Those fucks (excuse my french) told me the max weekly limit for everyone is $500...how did you manage to pull a $1000 a week limit?
Mind you, I have my debit (business) and bank account (business) attached...

Coinbase gives me a $1k weekly buy-instant limit which is lovely...my favorite exchange thus far.
Just attached my PNC points/reward credit card. 

As Hillary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.

Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior.

...

I am not considering Rand because I think he will “save America” or because his father is Ron Paul. I am considering Rand because I agree with him on enough positions that are important to me. Don’t take it from me though. Read the following article from H. A. Goodman, titled: I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why. Here are some excerpts:

...

What is so interesting to me about the above list, is that although I would strongly disagree with Mr. Goodman on many issues, I concur with his assessment of the importance of the above. NSA spying, aggressive and unconstitutional foreign policy, reforming the criminal justice system and drone strikes. These aren’t side issues to me. They are core issues. He didn’t even mention Audit the Fed, which Rand sponsored in the Senate and would almost surely continue to push for.

...


The reason is the establishment GOP is part of the status quo, and the status quo likes things as they are. Hillary Clinton would be merely a more militant version of Barack Obama with even deeper Wall Street ties (read: Glenn Greenwald on Hillary Clinton: “Soulless, Principle-Free, Power Hungry…”).

. A less hillbilly version of George W. Bush. I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. I dare them to prove me wrong.

Rand recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show. At the end, Bill said:

I think it’s only a good thing for America, when I’m not sure who I’m gonna vote for next time.
Full clip -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBRlpzT5soc

Think about that for a minute. Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get all the libertarian votes, all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hillary out of office), and a lot more genuine liberal/progressive votes than you might think.

He is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. That’s why Rand Paul is Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare.

stolfi + ripple promo is making this place pretty unbearable.

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,”

did everyone else see that none of the "major networks" will be broadcasting this tonight?  It seems like this may be ordered by the administration to prevent most people from seeing it, and in turn being disgusted by the prez's lack of concern for the American taxpayers who will now have to foot the bill for just another 12-20 million people.

President Obama’s announcement of his immigration executive order Thursday night is apparently for Latino ears only. Though the White House claims that they sent out “feelers” to the major English-speaking networks, they didn’t bother sending an official request for coverage. Instead, only Latino networks Univision and Telemundo are airing the president’s 10-minute announcement.

As The Washington Post notes, the president’s 8 p.m. announcement comes at a particularly opportune time for reaching a “captive audience of Hispanic television viewers”: the 15th annual Latin Grammys, which airs on Univision starting at 7 p.m. Last year around 9.8 million viewers tuned into the awards ceremony. Univision is doing its part to make sure the president's message reaches its millions of viewers by temporarily postponing the show to broadcast Obama’s address. 

Reports have it that illegal immigrants across the country are throwing watch parties in anticipation of the president’s announcement of amnesty for around 5 million immigrants here illegally.  One Chicago Latino leader, Pastor Emma Lozano of Aldaberto United Methodist Church, told The Washington Times she’ll be watching the address alongside people currently facing deportation:

“We’re going to be watching this very closely, people in my church,” said Aldaberto. “We’re going to have the TV on in both languages and really praying and hoping we get what we deserve.”

Though Politico reports that the White House is “exasperated” that the big English-speaking networks “snubbed” the announcement, the same report reveals that the Obama administration didn’t bother sending the standard formal request for coverage to networks Wednesday. Instead, the White House simply posted an announcement of the message on its Facebook page—perhaps the first such announcement of its kind.

With an eye on a potential 2016 bid for the White House, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues to test whether his libertarian-leaning message can attract new voters to the Republican Party. His appearance on liberal commentator Bill Maher’s HBO talk show last Friday (along with this interview) helped fuel the notion that unlike most other key figures from either major party, Paul is willing to talk with audiences who may not be disposed to agree with him.

