Ya know for a while I was actually on the train of thinking that Democrats always wanted to commit voter fraud and that Republicans were losing certain races b/c of voter fraud. But then at a certain point I noticed that if it was so easy for Democrats to be committing voter fraud, why wouldn't Republicans be doing the same thing?
The answer to that question isn't that Republicans are more righteous then Dems or something, it's just that it doesn't happen. I'm not even exactly sure that you'd be able to do so for the races that people are talking about. Is it possible that voter fraud has happened in the past and no one has picked up on it? Yes. -- But I mean, we're talking VERY CLOSE races in districts were a few hundred or a few thousand votes could change the election. That's a logistical nightmare to pull off and the risks are immense to those involved.
Not sure many people would put their careers and their freedom (massive jail time for orchestrating this) on the line for this sort of thing.
Conspiracy theories aside, I recall one recent proven case of fraud where the result might have been affected by it, and it was committed by a Republican candidate: There's probably cases on both sides of the aisle, but it can only really change the outcome of a race in a small district with a small amount of people voting. Still, takes some balls to do it and put your entire career on the line to do so. Not only your own career by the way, you literally need to convince other people to put their freedom on the line for you to win your own race -- as your most likely going to be unable to do this alone. Found this write up on reddit about voter fraud, very interesting - https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/aoluu6/fact_checking_the_voter_fraud_debacle_with/ |
|
|
|
Of course there have been numerous other inquiries into this subject. I don't need to debate it, because I know for a fact of voter fraud, pro-Democratic, on a historical basis, and don't care to play the little game you have there.
You know for a fact there has been "voter fraud, pro-Democratic, on a historical basis", but just don't want to show any evidence, huh. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. Imagine how I would be mocked if I were to say something like that about republicans. Ya know for a while I was actually on the train of thinking that Democrats always wanted to commit voter fraud and that Republicans were losing certain races b/c of voter fraud. But then at a certain point I noticed that if it was so easy for Democrats to be committing voter fraud, why wouldn't Republicans be doing the same thing? The answer to that question isn't that Republicans are more righteous then Dems or something, it's just that it doesn't happen. I'm not even exactly sure that you'd be able to do so for the races that people are talking about. Is it possible that voter fraud has happened in the past and no one has picked up on it? Yes. -- But I mean, we're talking VERY CLOSE races in districts were a few hundred or a few thousand votes could change the election. That's a logistical nightmare to pull off and the risks are immense to those involved. Not sure many people would put their careers and their freedom (massive jail time for orchestrating this) on the line for this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Neither side of the aisle is going to want the economy to die, no one wants that to happen, but the parties have a bit of a different take on how they want to go about things and that's okay. One would think this, but let's be honest. It's in the interest of Democrats for the economy to crash before the reelection. Bill Maher said it would be worth it to see the economy crash if it meant Trump would lose 2020. I think that at the end of the day we should follow scientific metrics in how we're going to open the country -- as a country we should follow something like NY in how we're going to open - https://forward.ny.gov/regional-monitoring-dashboard - take a look here and this will show you. NY (and I think NJ too) is following a metric based system in how they're going to open different parts of the state if they're able to pass different metrics that experts have agreed on. I read through the metrics and I think it's being overly cautious. I'm one to advocate to being on the side of caution but one of the more stricter proposals is a decline in the 3 day average of deaths and fewer than 2 hospitalizations per 100k population. I'm not sure a city like NY can sustain numbers like these after reopening meaning that prolonged lock down looks to be the future. Reopening the economy means there's going to be an increase in cases, increase in hospitalizations, and deaths. But with social distancing in place I don't think it's enough to overwhelm the healthcare system. This seems to be the case with Georgia - https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report*Disclaimer about Georgia - There were reports that the state were not properly counting coronavirus cases and under reporting them. Not sure how accurate the numbers are but I don't think a few unreported cases means you need to reject the data entirely. I could understand the point regarding Democrats wanting the economy to flounder under Trump, that's true. But I don't think they'd be willing to actively kill the economy to get to that point. No one knew this was going to happen, and no one wants this to happen. I've said this before on here, but if Trump is able to show that he did an effective job in fighting this -- then voters aren't going to blame him -- if he is unable to do this though, and it looks like another president (IE Biden) could've done a better job, then voters will vote him out and say he is at fault for at least some of the economic damage. Oh yeah, NY is totally being cautious here. But I understand it, they have about 1/3 of the US hospitalizations and deaths. Not sure on the Georgia stuff though. |
|
|
|
|
... Doesn't matter the term is, the only thing that matters is that the end result is people knowing that they should just keep their masks on, and maintain a safe distance (of about 6 feet) from one another. That's all that needs to be done here, nothing more and nothing less.
