Not voting is not the fix.
Most likely USA simply becomes a strongman government with the president doing pretty much as he or she pleases.
Not a lot of hope for US as it is setup to crush 98% of the people.
0.5%. are rich
1.5% are cops 👮 or military enforcers that do physical crushing.
98%. are sheep 🐑
Most likely that becomes the case? That is literally the case right now. The President of the United States is literally just a King with the amount of power they yield with the administrative state. They can use EO's all day to flex their power and just stop enforcing pretty much everything that Congress does / tries to do. But yes, there is pretty much no hope as the two party system loves giving the President more power as they get to control it every so often. Taking turns and running the nation is pretty cool, LOL. |
|
|
|
With regard to monero, Trump has stated that the US dollar is the most dominant currency measured globally and will always be that way. The US President also added that the US dollar is very reliable, can be relied on, and currently, it is stronger than ever. Previously, Trump had mentioned that Bitcoin and other cryptos are “not money!” It is very likely that this US President will cause the price of BTC to fall if he bans it. maybe this is a hacker initiative so that Cryptocurrency can be more attention by Trump
Not really sure what you're trying to say here. But in regards to the whole - 'It is very likely that this US President will cause the price of BTC to fall is he bans it' - It's not very likely, it is literally what will happen. All of those amazing stories about MicroStrategy buying hundreds of millions of $'s of Bitcoin would have to go away, as they'd be liquidating that. Money on any US regulated exchange would go right back to USD. Market would literally tank ASAP. But IMO there's too many big names with lobbying power involved for an all out ban, especially with the fact that Bitcoin isn't a threat to the traditional system / traditional investments. |
|
|
|
XMR part was a nice touch, and also a smart one. With Bitcoin, if the hackers were to have gotten any donation (I doubt it) and then wanted to cash out, they could be tracked (might take a large deal of resources, but the FBI and the President....). XMR doesn't even allow that. But yeah the whole hacking was NOT fake news. It did happen. FBI is investigating. |
|
|
|
I gather that Coinbase has had to release trading details for UK residents who have withdrawn over £5,000 in the last year. This seems to be in line with the demands of revenue departments in other countries. One result of this is that P2P transactions are likely to increase in the future, and details of these do not appear in the price movement stats.
How do you think this will affect statistical analysis of price movements, and should we be worried about this? I can see some large players recording losses on the exchanges to drive down the price, and then buying at a lower price in private transactions.
Larger players aren't going to try to skirt tax law with that. There's no reputable company, with that amount of crypto, that will just ignore the regulatory concerns of reporting this sort of purchase. Just because CoinBase reports your stuff to the IRS doesn't mean that other companies just get to ignore it because it's a private transaction. Do ya really think the IRS is going to be all happy with the fact that you wired 50M to someone out of the country randomly? That'll probably be the reason for a red flag and a explanation on your part. Not the way this is going to work. |
|
|
|
Let's try to get back on track. Democrats said this, Republicans said that - doesn't matter much anymore with about a week to go. I find it quite amazing that 40% of 2016 turnout have already voted... 55 million people by some estimates. Democrats up by about 8-10% (by party registration numbers where available) but as TwitchySeal noted about Florida, Republicans will likely keep catching up as the election day draws closer. Makes me wonder what the total turnout is going to be. After what happened last time, I don't have faith in the pollsters at all. To come up with my results what I did was look at an average of polls from 2016 at this time of year and find the difference between what they projected vs. what actually happened (what I referred to as "M.O.E." in the table below). It's basically working on an assumption that they will be equally as wrong this time around. If they are even just slightly more correct, Biden has a good shot of winning Florida; WI and AZ not so much.
I don't believe the margin of error is going to be exactly the same... if for no other reason than demographic and other changes in the 4 years. Some polling issues specific to Trump (underweighing non-college-educated voters for example) have probably been addressed so I would expect smaller and less-one-sided errors this time around. This is really my line of thought. I really can't see pollsters making the same mistake twice when it comes to Trump and his voters. I'd think that they may be polling a little bit in his favor to ensure that they don't embarrass themselves again. Literally all bullshit theory that I'm just pulling out of my ass, though that's just what I expect to happen this time around. I've voted though. I trust the mail system and think that it's fine to just send an absentee ballot in. At least in my state there aren't any concerns relating to voting by mail. |
|
|
|
From what I can tell, Muslims don't have much reason to hate Christians very much
Well, it depends on how much they take the book literally. For example, Surah 9:123 can be used/interpreted in many ways. If you have a good family and your parents teach you about morality, you will have a good conscience to reject this passage's hateful interpretation. Don't get me wrong, both Christian and Islam have a book that contains violence. The difference is, Christian seems don't take their book too literally (CMIIW). PS: I'm just a pundit, and this is what I observe. Seems insane to think that anti-sharia teachings are really something that people are WILLING TO KILL OVER. I'd have to say that as a Catholic, I do not think that we have anything that rises to that occasion that would be enforced by anyone. Even like, being a homosexual isn't something that even extremists Christians will kill you over. Really, really insane. |
|
|
|
|
.......
Well, people would pay for a Covid test in order to find out if they have COVID.
If you pay for the rapid test, then yes there is a higher chance of you having a false pos/neg.
If you pay for the regular test, which is the one that goes pretty far into your nose, then your chance of a false pos/neg are pretty low.
Not really sure why everything has to be a conspiracy for ya Jet Cash.
|
|
|
|
Especially after watching both conventions, I really got the sense that both parties are at their core fascist parties, with only relatively minor differences between them. For both of them, their central tenants are nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, and maintaining the American empire. In the Democratic convention, "UNITY!!!" was the resounding message, while in the Republican convention, "LAW & ORDER!!!" was what they chose to most focus on.
After the election, there will probably be quite a bit of violence, which is really sad and pathetic. For almost everyone, 99.9% of life will be the same under Trump or Biden, but yet probably at least a quarter of Americans are going to feel a certain sense of hopelessness and/or fear after their candidate loses the election. According to an August Pew poll, only 16% of voters say that "things will be pretty much the same regardless of who is elected," even though this is in fact the reality. I feel bad for all of the people who have tied themselves up personally with this election, as if Trump or Biden actually cared about them, or as if their election will actually matter much to the voters personally.
That said, the election result won't be unimportant. The executive branch has been ceded more and more power by Congress over the decades, so a president can do quite a bit. A president could for example wield the administrative state in such a way as to make it very difficult to use Bitcoin without existing in the shadows, and a Biden administration is probably more likely to move in this direction than a Trump administration. I'd also prefer to see a Trump win because it's likely to lead the coastal states to think much more seriously about secession, which would be one path toward ending the Federal Reserve as we know it. (I think that political action of any sort almost never has positive expected value, though, including in this election.)
Yup. Both parties are literally the same. They all are here to ensure that the richest in their little high society is happy. Dems make a large stink about abortion, immigration, etc. Republicans make an issue out of Guns, Immigration, and so on. At the end of the day the uni party is still together in ensuring that : 1) No third party is every able to rise up and take power from the ruling two. 2) Rich people get to stay at the top of our society. We're all fucked. Uniparty LOVES the executive branch too as people don't really understand that the President is getting stronger and stronger as Congress kicks over more power to them / doesn't actively fight for their power back. |
|
|
|
Very similar to a thread that was just here, a website for bitcoin voting for that shooter guy if he is guilty or not, but now I can't find it..
Completetly forgot about that dumb thread before. LOL. Was that a little test run into how it would work? I'm going to assume that no one actually sent Monero to those addresses, because like, who the hell even cares? This was just a way to push some attention to Monero. Not really sure on what the intent was, because more people looking at your crypto is never going to be a good thing to have. Just means more regulation and government scrutiny. I guess that may not matter to Monero though. |
|
|
|
The Trump campaign is going to have an absolute field day with Biden on fracking and his weird ass condemnation of the oil industry which came out of no where.
