Back Again [DOT 23/11/20]

23/11/20 MegMegMcGee 28

Happy Monday! And hopefully it’s a short week for you too.

In case you missed it and are looking for things to watch over your Thanksgiving holiday, check out Brain Drain.

Let’s see what else is going on…

Takes one to know one.

Chris Christie calls the conduct of Trump’s legal team a ‘national embarrassment’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-christie-trump-concede/2020/11/22/05c280e6-2cda-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html

Oh now they have backbones. SureJanDotGif

Trump faces pressure from Republicans to drop ‘corrosive’ fight to overturn election
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/22/trump-republicans-pressure-fight-overturn-election

Except for this blob fish

Lawyer Twitter and my group chats that include lawyers are finding this super entertaining.

Trump loses lawsuit that sought to block Pennsylvania win for Biden
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/trump-loses-l.html

Stonks!

Dow futures rise to kick off the week despite jump in coronavirus cases
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/22/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html

Sprots!

I’m not crying you’re crying

Four years ago, a grandmother accidentally invited a stranger to her Thanksgiving dinner via text message. Ever since, they’ve celebrated the holiday together and despite the pandemic, this year was no exception.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/22/us/teen-grandma-thanksgiving-text-coronavirus-husband-trnd/index.html

My YouTube algorithm is stuck in the aughts.

Go get ’em, Deadsplinters.

avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

28 Comments

  1. The news about Sidney Powell was indeed exciting but barely elicited a raised eyebrow from me:
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/23/trump-campaign-cuts-ties-with-attorney-sidney-powell-after-bizarre-election-claims
     
    The screaming headline I read in one of those filthy Commie fake news websites I read was something like:
     
    “Too Crazy Even For Trump”
    (subhed):
    “Struck From Legal Strike Force”
    (subbed):
    “‘They’re not sending their best’ into courtrooms around the country. Or maybe they are.”

  3. …I’m not surprised that lawyers you know are finding that decision amusing…I am not a lawyer but k2b was good enough to link the .pdf of the full text yesterday & it’s around 40 pages (double-spaced with footnotes/citations) that includes (as does that piece you link to) stuff like this

    “One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

     
    “That has not happened,”
    …but it goes further than that…or at least it seemed that way to me?
     
    …they’ve said they included some things just to have them in the record when they get to appeal but the judge themselves cited decisions from the appeals circuit that rendered the bulk of the pleadings (both the original ones & the amended versions) DOA…& that was on the mild end of the scorn offered in the direction of the “case” the trump campaign claimed to be making…in a number of areas the judge makes clear that they cite cases that not only fail to be germane but actively undermine the claims they wish to make…& that in several instances stems from a misreading &/or misunderstanding of the cases being cited…& at one point includes the line “This is simply not how the Constitution works.”
     
    …it states that the plaintiffs lack standing…that even if they had standing their case lacks merit…that it would still lack merit even if they had overcome their apparent inability to plead it coherently, even if several possible interpretations of their bullshit arguments are considered as if they had been coherently stated…that the citations intended to support it on the whole tend to do the reverse…that they misunderstand &/or misinterpret pretty much everything about Bush vs Gore…& that they entirely fail to understand how the appropriate redress thing works
     
    …honestly it’s kind of glorious…it seems to boil down to approximately “you should be ashamed of yourselves – if you’re going to come in here trying to bullshit my court at least do me the courtesy of having your bullshit be internally consistent – GTFOutta-here with this weak-ass nonsense”
     
    …& if I’m not mistaken the “with prejudice” bit of the dismissal roughly translates as “& that goes for any other permutation of this nonsense you’re thinking about trying to concoct you time-wasting morons”

  4. Who wants to rip on HamNo with me? Can someone tell me why this tweet is a)dumb and b)wrong? 

      • They don’t HAVE to, but they mostly likely will. They wouldn’t want a huge concentration of any one position in their portfolio. These are big non profits with professional wealth managers. Having a concentrated position in a stock, even if it’s Amazon, is not responsible. 

        Also, even if they were to hold on to it, that doesn’t mean Jeff Bezos can call them up and say ‘do this’. 

    • I’m confused. Wouldn’t non-profits SELL the stock they receive? Typically rich people donate stock to avoid incurring the capital gains on appreciated stock when they sell. So the non-profit, presuming it sells the stock, after the sale would have no compelling interest in Amazon’s success. 
       
      I’m not sure most would add it to any foundation-type portfolios, but I supposed that could happen. 
       
      What am I missing, Meg? I’ve been out of the game for more years than I care to count at this point. 
       
       

      • Exactly, they sell it and work the cash into their overall portfolio. I mean they might keep some, but no professional advisor is going to say ‘hey let’s keep half the portfolio in Amazon stock”. 

