1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Get a sample and find a DNA company to analyze it or put it under a microscope yourself to look for irregularities.

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can't make new money without existing entities using it. The government doesn't control the Bitcoin they own, they just have a stake in it. They can't issue more Bitcoin.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

They found recently that the interior of the collider was essentially dusted with like 4 tons of gold.

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think if countries start holding large amounts as a strategic reserve the price will stabilize over long term.

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sell some of it for USD or whatever local currency you need to use to do local transactions. Yes bitcoins can be transferred as portions and you can do it on your phone. Air gapping is no different from keeping gold in a safe at home instead of the safety deposit box at the bank.

3
ApeironPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

The constitution only requires we do it every ten years, but it doesn't say we can't do it sooner as long as the ten year one is done, would be expensive.

3
ApeironPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

This, if you are learning coding now it's a skill that's going to go the way of the blacksmith because of AI.

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's going to suck in the short term as many companies will pass the costs along to consumers, but consumers will also reel in spending due to the increased costs so companies will have to start producing in the USA eventually, which makes money stop leaving the country.

5
ApeironPatriot 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's good to keep in mind Trump will probably keep people rotating through this administration as well, there isn't really many clean people in DC, if you don't keep them in the position long, have them do a job and get out, there isn't as much time for people to try to influence them or let them abuse the position for gain

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are already laws that are supposed to make it harder for minors to access pornographic content are there not? Why does it need to be regulated twice?

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because sometimes putting out information can cause the bad guys to react in ways that can be advantageous, or force them to change their plans.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

If someone likes something they should take it back, funky glasses don't belong to liberals, wear it as a badge of honor in spite of people.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, we have programs and federal funding for local fire authorities to do controlled burns so natural fires don't get out of control, CA just doesn't do anything with that money that it was intended for and I'm assuming NJ follows suit

6
ApeironPatriot 6 points ago +6 / -0

I wonder once all this comes out if affected persons will be paid from a class action lawsuit or something.

by chachi
4
ApeironPatriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think the precipice is not for us, it's to show the left what the unfettered power of the current overblown federal government can do, and they get to be on the receiving end. By the the time we are close to the end of two years of trumps mandate they will be begging for smaller government and more reform to limit its power.

First they had to be shown that the media is useless and has been lying to them.

Now they have to be shown how truly terrifying the government has become. This will come alongside revelations that the people they idolize in Hollywood are bad people and the elites of this country are actually trying to emulate the bad guys in the hunger games.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well yeah, the Dems scream about climate change and the ocean levels and then buy up waterfront property.

3
ApeironPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, land isn't people. People vote. This does make us look stupid to be touting because even in many red areas you still have 30 percent or more votes going blue. There's a reason Philly alone can make PA turn blue despite the rest of the demographics across the state being mostly red.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would probably say at 99 percent it becomes indentured servitude, which still looks like slavery if you squint a little.

1
ApeironPatriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not super understanding it either? Is it just because it's confusing to some people? An earlier document I saw said that ballots get tossed if there's no clear majority, but how is that different from normal voting? An example provided was 60 percent of an initial tally was for 2x Republicans, if people didn't pick the other conservative on the ballot as a second choice then yeah, conservatives could lose the election.

2
ApeironPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

if they control one branch of government they can sandbag hard for four years, that is probably plan B, survive.

view more: Next ›