lmao kill me now

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-parade/trump-wants-military-parade-in-washington-washington-post-idUSKBN1FR03K

me too pls

I can picture him watching the French parade and going "I want one!" like a petulant child.

Well, the back of his head was inspired by Vader's unmasked look from the empire strikes back. So he has that going for him.

That guy walks around with so much shame.

Weird. Never heard of him. It always blows my mind to think of all the crazy things people dig up on the net....

I swear. #resistance, **** like this, it's all fake activism to make Democrat-leaning people feel good while doing absolutely nothing.

Also it's my growing suspicion that conservative apologetics on sites like NYT are responsible for beltway Democrat insanity about working together B.S. instead of fighting the good fight against a toxic ideology. Fox News is reperesentative of conservative thought. NYT columnists are representative of nobody.

Democrats have capitulated so much to the Republicans, because the Republicans have the freedom caucus which will actually fight and tear the house down to win concessions, but Democrats refuse to play hardball. The party lacks any decent ideology and refuses to have any spine.

Frankly, I would not be surprised if we have Trump again in 2020.

Say more?

Eh, the Democrats did just shut down the government, and, whether as an outcome of the shutdown or not, got from Republicans concessions on immigration, leading to a more progressive immigration policy than many might have expected, especially given what Trump has had to say on the issue during the campaign. As far as the Democrats maintaining their air of legitimacy with their base, I think a bigger problem than Democrats "capitulating" to Trump is that their policies don't match their rhetoric. Really, their policies aren't as progressive as their rhetoric. Especially on the issue of immigration, where it seems many Democratic voters think that not automatically giving anyone who wants to move to the States American citizenship and who isn't a criminal is a human rights violation.

Har. Good one mate.



Oh come on.

NYT *conservative columnists.

It's a little difficult for me to believe that the NYT is engaging in Trump apology when their new conservative columnists are people who left the WSJ because that paper was becoming increasingly Trumpian and, as Never Trumpers, they no longer fit in. The Times doesn't have any pro-Trump columnists! How could the paper be pushing Trump apologetics? That's absurd.

It seems the problem that the New York Times faces is that it's the publication of record, and they see themselves as having a civic duty to present multiple sides on an issue. Yet at the same time, they're trying to survive at a time when it's very difficult to survive as a paper if you don't adopt a sharply partisan editorial perspective. They're being criticized by everyone, in part because of how they're trying to navigate the waters that they're in.

Ohhh. Okay well sure. I think moderate (read: semi-honest / respectable / literate) Republicans are this species of politician that used to exist. The closest I see now is National Review.

I mean with stuff like this:



Anyone even remotely tied to reality and truth would know it's not true Marco Rubio is a champion of the working class. They give way too much ground that Republicans are legitimate and fair, and desire the best for their populace.



..how does a minority in both houses "shut down the government"? I don't get blaming them here.



Nothing has been decided on immigration, how could they have concessions? And they came to the table offering Trump/Republicans a whole bunch of concessions just to protect DACA in other serious ways.



That's exactly the problem though. Their position now isn't "let's fight against this radical shift in immigration policy", it's "let's work out a deal that makes it a slightly less radical but still far right immigration policy". Where are the balls?

More like engaging in John McCain apology.

Even the idea that Republicans were "moderate" before Trump is absurd. Does nobody remember Republicans from 2008-2016? And NYT gives legitimacy to those goons, yet since they stop short of Trump apologia they're somehow alright?

Back on the topic of buttcoins: the price has been hovering lately, but no new USDT have been printed. At first I thought it was a minor bump due to the SEC hearing, where I guess some SEC guy said they should take buttcoin seriously, which made some buttcoiners happy. But it's stayed up there, and I wasn't sure why.

Well, I think I know why. It's cause tethers are actually still being printed, just as Euro Tethers now.

Also it's interesting to watch trading on a day where BTC price falls. You can see "walls" at flat amounts, like $7500, of buy orders. Whenever the price plummets close to that, though, you'll suddenly see this wall of buys vanish. Because they aren't real buy orders, they're bots trying to establish a price floor to keep the price of BTC up.

This **** is highly illegal in actual markets, too. But in magic buttcoin land, open market manipulation is the status quo.

Certainly, I would have been a massive wuss and probably sold it all at like $3k.




Back when I worked a crappy job and had less to do, I set up a Roth and threw some money in that I manage. So far, it's done alright but I'm also not big into speculating. Plus stocks are much harder to speculate about. For instance, I also think stocks are vastly overpriced but I'd absolutely not attempt to try and call the peak.

I think with buttcoins, it's easier to tap into what's going on, since buttcoin gamblers are a small, identifiable demographic that loves talking about it online. So you can get a feel for who's trading and why.

Plus, honestly, since so many of them are libertarian-leaning, and since I think those ideas are utterly moronic as they stand, I would gamble against their view on the topic nine times out of ten.





Absolutely. I almost bought in at $6, it would have been nice to cash in the few thousand percent. But hindsight here is 20/20.

For now, I'm saving up money for a startup idea I have. Which I think is a better use of my time than trying to win the slot machine of buttcoin.

Though I probably should have tried the bitcoin futures think and taken some put orders at the top, I'm just lazy.

