2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
A few could, you still 1) need to keep even allies in check 2) need not to give the game away too much 3) big parties aren't monoliths so portions of them could behave erratically (wrt what is optimal for the party itself)
But it's too much in too short a span of time and the real firepower started being used after Musk moved to the right more explicitly
Was this action initiated by SEC during the first Trump administration an example of lawfare?
Was this action initiated by SEC during the first Trump administration an example of lawfare?
Because you can drop it
The point is that you are purporting to care about "lawfare" targeted at Elon Musk by Democrats, but if you scratch the service, you just don't want any regulatory action taken at all.
This has nothing to do with Democrats and everything to do with your desire to dismantle the modern regulatory state.
The point is that you are purporting to care about "lawfare" targeted at Elon Musk by Democrats, but if you scratch the service, you just don't want any regulatory action taken at all.
This has nothing to do with Democrats and everything to do with your desire to dismantle the modern regulatory state.
I want to dismantle the federal regulatory state for sure and i never made a mistery of that but no, i am not against state regulations in general, even if obviously the proper threshold in my preferred model is a lot less regulations than today, but it isn't 0.
But there clearly is nothing that requires federal regulations except when it deals with the borders. And most of the other attempts are actual unconstitutional abuses predicated on a completly erronous reading of the commerce clause.
Which doesn't mean the state of California or New Hampshire can't regulate a lot and should a bit.
I want to dismantle the federal regulatory state for sure and i never made a mistery of that but no, i am not against state regulations in general, even if obviously the proper threshold in my preferred model is a lot less regulations than today, but it isn't 0.
But there clearly is nothing that requires federal regulations except when it deals with the borders. And most of the other attempts are actual unconstitutional abuses predicated on
Leaving securities regulation to a patchwork quilt of inconsistent state approaches would be ridiculous imo.
In any case, my point stands. You aren't complaining about regulatory abuse targeted at Elon Musk. Not really. So we might as well talk about what you are really talking about.
FWIW, if you truly were caping for Elon Musk, that would probably be worse.
I say that not because of Musk's politics. I don't think Musk has any real politics. Any Republicans who think he is a true ally to conservatism almost certainly will be disappointed in the long run. Musk only cares about one thing, and that thing isn't some abstract political orientation.
Leaving securities regulation to a patchwork quilt of inconsistent state approaches would be ridiculous imo.
why? everyone listing in NYS would be subject to the same rules lol.
That, if NYS botches the rules, would allow for actual competition, and investors and companies will pick and choose based on their preferences, and the best model will win and keep adapting and so on, which is kinda what made the USA great in general, states competing on the legislative side to strike the proper balance.
Ofc this all dies with federal over-reach.
And ofc federal overreach is necessary to achieve the amount of regulation the left wants, because states competing for business won't be able to bloat rules too much. Which is kinda the whole point.
Leaving securities regulation to a patchwork quilt of inconsistent state approaches would be ridiculous imo.
In any case, my point stands. You aren't complaining about regulatory abuse targeted at Elon Musk. Not really. So we might as well talk about what you are really talking about.
I didn't say abuse did I?
I said rules are written on purpose in a way that can be weaponized, and power decides when and how much and against whom to weaponize them. It's all legal afaik.
I didn't say abuse did I?
I said rules are written on purpose in a way that can be weaponized, and power decides when and how much and against whom to weaponize them. It's all legal afaik.
I stand corrected. Kelhus was the one who claimed that this was targeted abuse perpetrated by Democrats. Apologies for the confusion.
why? everyone listing in NYS would be subject to the same rules lol.
That, if NYS botches the rules, would allow for actual competition, and investors and companies will pick and choose based on their preferences, and the best model will win and keep adapting and so on, which is kinda what made the USA great in general, states competing on the legislative side to strike the proper balance.
Ofc this all dies with federal over-reach.
And ofc fed
I don't think you understand how securities regulation works in the United States. Do you think that New York state currently regulates only companies that are organized in New York state? State securities regulation is mainly aimed at protecting investors who reside in the state.
I don't think you understand how securities regulation works in the United States. Do you think that New York state currently regulates only companies that are organized in New York state? State securities regulation is mainly aimed at protecting investors who reside in the state.
The state can both 1) regulate how you can list in an exchange in that state 2) regulate what can be sold to investors in the financial sector 3) regulator what incorporation in that state means 4) regulate which licenses if any are required to operate in a sector in that state 5) so on and on and on.
What is not needed is the fed to play any role at any point of the process. Let the competition among states decide which models is best. And they can do compacts if they believe it's in the interest of their residents to do so.
Why do you want the fed to be in that game at all?
The state can both 1) regulate how you can list in an exchange in that state 2) regulate what can be sold to investors in the financial sector 3) regulator what incorporation in that state means 4) regulate which licenses if any are required to operate in a sector in that state 5) so on and on and on.
What is not needed is the fed to play any role at any point of the process. Let the competition among states decide which models is best. And
States don't have their own exchanges.
I don't know what you mean by "sold to investors in the financial sector"? Do you think that states should be able to regulate companies that sell securities to investors in the state? If other words, if a New York resident logs into his brokerage account and buys stock in a Delaware company in reliance on material misstatements made by the Delaware company, is that any business of New York state in your opinion?