Of course, there are plenty who scoff at the idea of a Tea Party icon being the face of a sweeping coalition. Skepticism has been especially fierce — including at this site — when Paul has attempted to reach out to African-American voters, with critics noting Paul’s disapproval (as a Senate candidate four years ago) of a key provision of the 1964 Civil Right Act barring discrimination among private business.

On the other hand, for a younger generation of voters feeling ignored by Democrats, Paul’s present-day position on U.S. drug laws and criminal justice reforms have appeal:
 
Embedded tweets at site


The senator, who has been referred to as the “most interesting man in Washington,” seems intent on testing whether a candidate who has openly courted the fringe of American politics can successfully attract wider support in this current political climate.

Paul talked to Salon this week about this attempt to broaden his appeal, particularly to non-white and young voters, why his party establishment still seems to have Romney fever, and whether he’d give up his Senate seat to seek the White House in 2016. Our conversation follows, lightly condensed and edited.

(CNN) -- Vincent Harris, Ted Cruz's top digital operative, is leaving the Texas senator's team to work for Sen. Rand Paul's political operation, as the jostling for staff ramps up ahead of the 2016 GOP presidential primary contest.

Harris will join Rand Paul's political action committee and his 2016 team as a chief digital strategist, according to Doug Stafford, executive director of RAND PAC.

Stafford said Harris will sit at the "top of the leadership team," as Paul and his inner circle carry out what's expected to be a dizzying political schedule. Paul will likely announce his Senate re-election bid in the coming days, and he's said he'll make a decision on a White House run in the spring.

Paul's team was attracted to Harris' push for Republicans to make digital operations a more robust part of campaigns, Stafford said. "We want to be leaders on that," he continued, saying Harris will focus on strategies involving data, websites, and social media among other things.

Harris, 26, runs Harris Media, a digital strategy firm based out of Austin that has more than 20 employees. The firm helped reinvent Sen. Mitch McConnell's digital presence ahead of the Kentucky senator's successful re-election win this fall.
...
While Harris has had a number of widely-known clients — Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich — he gained a higher profile of his own after helping Cruz defeat Lt. Gov David Dewhurst for the GOP Senate nomination in 2012, throttling Cruz from a long-shot candidate who had never run for office to one of the biggest upset candidates of the year.
...
A staunch opponent to the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, Paul has sought to make himself a key ally for Silicon Valley and the tech world. His team plans to open a San Francisco office, where he's traveled multiple times this year, and he's trying to use his tech-savvy focus to connect with young voters on college campuses.

Harris, who lives in Austin but plans to travel frequently to Washington and Louisville, said there's a host of programmers and designers in Austin who "aren't excited about a lot of potential 2016 candidates but who are very excited about Rand Paul."

"I don't think there's going to be any problem in finding top-tiered talent," he said, adding Paul's team "will be embracing the tech community with open arms."

​Over the past 18 months, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has made a habit of showing up places where he's not expected—at UC Be​rkeley and the National Urban League Confer​ence, co-sponsoring Kirsten G​illibrand's bill on sexual assault in the military, at Larry Ellison's house, in ​Ferguson. So I wasn't totally surprised to see him pop up on HBO this weekend, chatting it up with Bill Maher about climate change, the drug war, and the Islamic State.

Wearing one of his mock turtlenecks, the Republican senator was friendly, even chummy, with his liberal host, dropping dad jokes about politicians and Maher's misspent youth. It was classic Paul: affable, earnest, occasionally tone-deaf—but nonetheless interesting, the word m​ost often used to describe Paul and his political ambitions. Even on climate change, an issue where he and Maher obviously disagree, the senator was conciliatory, looking for some environmental policy "middle ground" where Democrats and Republicans could agree. And as the interview wound down, and Maher's questions turned to the drug war and foreign policy, Paul won him over.

"I think it's only a good thing for America when I'm not sure whom I'm going to vote for next time," was how Maher signed off.

