Ask Ted Anything: 6,000 Posts

[Mike Thick]

Here we are, folks. Close to five years on this hellsite, and six thou to show for it. Fire away.

[America Needs R'hllor]

1. Top 10 House members
2. Top 10 Senators
3. Favourite Israeli politician(s)

[Battista Minola 1616]

Dost thou like to drink alcohol?

[Ancestral Republican]

What made you interested in politics?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Would you have any interest in a CA 250 seats thing I made?

[Gracile]

Top 10 Talking Heads songs?

[Mike Thick]

1. Top 10 House members
2. Top 10 Senators
3. Favourite Israeli politician(s)

House, in no particular order:
Katie Porter
AOC
Ayanna Pressley
John Yarmuth
Brad Sherman
Barbara Lee
Jamie Raskin
Pete DeFazio
Deb Haaland
Joe Neguse

Senate, also in no particular order:
Bernie
Warren
Sherrod Brown
Tammy Duckworth
Cory Booker
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Michael Bennet
Chris Murphy
Brian Schatz

Israel IDK about. Just whoever has the best shot at beating Netanyahu, I guess.

Dost thou like to drink alcohol?

The one time I did it, I enjoyed it! But I didn't get out much last year, and right now I'm cooped up in the folks' house for the foreseeable future, which procludes such illicit activities. So, we'll wait and see.

What made you interested in politics?

I heard a lot about the shooting in Newtown when I was a kid, but didn't really understand the politics surrounding the gun debate. I started regularly reading the news to get myself up to speed. Kind of wavered back and forth interest-wise for a while, then got sucked in completely ahead of the 2014 midterms. Lots of things have changed about my politics since then, but the interest has stuck.

Would you have any interest in a CA 250 seats thing I made?

Of course!

Top 10 Talking Heads songs?

Hmm. I'm as well-versed on their discography as my sig probably lets on. Here goes (entirely based on personal taste):
1. Once in a Lifetime
2. Burning Down The House
3. The Great Curve
4. Girlfriend is Better
5. Making Flippy Floppy
6. This Must Be The Place
7. Life During Wartime
8. Air
9. Swamp
10. Animals

[Don Vito Corleone]

Are you on alternatehistory.com

[PSOL]

Would you prefer to live without cookies or cream for the remainder of your life?

[T'Chenka]

Why do you keep records of the circumcision statuses of Atlas users?

[Mike Thick]

Are you on alternatehistory.com

I am, but only to look at other people’s stuff — I never post.

Would you prefer to live without cookies or cream for the remainder of your life?

Hmm. Probably cookies, since cream’s used in more stuff.

Why do you keep records of the circumcision statuses of Atlas users?

When you folks talk about your wieners as much as you do, it’s hard to forget!

[Kleine Scheiße]

WHY?

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? This is what we all have to ask. 😳

How much the price is going to change over time as the market does?

Is it going to be flat down? Is it going to go up. Is it going to move down? Will it make a comeback? Whats it all mean, so far?

Who's to blame? Will this change? How long will it be for the price to go up?

How much money will we lose?

What can we expect from this? Please reply with your thoughts and observations here, we will publish them and analyze them in a post after we get the data.

[Boobs]

Top ten numbers?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Would you have any interest in a CA 250 seats thing I made?

Of course!

https://davesredistricting.org/join/482bc3d7-ffdf-4507-b757-2e7a9a9c4dbf
here's a link.

[Mike Thick]

Top ten numbers?

4 8 1 5 1 6 2 3 4 2

[Mike Thick]

WHY?

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? This is what we all have to ask. 😳

How much the price is going to change over time as the market does?

Is it going to be flat down? Is it going to go up. Is it going to move down? Will it make a comeback? Whats it all mean, so far?

Who's to blame? Will this change? How long will it be for the price to go up?

How much money will we lose?

What can we expect from this? Please reply with your thoughts and observations here, we will publish them and analyze them in a post after we get the data.

Dow Jones futures fell modestly early Friday, along with S&P 500 futures and Nasdaq futures. The coronavirus stock market rally had a solid session, with the Nasdaq racing to a fresh high. Apple (AAPL) and Tesla stock both reached historic levels, while Long-Term Leaders Adobe (ADBE) and ServiceNow (NOW) were among new breakouts.

