Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#51

Post by black6 »

cwmma wrote: post #38
SubmarineClub wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What blows my mind is how many “progressives” I know who really support this libertarian-style maximum “freedom.” I’ve been the stodgy conservative of my friend group saying “uh, maybe there was a good reason for banning this stuff?” Pretty funny, since I actually was a committed libertarian for a while.

A lot of libertarian dogma is based on classic homo economicus 'lets pretend people act perfectly rationally' type theories that just really break down when confronted with how humans actually act.

That's almost all economic dogma, too.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#52

Post by triceratops »

bigbuppo wrote: post #20
recursivedoubts wrote: post #5

The complete transformation and legitimization of betting culture in the United States has been surreal to watch. From you had to know a guy to baseball TV announcers giving odds on a home run this inning in less than a decade. I know this is hard to conceive of, but there was a time when there were no gambling ads on TV! The crazy part? The other half of the ads you see on TV (pharmaceuticals) weren't there either!

I'm not completely anti-gambling, but I'm of the mind that if you're going to gamble away your life savings you should at least be required to put on pants and go to a sketchy betting parlor. Online gambling platforms make it too easy.

Couldn't agree more. Allow gambling in casinos or sports betting shops. Strictly ban online gambling and any form of gambling advertising.

Ban alcohol advertising too. I love alcohol myself. People who want it can find it without being told.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#53

Post by estearum »

dsabanin wrote: post #28
giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. I have a friend who gave up cigarettes for ecigs but he is actually doing it for the nicotine, saves him a fortune, he was smoking a pack a week in NYC. My thing is, how healthy are ecigs compared to real cigarettes really?

In a society where government is not participating in helping people with their health care, what moral right does it have to make "unhealthy" things illegal?

The government does help (to the tune of trillions of dollars per year) with their health care.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#54

Post by quickthrowman »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11
tdeck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some time around 2015 I remember seeing Powell station in SF completely plastered with DraftKings ads and thinking "wait, I thought that was illegal". It seems to have only snowballed since then. In 2020 I was in downtown Philadelphia before the election and saw a massive screen with a Polymarket ad, and at that time Polymarket wasn't even legal in the US. From nicotine to gambling harmful habits that our society had…

Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. I have a friend who gave up cigarettes for ecigs but he is actually doing it for the nicotine, saves him a fortune, he was smoking a pack a week in NYC. My thing is, how healthy are ecigs compared to real cigarettes really?

Cigarette smoking causes cancer and emphysema. Inhaling a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring does not.

> Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same.

You finally learned their one weird trick. Instead of just putting nicotine in ecigs, they add some more expensive ingredients like THC and maybe some meth or heroin and not tell people or charge them more than they charge for nicotine. For reasons.

That’s like worrying about Halloween candy being spiked with LSD. It’s irrational and w waste of money for no reason so it doesn’t happen.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#55

Post by Whoppertime »

dsabanin wrote: post #28
giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. I have a friend who gave up cigarettes for ecigs but he is actually doing it for the nicotine, saves him a fortune, he was smoking a pack a week in NYC. My thing is, how healthy are ecigs compared to real cigarettes really?

In a society where government is not participating in helping people with their health care, what moral right does it have to make "unhealthy" things illegal?

Medicare and Medicaid represent the largest segments of U.S. federal health spending, consuming over a trillion dollars each. Medicare accounts for 21% of national healthcare expenditures. Medicaid constitutes $1 of every $5 spent on healthcare. The US government is helping the poor and the old with their healthcare

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#56

Post by autoexec »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11
tdeck wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some time around 2015 I remember seeing Powell station in SF completely plastered with DraftKings ads and thinking "wait, I thought that was illegal". It seems to have only snowballed since then. In 2020 I was in downtown Philadelphia before the election and saw a massive screen with a Polymarket ad, and at that time Polymarket wasn't even legal in the US. From nicotine to gambling harmful habits that our society had…

Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. I have a friend who gave up cigarettes for ecigs but he is actually doing it for the nicotine, saves him a fortune, he was smoking a pack a week in NYC. My thing is, how healthy are ecigs compared to real cigarettes really?

> Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same.

You're more likely to get heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals than a surprise dose of THC.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nearly-2000-chemic...

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#57

Post by Whoppertime »

ratelimitsteve wrote: post #24

The ability to bet on the outcome of any event is a guarantee of corruption in any event. We've seen the president's teleprompter operator bet on his speeches, we've seen journalists threatened in an attempt to get them to reword an article in order to resolve a bet differently, we've seen several sports betting scandals. What we haven't seen is any indication that this will get better without regulation, and now we'…

Doesn't the insurance market have the same moral hazard? If you are paying for fire insurance it promises you a bundle of cash if your business burns down. At that point if the finances of your company go into the red, your only chance of becoming whole financially might involve a fire, and then you start calling folks like Tony Soprano to find an arsonist

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#58

Post by autoexec »

quickthrowman wrote: post #54
giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. I have a friend who gave up cigarettes for ecigs but he is actually doing it for the nicotine, saves him a fortune, he was smoking a pack a week in NYC. My thing is, how healthy are ecigs compared to real cigarettes really?

Cigarette smoking causes cancer and emphysema. Inhaling a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring does not. > Ecigs worry me the most since you really cannot tell what someone truly has in there, it could be nicotine, it could be “legal” THC or other random nonsense, I wouldnt know, it all looks the same. You finally learned their one weird trick. Instead of just putting nicotine in e…

> Inhaling a mixture of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and flavoring does not...That’s like worrying about Halloween candy being spiked with LSD.

The heavy metals, pesticides, and toxic chemicals in ecigs do though. If researchers pulled 64 types of Halloween candy off store shelves and found a bunch of LSD in every single sample I'd say you should be worried. https://refractor.io/health-wellbeing/unknown-chemicals-vape...

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#59

Post by autoexec »

mullingitover wrote: post #14
recursivedoubts wrote: post #5

The complete transformation and legitimization of betting culture in the United States has been surreal to watch. From you had to know a guy to baseball TV announcers giving odds on a home run this inning in less than a decade. I know this is hard to conceive of, but there was a time when there were no gambling ads on TV! The crazy part? The other half of the ads you see on TV (pharmaceuticals) weren't there either!

Gambling legalization historically happens in waves following economic downturns because society’s tolerance for exploitation increases. It’s fundamentally a regressive tax that healthy societies won’t tolerate.

Is it tolerance for exploitation or are people just realizing that as poor as their odds are while gambling that's still the best chance they have to make the money they need. A healthy society offers the public better ways to have their needs meet, people gamble when they are desperate.

Re: Kalshi attacks a Wisconsin law banning election bets as 'voter suppression'

#60

Post by ratelimitsteve »

Whoppertime wrote: post #57
ratelimitsteve wrote: post #24

The ability to bet on the outcome of any event is a guarantee of corruption in any event. We've seen the president's teleprompter operator bet on his speeches, we've seen journalists threatened in an attempt to get them to reword an article in order to resolve a bet differently, we've seen several sports betting scandals. What we haven't seen is any indication that this will get better without regulation, and now we'…

Doesn't the insurance market have the same moral hazard? If you are paying for fire insurance it promises you a bundle of cash if your business burns down. At that point if the finances of your company go into the red, your only chance of becoming whole financially might involve a fire, and then you start calling folks like Tony Soprano to find an arsonist

it does. because insurance is a bet. but it also has legislation and organized investigators behind it to drive up the risk of committing fraud (and, therefore, the necessary reward to justify it) whereas these bets-masquerading-as-financial-instruments don't. take the example from the OP: we have laws about falsifying votes and other obvious things like that, but you can bet on what time the last votes are accepted, what time the last votes are counted, which org will publish results first, will an org publish incorrect results, a lot of things that can potentially be manipulated without violating a law but would still weaken trust in our elections at a time when there is a decade long concerted effort to convince people that elections are being gamed and don't work.
Post reply on HN