Biden was trying to claim to be not against Fracking and ended up taking a far worse position. It appears that Biden is trying to privately tell the far left wing of his party that he will be an extremist while telling the rest of the country that he will be moderate. This is the exact same argument that democrats made in the 2018 midterm elections, and since the new congress was sworn in, Democrats have voted almost always as a bloc, including for impeachment that had no chance of actually removing the president (that would only divide the country), and other extreme bills (also that are going nowhere in the Senate). Yeah that entire fracking answer + the oil portion of things is NOT going to bode well with those in PA, a critical state that Trump needs to flip on his path to (potential) victory. We're a good few days out of the debate at this point, and Trump is continuing to NAIL the fact that Biden went against fracking. Trump is currently planning an EO on fracking to get some more media attention around it. National level media matters, but the local PA media is probably covering the SHIT about fracking and what each person thinks about it. Last ditch effort to win a must win state. If Trump wins Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, map could end up looking like this with a Trump Victory  Trump Fracking WSJ - https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-weighs-executive-order-to-show-support-for-fracking-11603825225 |
|
|
|
Bottom line up front: And btw, they are right on their assessment of ACB. Ah! That is the principal information that I sought. For you see, I used my bet-related question about the NCLA as a sly excuse to slip in some substantive information about Amy Coney Barrett, the topic of this thread. I hope that blurb and especially, those PDFs are useful to someone here. An originalists view of the constitution is the only interpretation that protects civil liberties and ACB fits that category. A true “originalist” would need to chuck stare decisis out the window, and run a wrecking ball through—I think probably most SCOTUS decisions, Federal legislation, and Federal regulations since the Roosevelt era. To start with. Just for instance: Do you seriously expect for ACB, or anyone else nowadays to return the Commerce Clause to the interpretation that it had before the 1930s? (Let alone an “original” interpretation.) Anyway—I am glad to know about this. If some of my political posts seem odd, it may be because in my study of Americanism, I have studied more about history (including modern political history) than current events. I didn’t know much at all about ACB. Now, I know a bit more. Thanks. I like the NCLA and they'd be a fine group to donate to. Thanks. Good to know. At this point, theymos’ suggestion is looking so good that I almost hope to lose the bet. —Except it would mean that your president would be Biden! That would be perhaps about 2–3% worse than Trump; and in the long term, the difference will be negligible. Eh. More importantly, it would not make liberals cry. So, I hope that I win the bet. ;-) To all of this: Most of the modern originalists who are picked to fill the court are from the Federalist Society. They're vetted intensely to even get to the point of getting to the appeals court, imagine the amount of vetting that goes in to make it to the Presidents shortlist, which is handpicked by the Federalist society. Not to say that people that come out of the Federalist Society are wrong in some way. Though I'm really not a fan of most modern justices view on executive power. And we all know the view of Scalia's when it comes to unitary executive theory, which will most likely extend to ACB as she was a clerk and a mentee of his. I think we're on the same page when you say that all is lost. Maybe I'm just a cynic and there is still hope though. |
|
|
|
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_biden-6861.htmlAfter messing around with the electoral map, Biden quite literally has 270+ electoral votes before even factoring in swing stages. Take all the democratic states where Biden is leading largely and give them to him (including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), Biden wins. Give Trump all of his red states, he still needs Arizona, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and one of the three rust belt states above to barely break 270. All these states are essentially toss ups. Some models have given Texas "lean R" to "toss up" but there is no way in hell Texas will vote for Biden so I'm not going to bother including that. Out of the three rust belt states, Pennsylvania is probably the closest. Recent poll has Trump up by 2 points, but it's not a very accurate poll. Looking at Biden's RCP average, it dropped largely from what it was a month ago. So, the ONLY outcome of Trump winning this election is taking all the swing states, and stealing Pennsylvania from Biden which is about the only state that is within the margin of error out of the three I mentioned above. https://www.270towin.com/maps/mRL9Y I have Biden at 279 electoral votes so far. For a Trump victory, this is what I predict that electoral map would look like: https://www.270towin.com/maps/ZmP8Q If you play around with 538's little tool - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/?cid=abcnews - you're able to see that the map can get interesting pretty fast. Take this situation: Trump winning Florida changes this map around very quickly. That immediately puts him at a 30 percent chance of winning. Then if Arizona comes in, we're at a 55-43 situation, with Biden still leading. But now we're in cointoss territory as Trump has defied the polls in some places, which means that turnout is probably pretty good for him and the GOP. This isn't such an easy win for Biden like the media is making it out to be. |
|
|
|
Would probably make more sense to put the two top parties on top though, right?
