|
1261
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Would socialised housing and food work?
|
on: February 26, 2020, 04:48:57 PM
|
|
I mean I think that there is an issue with going about the problem this way. As all your plan is is proposing throwing money at a problem and praying that it will change because we assume that money can fix every problem. I'm pretty sure that someone like Bill Gates has proved that you can't just throw money at charitable causes to fix them, it requires true change -- not just money.
If you want to fix something like housing, you need a partnership between developers and those in government. Government shouldn't be in the business of building housing for people, nor should they be administering it. Government is wasteful, and it's not going to be worth it to do this. In the US (in certain states I'm pretty sure) we have section 8 housing, which is housing partially paid for by the government but administered (and owned) by those in the private sector.
If we incentize building and housing of people who are low income, I feel like that's a much better and cheaper solution then allowing for the government to just house people without any true fix in housing.
|
|
|
|
|
1262
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: 2020 Democrats
|
on: February 26, 2020, 04:43:06 PM
|
Yep, even in countries with large numbers of parties -- at the end of the day these parties typically end up in a coalition with two large groups. One being the people in power, and the others being apart of the opposition.
It's just a more complex way of going to two parties again.
Though I think in the US when we talk about having a third party, we think and talk about this party taking the place of one of the other two. At least that's what I think. We have a better chance reforming the existing parties. Both have gone through lots of change. IMO the Republicans have made some improvements while the Democrats are in full reverse. Not sure of that, what reason would the parties want to be reformed and how would they be reformed? A party is like a private company, they cant be forced by the government to change things just cause they want to. The parties (from within) are the only chance to change things, which I think limits the ability for this change to happen without some sort of 3rd party challenge. That's how a good deal of change (politically) has happened in America. A 3rd party has grown, or brings some sort of idea to the forefront of politics, and one of the 2 big parties uses that ideas and runs with it. That's why someone like Andrew Yang ran for office. He knew he wasn't going to win, but he wanted to bring the information relate to UBI to the people. |
|
|
|
|
1263
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Is there any proof fractional reserve banking goes on to in the UK or globally
|
on: February 26, 2020, 04:40:05 PM
|
I think it's important to note that these banks aren't acting all by themselves when they're 'creating' this money. They're working alongside the Federal Reserve to be allowed to just electronically create the funds. The fed knows how much money is being created, and there is regulation when this is done. it's not like a bank can just send you 1 trillion dollars without any sort of oversight at all.
But back onto the topic here: Yes, fractional reserve banking is a VERY common practice in the world. Typically only comes up around common people when there is some sort of bank run. But ya know, in the US and EU there is the FDIC / EU backing of funds in the bank (up to 250??k in the us, and 100k in the EU)
Yeah insurance on savings is a thing here, it's generally per bank per person too... So the £86k limit of FSCS protection is just per entity relationship (citizen number to bank). Yeah, same thing as here. If I had 10 bank accounts at 10 different banks, in theory I could have 2.5m in coverage from the FDIC in the event of some sort of horrid bank crisis and bank run. So yeah. Not sure if FDIC has ever had to make large payouts, but at least it's their. |
|
|
|
|
1264
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Is there any proof fractional reserve banking goes on to in the UK or globally
|
on: February 26, 2020, 05:12:43 AM
|
This often gets explained as a "concept" or "theory" but does this actually happen? Not only does fractional reserve banking take place, but combined with lending out money that doesn't actually exist, it is the main form of money creation in the world. Lots of people think that the majority of new money which enters circulation is "printed" by the government, when in fact, only about 3% of it is. Around 97% of new money entering circulation comes from banks practicing fractional reserve and therefore creating new money to lend out. Now, in terms of the UK specifically, here are a couple of publications directly from the Bank of England (the UK's central bank) which you might find interesting. The first one, available here ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2016/central-banks-and-digital-currencies.pdf), is from a presentation given by the Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy. I would draw your attention to the first chart at the top of page 