    • …well, my first thought is that the answer was just “because HamNo”…but I guess he’s not always wrong & not entirely dumb

      …but to continue with the low-hanging fruit I’m going to guess the real answer starts with there not being anything that requires the charities to retain the stock…so the idea that it ties them into needing to become pro the low-wage/non-union thing is specious

      …beyond which I’m not sure there’s necessarily a link between the value of the stock & those aspects of amazon’s relationship with its workforce that is somehow inviolable?

      …in theory stockholders can advocate for changes in corporate practice, after all…& given that there are certainly some people who would rather not contribute to amazon’s profit margins precisely because of that kind of practice (not to mention the tax thing) it’s at least theoretically possible that mending their ways could increase the stock value in the longer term

      …admittedly that’s probably about as likely as them upping the proportion of the profits that go to dividends over the amount that goes to making bezos richer than most nation states but as far as I know it’s not wholly impossible

      …mainly though…I’d have to go with that first thing where the charities can do whatever they like with the stock so it doesn’t obligate them to do squat as being why HamNo’s barking up the wrong tree

      …but I also think it’s a self-serving gesture on the part of bezos & if he isn’t donating actual money to these places it ought not to be the sort of thing he can offset against those taxes he & his business seem to find it so hard to pay up?

      • When someone donates appreciated stock to a charity, there is NO obligation on the charity’s side to hold the stock, or be beholden to the person who gifted the stock. 

        In fact, they mostly likely sell it the day they receive it or soon after. 

        The reason Bezos, or anyone really, donates appreciated stock is so that they can avoid paying capital gains taxes on it. Say, for example, I own Amazon and I paid $100 a share for it and it is now worth $3,134/share. If I sell it, I have to pay taxes on ALL those gains. If I donate it, I save myself a shit ton of money in taxes. 

        Big non-profits like the ones Bezos is donating to have professional advisors and boards. They will sell the stock and diversify it into their overall portfolio. 

        I get it, everyone hates Jeff Bezos, but this is not the hot taek HamNo thinks it is. It just shows his ignorance. [I told the guys last night I was super annoyed by this and I still am.]

        • …yeah, the capital gains tax dodge element pretty much invalidates any brownie points he thinks he’s scoring with the donations

          …but given there are plenty of ways to write that up & take a pop at bezos it seems somehow miraculous that the take he went with makes him look like an ass instead?

        • It annoys me too, but from a copywriting standpoint. I was expected to do my damn research when writing an investment article, or I got called out. Usually by the client but sometimes by FINRA (NASD back then). Get called out too many times = unemployment. It’s not like I have a Series 6 or Series 7 license (though I did take the courses back when — I didn’t work in the industry so it was informational only).

  6. So, here’s my total stab in the dark, not being a Stock Knower:
     
    First, I suppose it would have to depend on the terms of the arrangement.  Is the stock donated with a clause requiring the organizations to hold it for a period of time before they sell?  Does Amazon pay out dividends?  If so, wouldn’t it be in the organizations’ interest to hold the stock for those juicy dividends? 
     
    I suppose another argument for why this isn’t so great would be the old adage that “whoever pays the piper calls the tune.”  This was one of the concerns which was brought up after it became known that the Koch’s had been donating shitloads of money to support research organizations and even NPR, because it incentivizes those organizations not to bitch too loudly about what the Kochs are doing, lest they lose the funding.  So, in this case, even if the non-profits dump the stock right away, maybe they don’t want to bite the hand that is feeding them, lest they miss out on future stock donations?

    • Meg explained it all up above but to your first point, I’m not sure donating with strings attached = donating. Again, I’ve not done this stuff in a while, but I think exerting any degree of control over the donation has various tax/income implications for the giver. You pretty much have to say, here you go, it’s all yours now. 

  8. Would someone please define for me the meaning of “DOT” and “NOT” as sometimes used in the article titles of this fine forum?

    Also (Suggestion ONLY) what of using the following date format (sample): Monday 23 November 2020 [fully-spelled-out day of the week, numerical day of the month, fully-spelled-out Month of the year, and finally, four numbers for the year] in place of those numbers with slashes (or even dashes) that force me to ‘try-to-think’ and then translate all that silliness into an actual date.

    • My understanding is DOT is Daily Open Thread & NOT is Nightly Open Thread.  The date thing someone else can take up, I think it is because of the damn foreigners that run things (joking!). 

    • …the date thing ties into some of the accessibility features that I’m given to understand are important to some users since the title of the post is translated into the URL so our long-suffering tech-dept (who answers to @myopicprophet) ruled on that one a while back…apologies for any hurdles that might pose but I fear that ship has sailed?

      …also, since I feel like I dropped the ball on this bit…welcome to our humble abode…nice to see you in these parts

Leave a Reply