Bitcoin Forum

Recently there was some news about Bernie Sanders using alternatives to banks to improve the economic growth.

Do you think he was talking about bitcoin?

I can't see any other way to take back the power from the big banks instantly (and to make them tamer)

But it would be a huge risk for any politician to endorse bitcoin as part of policy, especially since gox.

I guess he is probably gonna avoid saying bitcoin specifically but could mention cryptocurrencies

The more I think about it the more I'd like to see Bernie Sanders elected. His opinion regarding bitcoin is unclear but it can't be worse than the other asshole on the other side, who is probably backed by JP Morgan and other big banks, right? If Trump is elected it's gonna be bad for bitcoin, whatever. So yeah, go Bernie.

Can anyone find past statements from him regarding crypto/bitcoin? Without that, I would say it is rash to assume he had bitcoin or anything like it in mind.

Politicians will never use the word Bitcoin in the run up to the election, because it is too controversial. They will talk about alternative technologies or something similar. It is all about demographics and statistics at this stage. Not a lot of people know about Bitcoin or are in favor of it, so it would be stupid to suggest it now, in a election period.

Let's hope, both of them like Bitcoin.

I like bernie but im afraid hes pretty old and couldnt go with him until I know who his
running mate is.

I do like his views on most issues though and if he is pro bitcoin that would be another plus.

Why is his age important anyway?

People don't live forever. At certain age you're at very high risk of death, dementia or other illnesses. It's not pretty, but that's the way it is.

If he was to win, at the end of his presidential term, he would be few years above US life expectancy (as per quick google search).

Don't worry. Trump will be the next president.

Highly doubt it. It would give him a dubious image and it wouldn't win him many votes, if any at all. I also don't think he desires to be involved in Bitcoin... He's a politician after all.

I'm sure he could pull that off:
"Let's make BTC-friendly legislations. Then we'll tax all the holders at 50% and give the money to the poor".

There have been a number of US politicians who have spoken favorably of Bitcoin, both Democrat and Republican. The most outspoken in it's favor seems to be Ron Paul. Rand Paul likes it too but he recently dropped out of the race, but he's still in the Senate.

What's more, Rand was in fact accepting bitcoins (http://www.coindesk.com/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-bitcoin-donations/) for his presidential campaign. Not quite directly but through BitPay, but that still counts.

I'm not sure that age matters if he can get some trusted advisers who are aware of Bitcoin and its potential. It may be that they explained the technology and how it can pretty much do an end run around banks to him in plain English, but warned him to not use the actual word "Bitcoin" until after the election.

If Bernie becomes president... money will flow out of the USA like crazy.

Offshore, Bitcoin and other such things.

I think I may flow out of the U.S as well, regardless which one of the current idiots gets elected. It is the first election year I have felt like this. I am not a fan of any of them  :-\

I feel the same

No disrespect for the elderly, but Bernie Sanders is simply too old to get it, he will never understand the idea of a decentralized, non-government issued currency like Bitcoin. If investors like Warren Buffer are too old to get it, I doubt a politician will.

Everyone would definitely go for that ;D


He's pretty much too old to get anything, I think. Fresh faces on the government would be much better.

Nothing against this man, but I doubt he will ever get what Bitcoin is and how it works.Although he will have some good consultants who can try to explain it to him.
But lets not forget he is a politician.And these guys always want to have control about everyting.
Or does anyone here knows how open this man is in terms of new technologies?

Hopefully it won't come to that, but if it does, the govt can't confiscate money they don't know exists. If this guy gets elected, Monero will go through the roof. It's the only major coin that's completely fungible, untraceable, private, and secure. I like Bitcoin and Monero, but hopefully it won't take something like this to cause a rise in their use and value.

Nah, he can't do shit on it's own (without congress' support), so he'll just play the good old "I tried my best to fulfil my promises, but they didn't let me..." card.

There's this thing called executive orders that have been abused and will continue to be in the future. Bernie needs money to pay for his promises.

Exactly. If you think Obama has had a heavy hand with Executive Orders (and he has), Bernie would dwarf that.

Actually no politician ever will, you said it all. How can a government let Bitcoin take over, it will be chaos. The only way is to integrate and regulate it little by little. It can be regulated and still be decentralized, many bitcoiners think one thing nulls the other.

He is unconventional so it's possible that he is open to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Actually many 70 year olds understand crypto currency much better than many 40 year olds. They come from a generation that used cash and bearer instruments. Crypto currencies are bearer instruments. Many seniors are also paranoid about identity theft, and do not trust current on-line payment methods. In many cases seniors are not invested in the current mainstream technologies, so unlike their kids generation are very open to what their grand kids generation presents.

