I don't like the word always in there, but a lot of the time, yes, it's true. E.g., Tom Homan is getting paid to get rid of illegals, many law enforcement officers who want to get rid of crime, Trump was elected to drain the swamp...
Conspiracy theory: AI is actually running the Trump administration, leaving time for Trump et Al to spend their time on fun and leisure; whereas these videos are NOT AI but the real Trump, Rubio, and Vance playing with their prisoners, the real Obama, Newsome, and I'm not sure which Biden, but one of 'em. Source: it just feels right.
Props to u/GDZeus who posted about this several days ago but it got little traction.
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASt1JZk3B/secwar-hegseth-today-the-first-m/
What's the problem with this? As long as there is some kind of competitive free market, it will sort itself out. We like capitalism here. If you would prefer the Government set prices, go join Mamdani's re-election campaign.
Pardon my use of AI (Perplexity) in formulating this response.
Blockchain does not dispel concerns that online voting is inherently insecure; security experts conclude it fails to solve the fundamental problems and can even make them worse.
Why blockchain doesn't fix online voting security
End-to-end security: Blockchain secures the ledger, but not the voter's device. If malware alters your vote before it's submitted (e.g., changes R→D), the blockchain records the tampered vote correctly
Undetectable fraud: Attacks can silently modify or discard votes at the device/network level, making fraud virtually undetectable and uncorrectable after the election
Voter identity/authentication: Blockchain doesn't solve secure identity verification; bad ID photos and weak authentication remain vulnerable
Voter privacy/coercion: Blockchain's transparency can enable vote-buying: software can mathematically prove which candidate you voted for, undermining the secret ballot
Denial-of-service: Networks remain vulnerable to DoS attacks that could block eligible voters
Vendor opacity: Many blockchain voting vendors (like West Virginia's) keep cryptographic protocols secret, preventing independent security audits
Expert consensus
- MIT researchers: Blockchain voting would greatly increase the risk of undetectable, nation-scale election failures
- US Vote Foundation: Blockchain voting is an "imminent threat to democracy" and no more secure than regular web-based voting
- The Conversation: Blockchains won't fix internet voting security and could make it worse
- Scientific American: Blockchains are probably not the answer for secure elections
The bottom line: blockchain addresses ledger integrity but cannot secure the voter's device, network, or identity—the actual weak points that make online voting inherently insecure.
Any digital processing of votes leaves us open to software manipulation of votes. There is absolutely no way to stop a bad actor from changing the outcome of an election if they gain access to the code in a digital counting system, and no way to prove it was done after if they cover their tracks right.
Indelible purple dye on the finger after voting (in person only, obviously) to prevent people from voting more than once is a good idea, but then you have to ensure the person checking the fingers, the person supplying the ink, and the person applying the ink are not corrupt.
What's the bridge analogy?
When Xi stops persecuting the Christian Church, I'll believe he's a a good guy. Until then, he's a dark gray hat as far as I'm concerned.