TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him) @ TimLovesTech @badatbeing.social

Hi I'm Tim.

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

1,188

Joined

2 yr. ago

His part is signing a piece of paper with a Sharpie that one of his handlers puts in front of him. That phone call had to be horrible, Trump trying to explain to a mom he is setting her son that he knows nothing about, free because he once said he would to a large group of people he wants to grift.

Because 0% he knows the guy's name, who he was, or why he was in prison.

Edit - autocorrect =(

Which is why a "run on the Bank" or "Bank run" is unsustainable for Banks these days.

Also makes me wonder if he got any $TRUMP meme coins for his appearance. Oh and of course Mrs. Trump got in on the grift with a $MELANIA meme coin also.

Trump's crypto token tops $10 billion market cap, bitcoin hits record high

I'm sure this 100% about Snoop's crypto interests with Captain "money laundering" Trump about to put someone in charge of picking what the whole crypto scene looks like.

Snoop Dogg has been active in the non-fungible token (NFT) space, mostly in 2021 when he purchased a handful of NFTs. Snoop Dogg spent 4,185.5 Ethereum (ETH) tokens in 2021 on five NFTs:

• "Right-click and Save As Guy" for 1,600 ETH in December 2021
• "Some Asshole" for 1,300 ETH in September 2021
• "CryptoPunk #3831" for 850 ETH in July 2021
• "Destiny" for 225 ETH in October 2021
• "Fidenza #351" for 210.5 ETH in September 2021

Snoop Dogg likely spent around $15 million to acquire the NFTs. The collection is currently worth between $5 million and $10 million.

Snoop Dogg created his own NFT project in 2022. Called "Snoop's Stash Box," the project sold around 9,000 NFTs for $5,000 each, allowing the rapper to bring in $45 million in less than a week.

Source: Jay-Z, Eminem And Snoop Dogg's Crypto Portfolios Revealed: Who Owns The Most

Yep, all getting together to form a large "can't take it with you" org to give it all away before they are gone.

If only .... (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

Vance looks like he's been a bender for weeks, and Trump's hair looks like it's trying to perform magic so you "can't see" how thin his hair has gotten.

Meta/Zuck have been far right for years, they are just wearing their hoods now because Trump is looking to the big tech companies to be his State Media.

Is there any actual evidence that CA has had aid going to places it wasn't allocated (aka someone pocketing it), or is this just continuing to push right wing talking points? What are the chances that the real estate companies that wanted to buy up all of this "discount real estate", and perhaps large financial companies funding them, just might be in the ear of Rights mouth pieces?

And audit afterwards should certainly be conducted as they should for all aid responses involving emergency funds, but we shouldn't be withholding aid based on it. If something is found during the audit is when any issues should be addressed, not during a disaster. This is just Trump and his minions trying to make CA bend the knee, just like he did with NC during the hurricane/tornadoes spreading fake FEMA info.

You could claim that mine is in bad faith yes, but to do so would be in bad faith. And pretending you can have any meaningful discussion around the topic of "flat earth" in a forum format such as Lemmy is naive. If these people can stick their head in the sand and not listen to indisputable science, Lemmy is not the format to try and convert them. And to use such an argument as the basis for new "rules" who's sole purpose appears to be so that they can be wielded against a few mods in a community (or communities) that apparently people think are being moderated to harshly seems like a bad way to go about it all. Either replace the mods, or someone move the community. Don't make these vague policy changes to try and "catch" them into changing their viewpoint when this whole dog-and-pony show is supposedly about censorship.

And stop trying to conflate real topics with wild conspiracy theories, unless of course the goal is to drag the value of real discussion as a whole down, because a "policy" like this using bad faith language and only backed by this censorship boogeyman talk does nothing to further discussion anywhere.

The two examples given, "marijuana" and "flat earth" are two completely different topics, and should be handled IMHO in two completely separate ways. Marijuana you could have a discussion/debate about because it's a real thing and very little real medical research has been done on it. On the other hand allowing bad faith discussion/debate about "flat earth" is pointless and a waste of time and energy for anyone with critical thinking. Those types of comments should just be shutdown as you can't argue a bad faith topic and leaving it around only reinforces these bad faith view points creating an eventual decline in a community.

Bowing to those that use bad faith arguments as a way to "prove" this fake sense of censorship should not be tolerated, and deserve to be called out and removed. Removing posts in bad faith is not censorship, and claiming it is, makes you a bad faith actor.

So they are going the Facebook route of you need to allow untruth to prevent this fake sense of censorship. This is just a rule in bad faith that diminishes real debate/discussion. I will not be tolerating lies in bad faith to appease someones fake sense of a censorship boogyman.

It's almost certainly like Musk having Tesla buying up crypto, that almost certainly isn't going to be used to do shady things.

..though Tesla continues to hold around 10,000 bitcoin worth around $1 billion on its balance sheet.

Earlier this year, Trump floated the idea he could use bitcoin to "pay off our $35 trillion—hand them a little crypto check, right? We'll hand them a little bitcoin and wipe out our $35 trillion," he said.

In July, Trump promised to create a "strategic national bitcoin reserve" and predicted bitcoin could eclipse gold's $16 trillion market capitalization during an appearance at the Bitcoin 2024 conference.

Earlier this month, Trump confirmed he plans to create a U.S. bitcoin reserve.

Forbes Dec 27, 2024

And sometimes don't even post comments under videos on porn sites about how hot trans porn is, or how they are a "black Nazi".

Also don't forget they turned the frogs gay first! /s

From the guy who pays and buses people in to fill out the camera view behind him at rallies? That guy (or his handlers) would do this!? Wild! Shocked I am, just shocked!

Lucky for CA that soon Trump can deploy national guard to rake their forests like you're supposed to if you don't want fires like this. It's just forest 101. /s

The problem with extremism is that today they may be on Trump's/GOP's side, and the Trump and the GOP think that's great and look to exploit these individuals. The problem comes that at some point -

1. he (Trump) won't live forever.
2. when a rabbit hole takes them in another conspiracy theory fueled direction.
3. someone covets the power enough that they make a move to remove/replace Trump.

This is just a few, but there are so many more bad outcomes that I'm certain the GOP has no plan on how to counter them.

I thought it was always DNS? 🫣

Yes, but my point is that having empty units runs counter to the interests of landlords. Unless they can talk Trump's regime into subsidizing them unhousing whole areas of people landlords still have a limit/ceiling on the amount of churn they can have and still rent units (make money).

It's similar to the stories on Amazon not paying warehouse workers and working them like slaves, now their churn is so great they need to get robots because they are beginning to run out of bodies in areas.

Being a federated platform also gives admins of each instance control over how big they get and how fast. It also means that if someone goes wild and opens an instance to bots/Nazis in mass they will be de-federated by most instances cutting off the damage they can do.

I understand that, but at some point they will hit a number where people in the area can't afford the 1st month (or more) down or even monthly payments. And landlords aren't going to just start waiving the down payment or rent up front as this whole thing is about them using algorithms to maximize income. So there is a ceiling, but they can of course collude on what that is and all match that ceiling so that it's the only option (which I assume is what happened here). If they can then cause turnover once tenants are in place by prices breaking that ceiling they can keep down payments for breaking lease, then drop the price back to that ceiling for the next victim, rinse and repeat.