I don't think the Trump election, nor Brexit was anything close to right-wing extremism. Putin and Erdogan are both dictators (or at the very least, de-facto dictators), and are not elected, and as such do not reflect the will of the people.

Both the US and Europe have been ruled by very liberal leaders since the 2008 financial crisis and recession, and these liberal leaders are responsible for the subsequent weak economic recovery. I think Brexit was the 1st sign that the masses are rejecting liberalism, and it could have even been a sign of the death of liberalism.

From the looks of it, mainstream liberals are moving far to the left, including embracing radical ideas such as socialism (that has killed over 100 million people), and open borders (which basically removes any sense of sovereignty, or any possible rule of law). I would predict that liberalism will be pushed farther to the fringes of society.   

It is normal for a politician to be the subject of criticism.

You don’t have to bash Putin if you agree with his policies, however you are naive if you think there is no major opposition to his policies. The amount of public protests and public opposition to Putin suggests everyone agrees with him.

Russia isn’t run by a bunch of liberal idiots, it is run by Putin who is to the right and doesn’t care about political correctness. He also doesn’t care if you say stupid things as long as you are not criticizing him.

Look at the amount of criticism of Putin, real criticism about major issues. You just don’t see it in the press. Look at the number of anti-Putin protests— they simply don’t happen. Compare that to the US. There is a lot of dissent in the US, even to presidents that win reelection and these people are not arrested or otherwise harmed.

I don’t think he is offering escrow services currently.

bump

I think there is decent evidence that many people have not disclosed all their crypto related income.

There is also anecdotes implying that some people are hiding assets/income (via crypto) in order to maintain eligibility for welfare programs. 

In general, the WSJ will report the facts in their news articles and they do not leave out pertinent facts. In general I would say that a WSJ article will contain the “whole truth”, while it may have a slight bias to the right. This compares to other mainstream publications, such as the Washington post, which frequently publishes news articles with outright bias, and often contain opinions and often important facts are omitted or downplayed.

The editorial section will have a strong bias to the right unless a Democrat congressman/senator/president submits a piece, in which case they will publish it.

He ran against a very weak candidate in 2016, so weak that she had to cheat to “win” the nomination. On the other hand, Obama very much had his thumb on the scale for Hillary, including weaponizing spying powers. Further Trump has done a very good job of getting his message out via Twitter and has probably improved since the election. He has also done a lot for the economy and the middle class.

If I had to bet, I would say he will serve another term.

What you read was actually an opt-ed (an editorial published in the opinion section). It is important to make this distinction as it will disclose bias in the piece.

I agreed with what was written though. Our current system has a lot of disincentives to work via transfer payments and this results in the lower class receiving payments, when adjusting for taxes income very near those in the middle class.

The tax code is also very progressive, more so than the various tax brackets would imply, due in large part to the earned income tax credit, and similar programs.

I believe RT is financed in large part by and through the Russian government. Also there is no free speech in Russia and dissenters are often jailed and killed under suspicious circumstances, so ignoring the financing issue journalists are likely afraid to criticize the Russian government.

I am looking to sell my signature space.

I am flexible as to how long of a term you can buy my signature for, although I would want to lock in at least a monthly deal.

Any deal must be time based, and I will not make any guarantees in regards to the number of posts, although I have no plans on decreasing the volume of my posts.

We can value the price of my signature in USD, BTC or ETH, and payment can be in BTC, or major altcoins.

Advertisements must not directly compete with the business advertised in my avatar.

You can PM me to negotiate an agreement -- if you make what I perceive to be a fair offer to advertise a reputable business, I will likely accept --  and I will PGP sign the payment address and the specific terms of our agreement.

Payment must be made up front.

The valuation of all crypto is currently grossly inflated by rampant financial speculation. For example, a few weeks ago, the price of bitcoin was increasing due to speculation that a bitcoin ETF would be approved in the near future. In other words, people were speculating that the masses would have the ability to speculate on the future price of bitcoin.


If various cryptos were valued not on speculation, but on actual volume of financial transactions, bitcoin would likely be first, followed by bitcoin cash and ether. Most other altcoins would be more or less worthless if they were valued by actual financial transactions.

Financial speculation is not all bad (although I would argue current levels are excessive and otherwise bad), as it will lead to innovation. In the future, I can see both EOS and IOTA financial transaction volume increasing, although the alleged weaknesses in cryptography in IOTA will need to be addressed (if real), and financial transactions in EOS will be very different than the financial transactions in most other coins.   

Are there any updates as to this actually being implemented? Badges can be given out today, and if necessary, the icons can be later changed...

When you go around telling people how much they can spend, and on what, you are very close to socialism, especially if you are pushing people to live off of very small amounts of money.

People should be able to spend and save whatever amounts of money they want, including borrowing what others perceive to be recklessly to spend what they wish to spend. Obviously this will be limited by the amount of money they have in the bank (and other assets), and various lenders' willingness to lend to these people.

I disagree. I view your argument to be that the sale of accounts makes hacking accounts profitable, and is therefore the reason accounts are hacked. My counter is that hacking of accounts would still be profitable if the sale of accounts was somehow prohibited. 

There are other ways to profit from hacking an account other than to sell it.

You should read up on contract law.

No.

Out of curiosity, have you received repayment? (debitme)

That is nonsense. Multiple people can have the same idea, as great minds often think alike. Further, nowhere have I claimed to be the first to publish this idea, but rather, it was, and remains to be my assertion that Vod made the change in his formula as a direct result of reading my post, and agreeing with my statement.

You are wrong. It is in fact very common for people to make the same statement multiple times.


Talking about ourselves in third person now are we?
[/quote]No, I was talking about Vod reading a post from my QS account.

Since no one has bothered to address this issue, I will explain it:

There are 8 hours in a typical work day, and Vod works really hard to discredit me, even though he knows deep down I am almost always right. For the minutes, 2 less than 9 is 7, and there are 7 natural wonders in the world, and Vod is wondering when I will post next and about what. Also, 2 plus 9 is 11, and there are 11 characters in "Quickseller". Also, 4 plus 5 is 9, it takes 9 months to have a baby, and Vod often acts like a baby when dealing with me.