Who Shot dJRt

Well it's used a lot more as a currency than as an investment vehicle, from what I can see anyway.

I'm using "currency" to mean "something you can pay for stuff with", nothing more and nothing less in this context. Are you saying that there isn't a high volume of transactions where people pay for stuff with BTC?

99%, or more, of bitcoin is not used for that.

El Salvador has designated it a currency. I'm not sure any other country has. The US has designated it a commodity.

Ok, noted, thanks.

Their 'community notes' seem to be working. I think X has improved a lot since Mr. Musk took over the helm.

I agree. There is no way a super old like Trump is going to intentionally tank the U.S. dollar in favor of crypto.

i dont think trump does anything on his own.. trump clearly has no policy agenda and no intelligent thoughts in his head... but the vice president is essentially peter Thiel's puppet.

a trump presidency destabilizing the dollar on the world scale, which is quite easy to see happen, would be a bump for bitcoin would it not?

i think Mark Cuban already talked about this quite a bit.

Mark Cuban's tweet was the main driver. His thesis is that Trump will drive inflation in the dollar and buy bitcoin. Lots of influencooooooors latching onto that "BTC as a reserve" nonsense.

I'm 100% sure you've seen all this though so no clue why you are asking

1) Cuban is not CT
2) US also has a gold reserve, petroleum reserve and I'm guessing man other reserves.

I don't think the purpose of reserves is to tank the dollar.

I do think regardless of president, the US dollar is on its last legs. This could still mean decades. But if you look at the history of world reserve currencies, USD is around the upper bound.

Since 1450 there have been six major world reserve currency periods. Portugal (1450–1530), Spain (1530–1640), Netherlands (1640–1720), France (1720–1815), Great Britain (1815–1920), and the United States from 1921 to today.

I didn't think anyone thought he was a liberal. But that's me being too online. Few liberals at the top really believe Trump is this huge threat to democracy. Liberals are way too invested in way things are to ever want to introduce the kind of chaos and unpredictability which might come from Trump's being assassinated. They see the current state of affairs as pretty much the way they want them and want to use thought control via social media to solidify what they have going. Their main issue with Trump is his lacking in their brand of civil decorum. Liberals hate the way Trump openly touts the vulgarity of the elite policy positions, a practice which terrifies them as something which could initiate their demise by riling up the rabble and threatens to break open into public view the contradictions between their rhetoric and their actions.

But the liberals aren't Hannibal Lecter. They aren't going to get their hands dirty killing someone over decorum. Not to mention, the negation of Trump (politically not physically) is the sole basis for the Democratic party identity. They are owned by concentrated capital and therefore cannot advance a pro majority agenda. Having a figure like Trump to build up into a threat, and a threat in which they can pour every possible fear into, has been a gift both as a fund raising boon and electorally. It's like the movie Jaws, where a whole community can rally against a singular object of sinister purpose. What are the liberals without Trump? They are a bunch of people standing around mouthing support for progressive policies who then, while barely containing their snickering, point to the never-before-noticed-or-acknowledged parliamentarian as the reason we can't have Medicare for all.

Dude, nobody here is suggesting that it was some master scheme by all the liberal elites of the world. If it had been, they wouldn't be very elite with that execution (CWIDT?) The suggestion is just that he was a lone wolf liberal/democrat supporter who disliked Trump. Methinks you are arguing against ghosts, and trying to inject an agenda into a discussion where it is completely misplaced.

The bedrock of red herrings

There should be some kind of counter reaction to this idea that the heroic imagery of the ear nicking wraps it up for Trump, but my speculation is running dry. But when does the popular consensus ever hold these days? Everyone was like "oh that's it Trump is winning for sure now". As someone who has "gambled" for a long time, when I hear stuff like that I instinctually think ok then the opposite is going to happen somehow.

Trump does look a little nutty in retrospect, going on about his shoes and trying desperately to milk the photo op. But he also looks so much more durable after the assassination attempt compared to what else is on offer. Maybe people could look at that with a Seinfeldian wince and think "that's a lot of drama".

One of my first thoughts was they will not vote on Trump out of pity. It got overrun by the heroism. But he could have just waved his open hand as normal people do.

Anyhow, how do people deep down react to that he is so hated or worried about that a nerd out of the blue does what he does. They may just not want to think about it, and that can end up in voting behavior, that is turning their back on Trump and all the old. Fresh start may be trendy. Not that old Reagan copy way. But making America great for real, not busting about it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...

A citizen is dead this is no time for funny business. Talking to D2 and anyone else who needs this massage.

Agreed. If they are, indeed, dead though.

All those people getting fired sounds like cancel culture to me.

i could use a massage, and certainly am willing to mock trump to get it

Perhaps Trump shouldn't have been so greedy with God's attention at that moment.

True. Put god in a bit of a tough spot having to choose whose head to turn there. Not like he can be in two places at once.

It's fine with me, but I think Luckbox is who you need to talk to about that.

My current thinking is that Vance is the culturally Right version of Obama. He has more authenticity than Obama since he is actually from the demographic from which he represents himself while Obama has little experiential overlap with the typical AA. Obama got by knowing his liberal base doesn't really recognize the nuances between different types of black people beyond the Fresh Prince/Carlton dichotomy. I doubt if there would be a major policy differences between Vance and Obama.

Vance plays up to the conspiracy addled Right's paranoid sensibilities the way Obama would serve up civil rights era nostalgia vibes to the libs. The Trump base is going to split with Vance over time but for now he looks well positioned to, down the line, be the one to bridge the gap between the self assured technocratic class and the unwashed masses.

Alternative explanation: