mtutiger

Two of the best ABs of the season right there, back 2 back

JK Simmons could probably hit better than these guys lol

Amazing.

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

Good call, yeah same reasoning I had earlier re: stock vs donating but for rich dudes instead of MAGA.   

On another note, it's amazing how Trump didn't so much drain the swamp more than he restocked it with new alligators lol

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

I'm not smart enough to know what that would do to the stock, maybe someone else does, but he'd also have to have buyers and if most people think he's going to raid the company why would they buy what he's selling unless they're just hard core maga (or don't think he's going to raid the company?)

 

Yeah, this is the part that's a mystery to me.... could always be some sort of uberwealthy donor (think like Larry Ellison or Peter Thiel or someone like that) rather than Ma and Pa MAGA

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

Got it, thanks.   I wasn't sure if you meant you didn't believe there was a process or that there was a process and that he'd leverage it.

If I had to wager a guess I'd guess he'll raid the **** out of that company day 1 after that lock in period.   

That would be my guess as well.... although it'll be interesting to see what the share price is at that point lol

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

Are you saying that you'll believe that he sells within 5 month window when you see it?

Correct. 

As a theoretical exercise, it's clear that there's a path to doing it. In actuality, as even the AP article from March states, it's not without complication or without possible legal issues arising from such a move.

I read the article at the time, but the excerpt again kinda paints the picture of a process that is complicated and not without legal pitfalls.

So I'll believe it when I see it.

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

The NPR story said he could sooner if he got approval from the board, which would be basically a rubber stamp b/c it's his family and other trump loyalists.  

I'll believe it when I see it.

Just now, pfife said:

True.  Another thing I was wondering, although this would be mainly reflected in very recent fundraising numbers but.... NPR had a lil ditty this morning about the Trump stock, and they said that some of his supporters are buying that stock in effort to support Trump.

Now far be it for me to infer reasoning on Trumpers, but if I was a Trumper and felt compulsion to get my money into his pockets, and my choices are donating or buying stock, I'd buy the stock.   

Maybe, although he still can't liquidate any of the shares for five more months, I believe.

1 hour ago, pfife said:

I wonder if they're just tapped out for donating to him.   Dude's been asking for money straight since 2015.  I know most of them do it relentlessly but he's taken it to another level.  

That may be part of it.... I also think the polls being more favorable to Trump this time around may be leading to some complacency as well (ie. he's already leading and got it in the bag, why do I need to donate?)

10 minutes ago, oblong said:

I think he’s the favorite to carry his mantle forward.  And Rubio… ?  What a disaster. I can’t believe I wanted him to win in 2016. 

As much as people speculate about Biden and "one heartbeat away" and all of that, boy, that should matter with Trump too. 

Rubio is a disappointment, but there's a little bit of brain matter still going on there as disappointing as the guy is. Vance, on the other hand, seems more like a modern day Manchurian Candidate to me.... just something really really off there.

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

I think that’s far less likely than trump winning the EC. Two reasons. They will now be better prepared. If Biden wins then they will have ramped up security big time.  Trump has no infrastructure or apparatus behind like he did in 2020. Back then he had the defense and military and fbi and all that.  Now it’s just him and some bad lawyers. Nobody has to take his phone calls.  Defeated candidates are nobodies. I remember seeing a picture of Mitt Romney a day after the election in 2012 waiting in the taxi line at an airport. No staff.  No secret service.  He’s just a guy. The minute the campaign is over all the RNC cards are cutoff. You are just a regular schmo.  Sure with Donald it is a little different as a former potus but he’s still not in any position of power to do anything.  

Also, the lackluster fundraising from small donors relative to 2020 during this campaign tells me that there isn't that sort of enthusiasm for Trump this time around.

Doesn't mean he can't win at the ballot box, obviously....

JD Vance would be such a disaster.... as such, I suspect he's the favorite.

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’ve have seen and heard a lot of demonizing of college students in general because of this—you know, those entitled little ****ers getting daddy and mommy to plunk down six figures to send them away hoping they’d get a business degree and a job that would pay them enough to get them out of the house for good and, bonus, pay for their end of life care. Who do these little snots think they are? They should go out and get a real job and see what it’s like to work in the real world for a change. Know what I mean? That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. But probably far less than 1% of college students are even involved in these, and I just think politicians are stunting off this for likes from their base.

Agreed completely. There's a view of the college experience that is advanced or pushed in media more generally that tends to overrate the Ivies or even the higher prestige private or state schools (ie. UMich, Cal, Northwestern, etc.) that is not emblematic of the median college student. At even at *those* institutions, 95%+ percent of students are not out on lawns protesting right now.

I'm pretty sure the two institutions that I have attended (Michigan Tech and UT-Arlington) have not had protests, and I suspect both of these institutions are closer to the median in terms of the average college in America than the Ivies are.