9, showing that "Reserves inc. cash" is absolutely dwarfed by the "Liabilities" column. The second one, available here ( https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf), is a report the Bank of England issues a few years ago. It specifically states that commercial banks practice fractional reserve and create new money out of thin air. Here are a couple of relevant quotes: This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out. In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending, nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available. I think it's important to note that these banks aren't acting all by themselves when they're 'creating' this money. They're working alongside the Federal Reserve to be allowed to just electronically create the funds. The fed knows how much money is being created, and there is regulation when this is done. it's not like a bank can just send you 1 trillion dollars without any sort of oversight at all. But back onto the topic here: Yes, fractional reserve banking is a VERY common practice in the world. Typically only comes up around common people when there is some sort of bank run. But ya know, in the US and EU there is the FDIC / EU backing of funds in the bank (up to 250??k in the us, and 100k in the EU) |
|
|
|
|
1265
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 26, 2020, 05:01:01 AM
|
He praised a literacy program. Are you anti-literacy? Florida might just be. That is the talking point you are going with? Hitler pulled Germany out of a massive depression, I guess he wasn't all bad. He said a lot more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhpVAkBDg5oAt no point in that video did he praise violence other than the overthrow of an actual dictator. He praised food programs, land programs, youth programs, mass transit and consistently showed disdain for authoritarian and totalitarian rule. Its about nuance. Every country has bad things. The US has tortured and killed millions. Really doesn't matter what he said in the world of politics, its what the people think he said and understand that he said. A large deal of people think that Bernie was praising the regime as a whole, which he wasn't. I still don't think it makes sense to praise the Cubans in anyway, because while they may have been educating the people -- it didn't change the fact that the regime was a horrid one and praising them at all is going to enrage a large deal of Americans -- especially Cuban democrats (especially in Florida) |
|
|
|
|
1266
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: 2020 Democrats
|
on: February 26, 2020, 04:55:05 AM
|
The two party system isn't broken, its just flawed.
My next portion of this is all theory and all something that'd been drawn up in my brain. At the moment we have a two parties, yes, but I do think that there is a uniparty. The two parties argue about the stuff that the voters worry about: abortion rights, gun rights, minor tax law changes, administrative changes, criminal law changes, etc.
But the uni party ALWAYS agrees with one another in ensuring that it is hard for a third party to grow. They'll do everything in their power to limit that -- increasing the number of signature you need to be on the ballot, making elections a regulatory mess, etc -- they'll continue to pass things that both of them love and want to do: the growth of government, surveillance of the people, stuff along those lines. I never made the claim it was perfect, simply that it exists for as very logical reason that most people do not take into account. On certain issues there certainly does exist some sort of collaboration to screw the general population. Unfortunately this would exist regardless of us having 2 parties or 30. The only difference is the nation would be only more Balkanized making it easier to control. Divide and conquer. Furthermore this process could be accelerated by making it possible to introduce a more extremist minority to power. Changes definitely are needed, but this is by no means a simple problem. We should be careful that our "solutions" don't regress our society rather than progress our society. Yep, even in countries with large numbers of parties -- at the end of the day these parties typically end up in a coalition with two large groups. One being the people in power, and the others being apart of the opposition. It's just a more complex way of going to two parties again. Though I think in the US when we talk about having a third party, we think and talk about this party taking the place of one of the other two. At least that's what I think. |
|
|
|
|
1267
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: 2020 Democrats
|
on: February 25, 2020, 09:21:15 PM
|
The two party system isn't broken, it should be preserved for a very good reason. It was designed to cause constant conflict so that politicians would spend most of their time fighting each other, and less time cooperating to fuck the general population. Furthermore introducing a third party would allow the votes from the two main parties to be divided enough to create the potential for an extremist minority to take control. Just look at what a disaster the multiparty system has been in various parts of Europe.
