Topic: Which US presidential candidate is the lesser evil for BTC? (Read 226 times)

For me, Trump's stance has been very indirect. Correct me if I am wrong, but regardless of his tweets I don't think he leveraged any specific legislation related to such matters. Some argue that the lack of guidance is creating a hostile environment in the U.S. for investment in crypto. Perhaps some sense of direction from a president that sees crypto positively could help investors, but I wonder if it'd make any more underground uses of crypto prohibitive, such as p2p trades.

Well, I don't know much about any of the candidates, but I'm sure pro-crypto voice will be louder from the blue this election as new agendas are introduced. Trump's anti-bitcoin stance is already revealed from his tweets and that would be a weapon blue will use to marginalize his voter base.

That graph seems way off.  Am I reading it wrong or is it saying that Warren and Sanders are going to tax the top ~1% around 35%, just 2-5% more than 99% of the country?

Speaking of tax plans:



This article from Motherjones includes a nice visualization. Amazing how Biden, out of the Democrat candidates, would have a tax plan so close to Trump's. However, I think that plans that lower taxes for the biggest majority are more bitcoin friendly ones, as they'd live more cash in the hands of more people (hence more chances of people to feel comfortable joining). In that regard I think warren wins.

If you were writing what you are saying, maybe I could read it.

Haven't you ever heard of a savings account at a bank? You even mentioned CD's. CD's and bank savings are invested fiat.

Fiat in use is an investment for the family that uses fiat to buy their groceries. It becomes an investment in groceries, and then in a growing family.

In the event of destroyed fiat, BTC would have a chance to be the same kind of investing vehicle that fiat is. So, the President who destroys fiat is building Bitcoin.

You're not even reading what I'm saying at this point.

Fiat isn't an investment -- at least when it comes to EUR, British Pounds (Before Brexit), and USD. These are all currencies which are RELATIVELY stable.

Bitcoin, Stocks, Bonds, CD's, Real Estate, and so on and so forth are investments. Bitcoin is going to be the most risky investment. The others are more stable -- think Real Estate, stocks, bonds, etc.

Just because fiat is an investment just like BTC, doesn't mean they are interwoven. Some people use investments to do trading in their living essentials. If fiat went down, people would use whatever was left to do their trading just to live. BTC (if it lasted) would be one of the options.

People survived for all the history of the world before 1913. Money isn't necessarily fiat.

I keep forgetting that you're unable to understand anything buddy.

You do understand that BTC and Fiat (not even just USD, all FIAT) are interwoven in some way. People aren't going to invest in BTC if they begin to foreclose on their homes again, or if they lose their jobs, or if their company is going under and their pension and 401k is gone because we're going into a recession.

We can't survive without FIAT, yes.

If you can prove otherwise -- well if anyone else can prove otherwise, that'd be great.

You forget the part about the crashed money system. BTC people will jump right into using BTC, and showing a needy world how to use BTC. BTC will become a way of life for buying and selling... if the grids don't come crashing down with the fiat crash.

Fiat will be brought down suddenly. It will happen with the closing of the Fed, the orders of the President, some natural disaster that takes one of the grids down, or who knows what other reasons. If BTC isn't ready to go, it won't survive, either.

If it is Presidential manipulations of money processes outside of BTC that crash fiat, indirectly it will be the fault of the President.

I edited the OP to comment on Yang also.

In regards to UBI, I would argue that the central government handing money to such a wide scale is too much of an interventionist policy and would undoubtedly devalue government money. It gets too complicated and my knowledge in macroeconomics is too limited to further comment on a matter that economists are still debating. But I believe that with a less powerful but more distributed central currency, the effects on bitcoin could be questionable.
It's a double edged sword. More cash around and more people holding it, yet less overall monetary strength. The declining value might drive incentive to spend and invest, but crypto prices could fluctuate even more given that even the currency they're compared to could become more volatile now. Maybe this could be a disincentive to put money in crypto, other than let's say gold or other non-cash assets.

Can't agree more.

