Even though I still agree with you on the fact that RT is a Russia shill and attempt to create chaos in the US on certain things. I don't think this is something that they're exaggerating in the least, as this message between strozk and his lover shows that this sort of behavior was present within some of the FBI's investigations -- as Strozk wasn't just some lowly guy, he was a pretty high ranking member of the FBI.

This sort of stuff is horrid and I hope it can be rooted out of the FBI for good.

Good thing no government or bank would ever want it to be like this, as the first couple years of the free market deciding would most likely be a a good deal of chaos (and I'm not saying if that's a bad or good thing, I'm just stating it)\

Government and politicians are always going to want control of monetary policy, and while it does make sense, that blockade makes it pretty much impossible for the free market to decide on currency usage.

This question has come up time and time again, and honestly, I think the answer is going to be yes -- even though they're going to be selling it for fiat immediately. This is still something that promotes adoption and allows people to use their cryptocurrency to pay for taxes, permits, fees, (and bank related activities)

So yes, yes it does.

Well no, this wouldn't be the case anymore -- as stuff wouldn't be priced (or paid in wages) the same in all countries.

You have to understand that when the entire world gives up the control of their currencies, you're also giving up control over monetary policy (interest rates and so on) to a group/chamber of people who are going to be voting on these issues. Most likely with proportional representation from bigger countries (population)

Ah, someone with a little sense that knows that simply calling out fake news isn't an 'unfair attack on the media by the President of the United States' Thank god....

I don't understand why people will 'protect' the media from their lying. I'm not going to say that all media has to be unbiased, as they're able to do as they please -- but for godsake we should be able to call them out on what they do.

Two words - ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!

But in all honesty, I did know what you meant -- I just think that it is fair for this death to be questioned. Though I don't think a world police action (invasion, etc) is needed.

Did this commie just say he wants higher gas prices?

YOUR GAS PRICES ARE HIGH BECAUSE OF TAXES, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE YOU COMMIE <3 - https://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/gas-taxes-canada.aspx link here for taxes related to gas in Canada.

I’d like to setup a thread for all conversations relating to the death / murder of the Saudi Journalist.

Hellfish and I were chatting on this, and I think we’ve both agreed (after little research, from us) that we don’t think the US should go into full world police mode over something like this.

Article link here (archive for paywalls) - http://archive.is/x7Lmf

It depends on who you're asking when you ask the question -- because it's going to be better for who?

Better for the working class people? Probably not so much, as their country (depending on where they live, and what country they're in) has lost control of their native currency and has given this control to a regulative body which could be represented by a whole different group of people (SEE THE EU)

It might be better for businesses, the financial sector, etc. But it's not going to be better for smaller countries that are going to have to be fully beholden to the bigger countries in the world who have the ability to bully them through monetary policy. But that's just me thinking off the top of my head here folks.


I may look into this further at some point and see if there are any concrete studies on the matter.

I mean, if every other single welfare system is removed then we don't have an issue with the whole fiscal responsibility thing. As it's pretty close in price (I don't have the exact numbers, but that's it)

I would have to say that people support UBI instead of min wage increases is because it puts people out of the market, if there are people willing to work for $7.50 an hour -- then so be it they're going to get jobs. But if the government sets an arbitrary number at lets just say $10, then less people are going to be able to be employed by this firm as they're not going to increase salaries (they're going to cut hours, or employees, or both) That's just simple economics.

But yes, there probably are tons of other ways to fix the system -- but this is just what I proposed sometime ago, hehe.

While I do without a doubt agree with you on policy, I do think that he can keep his own people happy (the old style conservatives, not the modern ones) by simply having the federal gov not have a stance on marijuana and leaving it up to the states.

The biggest issue with Marijuana policy is the issue of the government having differing stances. As marijuana shops (or any companies they do business with these places) can't use banks and are subject to RICO civil suites due to breaking federal code. If this federal code wasn't there, this would be a huge plus.

Leave it up to the states, and take a huge win. That's my view at least.

I do think that this MAY tank his approval rating among the people that have loved him for so long, the conservatives in the Republican party. Though I do guess that the Federal government could just not have laws on it, and let the states set the laws without the federal government having any sort of ruling on it.

Rather then the federal government legalizing it, and forcing states to legalize it as well -- if you understand what I mean on this. As I do think that this would keep the states rights conservatives happy, and open Trump up to a massive amount of love among moderates and liberals.

Though this does open up the question of who is going to approve these 'community service centers' Because this could become a political issue where people are saying that certain centers that are aligned with political parties (such as the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) This would open up some pretty big issues IMO, unless there's a way to screen against things like this.

The only thing that I was going on when I initially proposed this idea of replacing UBI was to improve productivity because there is no large cliff-like a cutoff point.

While I'm not going to sit here and attempt to be a warhawk about certain things, but people do have to know that a good deal of military spending is spent on employee benefits and salaries (as the military is one of the largest - or maybe even the largest - employer in the United States) so it's not like all of the money that they're spending is all going to R & D work.

I do think this R & D is pretty important as well, as you're going to have to keep up with all of your eneimies in ensuring that no one has an edge. This is a pretty horrid rabbit hole to go down, as there is no real 'winning' in this situation. But it's either this, or one country gets an advantage.

Yet again, TecShare and I agree about something on this forum.

But yes, I don't think that it's fair to just blame the Catholic Church for these sorts of issues. I think these are present in MANY other organizations, and the reason that the Catholic Church is taking a good deal of heat about it due to their size -- as I wouldn't doubt this happens in other organizations.

Exactly this, if you were to actually go through all of the Trump campaigns promises you'd see that they've fulfilled a good deal of them with a RAZOR THIN majority in the Senate. He's done a great deal, but the people that hate him are just going to continue to hate him -- there's nothing that can be done to fix some peoples hate.

That's just how it goes.

I don't understand the crush on Beto, he seems like someone who has a past that may seem a little too hard for some to look over (the whole car accident thing)

I think Michelle Obama just came out and said politics isn't for her (though yet again, she may change her mind in 2 years)

I without a doubt can see Harris, and Booker. But I can't see anyone beating Trump as of right now, some may point to his poll numbers but these have been what his numbers have been since becoming the President (and beating Clinton)

Usual behavior in these sorts of situations isnt to come out and expose anyone (or at least, who you think may have commited the crime) this close to the actual investigation. They're probably still trying to find the suspects that they have in mind, and releasing the information that they have may compromise exactly what they're trying to do right now.

Give it some time, it'll come out soon bud!

I don't think this would be the case, as I don't think a third party would ever have too much power too much power in the least. Lets take some other countries political systems for example (systems where you're going to have multiple parties) usually just ends up drifting to where you have two parties (just not by name, they'll drift to be in a coalition / alliance with one another)

So even if your country has multiple parties, you still end up with a two party dynamic (in most places) as people want to centralize power.

This is more of what I was getting at 'controlled oposition' crazy that I couldn't think of this term, but thanks for that.


Oh 100% though I don't think accountability is going to solve a controlled oppo problem, it's just going to make people better at pleasing their bases and faking it.