But then again -- making a subject more challenging may not even help.

I think that schools should be more well prepared to push kids into Vocational and trade schools, instead of forcing everyone down the same college path. Because there is a large amount of people in the world that were pushed down the path of college because it's 'right for everyone' when it isn't, and people have to be exposed to alternate means of providing for themselves.

Not everyone is suited for a desk job, and I think schools have forgotten that.

I mean, it hurts consumers yes -- but it is also lowering the amount of revenue that China is getting from selling these products in the US, as people are turning to other products to purchase instead of purchasing Chinese goods. So the way this helps is that it forces China to actually look into policing intellectual property related issues, which is something that they've turned a blind eye too while they've been able to make an immense amount of money from.

China will literally allow their companies to simply steal from other companies, with nothing being done to stop this behavior.

Yes, maybe there is a better way to force China into dealing with this issue -- but to say that China is the 'good guy' in this situation is unfair.

Thought this was going to be bullshit, but I guess it isn't - https://www.bbc.com/news/av/45104007/why-gdp-includes-the-illegal-drugs-trade

It also adds a large amount of money to the economy -- about $10B. Though I doubt this is enough to be able to counteract the amount of money spent on combatting the illegal drug trade, through healthcare, policing, etc.

We'd be much better off legalizing certain things -- such as prostitution, marijuana, and then regulating them to ensure that the industries aren't left to kingpins and some horrible people.

Not something that would be able to get through in the US in particular. Mostly because of the fact that the general opinion on the matter is that children should be able to learn with everyone, and not to be sorted among who's the smartest (and who's not) I don't really think it's really fair, to do that sort of thing to people.

Because it really depends on how you measure aptitude anyway, as you could unknowingly put 'dumb kids' with people who aren't actually smart.

Why would this be done anyway?

Well yeah, most gamblers care a lot more about sports then they care about a commitee of people randomly picking someone to win an award based on random arbitrary feelings of the judges and the committee themselves.

It's even been shown time and time again that these awards are garbage and are bought and paid for by performers, agents, consultants, etc as a way to bring more legitimacy to tv show, actor, music creator (as this one is) and such.

So yeah, this is a garbage thing to bet on.

Not surprised in the least.

Brazil's President probably isn't accepting this because he doesn't want to look weak from within his country. People looking at this from the outside can't understand this, as all they're thinking about is saving the rain forest -- but in the mind of Brazil's president, he can ignore that and continue his strongman image and pro business image.

It's a very weird thing to look at from the outside. But I can without a doubt see political enemies saying that he's weak because of the fact that he accepted aid from other countries and was unable to handle the issue himself. There's also the problem of different countries wanting a favor back (not in the news) from their monetary aid.

The craziest part of this story in my mind is the fact that former FBI agents, CIA agents and so on and so forth have stated that parts of this story and the way that the FBI/CIA contacted and worked with Byrne matched up with the way that the these agencies operate. Meaning that unless Byrne is just able to guess how very indepth counterintelligence works, this is the truth.

This is a crazy story and I want to check back here in a couple weeks to see if there are any updates.

I think it's a very fair point to point out that some people have used the office as a way to make tons of money out of it. Because people must understand that there's no reason a former President should be getting paid 100,000 per speech for no reason. There's not a way that these peoples words are worth this much.

But that's a fair thing to note -- these peoples words ARENT worth that much. These people must've used the powers of the office of the presidency, or their political power from within the office, to bring these groups that pay 100k (or anything really) for a speech a large amount of money. Meaning that, this is the payment back to the former President(s) for helping them out while they were in office.

This is the same sort of thing like how Congress people end up as lobbyists after they retire, or consultants, or whatever. Most people in Congress aren't worth it to become these high paid people in private sectors on their own merit. But once you use the powers of the office that they were just in, they're able to use it to get something after they retire.

Complete bullshit, but that's the system we live in.

I think the only Candidate on the Democratic side that has a chance to win the presidency is Biden, he's the only one that can light up moderates (and enough of the base) to be able to win the office. But with that said, I think picking him after picking Clinton a year before is a slap in the face to the progressive side of the party that wants to give someone 'new' a chance in the party.

They're done with the cabal of people handpicked by the elites, they want a progressive. But I doubt any of the progressives have a chance anyway.

But they don't have a minimum wage, and that's the truth.

Yes, some unions may control certain industries and be able to use that to force companies into paying above market rate rates for wages -- but that in no way is evidence of more socialism being present. They just have more unions, and that's not government control.

