Topic: Trump's promise to dump federal regulations (Read 411 times)

But the Trump past experience as President shows that he is good for almost everything. He has even come up on the side of Bitcoin, lately.

But imagine that Trump is bad. Just look at the million or more people killed, and the loads of others that were maimed, in Ukraine, Russia, and the Middle East... not because of Trump, but because of the alternative.

Is that what you really want?

That's the paradox.   Bitcoin relies on stable power and communication.   When things get fucked up, people will notice they can't access their coin or the prices are fluctuating even more because of large mining operations browning out.   It might even be this month that people will choose AC over mining.

I feel like you havnt been let in on the secret bro.

Everyone in bitcoin knows Trump is bad for everything. Thats why they want trump. He is an accelerationist. They are banking that he will fuck everything up driving up the demand of Bitcoin.

Fuuuuuck man why are bitcoiners making bitcoin look so gd weird all the time. This entire thread is weird.

"you dont need a license to drive" wtf you absolutely do.

Thats some weird sov cit nonsense.

As long as there is a state with a monopoly on violence youre under their laws. Everyone is going to fucking laugh at your weird ass if you try to pseudo-legalese your way out of a ticket.

Seems like Bitcoin has been taken over, and the controllers won't let it get much higher than it is already.

However, if people thought that Btc was controlled, they would jump into altcoins if they didn't like it. Many have jumped anyway.

When Trump deregulates things, we will see if Bitcoin is worth it... strong enough to last.

I agree with you, and I believe that's why the Chinese government simply hasn't taken over bitcoin.  The damage to their environment not withstanding, they only have so many rare earths to go around, and they don't want to waste them on something that has as much value as a tulip.  :/

That is another reason the Dump could never be president again.  He'll cut China off from US chips then cluelessly visit the Taiwan chip factories, sitting idle because they have no resources.

I guess integrity and trust on the Blockchain and the decentralization behind it would be at stake. Actually, I recall that being one of the most tangible fears of people about the fragility of decentralization of the main network back in 2019-2020, when China still allowed miners to openly operate in their territory and using their cheap electricity.
though, I must add Vod, I am not an expert on Bitcoin whatsoever and this sounds rather like a topic to be discussed with people who have more knowledge on Proof of Work protocols than I do.
When comes to Bitcoin, I know what it takes for me to carry out transactions, sign messages ans check the fair fee to pay on the mempool. I don't even know how to code.

Sorry if it was not the long explanation and answer you were seeking, by the way. To me,.it seems it is taken for granted miners also have a stake in the network and hence, they act in good faith...

Hey Hispo, maybe you can answer this one question I've never been able to get an answer to.

What happens if China puts up millions of miners overnight and takes over 51% of the processing power?

Now that alledgedly Donald Trump has talked wonders about Bitcoin and he is alledgedly planning to make the United States to be a super power of Bitcoin and also hold Bitcoin as reserve, makes me wonder how tough he would actually be in terms of crypto regulation.
It is a thing to be pro Bitcoin and believing there is a true value in decentralization, however, it is a completely different one to lax cryptocurrency regulations allowing scams and con artists to get into the market easier, messing with others money in order for them to profit. Keeping in mind how Trump is a business person who will try to capitalize Bitcoin for his own advantage, I don't think he will go much beyond accepting BTC for donations and keeping BTC ETFs in the market. If he manages to get into the presidency, he will have many other things to worry about which are unrelated to Bitcoin and crypto...

You can travel, but driving is a privilege.   If you want to pay a tow truck driver to move your car from point A to point B, you would be stupid.   Sell the car, or get a license to drive.   Just remember that the highways are federal property and you need a license to access them.   No one is stopping you from towing your car across America. 

I don't believe Trump is especially close to Russia. His wife is Ukrainian, isn't she? Trump is simply business, and now he has learned to be a politician, too.

Why conquer Russia when doing business with her provides the same results? You can get almost anything American right now in Russia, on the black market if nowhere else, but mostly right out in the store, but under a different name than the US seller.

I mean, who cares if it's a crooked Russian, Ukrainian, or American businessman? Don't conquer. Conquering costs money. Do business with whomever is there.

Russia has been somewhat successful in adapting to the war economy and finding sufficient resources to continue the military campaign. It knows that NATO does not want to enter into a direct military confrontation with it and that Ukraine remains a battlefield. NATO may not have taken into account that Russia would benefit from the resources it would obtain from the areas it occupied.

The scene is expected to change after the upcoming presidential elections in the United States, as Trump's victory will present many scenarios. Currently, all the countries supporting Ukraine are pushing for negotiations to reach a solution in which there is no winner in the war. If Trump wins, he may push further in this direction due to his (personal) closeness to Russia, and I would not be surprised if he completely stops supporting Ukraine, leaving it to face an unknown fate.

Dumping Federal regs will allow all kinds of American entrepreneurs to go to the Black Sea and start trading with Russia.

How's Russia doing in the black sea in BADeckerville today?  In the real world Russias entire black sea fleet had to retreat from Crimea over the past year after suffering heavy losses - with the last ship leaving just a couple weeks ago.

