UTDD

Amazing contrast. I still think that one Curry season is when he was the best player in the NBA that year and broke LeBron's maybe 8-10 year run or so.

Pete's strategy makes sense given where he was when he started and Beto's strategy also makes sense to me given where he was when he started. I think Beto was right to go heavy on retail politics (definitely a strength of his) and especially build up money while straddling the line between grassroots appeal and also convincing bundlers and the power base of money that he's actually got substance and toughness. I think Pete needed to get name recognition and get himself into a higher tier to be viable for long-term fundraising. I think they have different short-term objectives for now, and I don't think either is doing the wrong thing very much.

Wow two teams playing with house money taking advantage of it right away. What an interesting start to the playoffs!

Indeed. I also wonder how can anyone that believes in God as an infinite being can possibly NOT believe that literally everything that has existed, does exist, and ever will exist was created by God? If God didn't make something that exists, what does that mean about God? Even if an ultra religious person believes there is choice involved in being gay, who created that choice? It's all very confusing to me...I still never got my question answered at eight years old about how a child born for 1 minute then dying in Africa without having the chance to ever hear of religion much less convert is somehow logically barred from heaven forever and yet there is infinite and everlasting love for all beings. I'm just confused I guess...

Yeah, this issue is dead down the road especially as the next generation comes into adulthood. I have significant contact with younger people, and many younger people with very conservative parents that are financially very well off and very (so they are often highly exposed to much more conservative/restrictive viewpoints on this) religious, and I'd estimate at least 90% of these kids (12-24 age range or so in my personal experience) find it silly and downright archaic that this is an issue for some people.

I think if the administration actually proposed a real plan with specific "border build" areas based off a well reasoned strategic plan, then I do believe it would be much easier to generate significant support. My gut (which is just that, only a speculative gut feeling) is that the majority of Americans want a real solution to the border, but if that was mostly solved (nothing is 100% possible to shut It down completely) then there would be a great deal of openness to allow law abiding illegals to have options to stay in the country long-term. Immigration is not really an issue that is high on my list (at least 11th or worse after at least ten other issues) so I'm never going to get that riled up either way.

Wow, what a mess the Lakers are right now.

Yep. In some ways, the wage cost alone isn't even the most attractive aspect of automation for specific jobs. No health care costs, no worries about liability, no poor customer service, no scrambling to find shifts, etc. Speaking personally, in some ways I'd rather even pay more overall wage cost if I could insulate myself better legally from specific concerns for food service that are much riskier for humans than machines (health code violations, lost time, poor customer service, injuries, harassment, sexual harassment) because that can be a big drain on your time and energy that could be better spent on big picture issues (vision, strategic planning, marketing, short and long term metrics, etc) versus constantly fixing the proverbial sink on details that need to have constant maintenance, etc. As far as food service, I think fast food is the most in danger of automation because unlike a restaurant, there is little perceived value in the skill of the cook(s) making the food for the customer. I also think the next generation coming up will largely by and large even less so than people now place any value on whether a burger is made by a robot or human but rather whether the food is cheap, convenient, and good value (and taste) for what they are paying. However, a restaurant that is branding themselves as having quality food will likely be impacted negatively by trying to use automation/machines as I do believe even younger people that will be the primary economic drivers down the road will still perceive significant value on the "human touch" of cooks/chefs creating high quality food as part of their dining experience.

If he brings more attention to the future realities of things like automation and AI and the impact on specific jobs in certain sectors, then that's a good thing. I believe it may be coming sooner than some might think and the possible ramifications could be significant for an unprepared populace. The social stratification between those that can understand and adapt to the changing economy and those that can't could possibly dwarf later on the current income divisions amongst the top 1/10/50 percent etc as they exist today.

Very hard to implement practically and it likely won't accomplish that much meeting by meeting, but in theory I believe it's a good psychological move in that it 1) gives people the impression that they are being heard more versus being ignored by professional bureaucrats closeted away in a D.C. ivory tower and 2) having these people sometimes hear real concerns from ordinary voters live and in person might hopefully give them some perspective when they tackle true issues. If you work say three straight years only surrounded by D.C. pros, it's probably quite easy for some people to lose one's grounding and perspective. This is similar to why in theory CEOs at corporations (and Boards) also should be required to more often communicate directly with ordinary shareholders as well. I know of a specific example with a specific CEO that made a major decision change on certain layoffs (not huge about 55 people involved but still...) because he actually met certain workers (a smart HR head arranged this) in this specific department and decided to retrain most of these people for another area versus termination. Sometimes putting a face on a problem makes a huge difference. Sometimes it's not really about actually accomplishing a specific goal every meeting, but to show a tone and vision for your administration/company that translates long-term to better results. I also really believe Trump got a huge boost in 2016 pushing the idea that Washington professionals were just people in a swamp closeted away no perspective on the problems of ordinary Americans. In a sense, it really is easy to ignore ordinary Americans because they never interact with them. Having more forced interaction to normal voters might help set the right tone about what kind of administration one is going to run, etc.

Oh wow, that's an easy deal breaker for wanting to ever have a child at that school around that kind of person. What a piece of shit.

He's in good shape for now. He just needs to avoid mistakes and start developing real policy parameters with enough detail to matter but not so much detail he can't be pegged as a one trick pony by others. I would give this same advice to Warren too who is in danger of that very issue even though I think far and away she is the smartest (pure IQ/policy development) candidate in the group so far. If he can prove he is a not a lightweight and can actually fight with Trump, I think later you will see some bigger bundlers/donors breaking in his direction as my sense from (admittedly a small sample size) the rich Dem donors I personally know is that they are not sold on Biden, Bernie, or Warren at all to beat Trump but are waiting and more curious on Kamala and Beto. They are more open to Biden than the other two, but I keep hearing he is not exciting enough and especially not disciplined enough like an Obama to stick to a great strategic plan and not deviate from it or create issues that hurt the plan. Keep in mind this type of Dem (at least the ones I have worked with or know) is generally more moneyed and a little more corporate friendly/institutional so it also makes sense who they might like a little more if you look at it in depth.

I still find it fascinating how many young people love Bernie. I get it intellectually with his policy ideas, but it's still interesting in that there is no younger version of himself gaining traction instead of a guy pushing 80 if he actually becomes President. The socialism branding will come hard at him from the right, and I generally think it will be more effective on him and Warren than Biden, Beto, or Harris. (I personally think Harris with Beto as VP in the end is the strongest team to beat Trump because they will tweak towards the center and compromise more than Bernie or Warren ever would, but I definitely could be wrong and am curious to see what happens) I would say Mayor Pete is a very strong contender too especially with his Midwest ties which are huge for 2020, but I'm not convinced Americans (at least a majority) are ready to elect a gay President. I think they are ready for a woman.

The President should never have a need to try and do their job no matter what because it's precisely THEIR job and not the executive branch. The need to avoid executive overreach is far more important than any single issue - whether immigration reform or anything else - and no matter what the issue, I can't support any President from either party attempting to usurp a system designed over two centuries ago to try and prevent the inklings of things and arguments you are now seeing in this present generation of politicians. It's FAR better to have a completely broken immigration or say health care system or anything else "failing to be addressed in Congress" than a President actually fixing the problem but through overreach of their powers as down the road that truly is a scary slippery slope. The system was rightly designed so that one person cannot easily override a much larger group of people attempting to reach consensus on specific legislative powers/issues. If they can't agree and something remains "broken" or not addressed, that is a good design of the system versus lawmaking/policies by fiat/one person. This bedrock principle of separation of powers applies to both the Obamas and the Trumps of the world but I am now seeing a lot of justifying arguments to let things slide, etc. Presidents from the prior generation in both parties were mostly quite different than Obama and Trump if you look at how they viewed their role in terms of executive power.

https://www.complex.com/sports/2018/09/kevin-garnett-sues-accountant-for-helping-wealth-manager-steal-77-million-of-his-money Came out last year I think, first articles I just randomly googled, claim is over 75 million siphoned, etc. Not sure what happened with it, but if this really happened with him, very good for a young guy like Lonzo to avoid years of this kind of stuff.

I still think it's baffling because of the timing especially and he could easily still accomplish these two goals and also maximize his re-election chances (which I assume is a very personal enrichment goal w/ opening up more future money/oppty, etc.) with different strategic planning/action.

Trump is baffling to me sometimes with right now essentially trying to make health care a huge issue for 2020. He just got basically positive news from the Mueller report and the economic numbers right now are historically good ranges for being re-elected, but he wants to turn his focus towards ACA so quickly. The more 2020 talks about health care I believe the worse for him.

I feel so bad for a lot of these young kids making a lot of money early in life but not having the wisdom to manage it properly. I hope Lonzo uses this crisis as an overall awakening to become a man and take control of his life and career to greater heights. Better to find out now than later like say Kevin Garnett.

Name recognition, Obama, and thoughts that he can beat Trump. If another candidate can give voters a sense that they could actually beat Trump, Biden is probably significantly weakened as maybe 2020 is greatly about which Dem candidate is best suited - in the minds of voters - to actually win versus one specific issue or two. We shall see.

Hole 3 is pretty much a signature hole well known to most serious Hawaii golfers. Glad you got to play there!

It's good to attack Beto now right away and see if he is tough enough to survive because he needs that if he makes it to Trump. He should feel it is a good sign that he is under this much scrutiny right away as it is reasonable to conclude that he a is top tier candidate in the eyes of many people. How many people are going to come hard at say Booker or Klobuchar like this? I believe he is also being tested under the radar for a possible VP slot I feel for another candidate or two should they win so I feel even more so you want to vet him hard and often.

Yeah, I see this the same way. And age/looks - unfair as it is but I think it's true enough for enough voters to be a relevant factor - is even more of a variable that influences intrinsic charisma and likability for women versus men. At least in this specific realm of politics in 2019-2020.

The lottery is now too well vetted now to reasonably cheat absent multiple parties colluding to an extreme level which would be way too dangerous given the collective power of the owners. Now, Patrick Ewing on the other hand...

An easy fix would simply be to allow anyone currently on the Supreme Court when a nomination opens up (the five slot variety) be allowed to participate/vote as any other, regardless of how they were nominated originally. Of course getting a unanimous vote with even ten - much less fourteen judges - seems almost impossible but the idea is still intriguing and there could be a way to tweak it differently. (maybe 2/3rds to 3/4th of judges or something along those lines)