Would bodily distance be a better term because it comes to the root of the issue -- which is people being in large groups and being too close -- yes. But it really doesn't matter if people just follow the term and understand it anyway.
Not really needed to happen.
|
|
|
|
Even though people are saying this isn't great news, it TOTALLY is if the generic verison isn't different in how it helps to treat the Coronavirus. To the people who are saying - BUT THIS ISN'T A CURE -- you're right, it isn't a cure -- but it is proven to lower the amount of time of recovery needed from 15 days to 11 days from people suffering from this. I would say that is totally amazing news. Take this quote from Wikipedia. Great news and a great share. Stay safe all! Preliminary data from an international multi-center, placebo controlled double-blind randomized controlled trial carried out by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, suggests that remdesivir is effective in reducing the recovery time from 15 to 11 days in people hospitalized with COVID‑19.[41][42] On 29 April 2020, based on results of the ACTT trial,[40] the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced that remdesivir was better than a placebo in reducing time to recovery for people hospitalized with advanced COVID‑19 and lung involvement.[42] Previously a Chinese study published in the Lancet did not show improvement.[10] That study was subsequently criticised as underpowered.[43] Based on the results of its study, the NIH stopped the ACTT trial and provided remdesivir to participants assigned to received placebo.[44] |
|
|
|
|
I mean while this is great and all, I don't want other nations -- who aren't ready to do things like this -- to think that they should. People can scream whatever they want, but COVID is still a threat to many people and many nations.
Very important to note that there WERE temperature checks before coming into the stadium, guests asked to wear face masks, sanitized, etc. In the US we're most likely going to have sports without anyone attending at first, and then slowly ease into something like this. But I'm not sure we're ready to do stuff like this yet, going to take a bit to regain the confidence of people.
|
|
|
|
Hey Hhampuz, just placing this here to officially ask to have my payment address changed.
Here is the new address: bc1q7gk9x0wetqrxvtepqlsjwqpux55uhss3p975h8
I will also PM this to you as a further confirmation that this is the address, thanks Hhampuz. Also: Happy one year anniversary to all, been a great ride.
Going to have to change this. Sorry about the confusion, I jumped the gun a bit. My new address is as follows: 3466qCSgZ4LjLZmibCcvcbiK38NNVZm5vH I'll PM you this exact message as well. Sorry again for making you change this twice. |
|
|
|
|
Hey Hhampuz, just placing this here to officially ask to have my payment address changed.
Here is the new address: bc1q7gk9x0wetqrxvtepqlsjwqpux55uhss3p975h8
I will also PM this to you as a further confirmation that this is the address, thanks Hhampuz. Also: Happy one year anniversary to all, been a great ride.
|
|
|
|
|
In one part of this I understand the hatred and anger at the WHO for blindly trusting China and all of that, but the issue lies partially in the fact that the WHO is just a helpful intermediary between countries in sharing information. If a country is lying to the WHO, or is attempting to decive them in some way, I don't think the WHO would have the resources or juridiction to just go into countries and begin their own investigation into what is going on.