Pretty astonishing when you consider Russia was said to have the most powerful Navy in the world, and Ukraine basically doesn't have a Navy.

From October 2023:

Putin’s fleet retreats: Ukraine is winning the Battle of the Black Sea


From last week:

Victory at Sea: Russia’s Last Warship Retreats From Crimea in Win for Ukraine, With Land War at Impasse

Russia won most of what it wanted right at the beginning of the war... the Black Sea corridor.

The other thing that it wanted was Ukraine to start acting peacefully, especially with its citizens. And of course, get the US and Nato out of the area.

If the US/Nato/Ukraine had not militarized to fight Russia, the war would have been over long ago... like within the first two months.

Russia doesn't want to conquer Ukraine. However, because of the attitude of Ukraine, Russia might want to conquer it just to bring peace.

At the beginning of the war, the possibility of Russia winning the war with Ukraine was not likely; but now it seems possible. This indicates the difficulty of the Ukrainian problem because the Russians view it from a zero-sum perspective, as do the West. Therefore a gain for one is a major loss for the other and thus the war will remain attritional. The more Russia advances on the front, the more the West increases its military and logistical support for Ukraine, and the balance of power will be adjusted with the blood of the Russians and Ukrainians.

The West believes that is required to drain Russia, not defeat it. Because defeat will push the Russian leadership further into the arms of China, and thus the problem for the West will become doubled and more dangerous. In contrast, Putin believes that Russia is strong, and no one can defeat it, and that its security demands must be met, otherwise the war will continue. He warned his citizens in his speech that military factories are operating at maximum capacity, that the country lives on a war economy and grows annually, and that the confrontation is fateful.

Right. The whole idea is what it has been for decades. Steal Russian lands for their natural resources. Ukraine was simply a way to attempt to do it.

If real help for Ukraine would help to steal Russia, then Ukraine would have received real help. As it is, Ukraine is expendable.

I think there were no intentions from the beginning to support Ukraine indefinitely. NATO wanted to benefit from Ukraine by involving it in a war with the Russian bear regardless of the results. That means either Ukraine wins and we defeat Russia with limited capabilities and minimal losses, or the war is financed to last as long as possible, which will certainly weaken Russia. We were sure of this when we saw the massive American support for the Netanyahu government in a war that was supposed to be much easier than the Ukrainian war. The volume of American aid to Israel exceeded the whole aid provided by all Western countries combined to Ukraine. Today, the best assistance that can be provided to Ukraine is to support peace negotiations efforts and save what can be saved from the lands seized by Russia. If the situation continues as it is, I would not be surprised if Russia could enter Kiev soon and annex all of Ukraine, or expand its military campaign to include other countries within the European Union. This is not at all unlikely, after several countries expressed their fears of the Russian invasion extending to areas outside Ukraine (Poland, for example).

The question is, what is help?

Certainly Biden and the Deep State didn't help Ukraine. Look at the more than half million dead and wounded Ukraine Troops. And Ukraine hasn't won any of its land back that Russia took. Help will have to be something other than funding and armament gifts.

Personally, I think that the best help would be negotiations. And Zelensky seems to be accepting of a Trump peace negotiation, where he wasn't accepting of simply meeting with Putin to make peace.

One question torments me, will Trump help Ukraine?

The government controls who can operate motor vehicles and who can't. If you drive drunk then that's one reason they can take away your license. Another would be if you drive unsafely and kill people. But I guess you think that since you're not really driving, the constitution guarantees you to keep doing those things.

Like if someone has very bad eyesight or some medical condition like body seizures, they probably shouldn't be out on the roads driving because they might kill somebody. You need the government to manage all that.

seems to me like you would argue that felons should still have the right to own firearms even though they used one to commit a bank robbery in the past...

What do you mean, and where is your evidence?     

It seems that Trump began to be overtaken, they rejoiced early

So, you think the Constitution doesn't make any sense? Well, you have that right.

I'm not saying that anybody do this without proper preparation ahead of time. Proper notice to law enforcement, and proper prep for court are both prerequisites. And other things.

With the way the country is today, you don't just jump into these kinds of things, even though you would be Constitutionally correct.

yeah none of that makes any sense and police officers would tell you to get out of the car so they could have it towed...

Make America Great Again!

Not talking about driving. Talking about traveling by right.

You own the comb in your pocket. You take the comb from point A to point B. Travel by right.

You own your car. You take your car from point A to point B. Travel by right. No driving involved.

You can do it because 1st Amendment adjudication says you can.

When you decide to drive, get licensed.

Driving and traveling by right look almost the same. Be firm in your understanding of traveling by right before you do it.

Note that this is not a Federal thing. It is a State thing. Trump doesn't have anything to do with driving regs.

commiting felonies much? 


Driving without a driver’s license or driving with a suspended or revoked license is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In most states, the first offense is a misdemeanor. If you have multiple offenses, it can be a felony

https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/driving-without-license-penalties-by-state.aspx

Do you have proof of that, that Trump needed the border trouble? After all, it was the Biden team that wanted the illegals, to get them into a voting position so they could vote for Biden. Or do you think that Trump really wants Biden to win?

