They don't but they would rather have her than someone on the verge of senility. He still has 2 more years to go before campaigning starts again for 2024. That's if he decides to run. He might just call it after a single term, which in that case, Kamala Harris celebrates having become the presumptive nominee. And she didn't even have to push him down the stairs either, everybody's happy.

https://www.newsweek.com/video-easter-bunny-interrupting-joe-biden-viewed-5-million-times-1698817

The U.S. might be ran by the Easter bunny and not Joe Biden. Certainly a plot twist. See the video above in which Joe Biden begins rambling on Afghanistan and is redirected, saved from himself, by none other than the Easter bunny. Who's in the costume?

My guess is Kamala Harris, she might've been waiting to accidentally trip Joe down the stairs so she can take the Presidency and blame Joe's demise on an animal.

Most people are already aware of Bitcoin but don't have the technical knowledge of entering the space. Not that much technical knowledge would be needed, but most people are in line with traditional notions of fiat currencies and it takes years to disrupt the beliefs. Bitcoin will end up working its way to the masses not by choice if major currencies begin to fail with hyperinflation so you might wait for that market to open, it's just going to take time.

It used to be that anyone believe in such "gender fluidity" would have been called mentally ill, but that is not politically feasible anymore so gender identity and gender expression are supposed to be subjective experiences based on feeling alone. Sex and gender are no longer synonymous with each other, and gender dysphoria, outlined as a mental illness in the DSM-V, can merely be fixed as long as it doesn't cause mental anguish. If a male were to identify as a woman and experience gender dysphoria, the solution according to today's medical practices is for that individual to self mutilate themselves in order to turn into a woman through gruesome surgical intervention. After that process, the person no longer experiences gender dysphoria and is somehow cured.

Gender fluid people would call themselves "non-binary" but what normal folks would call "mentally unstable."

Normally none of this would have any impact on ordinary functioning societies because we would not indulge in the delusion of these people that think their gender can be fluid, but in fact it's the opposite. You're seeing males being put into female prison systems, being allowed into female locker rooms, or being allowed to compete in women's sports. It's grotesque.

The government isn't looking to offer an alternative, they want to streamline fiscal control into a simple action of typing in numbers onto a keypad to alter the digital token supply of an entire economy. Fiat currencies lend themselves to overt governmental control but the distribution has a physical component. Most banking is online but there will still always be cash, and the government doesn't have any control over cash P2P transactions. The fact that CBDC's are being presented as even being remotely similar to crypto demonstrates their successful propaganda campaign. They aren't similar and I can guarantee you the long term goal will be to phase out fiat currencies for CBDC's and then use CBDC to replace crypto.

If you want true stability during inflation, precious metals is what you might diversify into. The individual percentage isn't particularly relevant, as long as you invest what you can. I haven't seen anyone that would be satisfied with their purchasing power going down with high inflation rates, so investing in something that has some solvency is better than letting your funds sit and lose value. People choose to not do anything and that's their prerogative, but even if you're capped at 20 percent, better than what most people are doing.

Economic systems change all the time. Did you think that cash based systems were the norm? I'm sure everybody did, then credit card technology was released and transactions became digital. The entirety of someone's net worth can be demonstrated by pixels on a screen, and wealth transfer can be instant. This tech only took some number of years to come to fruition and so give it some time for people to discard traditional currencies for crypto. The governmental trust between the government and its citizens already fragile. It takes little to break the bond. Bump the inflation rate through irresponsible spending and you'll see how quickly the people begin to lose faith in their government's fiat currency. I don't view government as an obstacle granted every citizen is on board. Challenge isn't really government, it's an ignorant population.

Supply doesn't matter, demand matters.

Bitcoin easily could become a relatively safe (absolute safety is not possible with any asset, even with precious metals) if mass adoption occurs. There isn't a lot of incentive to invest in Bitcoin if stability is your main goal but given the inflation rate of major currencies, there isn't much stability in fiat currency either. Perhaps it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils but if you're willing to hold out, any crypto misinformation won't be able to stop Bitcoin adoption as people recognize their bank accounts to be losing purchasing power with insane inflation rates.

CBDC's are the next iteration of money, therefore next on the evolutionary stage. Digital tokens aren't anything better than a digitalized version of cash, perhaps with some updated technology depending on how the central banks plan to introduce it. Money doesn't actually change, nor is crypto even to be considered money. Money is in place of a barter system. If not money, if not crypto, something would take its place.

You could have a social credit score be the next iteration of money, theoretically. Whatever we perceive to have value will be the next "money."

