Bitcoin Forum

Republicans Vs Democrats: Who is more likely to embrace bitcoin more?

in terms of regulations, campaign donations, etc.

The illusion of choice is strong in this decision.  ;D

I would assume its marginal either way.

it depends on people but not on political views imho
But if we talk directly about republicans and democrats: democrats should be more loyal (only if we remember the origin meaning of democrats(!))

Don't think either party will embrace bitcoin.

Well when you limit it to only republicans vs democrats you are kinda missing the whole libertarian and tea party line. people say those two groups are the most friendly towards them. i have to say they are right, i have seen libertarians who accept bitcoinf or their donations.

democrats will demonize it and say it is only for rich people and blah. if you look at older news stories every left wing media propaganda machine like ABC/MSNBC/NBC/whatever was all against bitcoin and said how its drugs drugs drugs sex prostituion hit men drugs drugs drugs omg were all gonna die!

How the hell could bitcoin be for rich when anybody could take part in it and it is not like some exchange traded fund where only the rich can participate

Bitcoin would be excellent for Republican campaign donations, the Koch brothers would be able to donate $millions directly rather than using their 'non-profit' organizations.

None of the above, go against the US Dollar, why would they commit political suicide!   8)

If any political party is to embrace Bitcoin, it'd be the Libertarian Party:

http://www.lp.org/make-a-bitcoin-contribution

there are multiple multiple articles that talk about white privelege and how rich white people are the majority of bitcoin users. the liberal media lies all the time about stuff like this man. go search it up. stupid articles like thatmake people not want to buy bitcoin, the right wing doesnt really say anything about bitcoin.

Both, Republicans and Democrats represent USA and their politic and economic, monetary system including US dollar.
So, officially, I really doubt that they can easily accept bitcoin.

Let's see, breaking it down by the two main party policy arenas:

Fiscally: Republicans would be more likely to support (because of tenets of fiscal individualism/responsibility and lessened regulation).
Socially: Democrats would be more likely to support (because of accessibility, and as a nascent tool to dwindle parity).

Getting to the heart of your question, I'd have to say Republicans would be more likely to embrace bitcoin if it regulatory laws surrounding bitcoin made it become significantly more viable. Until then though, I'd assume democrats would give more support to bitcoin as a social parity tool.

In either case though, the support given by either party will be significantly marginal.

Neither. They can't control it or inflate it to hell so they can fund wars with it. We can get individual politicians through donations, but both parties are establishment big spenders that need a currency they can manipulate.

Generally Republicans seem to be embracing it more, but mostly the tea party variety. But Greg Abbot, the Republican gubernatorial nominee (who is very likely to win) is accepting Bitcoin donations, and he's not exactly tea party, he's sort of establishment-trying-to-appeal-to-tea-party-voters-but-doing-it-wrong.

demos and repubs are the same side of the coin...both funded and controlled by bankers to get into office
why do you think the president spend several millions to get into office to make several hundred thousand...

Libertarian-leaning Republicans. Democrats are afraid of it because it's unregulated.

Mainstream candidates from either party have little reason to "embrace" bitcoin. Their constituents won't change the way they vote based on a candidate's bitcoin position, and they get a lot of "campaign contributions" from the banking cartel.

Agree there.  I think deomcrats COULD possibly support it, if it became more regulated.  They love to be seen as "cooler" than Repubs, and Bitcoin is more of a cool and younger thing right now.

Republicrat vs Republicrat...so many choices.

I consider myself a Libertarian-leaning Republican, and I've been taking Bitcoin donations since I filed to run for Congress back in May.  I also attended the Bitcoins in the Beltway conference back in June as was in one of the panel discussions, and have issued Bitcoin related press releases, some of which have been picked up by Forbes (Boring Bitcoin Report), The Crypto Crimson, MadBitcoins, Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine, etc.

I've also a miner, and am currently using mining equipment from KnCMiner and Spondoolies-Tech.

In the recent Primary, I was able to knock out the Independent challenger, so I will be up against the Democratic incumbent in the November election.

