DJT's Truth account has been posting a lot today. Much of it is criticism re: Ron DeSanctimonious, etc, but about 2 hours ago, he truthed and retruthed a small flurry of "Trump for Speaker" truths.
Knowing that DJT is a master of populist 5G warfare, we can understand that he has reasons for doing this, whether or not he considers this as a real possibility, including (potentially) increasing his profile, stirring up the hornets' nest in DC, and moving a variety of narratives.
Dasting.
Trump TRUTH
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111179710276499538
3min Clip of Bannon Asking people to consider Trump for Speaker
Trump TRUTH
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111179709232101277
Content: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/wayne-root-trump-house-speaker-again-whether-he/
WAYNE ROOT: Trump for House Speaker- Again? Whether He Wants It, or Not, Here’s the Idea That Exposes All the RINOS and Changes Congress Forever!
Trump RETRUTH
https://truthsocial.com/@RepMTG/posts/111177115014378628
MTG: I’m supporting President Donald J. Trump to be the next Speaker of the House!
He has a proven four year record of putting America First and implementing the policies the American people want.
CONTENT: America's Real Voice Clip: "Is Speaker Trump a real possibility?"
Trump RETRUTH
https://truthsocial.com/@MTG/posts/111174447970743697
MTG: President Trump is THE LEADER of the Republican Party.
President @realDonaldTrump should be our Speaker!
EDIT: Disclaimer: In recent days, I've generally poopooed the idea of DJT becoming Speaker. I still think that the idea is not very realistic, but it would be foolish to rule out anything, given how many unknowns there really are.
I will say one thing: If DJT WERE to become speaker, it would detonate such a titanic hydro-bomb across the entire world, it would be time to just sit back, and watch the whole thing crumble. I think it could only happen if indeed Patriots are in control of a LOT more than I suspect. The meltdown would be delicious.
That said, either way, I think it's dasting that he has retruthed the idea. Either way, DJT all the way!
You’re right, NFTs are not images. They’re secure digital receipts, commonly with images attached to them. The technology might see some more practical use in the future. But when talking about the ones with images, the hype is a scam. Just like with fiat currency, it’s only worth as much as what you can get rid of it for, and, I hate to break it to you, there’s nothing valuable about an ugly cookie-cutter “unique” animal drawing to make your receipt worth anything. Congratulations on getting out with a net gain. Still a scam though.
There is a scam object and most will be worthless (as many of mine now are.) LOL The thing with new technology is that the ones that succeed will often more than make up for the failures. I made a lot of bad calls but I had a blast collecting this new art form. The BAYC made up for all the losses and then some. And I still have a part of history and a story. We don't take none of it with us, I get that, just having fun.
Anything we desire can be given a value. So, I can easily "hate to break it to you" too that I mademoney on a silly .jpg (that I never liked lol, but I know how to read charts and saw unreasonably high volume coming into that project so bought in and sold near the top.) Same as crypto - most are experimental and have no value.
A scam is something with the intention to deceive. There is a lot of that in crypto. But who are you or me or ? to judge what is art and what has value? Remember pet rocks? trading cards that essentially degrade over time? Or how about cabbage patch dolls? List goes on.
Dude it’s not a “new art form”. It’s a new technology if anything, and digital art has been around for a long time. The scam is that NFT creators mass-produce garbage, and hook up each piece to a program that keeps track of ownership, then try to convince people that it’s worth spending thousands of dollars on. The cult is very profitable to the people who started it.
The difference between NFTs and all these other things is that the only reason given to have an NFT is that you might make money off of it. Pet rocks are inexpensive and fun for a joke. Cabbage patch dolls I don’t know about but I assume they at least function as dolls. The only comparable things here are trading cards, but with trading cards you are paying for meaningful ownership of something- with art NFTs there is no functional difference between someone who bought the NFT and someone who saved the image associated with it, except to participate in the market. The only draw is as a financial investment, and for that reason anyone who presents an art NFT as a financial investment is trying to scam you.
I'm not meaning to make this into a semantic argument but having a unique digital piece of art is certainly new. Yeah, digital art has been around for a decent amount of time, but it was never like this, but again, getting semantic.
You use of the word "cult" seems a bit too strong. I mean I hate it when they call Q a cult when he/they teach us to think for ourselves, so to call a form of art that has no leader, "a cult", seems a bit disengenous.
Trading cards are limited and degrade. NFT (trading cards or the usual 10k collections) are limited and don't degrade. And art is in the eye of the beholder. IF you want to win a semantic award you got it, but I think it is way way too early to put into a box something that we don't know what it is.
A BIG draw for traditional art (e.g. Hunter biden "art") is money laundering. Same could easily be true of NFT's.
IF something is limited, there is a functional difference. By definition the copy will not have the function as NFT's are code. By definition. Copies are copies and CAN'T function as the original.
“never like this” You’re buying into the hype. What does “like this” even mean, and why does that matter?
The only “function” is to trade and make/lose money. There are two separate things going on here: the digital image (which has no function unless you personally like the look of it. And if that’s the reason then I might judge your taste in furry art rather than your financial decisions) and the receipt, which just exists to be traded around. To anyone who, like most people, think these images are atrociously ugly, neither of these two components of an NFT have any value. But suddenly if you couple them together they’re worth investing in? When they can just as easily be decoupled by someone copying the image?
If you buy an art NFT, you own that receipt. Anyone can copy the image. But that doesn’t matter because…? Because you own the receipt. Which proves…? That you paid money. For…? Proof that you spent money… plus that image… which someone else just got for free. How much is that proof worth?
If an NFT was attached instead to, say, a seat reservation at a sports game. That has value, and these two pieces (the receipt and the item) can’t be decoupled (because it’s enforced by the venue). That would be a smart use of NFT technology.
Look, I don’t blame you. These monkey people are great at selling their worthless garbage of the future. But at some point you have to look at things for what they are and admit that it was a scam, but you had fun and came out on top anyway.
Here’s an analogy for you:
Let’s say you’re a straight man (if not, just imagine the words are different), and are single. You meet a lady whose looks are 10/10 and you do everything to earn her favor. She likes you, and changes her status on social media to show the world that you’re her one and only boyfriend. But you notice that every single guy she meets on the street is able to tempt her to the point where basically any man who wants can sleep with her. But she never changes her social media status, you’re still her boyfriend! You still have that receipt to show for your efforts, even though what it’s supposed to be attached to is available to everyone. …congratulations?
(Just imagine the looks are 1/10 and you have an NFT, haha)