And considering his UBI policy...It could be carried out as intented benefitting most people in US, otherwise it could deal a heavy blow to US dollars which will benefit BTC. A good bet I'd say.

This just isn't true in the least.

If you are to look at most of the purchasing in bitcoin its without a doubt going to come from retail investors. These retail investors are only investing in bitcoin because of the fact that they have disposable income from their jobs and (hopefully) they're already in other investment classes which are much less risky.

Throughout this entire conversation I am assuming that regular everyday people consider bitcoin an investment, instead of a currency -- like me and other people consider bitcoin on this forum.

If the rest of the investment world goes to shit, people lose their jobs b/c the currency is crashing (which points to other problems) then bitcoin is going to die too. The price, at least. That will stall development in the area.

Which US presidential candidate is the lesser evil for BTC?

There are a lot of factors to balance regarding this question.

If the money system crashed today, it would be good for BTC. The value and recognition of BTC would go way up.

If the money system crashes later (because it is going to crash... nothing can stop it), the crash will be worse so it might be even better for BTC. But if the crash takes the electrical grid and the Internet down, BTC will be just as useless as fiat.

The Federal Reserve Bank is doing all it can do to keep fiat from crashing. They are doing an excellent job, if only by accident. They are introducing all kinds of "things" to hold fiat in place... like Quantitative Easing. These "things" are only patches to make it last a little longer. But so far, the patches have extended the life of the USD fiat 20 to 40 years longer than it would have lasted naturally.

One of the things they are doing is looking at the idea of a global currency. I can't tell if such a currency would be a fiat patch, or only an extension of the fiat Ponzi. But either way, it might include BTC, or it might not.

The point is, in the short term, the winner that crashes the fiat system is supporting BTC. But in the long term, it might work like this or it might not. BTC might be totally eliminated by the drastic steps it would take to introduce a global currency. But then, so would our freedom.

At the end of the day -- when Government wants to make themselves bigger and bring more control to themselves -- both parties agree with eachother in want they want to do.

If you were to look at something like the Patriot Act -- in theory you would think that Conservatives would shoot that one down because of the fact that it literally invades on the personal liberties of people and invades on your right to be protected from search and seziure AND invades on your right to privacy.

But no : There's an unwritten rule to allow government to get bigger and bigger and get more and more involved in peoples lives.

Trump, because he will appoint more conservative constitutional supreme court judges as opposed anyone on the left will appoint liberal activist judges who they hope can erode our freedom..

Whoever is for the smallest government possible and most constitution..

The last one I've never heard of here outside the US. I don't like Pocahontas' being too cozy with the banks, they're the ones that started that recession that dragged the rest of us with the US. So maybe Sanders.

I don't see any other Republicans managing to run for president aside from Trump. I don't have problems with him, I actually like he's calling out these large media organizations. If I'm just basing on Bitcoin support, he might not have a good effect, he has made many negative comments about it.

Just to start out, going to say that you did put a good deal of work into making this. So I must say that I do appreciate that, and do reward that on this forum. Thanks.

But I do want to talk about a couple things that you've written, and we can use it as a way to learn about some politics.


No other Republican candidates are going to be running against Trump. He is the incumbent, and he is the President. Which pretty much means that he is the head of the party. Even going a bit further with that, Trump himself has shown to be someone who can build up and destroy Republicans within his own party -- you either bend the knee or he''ll ensure that you don't win your primary (Look at Matt Gaetz in Florida, who won in an upset because of Trumps endorsement)

Even Bill Weld isn't a serious candidate in the eyes of the Republican voters. He's not going to win, so lets just end that right there.

But talking about any of the other Dem candidates, I think even if you go through all of their platforms you're going to be unable (Minus YANG, but I don't consider him a Dem. He's just running on the ticket to have relevance) to find someone who likes Bitcoin and is willing to support it.

The biggest thing about the office of the President and the executive is control. Most of the things that these candidates are calling for require a good deal of control by the executive, and the only way that is possible is if they control the money supply as well. Using Bitcoin ensures that they have no control of the money supply.