Both have something to lose out of this trade war, the Chinese can get hit pretty hard by not having American consumers -- and Americans (and American businesses) are sure going to miss the cheap labor that China provides for many American products.

So both people are going to be hurt here, but China does need to be reigned in on as they truly have been taking advantage of the US for a longtime now. As the Chinese have been able to steal intellectual property, without any real government oversight, for a long time now. It's about time someone stops them.

I mean : This sort of thing did work int he world of fiat, where it was simple for a bank to lock up your funds and for them to be labeled as such. But in the world of Crypto, these coins are going to be run through mixers and such -- obscuring who actually had control of the funds.

Meaning like, someone could receive blacklisted funds due to him providing a good/service for such funds, but now they're unable to use these funds / withdraw these funds on exchanges due to them being tainted.

Who knows how this is going to work out if these people actually do try to mix the coins or something like that, that's going to cause this to get very interesting.

It's important to note that even though there aren't any minimum wages, there are strong unions within Sweden that ensure that wages are high (even if these unions have been weakened in recent times)

Take an example relating to Toys R'Us when they tried to move into Sweden in the 90's. They attempted to try the same thing that they would've done in America, and tried to just high regular everyday workers instead of going to the pool of union workers to find people. But as the unions are much stronger in Sweden, they all said that they weren't going to work with Toys R'Us in any capacity -- meaning that the Truckers union wasn't delivering, retail unions refused to work for them, and so on and so forth.

Kinda sounds like Mafia when you look at it, but these unions forced Toys'R'Us to work with them, one way or another.

People who love the idea of socialism love to tout that Sweden is the best place in the world, and that it is what the USA should be. Bernie in particular echoes these statements, but these people fail to notice one key thing about Sweden -- it has RUTHLESS capitalism embedded in its nation to be able to support their massive entitlement programs.

Sweden isn't a nation that has what some call "warm, fuzzy, friendly capitalism" where people aren't fired (or laid off) and old companies are protected. This simply isn't the case in the least.

Sweden is a nation with much larger taxes on the poor and the middle class, and they feature non-progressive taxes on consumption, social security, and payroll taxes (which make up a much larger percentage of GDP for Sweden.

Sweden literally almost destroyed itself with JUST SOCIALIST policies. But they saved themselves from large scale issues by embracing large scale ruthless capitalism, with low taxes on companies and incentiving companies to come to Sweden.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bernie-sanders-is-wrong-about-sweden-11566596536

Well yes, do you know how we all know that people are stupid enough to think that this is genuine. It's been posted here and OP is calling it "an example for all"

So yeah, without a doubt some voters will think that this shows a strong woman who cares about her family as they're unable to see through the fact that this is a publicity stunt.

Legal implications would be highly dependent on where the corporation that owns the sportsbook is located. So that's an avenue that should be looked at when discussing something like this.

I would assume that having a token though would be classified as a security, which would remove certain customers from being able to use the site as a whole. Think of people in the US, who wouldn't be able to use security tokens due to the SEC not allowing this to happen.

Would probably be easier to run a casino with coins like BTC, ETH, and whatever as your bankroll reserves and such. There's no reason to make your own security for investment purposes for this sort of thing.

Common misconception buddy, Africa is a continent and not a country.

But onto the countries of Africa, I would assume that the Northern portion of Africa -- where most of the Muslim majority nations live, there's going to be no gambling. Yet again, this is due to the fact that Muslims can't engage in gambling.

The rest of the nations, towards the middle and lower half I would assume have theijr fair share of nations that restrict certain types of gambling, and others that don't restrict it at all. Though most of these nations are going to have one thing in common, they're most likely HEAVILY taxing all of the casinos and gambling establishments to make large amounts of money.

This information just isn't true.

Poland had casinos that are charted by the government to operate, so gambling isn't completetly banned in Poland. The islamic countries on this list are obviously going to ban gambling, as it doesn't fit in with their religion and isn't allowed to be played -- so that should be a given.

To japan now: Only certain types of gambling are banned, check out this quote from the WSJ:

What?

I don't see the reason for these babies to be sitting in front of parliament, it's a show and dance for the politicians to be able to further show that they are family oriented or some bullshit like that. Save it for the campaign trail, not where policy decisions should be debated and decided.

Well yes, he obviously isn't going to do that though.

This is because all of these picks are going to be the free ones -- and if he gets lucky over a short time period with no money involved, then he's going to have the BS credibility to sell 'premium' picks to people. Don't know why anyone does this, because this guy is banking off of pure chance and luck.