Is this a shitpost? I looked for the article online and couldn't find it.
I wish I could updoot this 1000 times.
I've been following Byrne since he came onto my radar after being a hardcore bitcoin & cryptocurrwncy advocate starting around 2014. My impression of him is that he is a straight shooter, no bullshit kind of guy, and doesn't get intimidated or silenced. I like him quite a bit anyways. I was fascinated to read what he had to say recently about his meeting with Trump, and considering the fact that it sounds like he met with a bunch of Trump advisors who are not at all in Trump's corner, and still walked away from the meeting thinking Trump had a 50 to 75% chance to have 4 more years, I took that as a good sign. He's a libertarian, and didn't vote Trump (certainly he didn't vote Biden either!), but Byrne really hates government corruption, as we all should, and seems like he wants to make his mark on the world fighting against it. Just my two cents on him.
All of Patrick Brynes twitter comments about this meeting are REALLY worth checking out IMO. Good glimpse of what was happening. Despite the fact that the meeting was just with these ABSOLUTE SWAMP CREATURES and Trump, Bryne walked away thinking trump's chances are 50 - 75%.
Maybe this is the wrong thread. But I think everyone is looking at this scotus decision in too negative a light. We will have our day in court, and it will be the Supreme Court, they are just saying its not going to be THIS case based on damage done to citizens of Texas on account of their vote meaning less than it ought to in the federal election. They are specifically, I think, saying that damage is too vague to quantify, and too subjective to remedy. Hence the "no standing" and the "eveb if we heard the case we couldn't remedy". They are saying TRUMP needs to file the lawsuit, because the damage done to him and the remediation is direct and obvious in both cases. I think if it like a teacher handing back an assignment and saying "you need to make a fundamental change here, but if you do the rest is good and i'll accept it and grade it" - which is a very fair solution when the assignment has been done in a way that would not allow the teacher to assign a good mark. I don't think these people are stupid or traitors or cowards. They are looking out for us more than you think. They want the best possible version of our argument before passing judgment on it. We will have our day in court. They will not ignore one of the most important legal cases in American history. They want to be a part of it, and they want to do the right thing for the future of the country. Hold the line.
This post reminded me a lot of what Scott Adams said about there being two presidents simultaneously.
His show this morning was fantastic, only the second or third I ever watched. He's really funny. He could run a right leaning late night show and do well, I bet. If a network had the balls to air him.
So? I was a democrat until about 2010... I'm sure lots of us were. It's called being young and naïve.
The founder is well known as a libertarian and has been for years. IIRC he even wrote a book about capitalism being great & socialism sucking. I assume this is the same dude.
I think this is the same thing as distancing himself from Sidney Powell the other day. He's doing this for the optics of it. He's sitting back and letting his lawyers work the legal process so that in the future he can say "See! I knew I got cheated, and that's ultimately what the courts found to be true as well."
If he blocks the normal processes, transition or otherwise, and rants and raves too much and is too involved in the legal process HIMSELF, then even to moderate democrats like my mom (who right now don't like him but also don't think he's literally Hitler) it will look like a dictator trying to hold on to power when the courts rule in his favor. Taking a back seat to some degree seems the wiser move, if he doesn't want America to literally split in two. He has to be a bit restrained. This move makes total sense to me.
Can someone fill me in on the truth of the drama between Kyle and Enrique? Some BS was trending on Twitter the other day about Kyle kicking Enrique out of proud boys and then making all these "white supremacist" comments and calling him the N word. Of course I assumed it was bullshit, but curious to know what the story is. You can't use Google for this shit anymore, you just find fake news.
Our guy needs help in this fight.
I couldn't make out what he said... "the slaughter meter is at 95%?" What's that mean?
Do we know for certain they destroyed envelopes? This seems too good to be true.
If there were opportunities to cheat, it wouldn't be the fastest growing industry and the best performing asset class for the last 10 years. The point of blockchain is that it can't be gamed or cheated in the same way as virtually any other system.