One party got Obamacare done and is responsible that 40 million Americans who otherwise wouldn't have health insurance are covered by the Affordable Care Act.
The other side has sabotaged Obamacare in any kind of way possible, has blocked the Obamacare expansion to uninsured people in their own home states, has sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to eliminate Obamacare, has campaigned for 10 years against Obamacare, and came to within one single vote of eliminating Obamacare without any kind of replacement whatsoever.
And here you are, telling us how both parties are the same.
It's what the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA Republicans did with the GOP.
If you want the party to move in your direction, you have to become the party.
That's fair.
However, it's just an argument for cracking down on money laundering, criminal enterprises, dark money in politics, etc.
Bad actors who oppose cryptocurrencies out of nefarious reasons don't make cryptocurrencies a good thing, particularly if even worse actors support cryptocurrencies for even worse reasons.
Milliardäre sind halt so unglaublich weit weg vom eigenen Erfahrungshorizont, da könnte man sich genauso gut über Smaug den Drachen unterhalten. Menschen, die vielleicht hunderttausend mal mehr Geld haben, als man als Durchschnittsmensch in einem gesamten Arbeitsleben verdienen kann? Da fehlt vielen Menschen komplett das Vermögen, das in irgendein Verhältnis zum eigenen Leben zu setzen.
Da sieht man sich dann lieber in der eigenen, erlebten Umgebung um und tritt dann gerne kräftig zu, am liebsten nach unten.
Another thing of course is that the banks are unhappy with not getting their share in money laundering, crime investments and tax evasion, like they do with government currencies. Cryptocurrencies could also democratize organized crime and not just leave it to the established ties between politics, banks and existing crime groups.
I'm not sure that "cryptocurrencies make it much easier for criminals to launder money, finance criminal enterprises, evade taxes and for organized crime to funnel dark money and into politics and corrupt politicians" is the kind of pro-cryptocurrency argument you seem to imply it is.
A lawyer can walk away if the client is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, if he’s using the lawyer to perpetuate his illegal scheme, or if the client asks the lawyer to do something illegal himself.
Feels like chances would be pretty good for Trump's lawyers to dump him if they really wanted to.
There are Republicans who spent a decade fighting tooth and nail against Obamacare, and still took credit for Obamacare provisions in their home states.
progress > stagnation >>>>>>> fascism
I don't understand people who go "if I can't have progress and I'm forced to vote for stagnation in order to prevent fascism, then I'm fine with fascism."
Yeah, but in a first-past-the-post system, you don't.
Is that complete and utter crap, should the FPTP system be launched into the sun and replaced with a system that actually gave people choices, would a parliamentary system be better, is the Electorate College just an abomination based on a compromise with long dead slave owners, should every vote carry the same weight?
Well, there you go.
But in the current system, you'll only ever have two choices.
So choose wisely.
@Kleinbonum
@feddit.de