Edit: Introducing crypto currency to a senior is actually very simple. Just explain to them it works like cash that you can use on the Internet with no risk of identity theft. You will get their attention in no time.  

Ron Paul is an 80-year-old libertarian/conservative who loves Bitcoin. So, I don't think age is a huge factor in one's ability to understand and appreciate BTC.

It's the anti-govt politicians who are most willing to embrace Bitcoin. The rest are too obsessed with control, both left and right, but I think mostly left. On many college campuses, freedom of speech is dying because someone might get their feelings hurt. In NYC, you can't buy a 20-oz soda. All left-leaning places. Talk about micro-managing people, sheesh.

Dementia sets in eventually but most likely a better option than say a ex prisoner of war.
I personally feel we need younger politicians, old equals more inflexability in views.

Yeah that what murrica needs, a diaper wearing senile geriatric socialist Jew from New York. He probably thinks bitcoins are the pieces you get when you chop up a penny. lol

Yeah, Ron/Rand are always my go to guys when it comes to identifying a perfect ideologic mindset.  I know Rand is not as brilliant as his father, but the thing is is that he is still keeping the libertarian movement alive.

I have come to accept that the world we live in (at least for as long as I live) will always be under control of the democratic/republican mindset... I would honestly love to live in a "Utopian" world where we use science to govern economics and political decisions amongst everyone on the planet.

As of right now, yes, Bernie is the more likely president to maybe use bitcoin to outsource the banks... but it'll be a tough sale.  Plus, I'm pretty sure if Bernie does try to pull something like this off, he will get assassinated by the powers that be, and covered up as some "gun toting looney" too cause even more divide amongst the public and achieve what the powers that be want; control of the power that they've already acquired.  This is just like what happened to JFK.

Fuck it, I'd rather have some senile Jew from New York run the country than some orange oompa loompa who will blow up the whole damned planet if he has too, to get his way...

and I classify myself as a F'in Republican too... Well, I believe in the economic (and maybe immigration) values of the Republican ideology anyway.

Yes can be but also with age comes experience  :-*

Sure, he will take the capital gains tax you owe on the Bitcoin you have made, then take some more for the less fortunate ones who didn't know about Bitcoin until 2016 and beyond....


Everyone is equal right?

It's not fair that you keep the majority of the profits if Bitcoin moons right? I mean this guy flips burglars but deserves the same compinsation as you do even though you spotted a trend and acted on it. ;)


No he has no interest in Bitcoin besides the redistribution of your wealth from it.

I don't think Bernie Sanders has even heard of bitcoin. It's going to get some time until politicians will dust the cobwebs from their brains.

I dont think Bernie Sanders is like that. Remember he wants to introduce free health care hardly a slave

Nothing is ever free. Someone has to pay for it, as those in Venezuela, Argentina, Greece, Spain, etc. can tell you. Rich people eventually run out of money to redistribute, and then everyone's poor.

This quote is quite ridiculus. The rich people are richer than ever. They can easily afford a 1% tax for healthcare

Sanders is a socialist, so anyone who values individual liberty  should be strongly against him.


Oh come on, it is for the greater good.  ::)

But it never stops with the 1%. If it did stop there, I'd be on board, but it never does. Look at the history of the countries I listed. The facts speak for themselves, but I've learned that when it's historical fact vs present idealism, historical fact tends to lose. As they say, the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Nothing is hip about prolonged shortages of necessities, including toilet paper:

http://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-reaches-final-stage-socialism-no-toilet-paper

Who is to say it won't stop?

All we're talking about is a one off tax for healthcare. Since the rich are richer than ever they can easily afford just a quick one off tax. Nobody said anything about Venezuela or Greece obviously its quite ludicrous to say that a small quick one off charge on the super richer will cause a crisis like in Greece

If its better for USA money will actually flow IN to the USA, not out

I guess the more I think about it the more I'd like to see Bernie Sanders elected. His opinion regarding bitcoin is unclear but it can't be worse than the other asshole on the other side, who is probably backed by JP Morgan and other big banks, right? If Trump is elected it's gonna be bad for bitcoin, whatever. So yeah, go Bernie!!!  ;D

I thought it was clear that I said it never stops with taxing the 1%. Maybe I should have made it more clear that it never stops with taxing the ultra rich. It always expands into those who make less money until finally everyone is equally miserable. That's the history of the countries I mentioned. And like I also said, it's clear that we don't learn from history. It's sad, but it looks like the new generation is going to have to learn the hard way that socialism doesn't work. It will cost us dearly. I doubt you will look into it, but look at the history of those countries. They were well off at one point. Then they elected socialists who started of taxing the rich. More government handouts and programs were created which require money from somewhere (the rich!). Then the rich either ran out of money or moved to another country with their money (and that's why other posters said money would flow out of the US if Bernie was elected...it's already happening now under O), and the next income bracket down was highly taxed to pay for the government programs, which of course expanded. Then they ran out, and the cycle continued to what we see happening in those countries today. Socialism looks and sounds great, but it never works. The money, no matter how much it is, eventually runs out, following the cycle I just described.

