Good Lord that he's no longer in Philly.
  18. I disagree. I think Dems see less of an upside to a primary challenge against an incumbent president vs the downside. Replace Biden with another candidate and you still have the same demonization just for a different reason, only you just went through a bitter intraparty primary and likely have a fractured base. All for what? To court the hypothetical voters who won't vote for a Biden/Harris ticket but will vote for someone else? If a person's opinion of Trump isn't negative enough to hold your nose to whatever complaint you might have about Biden and show up and vote for him anyway, really skeptical on the prospects of such a person, after the general campaign hatchet job, voting for the eventual dem nominee.
  19. To the extent that there's a sliver of the voters that would either stay home or show up to vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee vs show up and vote for another Dem nominee, if they are enough to swing the election, pretty sure Dem loss in November would be on those voters. Biden gets plastered with issues du jour because he's the Dem nominee. If Newsom, Sanders, Whitmer, or whoever else was the nominee, they would be the next devil incarnate. Either Trump and overturning of Roe/prospect of federal ban on abortion drives enough voters to the polls for a Dem candidate or they won't. I don't think there's a Obama 2008 like candidate that people are clamoring to vote for on the Dems' side. Edit: double post
  20. I think Dems need to refocus the discussion. Let's not forget that after a 5 day trial, a court found that yes, Donald Trump as a sitting president committed insurrection. And for all the hyper technical legal arguments Trump put forth during his appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, that fact finding has never been disturbed.
  21. Yeah, there's a fair bit of hypertechnicality going on (some might say intellectual dishonesty). To me, the one state determining argument is nonsensical for the reason you stated (FL 2000 anyone?). I think the argument would have to be that given the language in section 5 giving Congress the power to enforce, when it comes to a national election, it's Congress and Congress alone that can enforce section 3 (this is still pretty hypertechnical and incorrect imo, but better than we can't have a single state decide the national election drivel) This to me raises another issue that I feel the court is going to gloss over. All qualifications are categorical (I believe Justice Kagan touched on this). You are either 35 or you are not. You are either a natural born citizen or you are not. You are either an insurrectionist or you are not. When a candidate's qualification is challenged, it has typically been the states that determine other eligibility categories like age and natural born citizenship. It would be subject to review by higher courts as to whether the ineligibility ruling is sound, but there is no mechanism for ensuring a single national determination on eligibility for other categories. The only plausible argument for treating insurrection differently is section 5 (and as strained a reasoning as it may be, I think Roberts will work very hard to build a narrow consensus that can have liberal justices sign on so that it is not a 6-3 ruling) Yeah, very few things about the US election is national. There's going to be some mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion on why insurrection disqualification needs a national mechanism. I mean that's a constitutional crisis. And to me, the attempted cure would be way worse than the disease. I may not like the fact that Trump can commit insurrection and run for office again and I think we need a clear amendment to specify that a President is indeed covered and lay out a clear mechanism for disqualification (not because I don't think he is disqualified under the current Constitution and set of laws, but to lay rest any argument to the contrary), a blatant disregard of SCOTUS ruling is a red line for me.
  22. The prosecuting team probably had concerns about whether the evidence would be sufficient to establish criminal intent for insurrection beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not to say that evidence is not enough for a civil determination or for lay people to have opinions. And having debatable amount of evidence for a criminal conviction is obviously far cry from establishing Trump did not commit insurrection.
  23. SCOTUS would be saying that Congress has to put the enforcement mechanism in place and in the absence of such a mechanism, there is no way to enforce section 3. This obviously runs contrary to some historical examples of states enforcing section 3, but that's why I think they will carve out the distinction based on this disqualification being issued against a candidate for a national election. It would be a statute that specifies how an insurrection allegation would be adjudicated (it need not be a criminal proceeding) and lay out the procedure for disqualifying a presidential candidate. It would be generally applicable to every candidate accused of insurrection like a criminal statute that applies to everyone accused of committing that crime. 2/3rd vote would remove the ineligibility from a specific candidate like a pardon would clear the conviction of a specific criminal.
×
×
  • Create New...