Plus ya know, no country is going to let you just roll around their country looking into things they may not want you to know about (wink wink china wink wink)
Do I think the WHO is at fault? Yes, but not fully. The blame should still be on China here, they lied to all and should be punished for that.
|
|
|
|
Well in other news: Call with Joe Biden and the President of Ukraine have leaked online - https://nypost.com/2020/05/20/joe-bidens-phone-calls-with-former-ukraine-president-poroshenko-released/ - seems like the clip we're hearing right now is heavily edited with a slant towards the conservatives. The call does confirm that Biden give the $1B in aid that he was withholding for the prosecutor to be fired. Though there is no mention of Hunter Biden or Burisma holdings (the gas company that Hunter Biden worked for) in the call. Ukranian President Zelansky is calling for a probe into the leaking of this audio. Unsure on how things like this even happen..... |
|
|
|
Why wouldn't we be able to go clubbing or watch a movie with friends? There's no danger if you're a healthy person who gets enough sleep, eats well, takes vitamins and so on. If you're afraid of the virus take a test. Chances are you've already had it and have antibodies in your system. More than 50% of people get no symptoms or just feel tired while fighting the virus and then it's all gone.
We all knew that people who aren't apart of the at risk group getting it isn't really an issue for their own health. That's already well known. If someone who is under 40 gets the Coronavirus it's going to be like a bad flu for them and then they're most likely going to be fine (most likely, I want to stress that) But the problem lies in the fact that they have the opportunity to spread it to people who are at risk, and once that happens that person who just got it and is at risk has a much higher likelihood of death. That's why they're trying to slow the spread and keep everyone inside, so it doesn't spread any further and those in the at risk categories aren't dying at a massive rate. |
|
|
|
A large increase in traffic to and from mixers, and a large decrease in traffic to and from centralized exchanges. I don't find this surprising at all. As time goes on, centralized exchanges are more and more turning themselves in to self appointed judge, jury, and executioners for people who use them. They track the movement of your coins long after you withdraw them from the exchange, and they look back at the history of your coins long before you deposit them at the exchange. If they don't like what they see, your account is locked and there is nothing you can do about it. If you perform some arbitrary "suspicious activity", your account is locked and there is nothing you can do about it. If you deposit too much too quickly or withdraw too much too quickly, your account is locked. I'm sure that plenty of coins that have touched a darknet entity have been locked, frozen, or seized as soon as they touched a centralized exchange, but this isn't just the case for darknet entities. There are centralized exchanges policing perfectly legal bitcoin usage, such as to and from casinos and gambling sites.
We will continue to see the popularity of mixers and other privacy enhancing techniques such as CoinJoin and PayJoin increase as time goes on.
I mean, I hate Centralized exchanges as much as the next guy -- but I don't think they have much of a choice if they want to stay in business and not be shut down. The only reason that these companies are doing these things -- such as tracking your coins a few hops back, sending notices regarding using mixers / gamblign, etc -- is because this is what the government that their licensed under wants them to do. No company is going to want to waste extra resources just for the fun of it, they're going to do it because they were forced into doing this sort of thing. I do think that decentralized exchanges will grow at some point, but people need to learn the in's and outs of using crypto first -- and I don't think we're there yet. Using an exchange like Gemini, Kraken, Coinbase, is so much easier and quicker to use then trying to get bisq to work (in the eyes of a first time user) |
|
|
|
There is a deadly virus which we've both acknowledged exists. The government aims to maximize tax revenue to pay their salaries, compete in the global pissing contest that is, who has the highest GDPs/wealthiest countries etc. External medical personnel (in every country) said oh damn look at this virus, its bad, it'll cause X people to die and Y people to get sick. Internal government medical agencies see that information and go, yup that is right it looks like X people will die and Y people will get sick, here is what we should do (social distancing/shutdowns/masks). Trump administration that is not medical personnel says ok, we need to weigh X people dying and Y people getting sick with the economic damage that will be caused from the suggested measures. They get their wizards to model various scenarios and say, yup if we do this for this long, we'll lose $Z. So you compare the $ in X, Y, and Z and make a policy to minimize all three of those things.