Saturday is my 40th Birthday, so if you can, throw me a bone in my "Over The Hill" for "Capitol Hill" donation drive.  (You must live in the US, and must provide name, address, etc. to donate.  I know a lot of Bitcoin folks don't like that, but its the current FEC rules.  Bitcoin donations are currently capped at $100 maximum due to ambiguous FEC guidelines.)

Press Release and News Page: http://www.vote4bj.com/press.html

40th Birthday Donation Drive Page: http://www.vote4bj.com/40th.html

Issues Page (Technical-related issues like Bitcoin at the bottom of the page): http://www.vote4bj.com/issues.html

Regards,
B.J. Guillot
Republican Candidate for US Congress
Washington State 2nd Congressional District
425-322-4610
Website: http://www.vote4bj.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vote4bj

Might as well flip a coin.

There is an easy counter to a proactive stance of anything driven by humans. Look at Global Warming. There's science saying it is irrefutable. There's science saying it isn't irrefutable. Now politicians have settled on "rapid climate change". Usually it just boils down to fear tactics and generalities. The more ambiguity, the more likely a politcian is able to embrace a side.

The problem from a political point of view is that BTC itself is not very ambiguous. Therefore it will not be embraced.

Another problem is that many crpyocurrencies protect anonimity more than BTC does. BTC will be associated with them. We'll all be projected as murderers, rapists, thugs, terrorists or whatever fear based tactic a policitian can come up with to whip their constituents into a fervor about.

Adoption will depend on the private sector and who the private sector funds politically (through fiat). That's a 50/50 shot because like others mentioned, both parties receive considerable donations from all the same mega corporations.

It would be neat to see a candidate to implement his entire campaign through the block chain. They wouldn't have to hold coins, but they could simply process every transaction transparently and put it in the face of the other 534 representatives. I bet someone like Coinbase would wave transaction fees for the publicity.

I think liberals will also dislike bitcoin because it will force the government to be smaller and less powerful. The liberals generally want government to be as large as possible and for everyone to rely on it.

There's actually a lot more going on that I generalized into "afraid of it" with my terse comment. One of my Obama-supporting, Democrat, neo-liberal friends absolutely can't be convinced that there's anything wrong with the Federal Reserve system and banking cartel other than that money isn't issued directly by the government (her ideal, not mine). She thinks the TBTF bailouts were necessary. She absolutely can't be convinced that competition should be allowed in currency, even though she recognizes the dangers of monopolies in every other industry. She's afraid that if other currencies are allowed to prosper, one day she might walk into a store and not be able to pay for some goods. My best take on this ideology is a strong desire to preserve status-quo. It's ironically conservative. As long as her credit card works, she isn't willing to risk anything for the possibility of a better monetary system.

To be fair, I don't think they want people to rely on government (although the politicians certainly do). They want people to be able to rely on government, and they're willing to accept the side-effect of people who don't need to rely on the government becoming reliant. For money, they want the government to guarantee the value of their money through the use of force and don't care about the consequences (petrodollar wars, inflation, non-obvious tax burdens on the poor).

...and people scoff when I tell them the American education system is working just fine (for its intended purpose)!

I agree with you in general, but for her it's definitely not an issue of education. She understands the relevant facts. She knows how the banking system works, how the Federal Reverse works, etc. I think I've managed to teach her how all voluntary transactions are beneficial to all parties involved. She still seems to struggle with the subjectivity of value. Anyway, it really seems to be an issue of psychology that I don't have the background to completely understand.

+1; It's a no-brainer that libertarians (and "conservatarians", which would describe me) are embracing crypto. For every Jared Polis among the Republicrats there is a Joe Manchin.

There was some research publicized today indicating that "moneyed interests" exercise almost complete control over US policy making, compared to the grass roots. Although the methodology may be flawed, it does concern me as it implies the naturally hostile banking/financial institutions will hold the upper hand in policy-making on crypto. On the flip side, I doubt the government can competently fight crypto growth and ultimate success over the long run. So the more populist politicians in the Republicrats (with libertarian/conservatarian support) may in the long run be able to pass fait accompli legislation that legitimizes crypto completely.

from this link http://www.coindesk.com/meet-the-us-political-candidates-who-are-embracing-bitcoin/

i see that there are 2 democrats, 2 republicans, 2 libertarians, 1 unknown, and 1 teabagger that are pro bitcoin.