The two party system isn't broken, its just flawed. My next portion of this is all theory and all something that'd been drawn up in my brain. At the moment we have a two parties, yes, but I do think that there is a uniparty. The two parties argue about the stuff that the voters worry about: abortion rights, gun rights, minor tax law changes, administrative changes, criminal law changes, etc. But the uni party ALWAYS agrees with one another in ensuring that it is hard for a third party to grow. They'll do everything in their power to limit that -- increasing the number of signature you need to be on the ballot, making elections a regulatory mess, etc -- they'll continue to pass things that both of them love and want to do: the growth of government, surveillance of the people, stuff along those lines. |
|
|
|
|
1268
|
Economy / Economics / Re: In the past where taxes were honoured ~
|
on: February 25, 2020, 01:57:31 AM
|
|
I think there is a lot to break down in what you've just wrote.
I can't think of any system off the top of my head where people were rewarded, socially, for providing the most to government, at least in the modern era. If someone is able to find something like this, I'd love to read into it a bit.
Taxes are honored as of right now. Honored, in my view of the word, simply means paying all that is owed of you. Whatever the current law of the land is in regards to what you have to pay is that you pay. And that's what most Americans and most rich people do. I would never want to pay a penny more then what I have to pay someone, and it shouldn't be expected that I go above and beyond for some reason.
Also, when people talk of something like loopholes I truly laugh. Loopholes aren't something that are abused by the rich, poor, middle class, etc -- they're created and the IRS knows about them and they're fine with how the law is interpreted as of right now. If you ever see someone going about the tax code in a way that the IRS doesn't agree with, or doesn't feel is proper, they're going to start litigation against them and the law will decide what is the correct interpretation.
So yeah, that's my little rant about taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
1269
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 25, 2020, 01:44:58 AM
|
Sorry about the misquote. Don't underestimate the power of the ever-increasing desperation from the media and all other angles of establishment to smear Bernie. First he was a sexist, then he was antiunion, then he was russian, now he's a communist. I expect something to come out smearing him as a racist against black people by the end of the week ahead of South Carolina. They will try and try until something sticks.
Not an issue, just wanted to make sure you noticed it. Really didn't do anything to me! But I've been keeping the news rolling and I've seen that Bloomberg is running tons of attack ads on Bernie right now, saying that he is a supporter of the NRA and that he beleives in too relaxed of gun control laws -- which is true, pretty sure for a good amount of time he had a pretty high rating from the NRA. Makes sense that he did though, as he comes from a state with high gun ownership -- Vermont -- and that was an issue that his voters supported him in doing. Bloomberg is currently saying that Bernie is a buddy of the NRA, while he's their enemy. Bloomberg is a large supporter of gun control groups by the way. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/24/mike-bloomberg-attacks-sanders-gun-control/4858400002/ |
|
|
|
|
1270
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 25, 2020, 01:30:56 AM
|
Some on the far left might argue the establishments hate for Bernie is so strong they would rather Trump than Bernie. This is not the position of "the establishment", this is the position of the majority of Americans. There aren't many things more establishment than the communist policies Bernie is pushing. You like to cry that this designation is unfair, but the man honeymooned in the USSR, and literally just praised the communist revolution in Cuba AGAIN. I assure you that just lost him AT LEAST Florida, which has a massive Cuban refugee population. Characterizing him as a communist is quite fair. Bernie had his chance in 2016, and being the jellyfish he is, he bent over and submitted to Killery and took the absolute corrupt ass fucking he got down on his knees without so much as a peep of an objection. People are going to remember that come November. Also most Americans realize the policies he is advocating for are insane, unattainable, and will bankrupt the nation. Short of Trump starting a nuclear war, nothing is going to stop him from getting another 4 years. You keep dreaming. He praised a literacy program. Are you anti-literacy? Florida might just be. I love this talking point! If only elections and voters worked like this. You would think that after all the years and after 2016 the MSM would finally understand that the "lanes" theory doesn't work. Everyone kept saying the moderate gop candidates should drop out to coalesce around 1 candidate to beat trump. What happened was when those morons dropped out Trump scooped up a big enough part of them to crush even more! Voters are not ideologically locked into one lane, look at Bidens polls, consistently the second choice of Biden supporters is Bernie. Lanes aren't real except for in the talking head class!