This is the most logical approach because a public policy maker's job is to reasonably outweigh risks and balance them with the greater good. But considering US politics is an utter shit show, I've seen people try to make the argument that every life counts and that it's not worth reopening the economy because "people may die". We have the data and it's clear that it points to a reopening, but because grandma might die, this apparently means healthy 25 year olds can't work. That's the hard thing to balance here, you have to strike a balance between public health risk and the reward of eyeopening the economy. Neither side of the aisle is going to want the economy to die, no one wants that to happen, but the parties have a bit of a different take on how they want to go about things and that's okay. I think that at the end of the day we should follow scientific metrics in how we're going to open the country -- as a country we should follow something like NY in how we're going to open - https://forward.ny.gov/regional-monitoring-dashboard - take a look here and this will show you. NY (and I think NJ too) is following a metric based system in how they're going to open different parts of the state if they're able to pass different metrics that experts have agreed on. |
|
|
|
I still feel the most effective way to introduce bitcoin is to use bitcoin in everyday life even though the government prohibits the use of bitcoin as an alternative payment other than a country's legal currency. We can start it from the community. Or when making online transactions, we ask for payment options using bitcoin. This small action will create a chain effect that is curiosity about "what is bitcoin" for those who do not understand or desire to use bitcoin in transactions, especially in the bitcoin community.
With the many frequencies discussing bitcoin, many people will be increasingly curious and find out. The more people know, the more opportunities people will be attracted to and use bitcoin for everyday transactions even if they are secretly between communities. In this way, the foundation of bitcoin penetration will be strong, although the motion is slow but the growth is certain.
The government (at least in the US) and most western nations don't do this though, they don't stop people from using cryptocurrencies. If everyone in the US -- consumers and business people - wanted to start using crypto for their transcations, they could. The problem lies in the fact that people don't want to use them for many reason: some of these are as follows 1. They're not educated on cryptocurrencies and they think it's too intricate to use, which for some I could see how that is the case. Some older person who runs their diner would much rather swipe a credit card then try to manage their crypto wallet and their keys and so on. The best thing to do is teach people about the savings (not paying 1-3% to a CC processor and dealing with chargebacks) 2. Fees are a bit too high and the crypto is a bit too volatile - People don't want to deal with this, and there most likely isn't enough adoption to even warrant businesses setting up the infrastructure to accept crypto. But yes, the value is pretty low and I do hope this changes. |
|
|
|
I mean plus like, what prosecutor is going to go after the people betting among themselves? That's pretty much unheard of when it comes to small recreational people. They're going to go after the people using setting up gambling clubs and rings, and the people running big programs like this. No one cares (AT ALL) about the little people that are doing casual gambling. I personally know people who have lost everything due to a related incident. For some one studying finance you are pretty ignorant about how much destruction can be cause with the totalitarian financial regulations that exist in the US. Not saying it doesn't exist, just saying the likelihood of it happening is probably pretty low. You can do whatever you want when it comes to gambling online and all that, honestly it doesn't bother me in any way at all. You do you man. The billions of dollars of assets stripped from people in this country under civil asset forfeiture laws say otherwise. For some one who is so lassie-fair you seem rather interested in my decision here. By the way, weren't you supposed to be ignoring me for like the 4th time? Oh you are still ignored, just interested in the conversation here -- plus I have one of those bots that reminds me of when someone quotes me, so this is how I end up here. Selectively ignoring. Stay safe TecShare. |
|
|
|
I mean plus like, what prosecutor is going to go after the people betting among themselves? That's pretty much unheard of when it comes to small recreational people. They're going to go after the people using setting up gambling clubs and rings, and the people running big programs like this. No one cares (AT ALL) about the little people that are doing casual gambling. I personally know people who have lost everything due to a related incident. For some one studying finance you are pretty ignorant about how much destruction can be cause with the totalitarian financial regulations that exist in the US. Not saying it doesn't exist, just saying the likelihood of it happening is probably pretty low. You can do whatever you want when it comes to gambling online and all that, honestly it doesn't bother me in any way at all. You do you man. |
|
|
|
It is not paranoia if people are really out to get you, and you floppy shoe fucks sure have proven that.