With a filibuster! Senate Democrats called a filibuster, which required a supermajority to end (i.e., it required Democratic votes). The failure of the Republicans to vote it down basically guaranteed a government shutdown, despite their majorities in both houses. As far as I knew before you objected, saying that Democrats shutdown the government isn't really a matter of "blaming", even if Republicans stressed that Democrats were the ones who shut down the government (and otherwise cast them as obstructionists) in order to score political points with their base (of course, Democrats shut down the government in the first place to score political points with their base, too). Even liberal publications such a Vox are treating it as an undisputed, uncontroversial fact that the Democrats shut down the government. For example, this.

I have more to say about other things you wrote but I'm too busy right now... will get to it later.

Sour grapes: the post

I guess soy beans were called "Nazi beans" in Nazi Germany and were heavily promoted. Nazis were soyboys!

lmao

Have you not read Aesop's Fables? Because it would be very clear how what I'm doing is the opposite of sour grapes had you.

im just ****ing with you. thats the meme is that people who call it buttcoin are just assmad they missed out

go to meme tracking school man

Never heard of that, I call it buttcoin because the only people who seem to have a sane take are people who call it buttcoin

Plus buttcoin is way funnier sounding

You're certainly correct on all of those points but scoping out posts on reddit where they link to /r/buttcoin and talk about how sad it is that those people don't want to join the new financial elite by investing in bitcoin is a good use of any internet time that would have otherwise been aimless.

I think I found my plans for today!

Probably. After all, on October 11th 2017, you said this:





When you posted that, Bitcoin was worth about $4,800. I know I'm being a little stubborn here, but knowing that something is overpriced is very different from knowing the precise moment when the price has peaked -- especially in a bubble. I don't know on what basis you could say you "called" the peak.

Timing a speculative bubble is impossible.

Unless, of course, it’s being propped up by financial crime and you are a prosecutor.

WB sez time in the market beats timing the market

WB also invests in value, not growth. Just to be clear.

Yeah, I basically agree with that. I liked this interview that I watched a little while ago. I think the predictions about the future of cryptocurrency and blockchain are very reasonable. One argument is: Blockchain is a revolutionary technology, and while some startups are well positioned to disrupt legacy private banks, it won't necessarily be cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum that do it. In fact, it's less likely that cryptocurrencies replace central banks, and more likely that central banks will issue their own cryptocurrencies, which will make it easier for governments to prevent money laundering and make it easier to tax citizens. But there's some other good stuff in here.



He doesn't call it Buttcoin, but I admit I'd laugh pretty hard if he did.

Well I invested in the value of Ethereum letting me spread ****ty memes and it paid me back with the moneys so I guess Im basically the oracle of the great basin

Okay, I didn't call it then. Doesn't really matter to me.

Isn't that the same guy that Jon`C posted a video of where he advocated that Amazon, Google et al be broken up? Is he worth following?

Man this guy really is bullish on Amazon. So much so that he is basically admitting that it's on its way to becoming the first Jedi Corporation.

[quote=Scott Galloway]
Now, what I think, though, the bigger prediction — and I’ve been saying this for a while and I’ve been wrong — is they’re going to want something, call it Prime Squared, where they’re basically going to use artificial intelligence, your credit card, a fulfillment network and Alexa to just start sending you stuff. We talked a little bit about this the last time.

Interviewer: Right, the box. Yeah. Explain that. Explain what you meant.

Well, they’ll say, “Hey.” They’ll probably do it in a college town where everyone has a smartphone, everyone loves Amazon and everyone has broadband, and they’ll say, “We know a lot about you and you like us and you trust us. So sign up for this and we’re going to start sending you two boxes two to three times a week, and one of those boxes will have the stuff we think you want, and one will be empty. You send what you don’t want back in the empty box, and we’ll pick it up, and then you’ll manicure using this great thing we have all over your house called Alexa. ‘Alexa, barbecue for six people on Saturday. Alexa, I’m leaving town for 10 days. Alexa, I want Lagunitas IPA versus Stella Artois. Alexa, send me four quotes for auto insurance for a 2014 Toyota Camry via email.’”

They’ll do this and they’ll get better and better at it using artificial intelligence.

Interviewer: They’ll test it.

They’ll test it, and then they’ll announce that the test takes Amazon Prime users from $1,300 a year in purchases to $7,000. The stock will become anti-gravity, race to a trillion dollars, and then the marketplace is going to begin to freak out about one or two things, or both of them. One, they’re going to start connecting the dots around job loss because they’re just better at this than other people and they’re more efficient.

Interviewer: Yeah. They’re starting to.

You’re already starting to see some of that populist rhetoric. Two, you’re going to have a situation where ... for the first time in history we have a company that can perform what I call Jedi mind tricks, and that is it can destroy another company by just thinking about it. I think Jeff Bezos could take 10 or 20 percent of the market cap away from any Fortune 500 company tomorrow just by announcing he’s going into their business.

Interviewer: Right, such as insurance. You were talking like insurance or ...?

They put out a picture of a prepared meal kit and Blue Apron crashes. If tomorrow he were to say, “We have the infrastructure to do overnight delivery," the $150 billion of market cap in DHL, FedEx and UPS would decline by 10 or $20 billion within 48 hours.
[/quote]

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/14/16303784/transcript-author-nyu-professor-scott-galloway-recode-decode-four-book-google-amazon-facebook-apple

100% agreed. Blockchain is an idea with potential for some good implementations. But bitcoin and other current cryptos are not that implementation.