Unfortunately, the DNC convention does work this way. This is why they won't drop out. If they dropped out now, Bernie would win by even more but if they all stay in, they can keep him under 50% and pool delegates against him at the convention. No single candidate has a chance to beat him but together they all can beat him and would preserve a chance for any of them to be the nominee on the 2nd ballot. Biden soaks up delegates in the south, Amy wins Minnesota, Warren soaks up delegates on the coasts, Pete soaks up delegates in the midwest and Bloomberg buys up delegates everywhere else. Bernie isn't going to finish less than 2nd anywhere so everyone who is competing in a single state will stay in through the convention. O You misquoted me here, think you meant to quote Flying Hellfish. But I'll respond anyway. That's the goal right now, try to keep Bernie under 50 percent -- and that's not going to be easy in the least. If Bernie continues to win states, the momentum is going to go his way and the voters are going to begin to see him as more and more electable as this process goes on. As I've said time and time again, it is now Bernie vs 50 percent -- but if he continues to win every single state he'll probably beat that. If the rest of them keep the delegate count close, this'll get interesting come time for the convention in Milwaukee. |
|
|
|
|
1271
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Coronavirus: How can YOU help?
|
on: February 24, 2020, 11:52:27 PM
|
I think the Coronavirus should help prevent it Most people in our country should be educated before they can be illiterate ...
Interesting observation. This is what we get from the tons and tons of campaign spammers that come here and spew shit all the time. Really wish someone would step up the enforcement of that(nudge nudge hellfish) but yeah. How do you help - if you've went to a country that is currently quarantined due to coronavirus outbreaks, fucking tell the proper authorities. Usually the best bet is to contact the campaign manager directly. I have no idea who runs that one though. Most of these shitty campaigns -- who accept literally anyone and don't care about posting quality -- are either run by the company themselves or are run by some no name campaign manager. Though I will take a look to see if I can find the one who runs it, and point him to this horrid posting quality. Been a big issue in P&S, and it really ruins the content here. I'd rather have all of us arguing over if we should be using self mod threads then seeing shitty camp spam. |
|
|
|
|
1272
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Coronavirus: How can YOU help?
|
on: February 24, 2020, 09:52:51 PM
|
I think the Coronavirus should help prevent it Most people in our country should be educated before they can be illiterate ...
Interesting observation. This is what we get from the tons and tons of campaign spammers that come here and spew shit all the time. Really wish someone would step up the enforcement of that(nudge nudge hellfish) but yeah. How do you help - if you've went to a country that is currently quarantined due to coronavirus outbreaks, fucking tell the proper authorities.There are some clusters of people who are infected that their government doesn’t know how they got the virus. Based on this, some people are not disclosing recent travel to dangerous places. I'm confused on what you're actually saying here. Obviously, there are people out there that have traveled from one country to another that weren't documented for in some way and because of that the government of that country doesn't know if they're sick with the coronavirus. But if you know that you've went to one of these countries, then inform the proper authorities so they can take action and ensure that you and the people around you are safe. Cause at this point you've probably infected many others. |
|
|
|
|
1273
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 24, 2020, 09:37:05 PM
|
But in any case, I do truly think that the DNC isn't going to allow this to happen. They're going to try something, anything, to ensure that Bernie isn't the nominee.
