You may feel that way, and I may sympathize. But I really think you are over-indexing on your own personal belief that they are "bad for the country". If we follow your logic then a company is doing more _dodging_ simply on the basis of one's own moral aversion. So maybe if I'm an environmentalist I think coal companies are especially dodgy. If I'm a pacifist maybe a defense contractor. If I'm an evangelical maybe a company that contracts with the government re some reproductive care.

"operating illegally in full view" vs "legal gray area" is not a determination that can be made based on your subjective view of what "makes a thing OK". The fact that you pair the accusation that they are "operating illegally in full view" with the notion that you can condemn a thing that is not "currently being prosecuted" only further undermines your argument. Your moral objection is your judgement to make, the question of what is illegal cannot be. The latter is exclusively the domain of the courts, not any individual (or collective) moral outrage. Your seeming desire to conflate the two to satisfy your personal feelings unfortunately undermines whatever cogent points you may have re their legality on the merits.

The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". You would be more convincing if you would levy your criticism in more reasonable terms. I personally suspect there is a lot more "gray area" here than you seem to contemplate.

▲

raddan 3 days ago | parent [-]

> The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody".

This is a seriously tiresome argument. How about this? Feel free to cite how their recent moves will enable them to

1. satisfy regulators that they are not violating the Commodity Exchange Act; 2. satisfy other parts of the government that they are not simply illegal gambling; 3. satisfy the states that are actively suing them RIGHT NOW.

It does not matter that there are friendly people in the administration. The fact is that they were told to wind down their markets and leave. They did not do this. Even if their behavior may become legal in the future, it is currently illegal.

My personal objection is IN ADDITION to the legal problems. My personal opinion is that this business and the people who run it SUCK. There’s no conflating: both things are true. Why do you insist on sticking up for douchebags?

	▲	pear01 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Because it's not illegal to be a "douchebag". I don't believe in mob rule. You proudly declare things illegal with all the confidence of someone who has never been a victim of the state's power. You must have a rather shallow view of history. I find your mild histrionics deeply unimpressive. Why do you insist on appropriating the language of law when you clearly have little respect for its precepts?