This, of course, was exactly the reaction Paul was looking for. The Kentucky Tea Party darling has positioned himself as the bridge between Republicans and the world outside the GOP bubble, building his all-but-declared presidential campaign around the idea that his libertarian views can broaden the party's appeal beyond old white men. Now, with that campaign basically underway, Paul's willingness to break with the hawks in his party—and to openly court a Hollywood liberal like Maher—is also an invitation to throw down with his Republican opponents, only intensifies internal party divisions over national security and foreign policy that will likely define the GOP race in 2016.

The groundwork for this battle was laid last month, with Paul's speech to the Center for National Interest, a realist foreign policy think tank founded by Nixon acolytes. In a stuffy hotel ballroom on Central Park South, he laid out his foreign policy doctrine, christened "conservative realism," moonwalking the line between Republican hawkishness and non-interventionism.

"America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate," Paul told the ballroom. "America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. America shouldn't fight wars that aren't authorized by the American people, by Congress. America should and will fight wars when the consequences—intended and unintended—are worth the sacrifice. The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world."

Unlike his remarks to Maher, the CNI speech was obviously tailored to a Republican audience—in this case, a motley crew of Orthodox Jewish leaders, Nixon-era State Department wonks, and Grover Norquist. But beyond the obligatory praise of Ronald Reagan and equally obligatory jabs at Barack Obama, Paul's message seemed to be a repudiation of the post-9/11 foreign policies that have dragged the US through more than a decade of wars. "Stalemate and perpetual policing seem to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria," he said. "A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can't have perpetual war."

The speech didn't go nearly as far as some doves—including some fans of Paul's famously irascible father Ron—would have hoped. And his support for military intervention in Afghanistan, and against the Islamic State, seem particularly inconsistent with his not-fighting-any-wars-that-lack-a-plan-for-victory. But it succeeded in pitting Paul against his likely Republican presidential opponents—most of whom are still banging the drum for Bush-era "Mission Accomplished" jingoism—and also against the drone strikes and selective interventions of Obama and Hillary Clinton, the all-but-guaranteed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

The speech was also remarkably well received ("I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking," quipped Norquist), elating Paul and his staff and emboldening his nascent campaign to take on the hawks. His camp's argument has always been that while the political establishment continues to buy into the post-9/11 war on terror doctrine, Paul is poised to tap into a growing isolationist streak among voters disillusioned and alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Paul is looking for a fight, he's going to find one. The neocon wing of the GOP is in the midst of a resurgence thanks to public discontent over Obama's handling of foreign policy. All the new Republican senators elected in 2014 embrace more hawkish positions than Paul, which means that the neocon caucus will have a clear majority when the GOP takes control of the upper chamber next year. "The cavalry is coming over the hill!" South Carolina hawk ​Lindsey Graham gleefully told Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post's resident neocon. That leaves Paul as a lone voice of dissent as the Senate grapples with questions like whether to send combat troops in to fight against the Islamic State, whether to keep troops in Afghanistan, and whether to approve a possible nuclear agreement with Iran. Since returning for the lame-duck last week, Paul has already said he will vote against the ​NSA​ reform package currently being considered in the Senate, in part because it extends the Patriot Act until 2017.

Paul's positions put him in the center of an internecine battle that will, in all likelihood, define the Republican 2016 presidential race. In recent months, a steady parade of Paul's potential rivals have tried to pick fights over his supposed isolationism, jockeying to position themselves in relation to the libertarian-ish senator's foreign policy views. But Paul has mostly stayed steady, confident that this is a battle he will win. Win or lose, there's no question that he's got the party fighting on his terms.

The USA Freedom Act, originally the stronger of the two Senate NSA reform bills but watered-down to the point of irrelevance, has failed a procedural vote today, and will no longer be considered until January at the earliest.

The motion to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate needed 60 votes to pass, but got only 58, with 42 opponents. The opposition came from both sides, with surveillance critics saying the bill was too weak to bother with, and surveillance advocates who didn’t want any reform bill, even a token one.

This was reflected in both Kentucky Senators, Rand Paul (R – KY) and Mitch McConnell (R – KY) voting against bringing the bill to the floor for exactly opposite reasons.