The problem is anything they try will only further Bernies support... They are trying, have you seen the real time meltdown of the talking heads on the msm. It is truly magically inspiring to watch their heads explode in real time on national television!!! Politics 101, NEVER attack the voters you will need to vote for you... By calling Bernie supports, fools or communists won't sit well with the folks you as a politician would need to steal from Bernie if you want to beat Bernie. The stupidity of the establishment is beyond epic! I'm not sure how they're going to do it, Neither do they, that is why they are in full on panic mode!  but at the end of the day they DONT want Bernie as their nominee.
Some on the far left might argue the establishments hate for Bernie is so strong they would rather Trump than Bernie. It doesn't matter after Bernie fucking destroyed NV. His coalition is set in stone now, he is going to have a majority by Milwaukee so the DNC can bend the knee or go away. This is the start of the end of the Neolibs who have destroyed the working class for 40+ years! Yeah, I've seen all of those articles. Talking about how the establishment dems / dnc are in a tough predicament becuase they know they cant go after Bernie in the media -- that will just embolden his supporters -- and they don't know what exactly to do right now. As you said, they're in full panic mode. All it is now is Bernie against the majority threshold. That's what hes fighting against. |
|
|
|
|
1274
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 24, 2020, 02:59:12 PM
|
I never thought I'd be saying this (Flying Hellfish knows this is true) but currently, Bernie Sanders who is an independent, is the frontrunner to be the Dem nominee in 2020. Not something I imagined would happen with someone who self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, but it's where we're at today.
I still think that the DNC is going to fight tooth and nail to steal this one from Bernie. I have a few theories on how this is going to be done. Obviously all of this is given that Bernie doesn't have a majority of the delegates (1996 delegates, something around that) at the time of the convention:
1. The Moderates Band Together - Not sure who would be the to lead this coalition. But this is pretty much the line of thinking that Pete, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden all work together in someway to win the nomination. If they all pooled their polling numbers together, they'd be a true formidable foe to Bernie. They could even keep running at the moment and try to pick up as many delegates as they can, using their delegates on one another. I love this talking point! If only elections and voters worked like this. You would think that after all the years and after 2016 the MSM would finally understand that the "lanes" theory doesn't work. Everyone kept saying the moderate gop candidates should drop out to coalesce around 1 candidate to beat trump. What happened was when those morons dropped out Trump scooped up a big enough part of them to crush even more! Voters are not ideologically locked into one lane, look at Bidens polls, consistently the second choice of Biden supporters is Bernie. Lanes aren't real except for in the talking head class! 2. The Re-Rise of Biden - Biden had a strong second place finish in Nevada, exactly what his campaign needed. If he has a real strong finish in South Carolina, like his campaign has been relying HEAVILY on, then he could be back in the race. He'd still need some of the other moderates to drop out to REALLY have a shot, but even without this he could show himself to be the only one who could go against Bernie. Horrible candidate in my eyes, but possible. Joe biden has run for the nomination for presidential candidate 3 times now. In those 3 attempts he has NEVER won a single state... I love how the moderates and msm are claiming that Biden losing by almost 30 points is a strong finish LOL (please Joe keep finishing that strong!). Imagine for a second Bernie after winning IA and NH losing by 30 points to anyone the msm would declare his campaign over! Now imagine Bernie finished 4th and 5th in IA and NH and then finishing 2nd by 30 points, they would be laughing on TV at him, but of course it was a strong finish for Joe! I also love how they keep moving the goal posts. "Don't worry when IA votes Bernie will be done", "Pete did so well in IA that Bernie is in trouble in NH", "wait till NV when a multi-racial state votes", "wait till SC when black voters weigh in", wait till super tuesday when Bloomberg will swoop in with billions to save us moderates", "wait till the convention so we can super delegate Bernies ass. Please please moderates keep waiting while Bernie racks up state after state and continues to raise millions upon millions of dollars more than the non billionaire candidates! Thank you establishment for making this so much easier! 