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!
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.
When I said "never like this" I simply meant digital art in the past were either digital copies of physical art or digitally created art. But both of which could be copied (unless they tried some form of DRM, as they do with music.) Why does it matter? Well, we were trying to define what NFT's were and somewhat disagreed, which is why I brought up semantics.
The "function" is the what you make. I do a lot with crypto. Many NFT's (e.g. Super Verse) add to your staking power, giving you a higher return. But, it is just "art" to most as most don't stake. There are many projects that do this.
Not sure of your background, but was an IT guy for years. So, when I look into NFT's and try to see what they are, the "function" is actually quite surprising. Now, you are correct in that most are just art (and imo shitty art, though I do like a few of the pixelated imagry and collect some. But again, brings up the subjective nature of "art".) I went through a list of some abilities of NFT's but you seem bent on just the negatives. I am not disagreeing with you that they exist and I'm also with you on the amount of scams. But you could make the same argument for anything involved with investments. The thing is with crypto, if you want, you become the bank, or in the case of NFT's, the "property owner and storer". Not sure how to say it, but I'm saying you "self custody".
I think you are focussing on the scams and making a generalization when again, it is too new to say. It is interesting regardless and I think when the bull run returns, you are going to see NFT's pump again. Not a real sign of value, but... we don't know. Way too soon to say. And in a sense, your argument can be directly made to crypto; no analogy necessary. LOT's of crypto projects are shit. Many are scams. But does that mean we can generalize about them as you do about NFT's?
Coming from an albeit ex IT guy with an intuition that has done me well, I disagree with what you are saying. But, I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. But at this point calling NFT's bad (or the like) reminds me of when the internet came out and it was narrowed down to email and Amazon to books. We simply don't know what is coming. Peace!
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)