Some messages made references to Trump, though they do not provide any evidence of criminal conduct.
Welp.
The article also doesn’t mention those communications implicating anyone (alive) other than Maxwell, which isn’t nothing, but definitely not the illumination people were hoping for, I don’t think.
Deservedly so, since it’s supposed to be four syllables before the claps, no more, no less. /s
I’ve got a worthless degree i deeply regret
Meanwhile, not far from this comment is someone claiming no one regrets getting their degree, lol.
were those numbers perhaps cherry-picked to make the situation look more dramatic than it actually is?
If anyone can go from 554th to 5th in any sport/event just by competing among the other sex, nothing else changing, then that obviously indicates something. You can’t handwave that away.
Her personal 100m freestyle time dropping less than a quarter of a second post-transition is honestly a bigger indicator that transition is not making a substantial difference, because that angle completely removes the ‘chance’ element in your opponents being different people.
The very fact that their ranking is lower than what it should be is an issue in and of itself, your disingenuous mockery notwithstanding.
The question is fair, but so very few people are affected, who cares?
The vast majority of people are never murdered, either. But I’m sure it matters to them and their loved ones.
It’s an extreme example for the analogy, but the point stands: it doesn’t follow that a bad thing being rare makes it less bad. This is not a valid argument against.
My understanding is that there is absolutely no evidence that trans women have an advantage.
Going from 554th place pre-transition to 5th place post-transition doesn’t line up with that claim.
The fact that the University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Lia Thomas] soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle; all divisions) in men’s competition to one of the top-ranked swimmers in women’s competition tells the story
In the 100 freestyle, Thomas’ best time prior to her transition was 47.15. At the NCAA Championships, she posted a prelims time in the event of 47.37. That time reflects minimal mitigation of her male-puberty advantage.
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women’s deck.
It may not be an issue to you, but it’s an issue to every woman whose ranking is lower as a result. I imagine it especially hurts if you’re pushed out of first place in that way.
Bullshit, my score’s in the 800s and all I do is use my credit card for everyday purchases, and pay it off every month. I never carry a balance or pay a cent of interest, nor do I have any installment loans (car loan, etc.) at all.
Tons of confident incorrectness in this thread.
What do you mean paying off a loan made my score lower??
It doesn’t, you just don’t know how it works.
You’re probably seeing that on Credit Karma, which uses a score that stops counting closed loans immediately, whereas the actual credit reporting bureaus’ systems have them stay on your credit report for 10 years from the date of closure. While they remain, they do continue to count toward your average age of accounts (AAoA) in most scoring models (including FICO). That means even closed accounts can help keep your average age higher.
And given that your average account age doesn’t need to be anywhere close to 10 for you to have ‘perfect’ (750 and above puts you in the highest tier in the eyes of every lender) credit (hell, account age is only like 15% of the score), this is actually not an issue, at all. My average account age is less than 8 years and my score’s over 800. Just make your payments on time and you’re good. You don’t even need to accrue any interest—using a credit card and paying it completely off every month works just fine, that’s what I do.
I have more disposable income!
Having income isn’t proof you can be relied on to promptly pay back a loan, having a history of having promptly paid back loans is. A third of people making over $200,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck—just because you’re making money doesn’t mean you’re a responsible borrower.
Yeah, lots of people on Lemmy are so sanctimonious while simultaneously falling for the most obvious satire/ragebait imaginable, lol.
It’s now trivial, in 2025, to depict the world as a 3D shape, this is coming a few decades after it matters, imo.
Are you saying they mismanage the wealth by selling the assets, therefore not paying capital gains, but also using the cash to fund their lifestyle?
I’m sure it’s not exactly the same in every circumstance, but overall, I imagine some flavor of ‘heirs don’t have the same financial savvy as those they inherited from, and so they spend the wealth instead of preserving it’.
Speaking of “paycheck to paycheck”:
I certainly have compassion for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they’re struggling to make ends meet, but not those living “paycheck to paycheck” who have the ability to save, but choose not to. And, despite popular belief, the majority of people in the “living paycheck to paycheck” category are actually the latter. But it’s easy to assume the former meaning (it’s more intuitive, after all), so those two ‘subsets’ are almost always (basically everywhere other than within the depths of the methodology of the research that yields the figures) conflated, and so “living paycheck to paycheck” is often used to great effect in rhetoric as a result.
The fact is, on average, Americans have more of an overspending problem, than an underearning one. Did you know that 48% of consumers earning over $100,000 a year, and over a third earning over $200,000 are “living paycheck to paycheck”? Meanwhile, 25% of those earning less than $50k aren’t living paycheck to paycheck (a demo I was part of until I eclipsed $50k a few years ago)—maybe it’s time to more closely examine what those people are doing, and follow their example.
It’s absurd that anyone making less than $50k a year is saving more money than someone making $200k.
deleted by creator
I guess the cycle continues if you will the stock to your children.
In the US at least, there is what’s called a “step-up in basis”, where when you do this, they receive the stock as if they had just bought it, instead of ‘inheriting’ the parent’s accumulated capital gains. In other words, if I bought a stock for $10 and it becomes worth $100, then I sell it, I’d pay capital gains tax on the $90 I made. But if the stock goes to my kid while it’s worth $100, it’s treated as if they bought it when it was worth $100 (which, in a way, is true, it is worth $100 at the time they gained possession of it), so if they sell it right after inheriting, they would pay no capital gains.
This is probably a large part of the reason that 70% of generational wealth is gone in two generations, and 90% in three, on average.
And if the stock tanks, then I guess you declare bankruptcy.
Yeah, ultimately, it is kind of a ‘house of cards’. The only way this strategy works at all is if the market value of the assets being used as collateral continuously increases, and not just increases, but increases at a greater rate than inflation and the interest rate on the debt, combined.
“stop taxing” doesn’t mean stop taxing
calling a lie a lie is ad hominem
Fuck all the way off, pathetic liar.
Fuck off, liar. This is what I identified as a straw man:
it’s such a serious threat to the country’s financial stability that we should chicken out and stop taxing the rich.
Now quote me “spew[ing] exactly that talking point” that we should stop taxing the rich. You won’t, because you can’t, because I didn’t.
Shameless, pathetic liar.
it’s such a serious threat to the country’s financial stability that we should chicken out and stop taxing the rich.
No one’s saying this, this is a straw man.
It’s just a simple fact that there is a ‘sweet spot’ when it comes to maximizing tax revenue. It’s the same as if you’re selling a product for $10, then 100 people buy it, and you assume that you’ll double your $1000 profit if you sell it for $20 instead, but then the number of buyers went down to 10, and now your bottom line is $800 less, instead.
“Just tax them more” is not the simple/obvious solution it appears to be on the surface. Also, people don’t just not react when stuff like this changes, to protect themselves; just compare tax revenue presently to what it was when it capped out at (iirc) 91%.
And even IF ‘turning that dial’ simply increased tax revenue, it needs to be combined with that revenue being spent productively, for it to make any difference at all. Hell, I think the US already brings in more than enough tax revenue to do everything we want it to do, if it was doing it as efficiently as it could be.
That’s not enough to convict him of anything, though. It’s sounding more and more like there won’t be any smoking gun in these files, at least not when it comes to Trump specifically.