3. Mr. Money Bags - Bloomberg is able to pull off the unthinkable. Even after his horrible debate performance, the voters disregard this and they just look at all of the ads that he's dumped into their states and they pick him. This is what the Bloomberg camp is hoping and praying for. They need a BIG WIN on super Tuesday to use as their mandate to lead. Even a strong second place finish in every single Super T state will mean that he can push the other moderate voters toward himself. Bloomberg has zero percent chance of hitting the convention with a plurality let alone a majority. His only chance (and its pretty much gone now) is a brokered convention. Imagine spending billions of dollars when your best shot is a brokered convention that if stolen will guarantee you can't win the general! Bloomberg has a limit on what his money will buy (a ceiling, you know like the one the msm claimed Bernie has a 20% ceiling LOLOLOL), ask Tom Steyer who spent 10's of millions in NV only to finish with nothing, absolutely nothing. Honestly Bloombergs attack ads on Trump help Bernie, they remind voters how much they hate trump and they remind voters that he is trying to buy the election and that his money is a problem in politics just like the front runner Bernie has been saying for 40 years! Bloomberg is GIVING Bernie's message half a billion dollars of confirmation!!! Thank you moderates and establishment morons, your predictable, consistent hypocrisy is fueling the exact thing you are terrified of! Bernies train is fueled on establishment tears so I for one hope they don't stop crying anytime soon! Now lets hear all the party unity and vote blue no matter who the establishment has been screaming about since 2016 (don't hold your breath though it would be hazardous to your health)! TLDR; It's too late, barring some crazy shit happening Bernie will be the democratic nominee for President in 2020! While I probably should've said that all of what I said has a low chance of happening, I think you've now pointed that out! But in any case, I do truly think that the DNC isn't going to allow this to happen. They're going to try something, anything, to ensure that Bernie isn't the nominee. I'm not sure how they're going to do it, or whats going to happen, but at the end of the day they DONT want Bernie as their nominee. I'm getting very Trump like feels in regards to Bernie, which may mean that everything I'm saying is wrong and that he will perform a hostile takeover of the party (as Trump did) We'll see  ))))) |
|
|
|
|
1275
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Coronavirus: How can YOU help?
|
on: February 24, 2020, 05:11:10 AM
|
I think the Coronavirus should help prevent it Most people in our country should be educated before they can be illiterate ...
Interesting observation. This is what we get from the tons and tons of campaign spammers that come here and spew shit all the time. Really wish someone would step up the enforcement of that(nudge nudge hellfish) but yeah. How do you help - if you've went to a country that is currently quarantined due to coronavirus outbreaks, fucking tell the proper authorities. |
|
|
|
|
1276
|
Other / Politics & Society / Bernie Sanders is the Frontrunner for the Dems
|
on: February 24, 2020, 03:50:16 AM
|
|
I never thought I'd be saying this (Flying Hellfish knows this is true) but currently, Bernie Sanders who is an independent, is the frontrunner to be the Dem nominee in 2020. Not something I imagined would happen with someone who self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, but it's where we're at today.
I still think that the DNC is going to fight tooth and nail to steal this one from Bernie. I have a few theories on how this is going to be done. Obviously all of this is given that Bernie doesn't have a majority of the delegates (1996 delegates, something around that) at the time of the convention:
1. The Moderates Band Together - Not sure who would be the to lead this coalition. But this is pretty much the line of thinking that Pete, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden all work together in someway to win the nomination. If they all pooled their polling numbers together, they'd be a true formidable foe to Bernie. They could even keep running at the moment and try to pick up as many delegates as they can, using their delegates on one another.
2. The Re-Rise of Biden - Biden had a strong second place finish in Nevada, exactly what his campaign needed. If he has a real strong finish in South Carolina, like his campaign has been relying HEAVILY on, then he could be back in the race. He'd still need some of the other moderates to drop out to REALLY have a shot, but even without this he could show himself to be the only one who could go against Bernie. Horrible candidate in my eyes, but possible.