What's a top party though? Technically you can't know until the votes are counted and ballot design shouldn't rely on polls. Then again your decision on who to vote for shouldn't change based on where they are on the ballot.
Precisely. Oh 100% I'm pretty sure that like, in regards to how stuff gets listed on a ballot, everyone is randomized in terms of order based on the county that you're in. I know that's been a common thing to complain about like: "WHY IS TRUMP ON THE TOP OF THIS BALLOT" (You can insert Biden for that too) "WHY IS JO JORGENSEN ON THIS ONE, IT CONFUSES PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THEM INSTEAD OF JOE BIDEN" - wtf? People are amazing. |
|
|
|
~
The barriers protect the checkout staff though. Staff who are in close proximity to hundreds of people each day (some of them maskless freedom-warriors). With no barriers, staff are more likely to get infected and then, with no barriers, we as shoppers are more likely to contract the virus from the infected staff. Agree that air conditioning isn't great, though. It's all compromise solutions to keep the economy functioning, whilst keeping infection rate as low as possible given the economy is the government's overriding priority. +1 to all of that. Every single solution we've had to this pandemic at this point isn't 'perfect' though it is enough to keep tons of people from getting sick and allows our economy to continue to function. I don't think the reaction to these solutions should be -- WELL IT DOESNT WORK 100% SO WE SHOULD ALL JUST STOP NOW CAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T WORKING. Like no. Why? |
|
|
|
I think it's because he doesn't want people to know that he's not a successful businessman, just a reality TV star that's good at being famous.  What's the source on this by the way? I read something very funny the other day, which is probably present for all people who inherited tons of money at some point in their life. The whole article was about how if Trump had just taken his $474m he inherited in and put it in the stock market he would now be worth like double what he is now. Obviously his inheritance come in drips and drabs instead of all in one go. Plus he would've had to liquidate real estate holdings into cash for this as well. |
|
|
|
Maybe this will be more informative? Kinda doubt it though, sadly.
I would imagine Trump is gonna chant "lock him up" most of the time. Eh, it doesn't really seem like he has a cute little slogan for Biden in the same way that he had one for Clinton. But yes, I also think that it is going to devolve into a shitshow. Two senile old men back at it again for round 2!
I'm not sure what'll happen tonight. Of course Trump is going to bring up the Hunter Biden saga and Joe Biden will recite what his campaign tells him, which is admit no fault, call the accusation baseless, and then maybe chalk it up to Russian disinformation (zero evidence of this). I don't expect Trump to deliver this attack very well. He'll probably ramble on while making no coherent sense. The average American really doesn't care, nor do I expect them to.
But really none of this matters. People have already made up their mind on who they're going to vote for. This debate will probably be useless, everyone will go into this with the mindset that their side will win despite what the actual end result is.
The moderator announced the topics earlier:
Fighting COVID-19, American families, race in America, climate change, national security and leadership.
I'm not sure what American families mean. What sort of question would be relevant here?
What's better then watching two old men yell incoherent arguments at one another that make literally no sense?  ? NAME SOME THINGS FOLKS. But yes, Trumps line of attack against Biden regarding Hunter Biden and his alleged influence peddling could actually be something, though you're totally right. Trump is going to yell a ton of random shit and people won't be able to understand what he's talking about. Some will know, as those are the die hard Trumpers that have him on twitter and see him on Fox -- though the regular voters that he needs to join his camp will be like what the fuck is going on. Can't wait for the shitshow to begin. |
|
|
|
I don’t even understand why Putin needs to do it
He doesn't need to do it, but the fact is that he can do it with impunity. Putin is untouchable in Russia, and so is able to crush all opposition. And as recent history has shown, other countries will do nothing to stop him. China is an ally, the US under Trump has turned its back on the world, the EU is scared. Putin invaded multiple countries when Obama was president, and Obama did nothing, actually less than nothing as Obama and Clinton as secretary of State "reset" relations with Putin.
Putin does this because he needs to scare his population into obedience. If the Russians do not heed to Putin's power, his government will fall. There is a possibility (although small) that Putin's government will not surivie due to the unpopularity of their response to the coronavirus. Russia does not have free and fair elections, but Putin still directs Russians to vote every so often. There have been some local elections in which the opposition party has made gains.