Related: The stocks who could take off again after the election

But despite its continued success, the Dow Jones has begun to lose steam: Its last big correction since June 2006 came on Jan. 10, 2010, following the Fed's stimulus policy.

A year later, since 2009, the S&P 500 has lost about 40% of its value, while the Dow has risen about 27%. This is largely because of lower earnings.

To be sure, the Dow has yet to post a single gain this year, despite the latest data showing the economy is slowing, though there have been numerous positive developments from both companies. But on Jan. 2, the Dow recorded its first significant gain, after President Barack Obama's re-election victory.

S&P (SPX) and NSE both gained as high as 22%, but that fell to 24% and 20% today, respectively. Shares of NSE's Nifty index also traded at its highest since April 2016.

[MarkD]

Here's a question I've asked a few other Atlas users under their "AMA."

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction. Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.
My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states. The purpose of the Ninth was and is parallel to the Tenth Amendment.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those six kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to prevent gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. Both sides will be giving up something important that they don't want to give up, but will get something else important in return.

Specific elements appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. City of Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Prevent the federal courts from expanding the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause in any way other than what is enumerated in this proposal

Specific elements appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis on sex, in other words, the same principle as the ERA (this does not mean, however, revival of the right to abortion)
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and with this rule, preserve Obergefell v. Hodges
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (applying the Intermediate Scrutiny standard, which will also be applied for sex and sexual orientation, above)
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting government discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting government discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested in supporting this?

[Mike Thick]

^ This is... a lot. I don't have enough conlaw background to constructively engage with a lot of it -- my knowledge is limited to studying for the AP Gov test and Google -- but I'll say that I think the Ninth's protection of unenumerated rights makes sense, and on a visceral level it doesn't jive to me that those protections should be repealed or de-incorporated.

I mostly agree on the stuff you would expect a liberal to agree on, as well as McDonald. I oppose anything that would overturn Roe, and I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of overturning Plyler. I'd also rather impose a judicial-reviewable standard for districts to reflect CoI and partisan fairness than turn it over to commissions -- I get that there are problems with this, but I don't trust commissions to act as freely of partisan influence as, say, appellate panels and special masters operating under a standard with precedent behind it.

[SevenEleven]

Ted, can you free my soul?

[Dr. MB]

I just wanna tell you an anecdote. My friend, who is a doctor, did a procedure and they did these X-rays and it seemed like the best solution was for him to cut a piece of liver off. And they showed these pictures and they were like, "Well, this guy has cancer, but he's got that one small piece." I was like, "OK, OK, but what do you mean that?" And I was gonna have to be more patient with this. I was like, "Well, you're gonna have to cut the liver into nine smaller pieces." And they said, "No, you can do this." So they cut it, and it was like the same idea. He got cancer, but it was like a piece of liver is going to be like the same. And they came up with a cure, it was this one piece of liver that he was gonna have to cut, one at a time, every single day of his life. So that's the kind of thing that I'm going to talk about. Was this a good decision?

[Battista Minola 1616]

Do you prefer San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara?

[Mike Thick]

Ted, can you free my soul?

Take it to Brother Carlos

[snip]

Summer before my freshman year of high school, I actually read a book with a similar premise. It was about like some liver doctor that grew up in Ethiopia. I was trying to impress a girl. Bonus points to anyone that remembers what the title was — I sure don’t!

Do you prefer San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara?

I used to have some family ties in SLO, but I’ve only gotten up there once. Kind of a schlep from my hometown. Seems like a nice enough city — have some friends in college at Cal Poly — but I don’t really know enough to comment.

SB is closer, by contrast, so I’ve traveled there quite a bit. I go to a college that’s in the area, but a little too removed from the city to be SB proper. It definitely has pluses and minuses — can’t beat the scenery and weather, but the rent is obscene even by California standards, and the parts of the city where there are things to do have a very touristy feel.

I would take Carp or Ventura (or those little beach towns on the coast of SLO county) over either, but gun to my head, SB.