Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain again how crypto money is not Russian bribes?
Christopher Harborne isn't Russian, and Thailand isn't Russia.
With crypto, how would you know where the money is really from?
Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
111–120 of 123 posts
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
If libertarians can't parse than putting fascists in power is, long term, a bad fucking idea as demonstrated literally every time it's happened throughout history, I don't want their fucking vote. I'm not interested in their opinion about anything, especially this. It is not my nor anyone else's job, including Kamala's for that matter, to coddle your sweet little fee fees about wanting your fake power-wasting money t…
[flagged]
I don't know where the logic "we're supporting horrible things, but if you look down on us for it that makes you worse! Yeah!" came from, but it's not very good.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don't know where the logic " we're supporting horrible things, but if you look down on us for it that makes you worse! Yeah! " came from, but it's not very good.
No you can look down on "us." Just maybe come up with a better plan next time on how to get the non-fascists in power than high-IQ semi-polite versions of calling the voters retards / immoral / horrible while verbatim and literally saying you don't want their votes. If that's what you do, a fascist will come along and come up with a better plan.
You can sit in your tower of better/worse ranking game all you want, you probably are better than "us" but you can't just rest on the fact that you're better and that's going to get you to the finish line.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#114And as if to sprinkle salt on the wounds, the Supreme court today allowed unlimited spending by political parties 'in coordination with allied interests(read the money class)' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734220 Moneyed interests have always jockeyed for power, but earlier they were held somewhat in check by Congress which had to listen somewhat to voters. With Citizens united in 2010 and corporate media dr…
Yes that spending has been very helpful in keeping all these far left candidates from winning their primaries. It seems like the only thing that matters in politics is money.
It's not the only thing but it helps. Kamala was being praised for raising almost a billion dollars. The dems spent more money in presidential elections than republicans.
Where money goes further is being able to get attention. If the performance on TV, ads, roadshows is stronger than the other candidate you win.
Politics so so much about showmanship.
Elon with his Nazi salute even though many perceived as negative, it got him lots of attention in Media to be talk of town.
One thing going for Trump is he understands entertainment and attention. Positive or negative, he is center stage in news.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may make you uncomfortable to learn this but fascists - actual ones - are currently active in politics! My hair isn't dyed, for what it's worth. We could argue over the definition of fascism and which politicians fit it which might be more productive than accusing posters of being depressed.
Fascism is a political phenomenon of the early twentieth century. There are no current politicians who are operating in the early twentieth century. So, to speak of “currently active fascists” is anachronistic. Typically at some point in the discussion someone will cite Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, but other people do not have to accept his extension of the term past its sell-by date. For the people currently…
What exactly is your motivation for rejecting the term?
Do you wish to make a constructive point about how we can work to stop this push for tech-autocratic-authoritarianism, and how we need to approach it a little differently than if it were simply fascism?
Or are you just denying that this current movement rhymes with a powerful cultural touchstone, to stymie those who would oppose it?
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#116Some day soon, perhaps we can vote cryptographically (whether or not on a blockchain – not necessary, just need private-key-signing abilities for each voter)... instead of being required in-person, as some archaic states do. Have some sort of in-person option (to vote without knowing how to hash keys... on-site, they'll do this for you after verifying ID). In the interim, more states need vote-by-mail.
----
Really happy with Monday's SCOTUS ruling that strengthens states' mail-in ballot programs, which ruled that votes are valid as long as they are postmarked on (or before) Election Day.
It's a step in the right direction.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#117And as if to sprinkle salt on the wounds, the Supreme court today allowed unlimited spending by political parties 'in coordination with allied interests(read the money class)' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734220 Moneyed interests have always jockeyed for power, but earlier they were held somewhat in check by Congress which had to listen somewhat to voters. With Citizens united in 2010 and corporate media dr…
Yes that spending has been very helpful in keeping all these far left candidates from winning their primaries. It seems like the only thing that matters in politics is money.
And yet, all the spending couldn't dent DSAs huge gains in NYC and now Colorado.
US apparently still has a functioning democracy, at least when candidates ignore the consultants and insiders and speak straight to the voters. Worked for Trump after all, remember that in 2016 the establishment was against him. Sure he's rich but that's not why he "won" (popular vote aside :( )
Just like Maga/populist right, the left can beat the billionaires if they're willing to take the message to the people.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fascism is a political phenomenon of the early twentieth century. There are no current politicians who are operating in the early twentieth century. So, to speak of “currently active fascists” is anachronistic. Typically at some point in the discussion someone will cite Umberto Eco’s definition of fascism, but other people do not have to accept his extension of the term past its sell-by date. For the people currently…
What exactly is your motivation for rejecting the term? Do you wish to make a constructive point about how we can work to stop this push for tech-autocratic-authoritarianism, and how we need to approach it a little differently than if it were simply fascism? Or are you just denying that this current movement rhymes with a powerful cultural touchstone, to stymie those who would oppose it?
When your post history is largely political battle (and apparently in contravention of HN guidelines), you’re obviously not asking that question in good faith but rather as some attempt at rhetorical oneupmanship.
Re: Crypto firms have spent $189M so far on 2026 US election, report says
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is your motivation for rejecting the term? Do you wish to make a constructive point about how we can work to stop this push for tech-autocratic-authoritarianism, and how we need to approach it a little differently than if it were simply fascism? Or are you just denying that this current movement rhymes with a powerful cultural touchstone, to stymie those who would oppose it?
When your post history is largely political battle (and apparently in contravention of HN guidelines), you’re obviously not asking that question in good faith but rather as some attempt at rhetorical oneupmanship.
The tech industry has created a lot of societal problems that unfortunately now rest solely on politics. The dynamic was much nicer years ago, before billions of dollars were pouring into building wholly non-consensual surveillance systems, when it was possible to focus on constructive code-based approaches to avoiding this control. For example with mere web surveillance on the open web, you could squint and see that it was possible to choose alternatives, use a secure browser, etc. But obviously this doesn't apply to things like ANPR and remote attestation.
I am asking the question in good faith - to see if there is constructive conversation to be had rather than merely quibbling over terminology. That is positively in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
Also I take issue with your characterization of "battle". I am more than willing to entertain political positions that I disagree with. The problem is that I've found very few people who are willing to be honest (including with themselves) and own up to the implications of what they're advocating.