You're referring to pump and dumps? I don't know if I'd consider momentary crypto pumping schemes to be inclusive of the monolithic market. Maybe they are, I haven't been bothered to compare the price charts. Larger world events have an effect on all markets, including the crypto market. Bitcoin is inclusive in that crypto market, and as a result Bitcoin moving in price, most altcoins follow. I don't see any reason why this pattern would be disruptive considering this applies to literally every market there is.

The cryptocurrency market moves as a monolithic, and the crypto market moves in correlation with all the other markets. Bitcoin isn't intertwined with alts which would not allow for individual variance, but if Bitcoin tanks (or rises) so do the other major crypto's with reasonably high market caps. You can look at the stock market for evidence of this, there's the winners and losers, but the seismic changes generally occurs with events that transcend different markets - ie the war in Ukraine, you collectively saw a dip in all major markets and nearly all crypto currencies took a momentary dip in synchronization.

Notice all your links mention Hinduism? Cows are sacred to the Hindus so they drink cow piss because they don't know any better. It's seen as a holy animal. Try drinking cow piss and you'll end up with something a whole lot worse than COVID.

Taiwan doesn't want the Chinese government to invade them like they did with Hong Kong. The policy isn't as aggressive with Taiwan as the U.S. was with Ukraine. This is obvious because of geographical reasons, Ukraine's ambition to join NATO and such, but the U.S. interest in Taiwan lies within their microchip production. I don't think China would allow puppet government installation in Taiwan but that wouldn't be needed anyways, Taiwan is anti-CCP.

Twitter is opting for the poison pill approach: https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/15/tech/twitter-elon-musk-poison-pill/index.html

Musk won't be able to privatize the company, no matter how hard he tries. He's effectively capped at no more than 15 percent with Twitter's new approach. He's at around 9 percent in shares, Vangaurd Group (investment firm) bumped up their shares to 13 percent IIRC, so Musk isn't the largest shareholder anymore.

Either way, Musk could just dump all his shares and flood the market, he would still make money, Twitter loses in the end. If I were them, I would take his acquisition offer of 54 bucks a share. It's pure delusion for it to be worth that or a penny more, even.

It really is not. You should not take regulations lightly. The government can and absolutely will ban Bitcoin given the opportunity, using regulations as a cudgel to force compliance. They don't need your private keys nor do they want them. As long as they can convince everybody else that isn't yet a Bitcoin user that they should not adopt, their goals have been accomplished.



This is insanity, and coincidentally the U.S. also invoked terrorism or national security as a reason for regulation of crypto currency. It's becoming a pattern of lies and deception. Almost like there's collusion.

Even after factoring in COVID deaths, large portion of the life expectancy dip is because of drug usage and overdoses. Plenty of other developed nations have issues with obesity, although Americans might be in a league of their own. One could argue that Bitcoin would give financial freedom to those that are lower class, and the correlation between obesity and income is well established. Same with most drug users.

They were too late in adoption. This will help mitigate effects of sanctions but if they really wanted to be immune from matters related to asset freezes, they should've put their reserve holdings in crypto. Some years ago Russia began dumping USD from their reserves, to the tune of hundreds of billions, but that hasn't done much in saving the ruble because they're still cut off economically.

Crypto isn't the saving grace for Russia. They cannot use Bitcoin to get their way out of this. If they wanted relief, they should've gone down this path years ago.

What about Stalin? His rise from the Bolsheviks all the way to the Marxism–Leninism leader of Russia resulting in the death of millions is seen as a success story to some of the communists, so perhaps that's the reason he didn't make the your list after Ghengis Khan and Hitler. Maybe a close 4th after the U.S.?

You might reevaluate if the U.S. makes the same list as Adolf Hitler, and somehow China is mentioned no where for their actual record of human rights abuse and genocide. This could be an apples to oranges comparison, though.

Marginalization and inequity are the largest myths pushed by pseudo-intellectuals in sociology fields. Ask them how many unarmed black people in the U.S. die by police every year (I've been told that U.S. law enforcement are by far the most racist criminal organization in the world, government funded), the number is about a dozen every year. Yet we are led to believe law enforcement marginalizes minorities based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics. How much marginalization happens because of an inherently corrupt system versus a person choosing to make bad choices based on their own free will?

If minorities earn less on average compared to whites, is that inequity of the system or is that dependent on personal decision making? Depending on the country you live in, it could be one or the other. Developed countries do not have a problem with systemic racism. The real systemic racism exists in places like China, see the Uyghur Muslim genocide.

Unfortunately this is the plan, at least for the authoritarian regimes that seek total control over their economies. CBDC's make it easier to control the money supply and offer an alternative to the traditional cash systems that we see. If the government can phase that out and eliminate intermediary processing services at the same time (credit card companies like Visa and such), they'll swap out CBDC's for their own currency and ban bitcoin to force adoption.