Ask yourself this: why are people from the countries I mentioned so desperate to get to the US? Because free market capitalism (not crony capitalism, but free market capitalism) has lifted the most people out of poverty than any other system in the world. People flee from those countries and come here often without anything and can still become millionaires. Why? Free market capitalism. It allows for people to make themselves rich. That never happens in socialist countries because if you start to become upper-middle class, you're taxed and/or regulated out of your money. Latin America has been largely wrecked by socialism. Europe may have socialist-leaning policies but at least they still have enough capitalism to provide good jobs. That's a big reason why the refugees are flooding into Europe (to get their money) instead of fleeing into other muslim countries. And then there's the USSR, Cuba, etc.

The blockchain, maybe yes. But bitcoin directly? I think not. Maybe he was referring to using alternatives to help banks improve the economic growth.

Sorry for being rude but I think Bernie Sanders is simply too old to get it, he will never understand the idea of a decentralized, non-government issued currency like Bitcoin. If investors like Warren Buffer are too old to get it, I doubt a politician will. Actually no politician ever will... How can a government let Bitcoin take over, it will be chaos. The only way is to integrate and regulate it little by little.

i don't think there is any relation between these news and bitcoin or crypto.

I have come to accept that the world we live in (at least for as long as I live) will always be under control of the democratic/republican mindset... I would honestly love to live in a "Utopian" world where we use science to govern economics and political decisions amongst everyone on the planet.

As of right now, yes, Bernie is the more likely president to maybe use bitcoin to outsource the banks... but it'll be a tough sale.  Plus, I'm pretty sure if Bernie does try to pull something like this off, he will get assassinated by the powers that be, and covered up as some "gun toting looney" too cause even more divide amongst the public and achieve what the powers that be want; control of the power that they've already acquired.

First, history does not always repeat. Thats not to say that history is not something we can study (it is good to study history, of course). But similarly we can't be too attached to the past. We are in the 21st century, the age of the internet, many things are differently.

I am not saying that this arguement is not right, just that we have to be considered before jumping to a conclusion like - oh a tax on the super rich will cause a crisis like in Greece. Saying something like that can seem crazy to alot of people.

For the sake of the argument and taking the other side for a moment, Id also like to ask what you would suggest in the situation for the average citizen. They see what happened with wall street, the 1% is growing, the banks, federal reserve, crisis after crisis. If things are going to be like in Greece in 10 years time what can you suggest for the average citizen prepare?

Who wouldn't want to pay a 80% tax!

Our country currently rewards fuck ups and punishes success.

Yep 70-90% tax brackets... So people can screw off and be economically equal...