You are really twisting some political thinking in one direction.

Why would not be the southern border wall be relevant? Republicans want immigration to be a political problem as long as possible, so they can continue to use it as a issue to be "solved" during their political campaigns. I have read that alledgedly there was a project of law for immigration which was discussed in a bi-psrtidan way and it did not get approved by Republicans because Trump torpedoed it, he needed the border to continue to be much a mess a possible for him to talk about it.
That is an example of how bad the quality of the leaders is in some parties... Even if Trump wins and restarts the building of the giant wall to "solve" the problem, he is likely to receive a letter from his fellow republicans not to complete the wall, otherwise it would be a problem less for them to campaign on next cycle.

Trump started the wall. But due to Deep State warring with him, he wasn't able to finish it in a timely manner. The question is, is the wall still relevant? Another is, will Trump continue it when he gets into office this time?

At this point of the game, that is a constant when comes to leaders within the western hemisphere. Even Biden promised to stop the drilling of oil in the United States and he could not do so. Trump promised to build a giant wall in the southern border and yet, he could not deliver (whether because he did not actually mean it, or he was not allowed by the establishment).
Many Latin American countries are also an example of politicians who promise a lot of things but they won't deliver anything, for a variety of reasons. This election cycle in the United States won't be different, both Trump and whoever ends up being the Democrat nominee will under deliver on their promises.

You understand, he promises one thing, but he will most likely do another.

Do you think he can stop the war?

You seem to be kinda behind. People in the US absolutely do not require a license to drive. It's in adjudication of the meaning of the 1st Amendment. It's called The Right To Travel. There are people across the US doing this, even though they might wind up in court now and again. They win, but they still get dragged into court another time. Gov just doesn't learn.

Drivers licenses don't stop people from speeding, etc. And they don't stop accidents. They are simply a money-maker for government. Licensing doesn't necessarily have to do with knowing the rules of the road. One can learn those without a license.



EDIT: Even without the Right to Travel, anybody can beat a traffic ticket (and lots of other things) in court. All they have to do is stand unrepresented (stand present)... without an attorney and without representing themselves. Then, require to face their accuser as American law allows. Their accuser is listed on the indictment as THE STATE OF SUCH AND SUCH. Since the THE STATE OF SUCH AND SUCH won't/can't get on the stand when it is called, case dismissed.

Are you implying people should allowed to drive a vehicle without having to go through the process of getting a license? That's funny. Because when you talk about cutting regulations and bureaucracy, the first thing which came to my mind was the usual stuff one is supposed to do in order to open and register a business, for example, so instead of doing a lot of paper work, one can start doing business quicker and easier.
I believe driver licenses are necessary, though. I could not expect someone to be bestowed a car without being trained in the slightest on the rules they are supposed to follow to prevent accidents.

There is a place for regulation. But it seems that the bureaucracy grows and the regulation grows right along with it. Many regs are just silly, or should be implemented on an individual basis rather than overall. Like drivers licenses.

Needless to say regulations are necessary, they keep a role within the market and the politics of any country which calls itself to be civilized. Problems begin to appear when when regulations start to pile up and most of them do not serve a real purpose, just to increase the friction and make businesses to cost more to operate within the legal frame of the country.
I am okey with regulations, as long as they remain within a reasonable limit, because if regulations start to shrink and businesses, corporations and the rich get to do whatever they want in order to increase their profit, they will not care to put people at risk for the sake of those profits.
They would stop investing as much as they used to in industrial safety protocols and tools (because it is no longer necessary), they would also stop testing food and water sources in order to check for contamination in them, and so on.

Fair regulations stop companies from abusing their position.

Regs are the main problem with making new business. Many of the regs are useless, designed to protect us from things that almost never materialize. Because of this, they slow the operation of advancement down, while making money for the reg-promoters.


Trump's promise to dump federal regulations

---

https://www.wnd.com/2024/07/trumps-promise-to-dump-federal-regulations/
This week, Donald Trump will officially become the Republican nominee.

Soon he is likely to again be president, according to the most accurate predictions, which come from people who put their money where their mouths are – people who bet. They currently give Trump a 67% chance of winning.

President Joe Biden's chances have fallen below 20%.

This is good news to those of us who fear America is gradually being strangled by ever-increasing regulations.

Trump promises to get rid of bad rules.

"Remove the anchor dragging us down!" he said. "We're going to cancel every needless job-killing regulation!"

Trump was a developer, so he knew about the thicket of rules that often make it nearly impossible to get things done.

But Republicans routinely talk about deregulation and then add rules. The media called George W. Bush the "anti-regulator." But once Bush was president, he appointed thousands of new regulators.

Trump was different.

Once in office, he hired regulation skeptics. He told government agencies: Get rid of two regulations for every new one you add!

But they didn't. Growth of regulation slowed under Trump, but it still increased.

Still, I think Trump's anti-regulation attitude was why stock prices rose and unemployment dropped. He sent a message to businesses: Government will no longer crush you! Businesses then started hiring more people.

Of course, the media weren't happy. Reporters love regulation. The New York Times ran the headline, "Donald Trump is Trying to Kill You"!
...

---