Yes which is not what tech billionaires expected.
They expected Trump to be after them, they used all their (very powerful) tools to make him lose in 2020, and they expected Biden to quietly drop or mismanage cases against them.
When that didn't happen you started seeing the pivot and the balancing act
ah yes. republicans in general and particularly trump are known for their strong anti-trust, anti-corporate positions.. lol.
As an aside, if securities regulation was left totally to the states, I am nearly certain that the overall net effect would be more government, not less.
ah yes. republicans in general and particularly trump are known for their strong anti-trust, anti-corporate positions.. lol.
yes? try to take your head out of the absolutely insane leftist narrative and you will realize that Trump is closer to democrats on many things than every other republican candidate in 50+ years
Conventional wisdom is that Republican administrations tend to enforce the U.S. antitrust laws somewhat less rigorously than Democratic administrations. That wisdom was contradicted in several ways by the Trump administration: Over the past four years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) applied novel theories to increase scrutiny of vertical mergers or acquisitions of potential or nascent competitors, particularly in the technology sector. In doing so, they paved the way for continued aggressive enforcement by the Biden administration.
During the Trump years, the Antitrust Division was more aggressive with vertical mergers than past Republican administrations and even sought, but failed, to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner. The FTC created a Technology Task Force in February 2019 to investigate potential conduct cases and to review consummated mergers, particularly acquisitions by large, high-tech platforms of startups in adjacent spaces. The FTC created the task force amid growing criticism that the enforcers had been too lenient in reviewing past deals.
ah yes. republicans in general and particularly trump are known for their strong anti-trust, anti-corporate positions.. lol.
another reminder you probably memory holed completly in your echo chamber
//
The new power couple taking on Wall Street: J.D. Vance and Elizabeth Warren
The Hill: RFK Jr.’s name on ballot poses danger for Trump in key states
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name is likely to remain on the ballot in key states in November in what could inadvertently threaten former President Trump despite the independent candidate suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump.
Kennedy said he would push to be removed from the ballot in battlegrounds that will help determine who wins the White House, but as of now, officials say voters will see him appear as a candidate in Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina when they head to the polls.
Polls had shown Kennedy draining support from Trump before he suspended his bid, raising the likelihood that his presence in certain states could impact the results even where he’s no longer running.
“If a candidate is on the ballot, someone will vote for them regardless,” said Christopher Thrasher, a ballot access consultant who analyzes third-party campaigns. “The primaries showed as much this year on both sides. How many votes is anyone’s guess at this point.”
another reminder you probably memory holed completly in your echo chamber
//
The new power couple taking on Wall Street: J.D. Vance and Elizabeth Warren
JD Vance is a fully owned subsidiary of tech billionaire Peter Thiel.
elizabeth warren is obviously anti-wallstreet because she's a progressive populist type. Vance is just doing whatever daddy Thiel tells him too.
Yes which is not what tech billionaires expected.
They expected Trump to be after them, they used all their (very powerful) tools to make him lose in 2020, and they expected Biden to quietly drop or mismanage cases against them.
When that didn't happen you started seeing the pivot and the balancing act
You have pretty much no idea what you're talking about. They had no expectation the Biden DOJ would drop these cases.
The Biden administration is also expected to press forward with the Trump Justice Department’s new antitrust lawsuit against Google, though its shape likely could be changed.
But if Biden decides to pursue major legislation to overhaul the laws governing tech competition, he’ll have to navigate a tricky congressional and political landscape.
Democratic lawmakers in the House, after a sweeping investigation by a Judiciary Committee panel, called last month for Congress to rein in Big Tech, possibly forcing the giants to break up their businesses while making it harder for them to acquire others and imposing new rules to safeguard competition.
Those kinds of mandated breakups through a legislative overhaul would be a radical step for Congress to take and could be a bridge too far for most Republicans.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-...
Just more political hackery....other than some sort of congenital trait of cultural conservatives, I have no idea why you just make stuff up that is so obvious to disprove.
JD Vance is a fully owned subsidiary of tech billionaire Peter Thiel.
elizabeth warren is obviously anti-wallstreet because she's a progressive populist type. Vance is just doing whatever daddy Thiel tells him too.
Warren used to be anti wall street. That's what got her popularity back in the occupy wall street days. Now she's a fraud and a big supporter of the institutions.
Yes
Democrats DID NOT Switch Sides...
JD Vance is a fully owned subsidiary of tech billionaire Peter Thiel.
elizabeth warren is obviously anti-wallstreet because she's a progressive populist type. Vance is just doing whatever daddy Thiel tells him too.
peter thiel might very well have helped creating Vance but there is no reason to think he can still control him.
which is a problem, as a pro tech industry drone would be a lot better and far less dangerous than an actually capable right-wing horseshoe socialist
Yes so not being super favourite against such a bad candidate, is an indictment for the democratic party.
No you are missing the point .
Prior to this election , do you really believe and think black woman had any chance to win the presidency ?
Especially Harris ?
lol to you if you say yes ….
She’s doing far over expectation in historical trend that’s for sure .
Hence the reason I reference to maga old America being great and losing to a black woman .
Ps: a month ago trump had like almost a lock in reelection by almost everyone here ..