The subtleties of history, of course, will be different, but the main theme remains the same. When the printing press was invented, communication was vastly increased. The same thing happened with the telegraph, then with radio, then with TV, and now with the internet. In each of of those epochs, various forms of government were instituted. Most failed, including socialism starting in the telegraph era and continuing in different places through the rest of the time periods. Just because we have better communication does not mean our problems will be solved. Nor because we are in a different time does it mean that people act differently. By and large, we have the same problems, only with different subtleties. I'm not "attached to the past," but I have learned from the clear patterns of history.
Also, you don't live your life based on exceptions to the rule. You have a very small chance of getting in a car accident everyday, but you still drive. You have a very small chance of being robbed, but you still go out at night. So, it's not prudent to base an argument or your choices on what is very unlikely to happen. You base your choices on what is most likely to happen, and on what has been proven. A successful socialist government that has long term benefits has historically never worked. I realize the appeal of socialism: nobody is poor, and everyone has enough. It looks great on paper and it works for a few years, and then the inevitable happens: the money runs out. It doesn't work. I've previously discussed this.
For the third time, I did not say that. I said that it never stops with the 1%. It starts with taxing the ultra rich (the majority of whom are liberal, and you can look that up to verify it....George Soros, Warren Buffet, 99% of Holywood, etc.). Then the rich either leave with their money or are taxed out of it, and then the next lower income class is taxed out of their money...I've already explained this (see above), and that it's historical fact. It has happened many times and is happening in Latin America. Why in the world would we want our government to become like the governments in places where people are fleeing from? Where they literally stand in mile-long lines for toilet paper and food? Just like the soviet bread lines. That makes absolutely no sense. Why would we want that kind of government??
No matter what kind of government you have, there will always be poor people. Always. To think otherwise is pure idealism and not based in reality. Some people will always be smarter than others. Some people will always be more harder working than others. Some people will always be lazier than others. The goal is to minimize the number of poor people no matter what their circumstances are.  The historical facts are clear: the system that has elevated the most people out of poverty is free-market capitalism. This is what the US has had, and why the US has been the wealthiest country on the planet. This is an indisputable fact. Yes, there were poor people, but they were a small percentage. Guess who's had the most poor people? Governments controlled by socialists. Again, look at latin America today, how poor they are, and how the people are fleeing from those countries. Those are socialist governments, just like the USSR was, and just like Cuba is. Everyone is poor (except the small ruling political class). That's why poor people are fleeing to capitalist countries. How can this even be argued? It's happening even as I type this. As for the number of wealthy people: why be so envious? You know who creates jobs? Rich people. Poor people don't hire anyone. Only rich people do. Here's another fact for you to verify: most US millionaires today are self-made. They didn't inherit their money. Some did, sure, but they're the exception. Most started a business and earned it. Even foreigners can come here with little to no money, work hard, and be millionaires in 20 years. That's what has made America so great, and it's the opposite of socialism. Just count the number of Indian gas station owners who have done this for a small example. So just because there are a lot of rich people does not mean that the system is broken. It means it's working. People don't become rich in socialist countries. So, focusing on the 1% is just envy and jealously. Instead, focus on making yourself rich. This is one of the few places in the world where one can still do that. Don't ruin it for everyone else.

When the government takes from the successful to redistribute it to the poor, it completely removes the incentive for success for anyone. If you're in school and bust your butt to make A's, should the teacher take points from you to give it to those who are making F's so you all make C's? No! If that happens, the A students will not work hard anymore. Why should they? They will not be rewarded for their effort. Everyone will be mediocre, and over time, society becomes mediocre and poor. The same with a business. If a business makes something...let's say heart valves...they have to spend large amounts of their own money and investor's money to make the product, test it, market it, etc. But if the government takes the profits to redistribute it, why should the company stay in business? Why bust their butts only to have it taken away? The result is that everyone becomes lower-middle-class or poor, and the technological advances of that society slow to a crawl. Why work and make technological advances if you won't be rewarded for it? That is exactly what happens in socialist countries. Again, look at the USSR and latin American countries. It's right there for anyone to see.

Again - why has the US been so successful? Why have so many of its people become so much more wealthy (relatively speaking) than most other societies? Free market capitalism. If we go to socialism, we'll become just like those countries: poor. Why would we want to do that???

Please think about and verify what I've said. It's very important for your life. For all of our lives.

Two more thoughts: One: have you seen the movie "The Big Short?" It's an excellent movie...but the root cause of the housing bubble was glaringly omitted from the movie (no surprise since Hollywood is completely biased in favor of liberalism/socialism, as are the news outlets). Do you know why banks and lenders started to make crappy loans? Because the government got involved and forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loans, all in the name of equality. It was the "everyone deserves to have a house" mentality. Yes, the banks went to far with it and they have much blame, but the root cause was the government involvement, forcing banks to make the loans. If the government had not gotten involved, those loans would not have been made, and the crisis would not have happened. This is socialism: big government and government control of everything. It fails every time.

Two: related to the movie point above, please have an open mind and read news from alternative sites. Check out drudgereport.com or breitbart.com and compare those stories to what you see on every other news outlet. The two sites I mentioned will have stories that all other media either bury deep down in their sites or don't publish at all. The public is largely misinformed because it gets its news from mainly one perspective: the liberal perspective. Why not have an open mind and compare news from the alternative sites and decide for yourself what is true? I know people will discourage you from going to sites like that...why is that? Why do they so desperately want to control what you see and don't see? Isn't that the opposite of having an open mind?

Anyway, I've written much more than I normally do because so much is at stake. Please carefully read what I've written and search out the things where you think I'm wrong. Please have an open mind and take the time to see if what I've said is true.

Yeah I'm sure Sanders knows everything about bitcoin. That is if he ever heard of it in the first place.