Bitcoin Forum

So, it appears that Obama will be winning a second term.

How do you believe this affects Bitcoin over the next 4 years?

Another 4 years of Bernanke and the possibility of Obama signing Schumer's bills. Obviously this means nothing good for alternative currencies.

It does mean that there will be more spending and potential hyperinflation.

Having your money in Bitcoin or gold or anything non-USD makes sense.

If it comes to Obama vs. any one of the three stooges, then Obama has it. But if Ron Paul can somehow manage to get the Republican nomination, he has it in the bag. I don't see how the GOP doesn't see this.

They do not see it.

The price to pay for their ignorance?

4 more years of Obama.

It is far from certain that Obama will win the election in November since the 'wealth effect' from the rising or falling stock market is far more important than most realize.

At the moment, Obama is barely breaking a 50% approval rating even though the stock market has been rallying for the better part of his term (his rating 'should' be a lot higher but unfortunately the market rallied without the economy this time around), now if the market tops during the next 9 months and starts heading down into the election which will inevitably pull the economy even lower then there is literally no chance that Obama will win even if the Republicans pick the worst possible candidate since investors will blame Obama for the market crashing and killing their retirement funds along with your everyday Joe who will blame Obama because they lost their job...again. And, the best part of this mentality is that the president has little control over where the market or economy head...take it from Bush.  ;)

-waveaddict

Glad to see some fellow Socionomists here :)

..lol..ppl..

serious: i believe most of you, who are not happy with obama doing a second term underestimate the negative impact of what him not beeing relected implies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum  :o  :-X :-[ :'( ??? :o :( >:(

it's not going to happen. Mitt Romney will either win the nomination or it will go to a brokered convention where someone like Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, etc would step up to offer their candidacy for the republican nomination.

Santorum definitely has support among the evangelical segment of the party, but, since he has no clue about economic matters during an election where the economy is front and center, he has no shot at winning the east or west coast of this country which he would need to beat Romney at this point. Remember, the Republicans changed the nominating process this time around so that there are relatively few winner take all states. The delegates are mostly allocated relative to the vote and Romney will always take around 30% or more of the vote in every state; therefore, he gets 30% of the delegates no matter what, and with that kind of support, he cannot lose outright unless it comes down to a brokered convention which Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich can force if they all stay in the race.

i don't consider mitt romneys negative impact much better than santorums..

however, im from far away europe, i only read wikipedia entries and listen to some speeches. i don't know whos worse. but i certainly do know that any GOP (took me a long time to know what GOP stands for) candidate will do nothing good at this point..

ever heard of Ron Paul  :)

He is what the GOP used to stand for before fiscal irresponsibility and the neoconservative movement took over.

word up

makes you think doesn't it

 :)

Ron Paul

..not much to be said here.

only (offcourse in capslock): WRONG PARTY

even if there are only to parties: FUCKING WRONG PARTY!

FUCKING FUCKING WRONG PARTY!

when it comes to competence, i don't mid if its Ron Paul or Barack Obama. i consider them equal.
As european fellow, i lobby for a liberal, smart, democratic and antiauthoritarian leader. Ron Paul fits that as good as Barack Obama. So i don't Mind, as long as it is not ppl like romney, santorum, gingrich or any of those rightwing creeps.

Ron Paul is OK, i guess thats a viewpoint many ppl share. He is old, wise and a thinker. not the guy for crazy actions, not corrupt. will not lead US into another war; stuff like that. its OK.

its OK like obama is OK. but nothing more.


.. and im still drunk, excuse me. good day. +

[edit] reading wikipedia just opened to me that his son is a tea-party supporter..

dont get me wrong, but its -crazy- stuff like that, that makes me think ron paul should not be president. teaparty. nothing to be said here. watch a video of some mobilsation and listen to what the people say. best add against them, isnt it?

i don't get all that conservative stuff in the US at all?! why the fuck does anybody want to preserve worths, the WASPs and christians and conservatives and whatever stand for? am i totally wrong and unpopular in the US if i claim a government should be 100% secularized?! ..

..

i don't think so.