The defeat means the bill is effectively dead until the new Senate takes office, and with a much more hawkish bend, it will likely be hard for any reforms to get past them. At the same time, they likely won’t be as supportive of the pretense of reform as the backers of this bill were.

This may be good news in the long run, as it will at least keep the question of mass NSA surveillance of American citizens in the public eye, and without any ability for the administration to claim a bill has nominally “resolved” the matter.

Former presidential candidate and Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul raised about $40 million when he ran for the nation's top office in 2012.

That seems like a lot of money, and a heck of a fundraising base for the ex-congressman's son, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, to build from should he decide to make a run of his own in 2016.


But the man who won the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, spent more than $75 million, and that doesn't include another roughly $50 million in super PAC money spent on his behalf. And that was just to win the nomination.


So one of the many big questions still facing Paul, weeks from announcing his re-election effort and a winter away from announcing whether he will run for president, is whether he can raise the big money necessary to mount a winning presidential run.


Mitch McConnell, the incoming U.S. Senate majority leader, certainly knows a thing or two about big-time fundraising, and Kentucky's senior senator has certainly opened doors to establishment donors for his junior colleague.


When the final Federal Election Commission finance reports from the 2014 election come out, McConnell will show he raised more than $30 million for his re-election effort, shattering the record he set in 2008.


The woman who spearheaded that effort, Laura Sequeira, who was finance director for McConnell's campaign, has signed on to help Paul, along with Erika Sather, who raised big bucks for successful Arkansas Senate candidate Tom Cotton.

The reason is this: Most people - the vast, vast majority - are stupid and rightly lack confidence in their own abilities. It is too dangerous to personally secure your coins for the average person. Once it becomes possible to buy in without the risk of losing your money through negligence or hardware error, such as Circle or the ETF or something of that nature, it will become possible for far more people to hop on the wagon than currently.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is correct in claiming that President Obama’s decision to send 1,500 more soldiers back to Iraq is illegal. We now have over 3,000 American soldiers back in a country we left in 2011, when the president fulfilled a promise of ending the Iraq War. The illegality of the Obama’s decision lies in the fact that Congress has not been consulted on matters that could easily lead to another war. Sending military advisers to train Iraqis seems to be a last ditch effort at succumbing to media and political pressure on the part of our president. Nobody wants to be in the White House if Bagdad falls to ISIL, but Saigon fell in 1975 and Gerald Ford didn’t send Americans back to Vietnam. ISIL indeed poses a threat, but not enough of threat to jettison Constitutional principles in the name of national security.

Paul, in a recent Daily Beast op-ed, explains exactly why Obama is breaching certain laws by increasing troop levels without consulting the American people. The Kentucky senator cites both the Constitution and the War Powers Act to highlight Obama’s overreach in doubling the size of our military presence in Iraq:


"If the Constitution were not enough, the War Powers Act reiterates the legislature’s prerogative. The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period. The only exception is military action to repel an imminent attack. In that case, the president has 60 days to report to Congress. Obviously, it’s an exception that doesn’t apply to any of our current wars."


....

I’m a liberal, a Democrat, and I’m waiting for fellow liberals to be as outraged as I am about the president’s decision to send soldiers back into a quagmire. Is Paul right about the hypocrisy of Democrats? I hate to say it, but he’s absolutely correct in this respect, and in regards to this issue.

It’s an interesting time in American politics when Rand Paul is protecting liberal values and Democrats haven’t uttered a word of indignation over Obama’s decision to send troops back into war. Congress and the American people should be debating the troop level decisions, and until then, the legality of sending more American soldiers back into a war that already ended is highly questionable. Paul is correct, Obama has exceeded his authority on this matter, succumbed to media and political pressures, and has ignored the lessons of the Iraq War. Most importantly, he’s ignored the laws already in place limiting his authority to send Americans into battle and everyone should be outraged.

Hard to believe it was a year. Doesn't seem that long ago at all.


I think that's mostly what people said about this year  .