3. Mr. Money Bags - Bloomberg is able to pull off the unthinkable. Even after his horrible debate performance, the voters disregard this and they just look at all of the ads that he's dumped into their states and they pick him. This is what the Bloomberg camp is hoping and praying for. They need a BIG WIN on super Tuesday to use as their mandate to lead. Even a strong second place finish in every single Super T state will mean that he can push the other moderate voters toward himself.
Anyone agree, disagree, etc? I'd love to heard it.
|
|
|
|
|
1278
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: 2020 Democrats
|
on: February 24, 2020, 03:26:51 AM
|
I think the biggest part of the debate last night is something the msm isn't covering too much. The 5 candidates who all said they would be OK with taking the nom away from the person with a plurality of delegates. No rational person that thinks they will have the plurality would say yes to that question, they all know full well (except Bernie of course) they are not getting to Milwaukee with a plurality or they would be like FUCK NO of course the person with a plurality should win it. The stench of panic from the establishment and the msm is over powering, if they steal the nom by giving it to some one without the plurality they risk a generation of young democrats (Millenials and Zoomers) being disenfranchised and the US will have GOP presidents for the foreseeable future... Imagine trying to sell this shit burger (and the msm will try to sell it ALL DAY LONG) "The person with the most delegates shouldn't be the nominee so we will give it to the person that LESS people wanted and has less delegates. Voters will swallow some pretty big shit burgers but that one seems like a bridge to far with Millenials and Zoomers!
As I said in an early post if there is one organization stupid enough to not see this (or ignore it) it is without a doubt the DNC. Or perhaps they do see it and absolutely don't give a fuck as Trump is better than Bernie for the neolibs
I think this part was to be expected. The people who aren't the frontrunners (by a long shot) are going to support a brokered convention taking things away from the frontrunner. Is it bullshit and undemocratic? Yes. But is that what the DNC is going to try to do? Yes. Don't forget folks, the DNC STILL HAS superdelagates -- they're just only allowed to vote if no one wins on first ballot. That means that 750 (somewhere in this realm) delegates could vote on the 2nd ballot to steal the nomination from the frontrunner, presumably Bernie. Bernie has dominated Nevada - nearly 50% albeit still counting. Whatever DNC conspiracy might be going on it doesn't look very successful so far. Biden in distant second place with ~20% and Pete (third) is complaining about "irregularities". But will the DNC give him their nomination? I don't know that they have to, regardless of whether he wins the majority of votes or not. Anyway it was surprising to see Biden take second, albeit a distant second. It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens on super Tuesday. Interesting thing I noticed while looking up the results on google; as the graphic below shows 60% tally is in, but only 7,652 people voted in the Democratic primary, which seems rather low. I don't know if they mean 60% of the counties have reported, and Clark County (Nevada's most populous by a large margin) might not be among them?  I'm pretty sure most delegates are forced to vote for their candidate on the first ballot (if their candidate is still running that is) So that's not something they can pull on first ballot, but on second ballot it can be done with ease. Campaigns can use backdoor deals to gain the delegates they need. The stench of panic from the establishment and the msm is over powering, if they steal the nom by giving it to some one without the plurality they risk a generation of young democrats (Millenials and Zoomers) being disenfranchised and the US will have GOP presidents for the foreseeable future... Imagine trying to sell this shit burger (and the msm will try to sell it ALL DAY LONG) "The person with the most delegates shouldn't be the nominee so we will give it to the person that LESS people wanted and has less delegates. Voters will swallow some pretty big shit burgers but that one seems like a bridge to far with Millenials and Zoomers!