The point is that Putin wants to scare his opposition from putting forward effective candidates, and preventing an effective from campaigning That's literally one of the big reasons that Russia invaded Crimea. #1. Show his people that they have military dominance over another country and ensure people in the country know their place. #2. Show his people that he is openly disobeying the West and there is nothing that the West can do to stop him. He's trying to show that he is stronger then them. Putin will literally be in power for his entire life. Guy isn't going to go away at some point. His leadership style in Russia has worked to maintain the oligopoly and maintain his power. Crazy shit, but that's Russia for ya. |
|
|
|
I do not think that title really fit the topic, because SARS kill innocent Nigerians even during the day and as well as dhring the night. Raping allegations, money extortion, unlawful detentions and many more are characteristics of Nigerian SARS, they are more than wicked than vampires that sucks blood and operating at anytime of the day, they are nothing than imposters wearing federal government's given uniform.
If you are looking good, they will arrest you with false allegations
If you are driving car, they will arrest you with false allegations
If you are working from home as a freelancer, you are a criminal to Nigerian SARS
If you use bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, then you are a criminal to Nigeria SARS
If you are using vpn on your phone, that means you are cyber criminal to them, not to talk of tor browsers
They always try their best making sure they collect money from someone, including the innocents.
Nigerian SARS are friends to real cyber criminals
People that are the real cyber criminas, they find ways to know this SARS, they become friends with them, SARS not threatening them because they are friends, and making life good for them. Cyber criminals do not fear SARS in Nigeria, it is EFCC that they are afraid of a little bit, and still they bribe some of them and mingling with them. Cyber criminals only bribe and they are set free and enjoying in the country while innocents are excited, unlawfully imprisoned or killed.
SARS are protecting the cyber criminals because of the bribery while making life miserable and tormenting for good and innocent citizens that are looking good.
SARS must end in Nigeria. Nigeria SARS has to be dissolved and forgotten in its entirety..
I'd say have to say that this is one of the better posts that I've seen regarding SARS from someone on here. Have to agree with everything you've said. SARS is a cancer on Nigeria and has been miking the innocent people out for bribes. They enable criminals by allowing them to continue to do their thing if they just kick money to them. Plus ya know, the killing, rapes, which are all horrible and are a plague on their country. SARS = a leech. Politicians allow it to happen because they're also getting kickbacks from the operatives. Someone has to rein in on that corruption. |
|
|
|
An interesting statistic (that we'll never get) is not how many "watched", but how many quit watching and after how long.
You can probably get that if you ask Nielsen. Not sure if they take Bitcoin. That's probably put down somewhere. I know they put out some stats regarding the average amount of time each people had watched. THOUGH FOLKS WE ARE HAVING ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, SO THIS WILL BE THE SECOND ONE -- that's if you disregard the townhall and all that. Fitted with plexiglass, like the VP debate, and mute buttons so people can speak uninterrupted. Maybe this will be more informative? Kinda doubt it though, sadly. |
|
|
|
Islamic fundamentalist are still a big problem in Europe. So far the European governments can't really deal with them or stop the radicalisation. In my opinion social media is the problem here. Terrorist can easily reach people all around the world and distribute propaganda. Just thus morning I read an article that Facebook can't control its website. Pictures of the dead teacher with his head cut off are circulating on Facebook and many users write positive comments towards the terrorist. Such behaviour needs to be banned and people who violate it should be held accountable. Otherwise the risk of young extremists trying to do something similar will just increase.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/08/the-taliban-indoctrinates-kids-with-jihadist-textbooks-paid-for-by-the-u-s/Justifies ' banning such behaviour' on the internets which, of course, requires a framework to do so. Who could have imagined? Just to go aside to the point you're making and your source for a second, when the US begun funding textbook for Afghani children that had anti soviet material in it, and during the cold war it made sense for the US to try to get the people under their rule to revolt (or at least, the people that were trying to take them over) At the time they liked jihad behavior because it led to issues for the soviets. They laid the groundwork for this issue. The textbooks they sent to Afghanistan were copied by the Talibian and are still in a bit of circulation today. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
(or to pay for mixing)