Okay, let me set the record straight on a few things here. Ron Paul is only running as a Republican because if he had run as a Libertarian (which he has done in the past) then he would have no shot at accomplishing anything. However, Paul's platform is more in line with the Republican party of years past, rather than the bullshit neocons that are running the show now.

Now, about the Tea Party bit. What the media portrays as the "Tea Party" is NOT what the Tea Party was meant to be. Ron Paul actually started the Tea Party movement when he was running in 2008. Originally, the movement had nothing to do with social conservatism. It was a movement to lower taxes and reduce government spending, but was later adopted by many extremist right wing Christians. But I digress. The Tea Party, although in its current state is ridiculous, has a just cause.

And yes, I agree with you on a secularized government, as does Ron Paul. He is a strict Constitutionalist, and that includes separation of church and state.

@Gewure

Dude, you have to break out of this obsolete right/left shadow play.  Up/down is the struggle, and the more the up can keep the down bickering over bullshit the weaker we are.

occupyanonteaparty bitchez

This.

The reason it is called the TEA PARTY is because it was based off of the Boston Tea Party where they tossed Tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of the British tax on Tea.

What part of the celebration of that act promotes anything but a protest against taxes and a tyrannical government?

Obama WILL get a second term because Ron Paul supporters and true Tea Party patriots know that Mitt Romney is no different from Obama and will be voting for neither.

No One But Paul!

Just wait till it warms up.

This is the most intelligent thing I've read on this forum to date.

Voting = participation in the facade.  I have never and will never vote.

I come from a land of compulsory voting, and that may be why, but I don't quite understand the sentiment behind that statement.

If only the noobs are voting, then who's going to be elected?

If the competent run for election and the competent don't vote, how will they ever be elected?

If the statement is a protest against the government in general, fair enough, but realistically your only real choice is to join the fray, assume power of the military, leave or put up with it. What do you expect to achieve by not voting?

You have to understand just how corrupt and manipulated the system is here.  We are presented with a binary choice that is no choice at all.  It is a ridiculous, and very unfunny, joke.  I, for one, refuse to contribute to the false legitimacy of this farcist kleptocracy by voting for tweedle dee rather than tweedle dum.

You need look no further than the media's treatment of Dr. Paul to see just how silly it has become.

Will people along the old left/right fault lines still have serious issues to resolve?  Absolutely!  Particularly, it seems, around issues of procreation and gender, but we are never going to be allowed to work those out so long as they are an effective tool of division.

I have fucking had it.

So then vote for ron paul

Me too.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  Tune in?  Not anymore.  Turn on?  Only when you can get away with it.  Drop out?  A MUST: EVERY DAY I'M HUSTLIN'.

Even in the off chance Ron Paul actually gets into position, he WILL be assassinated.  Bet on it.

yes, and hopefully before he completely dismantles the federal government and the 1/2 of americans who are considered "low income" fall the rest of the way through the social safety net, ushering in a new and historically unprecedented era of class division in the united states.

actually, that sounds like the recipe for class war, the only thing powerful enough to bring fat cats to their knees. bring it, paul!

Just in the interest of widening and intertwining horizons I would beg the board's pardon and drop a couple timely links in this particular thread...both active today.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1678149

http://www.zerohedge.com/

That's it folks.  The internet is over.  It was fun.  Glad to have been a part of it.  I'm gonna go play NES now.  See ya.

PS:  Fuck you, Uncle Sam.

1) How do you envision RP accomplishing this?
2) Why do you think that is less likely if we continue the status quo?
3) The "fat-cats" are in a much better position to use chaos to their advantage, why do you think class war would end up bettering the lives of the 50% of americans considered low income?

1. i don't, but it's part of his campaign
2. this post was incredibly sarcastic and shouldn't be taken seriously at all
3. i just wish there was some way to restructure the global economy so that it's not just a giant pyramid scheme where the rich sit on top.

1. His campaign is much more focused on military and monetary issues.
2. Sarcasm is sarcastic.
3. Assasinations, but that takes heroes wiling to be killed as "traitors".