That's what I'm hoping for. In my early teens (under G.W. Bush), I was very supportive of the Democrats. Partly this was because I was an idiot at the time, but partly it was for good reasons: the Democrats were pro-civil-liberties, pro-free-speech, anti-war, etc. The Democrats of that era at least gave the perception of "live and let live" (+ various welfare programs). Now, though, the Democrats have basically become the same as the religious, control-everyone's-lives neocons of the Dubya era, but with a weird "woke" religion replacing Christian fundamentalism. They are pro-war, authoritarian, anti-free-speech, supportive of the out-of-control semi-dictatorial administrative state, etc. I don't like the Republicans, but at least they have a bit of a pro-freedom philosophy buried somewhere within them. The Democrats on the other hand have become completely worthless from my perspective. If the nomination is stolen from Bernie, then the Democratic party will implode. Nature abhors a vacuum, though, and we will not see the Republicans win every single race from now until the end of time. Instead, in 4-8 years we will hopefully see a completely changed Democratic party, and I'm hoping that this will be a more worthwhile one. Probably it won't be one that I particularly approve of, and maybe it'll be even worse than now, but I'd like to roll those dice and hope for an improvement. (I also just enjoy seeing chaos in government/politics...) I wouldn't say the party would implode, but it would be the best time for a third political party to pick up some of the voters from the Bernie coalition. I know there'd be riots in the streets if this was the case, but I personally can't see an entire party going down for this -- the DNC is still huge and hugely powerful. Don't we all enjoy seeing a bit of chaos. |
|
|
|
|
1279
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Mainstream businesses/stores which accept Lightning Network payments?
|
on: February 21, 2020, 03:04:40 AM
|
With all that's coming, I believe that Bitcoin will become much more attractive to merchants/businesses than any other cryptocurrency known to date. Just my thoughts But it's just the same as Bitcoin itself. It's great for merchants and always has been. There's still zero incentive for the customer unless they're already into crytpo. Maybe LNs will come up with some truly unique uses but as it stands it's a curio inside a curio to the average personage. Beyond true, there's literally no incentive for merchants to hop onto the crypto wave. They're not going to get any more customers as the customers they currently have are going to use them if they use crypto or if they dont. Why accept crypto then? To save on fees? Maybe -- though most companies are going to want to use something like BitPay which is still going to charge them somewhere in the realm of 1 percent. |
|
|
|
|
1280
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Discussion (Altcoins) / Re: DeFi lending with MakerDao or Oasis give 8% interest in Ethereum
|
on: February 20, 2020, 08:40:36 PM
|
There is many in the space that are going to be great for you: DefiSaver is one that is pretty helpful, their smart contract lets you go between the different platforms to go on the one with the highest interest and the one that you trust. IEarn.Finance is one of the newer ones, has a pretty attractive APR at the moment but hasn't been around for that long. Check out LoanScan.io as well, as they post everything on there. Happy DeFi Who takes out loans with these guys, when there is a 50%( 50k on 25k!) collateral needed?  With 8% interest rates on crypto* are they not overcollateralized as **, as in, they have way more people "investing" in them than people taking out loans? Why would newer platforms offer higher APR than older more established platforms which probably securitize more loans? Who's taking out loans on these new platforms, especially when you need to overcollateralize by 50%? (I'd be wary of new platforms running with my collateral!) I don't understand these Lending platforms, and what i do understand about them just makes them look scummy to me, for example, sites such as Celsius and Nexo only let you earn high interest over the first x bitcoin, and on top of that, they want you to not put that money in bitcoin, but into their shit token?? Celsius, Nexo, and BlockFi are all custodial versions of this. I would never lump this into the Decentralized Finance that ETH is promoting. These are people that hold your money and then provide you interest, like a bank, but without the safeguards of a traditional bank (in the US think of the FDIC, in EU I know you guys have something similar) But typically people who are taking out these loans are using the money to use margin to bet on crypto -- either up or down, and they are paying people 7-10 percent for the usage of their money (this is going to differ from platform to platform) I think DeFi is amazing though, very cool, as no one has control of your money besides a smart contract. Trust the code is what you do in DEFI. There are some other risks present as well, but I've relaxed those for a moment. Coinbase Earn has some info on learning about DAI (a decentralized stablecoin) if you're interested. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