I think the biggest thing we should remember about Bitcoin is STATES -- states are the ones that typically push forward regulations that effect Bitcoin. Ex: New York and their BitLicense.

What evil, in this current government, do you see towards Bitcoin? Is there something in particular, legislative / regulatory wise, that you want to see changed?

Undoubtedly Andrew Yang is the number one pro-bitcoin candidate for 2020 presidential elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang
Though his chances may be less even among the democratic, he'd be a voice of pro-crypto lobby in the presidential debate.
And he is accepting donations in bitcoin.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/08/27/andrew-yang-2020-us-presidential-election-issue/

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/post/47382/2020-us-presidential-hopeful-andrew-yang-details-his-plan-to-regulate-crypto-at-a-national-level

https://cointelegraph.com/news/andrew-yangs-pac-accepting-donations-in-btc-via-lightning-network

I would like to ask this forum about opinions on which candidate with chances to win either of the big party.

Issues at focus to draw out which candidate would be the lesser evil for BTC are (at least in my opinion):

• Free international trade.
• Less state involvement.
• Anti-surveilance.
• For absolute press freedom (especially concerning views on Julian Assange).
• Not favorable to the bank monopoly.

Democrat party:

Biden is quite pro-censorship and surveillance based on his voting record in spite of him stating the opposite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Internet_privacy_and_file_sharing
Biden is also close to the banking carted from his days as a state senator.

Warren regarded Julian Assange as a bad actor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren#Prosecution_of_Julian_Assange
And supports a state-intervention policy to prevent banks from collapsing.

Sanders' policy against banks that are 'too-big-to-fail' might sound positive to some. If you're an accelerationist then sure you can interprate this as good for bitcoin, although indirectly. Although, his trade policy is one of the most protectionist ones even within the democrat party. To his credit, he has made statements favorable to Snowden and Assange and also against surveillance.

Andrew Yang is one of the very few candidates that has shown capability to personally comprehend cryptocurrency. His overall tone in regards to groundbreaking innovations in technology is that they should be utilized in a way that benefit would be spread to the greater population as much as possible; at least this is what I get with his views on a UBI as a follow up to AI and automation taking up jobs in the future. In regards to BTC, his proposed policies make direct reference to crypto, which is very impressive for a presidential candidate. However, his approach is not the most liberal. He is for regulating crypto on a federal level, something that many argue would improve the landscape and outlook for institutional-level investments to take place. He is certainly one of the more positive potential candidates, but the likelihood for him to be the nominee doesn't seem to be that great.

Republican party:
Donald Trump has a long record of supporting state-involvement, applying tariffs and initiating 'trade wars'. He's clearly not for free-trade and would succumb to any state-involvement for the sake of jobs, no matter how short lived that might be. He has also made pro-surveillance statements. He also has a history of personally attacking journalists and the media, which to me is quite conflicting to see coming from a president.

Bill Weld seems to be a libertarian at hear. He has made favorable statements towards Snowden, is against all surveillance, pro international trade and also supports a very fiscally conservative budget policy. His positions on big banks are unclear but he himself has a banker background. Although this sounds interesting: During Weld's tenure, the Attorney General's office prosecuted some of New England's largest banks in cases involving money laundering and other white-collar crimes. Sad to say, but historically speaking, libertarian candidates don't fair well in the presidential race.

Overall, I think that no candidate of those with chances to win the nomination in one of the two big parties appears to stand behind liberties and freedom sincerely when it comes to both finance and online communications.

Off the Candidates above, I would say that Bill Weld is the 'lesser evil'. But provided that he's the least known of all the aforementioned and the republican party hasn't had many candidates so far, I think it'd be important to go for a second choice.
Personally, I'm putting more weight on positions related to big banks and internet freedom if we're talking about bitcoin. In that regard, Bernie Sanders appears to be a better choice. His tax increases and increased socialist style welfare might indirectly contribute to reduced financial choice, which of course isn't pro-bitcoin, but on the other hand, for a four year term, I'd be willing to overlook that provided that other candidates have worse positions.

Edit log (for transparency):