As far as the politicians stunting off of these, it's a really huge pet peeve considering many of these politicians (ie. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, among others) hold degrees from these same institutions and undoubtedly will be tripping all over themselves to send their kids to their alma mater over sending them to a simple state school.

Five years on, it looks like Labour is rebuilding the Red Wall

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Not surprising at all.

This is what makes it hard... you try to take nuanced views on this conflict and even just the underlying passion that exists among the protestors; whether I agree with them or not, or think they are naive, I understand that some (or maybe even most) of these protestors are coming from a good place. 

But then you read stuff like this and it becomes clear that protests are aimless, pointless and are being undermined by people that are not even students at these institutions. And it becomes clear that they are doing more damage than they are doing any actual good. Not just in contemporary politics, but to the cause that they are ultimately trying to advance in a pluralistic society.

4 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

This shouldn't go unnoticed... that's ridiculous.

Like, people are presented with all sorts of hardships while in school that do not allow professors to give this level of deference on exams. How on earth is this defensible? 

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

This might be fake but who knows. I will believe it.  It makes sense as to motive.  As Drew Lane said “there’s a boner behind everything”
 

 

To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles...

"What in the wide wide world of sports is 'a goin' on here???"

9 minutes ago, pfife said:

I guess the theory was it would exploit the left leaning anti vaxers?   Hell idk what they were thinking because antivax is basically a trumper thing so it seems epically dumb

Even going beyond that issue, he's also shown himself to be pretty right wing on I/P and some other issues as well....

My guess is that Bannon thought he'd be a pretty good avatar for discontent, especially with the last name, but even that assumption is flawed (especially when you consider the demographic changes of the GOP/Dem parties over time, the fact that JFK Jr. is a holy figure in Q, etc.)

23 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The historical truth is that protest against the War in Vietnam never moved the public or US Gov because of the war itself, it was eventually opposition to the draft that did because it was US kids being impacted. And this isn't even our war or our people. 

Right, in terms of public opinion, things change when there is a direct connection between Americans and the issue. Something that, for better or worse, largely doesn't exist here; any number of issues, including the economy, immigration, abortion rights, etc., impact the average person far more acutely than this issue does.

I don't think that it's all about Trump, at least for the vast majority of these protestors, but I do think in the macro it's a primal scream for attention from a public that doesn't care as much about this cause as much as they do. But the rub is that by doing things like blocking interstates and vandalizing university buildings, while they may raise the salience somewhat, they are also likely to generate negative feelings toward the cause.

It's just incredibly counterproductive.... not just with these protests but with previous less, publicized ones, I don't know that these folks know or care how negative the perceptions are.

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

We don't want perpsective, we want CLICKS!

I also think that journalists are likely overstating how much this stuff is ultimately going to break through to the GP. The obvious comparison point is the BLM stuff in 2020 and other activist moments that happened during that year, but that was also during a worldwide pandemic that saw, among other things, entire sports leagues shuttered and a population stuck at home far more often than normal. 

Not saying that people aren't noticing this stuff, but it's a lot more in the background than it was four years ago for those reasons. Even the stuff happening locally, at least where I live, isn't getting a ton of news coverage relative to other events going on in the area.

Having said all of that, I do think the protests are counterproductive and do more harm than good... but I think the perspective of the professor is well taken.

4 hours ago, RatkoVarda said:

NYPD looks like a bunch of pussies compared to California cops, who are using flashbangs and rubber bullets  to clear UCLA protestors

the only accomplishments these bozos have achieved: 1) stalled billions to Israel got passed; 2) ridiculous antisemitism bill passed house; and 3) increased chance Trump - who would love to see a nuke dropped on Gaza - wins

I've been hesitant to weigh in on this topic just because of how heated it's has been / has gotten, but really this is correct.

Whether it's these latest campus protests or whether it's protesters blocking Interstate 190 going into O'Hare of the Golden Gate Bridge or whatever, ultimately if the goal is to change hearts and minds on this issue, are these actions effective in doing so? And what, exactly, is the goal?

Setting aside my personal beliefs about the cause, I don't see any actual goal. Most Americans are likely not seeing any actual goal. All they are seeing is chaos and disorder. If the goal is to generate sympathy for the cause, I couldn't think of worse imagery than what is being produced by taking over college buildings. 

4 hours ago, pfife said:

could be a legendary backfire.   My understanding is Bannon was very influential in getting RFK to run and helping is camp pain get going.  

His anti-vaxx stance was always the biggest red-flag.... there was a poll result (I'd have to find it) that found that once once voters who were unaware of his anti-vax views were made aware of them, Republican support increased and Dem support decreased.

It's one of the defining things about his political persona, and will only be further fleshed out as this campaign goes on.