Notice the logo at the very top of the campaign page for the next Texas governor? https://secure.gregabbott.com/donations/support-ga-search/?gclid=CM632OT7kcACFSdk7AodBz0A2Q (https://secure.gregabbott.com/donations/support-ga-search/?gclid=CM632OT7kcACFSdk7AodBz0A2Q)

I don't know for sure, but I'd guess there won't be a poorly thought out "bit-license" in my state unless Wendy Davis is elected.

Neither, this 2 parties are self serving, and basically a mirror of each other with very minor differences.
That does not mean that individual Democrats or Republicans may or may not embrace bitcoin, but as a party they will not, for one they want to have the control of the money through the banks, and be able to finance wars.

Any party that truly values individual freedom will support Bitcoin.

Any party that may support Bitcoin will have this characteristics:
Believe in individual freedom, and to have the right not to be babysitted by the state against your will, specially in the area pf money.
Believe that peace is best for all of us.
Peace and Freedom go together, since if you Believe other have the same right to the same freedom that you have.
If you truly believe in total freedom, then you believe that borders are evil since they restrict your freedom.
Laws in general go against freedom, and as such in general they are bad, specially when you have so many of them that the average person has no clue how many laws exists, I agree only with the existence of a very few basic laws it is best.
Laws have to be clear and precise to guarantee that your freedom is respected and that can only happen if there are few of them, otherwise it is caos.

I believe the founding fathers of the constitution were very much pro freedom, and since in the constitution of the USA the only legal money is gold or silver, I very much believe if they were alive today they would be pro bitcoin, too bad the reality today is far from what the constitution says, it is quite the opposite the government is always planning on ways to rape the constitution, I wish the government got raped and not the constitution, well it will get raped by the bitcoin revolution that it is taking place right now.

In brief:
Do not trust Democrats or Republicans, they will both want to steal your money to fund their wars.
The constitution is good but it is not respected by current politicians.
Not all government is bad, a very tiny government I believe it is good, since when you come to this world you are naked, and the government is needed for very basic tasks only such as hospitals and education and currently it sucks very badly at the basic tasks since it gets involved it other things it has no business.
The bitcoin revolution will be a success, and all political parties at such time in future will support bitcoin due to their self serving interests.

The only honest parties are the ones that support bitcoin now, during the revolution, not after the revolution.
 
I believe that both parties are actually trying to kill bitcoin by regulating  what does not need regulation and for preventing the average person from participating in the economy the same way the big guys do, the only reason they do not ban bitcoin is because such a law would be unenforceable and it would make them look like idiots and they know that, so instead they take the approach of regulation bitcoin to its death at its weak points, the weak points are the centralized points, all decentralization is good for the bitcoin economy.
 
bitcoin with regulation or without will succeed, regulation are like speed bumps on the road thats all, it will cause bitcoin adoption to slow down a little bit, but will completely fail at stopping the Bitcoin revolution.


 


 

 

I agree. Generally democrats dislike it when people who work hard are able to climb the economic ladder and are able to create wealth for themselves. This is exactly the kind of people that would invest in bitcoin related businesses and would buy bitcoin both as an investment and to use as a currency.

I think that a large percentage of people who "can" rely on government will do so, even if they have the ability to support themselves without the help of government. Liberals are well aware of this fact.

Generally speaking the tax burden on the poor is very low. In many cases many poor people's effective total tax rate (including income, sales, property and any other types of taxes) is below zero.

It might appear that way, but consider the tax burden built into the goods and services they consume.

 :D I think republic,
because Republic needed more funds for development in the country but this is my opinion :D

Even after accounting for sales tax many people have a negative tax rate. If you are talking about the taxes that corporations pay on their income, then this should really not be counted as the corporations still have more money then they otherwise would if they did not earn the money they earned.

Republicans and Democrat.. two sides of the same corrupt coin. Both run by the corporate elites. I'm not interested in either.