You believing people "are really out to get you" is a product of your own paranoia. Regardless, there's a million ways to handle a bet where you would never sacrifice your legal well-being if you were interested, not that it was ever an issue for 1 second. I mean plus like, what prosecutor is going to go after the people betting among themselves? That's pretty much unheard of when it comes to small recreational people. They're going to go after the people using setting up gambling clubs and rings, and the people running big programs like this. No one cares (AT ALL) about the little people that are doing casual gambling. |
|
|
|
Joe Biden seems to be in talks with the governor of Michigan about a potential VP spot - https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/gretchen-whitmer-in-talks-to-become-joe-bidens-vp-pickThe final results for this state in the 2016 election was Trump - 2,279,543, 47.50%, Clinton - 2,268,839, 47.27%. It's clear Joe Biden is looking at swing states here and democrats really can't afford to lose Michigan or Wisconsin. Securing Michigan with Joe Biden's VP pick is a reasonable move but I feel democrats would have been more in tune with experienced politicians like Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris. Not susprising at all to do something like that, it's pretty typical to see a Presidential candidate do that to ensure their VP is actually useful. It's just like Trump picked Pence to lock up the evangelical vote, which was one of the key parts of his success even though he really isn't a religious person or liked by religious people -- they just associate him with Pence, and now his own pro religious policies, that he's liked enough (and more then Dems) I'm pretty sure Biden is the swing state / battleground state candidate -- guy is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and he may pick a VP candidate (also a female, which fulfills one of his earlier promises) from Michigan. May not work out, cause it sounds a bit too simple, but we'll see. I still can't see Biden beating Trump, that's just me though. |
|
|
|
|
I've seen a few of these threads, but I still think this is a very important conversation to continue.
The good side of this that the people and governments are going to take infectious diseases more serious in the future, they're going to put money towards research and stockpiles and hopefully this will ensure that 'next time' isn't as bad or isn't bad at all. If we have much better research, and can stop a virus like this in its tracks -- before its an issue -- then we won't have an issue that is like this today.
Stockpiles MAY help -- it'll at least help us gracefully get to the point of production for masks, ventilators, etc.
|
|
|
|
China might be winning the current "economy battle" as a result of Covid, there's no chance they'll win a trade war with the US, and they know it. The technology in question is American, but China is not the only country where American companies can manufacture stuff affordably. Any retaliatory measures the Chinese can take will only cause more damage to their economy in the long run.
Would have to agree with this. China relies on US consumers a lot more then US consumers rely on China. In a worst case scenario, where a large majority of manufacturing moved out of china, a large amount of other south east asian countries would be able to pick up the brunt of it -- maybe not instantly, but within a year or two. In the mean time, American manufacturing would have to step up. Would stuff be more expensive for sometime, and then normalize? Yes. Would this hurt the US economy? Yes. Consumers paying more for goods and companies not being as profitable is going to hurt. Will this hurt China more in the long run? Totally. They'd be losing an integral market and US companies / US national security wouldn't want to risk having too much US enterprise in China again. They'd probably incentivize manufacturing being done at home or in allied nations for this very purpose -- to ensure that a shock like this doesn't happen. China knows all of this though, and they're not going to fuck around. @DireWolfM14 of course China knows that they stand to loose more if trade war escalates with USA again, but at the same time Xi has to put on a strong face and assure the Chinese citizens that they’re winning the battle otherwise people will start questioning his authority, and he doesn’t like his authority being questioned. @squatz1 it’s not just the US companies who’re looking to exit China, as many foreign companies too are planning to move out of China, hence China must do everything in their power to retain Apple, and failure to do so will have a negative impact on their economy in the long run. Sources: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/1000-foreign-firms-mull-production-in-india-300-actively-pursue-plan-as-exit-china-mantra-grows/story/401462.htmlhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/07/new-data-shows-us-companies-are-definitely-leaving-china/#1b52ffc140fehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/paramount-and-paranoid-chinas-xi-faces-a-crisis-of-confidence/2019/08/02/39f77f2a-aa30-11e9-8733-48c87235f396_story.htmlhttps://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/pandemic-speeds-up-iphone-makers-plans-to-exit-chinaYou're right on the Xi having to put on a strong face thing, it's the same thing that Putin does. These leaders (we can just call them dictators) can't look weak in global negotiations or they're going to fall, which is why they continue to push strong man arguments in public while their negotiators behind the scenes aren't doing the same thing. Kinda helps when you have state run media (in both countries) rooting for you and making it look like whatever you do is you being a strong leader. China is going to get hurt if this escalates, we can just leave it at that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
