161–170 of 179 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Unsure why this is downvoted, I haven’t seen a shred of evidence for considerable “dark” donations to republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a call he had with Tiffany Fong that she recorded, he talked about how he donated equally to both of them and that he couldn't care less about the politics, but he hid the republican ones considerably better because he felt the media companies would have hung him out to dry for the republican ones. I can't remember exactly what video it's in, but I very distinctly remember him talking about it. https://www.youtube…
And you believe him because...?
It's kind of cool that even a $100m political bribe doesn't buy you immunity
If you want to see how a criminal organization can truly become legitimized through corruption of political structures, Uber is a great example. They managed to create a decentralized illegal Taxi company in the most public manner possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...
The whole scheme strikes me as … unsophisticated, especially for two math geniuses.
in my experience being good at maths doesn't reliably indicate you're good at anything wildly beyond maths. often some related subjects like programming, but not always
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I like that openly funding dems and hidden money funding repubs equals Democratic boogieman. Big brain stuff.
I don't think it's far-fetched, but it's a pretty convenient claim for Democrats that the other donations are not on the record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s hardly in a maximum security prison with that kind of risk of violence, and HN really doesn’t need random conspiracy theories.
The guy you're replying to took the data as he saw it, formed a hypothesis that matched the data, and the hypothesis makes a prediction which can be validated. Is it an unlikely/weak hypothesis? Sure. But you're asking him to just throw away thought/science, to not try to explain the world.
Everything else is a flight of fancy with no support other than people steeped in right-wing propaganda would really like them to be true. There’s no reason to believe he knows anything damaging to the DNC, that such hypothetical evidence could only come out from his testimony, that it would be worth murder to keep quiet, or that it would be easiest to kill him in prison. Someone dying in government custody would draw a lot of attention – he’s going to Club Fed with other white collar criminals, not the problem wing at a super max facility, and other embezzlers tend not to shank people since they do expect to get out early for good behavior.
If you were a screenwriter, the movie version would have our hypothetical government conspiracy keeping him out of jail so he could more easily be assassinated at home with evidence planted to make it look like someone who lost their fortune with FTX because his parent’s house is a much softer target and there are thousands of people with that motive and none of them are feds. Once you’re just making things up you can easily come up with a chain of make-believe supporting any side imaginable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
with regards to the second half of your comment, I suspect this is a belief coloured by your distaste for the political system in general. This is understandable, but not really fair Yes the political donation system is horrendous, and yes both parties are as a result corrupt capitalist lapdogs to corporations and the super rich, but given that the system exists, it's hard to legally blame a party for taking a donati…
I agree that you should not be responsible when the donation is done legally but it appears not only did SBF use stolen funds but also paid illegal donations
Sure, in the case of parties, they’d be fine, they can pay that kind of money back, but let’s assume you donate to a charity and that charity spends that money on humanitarian aid. Your stolen 100m are now a (pretty nice, big) school in some country far away. Would it be „the right thing“ to make the charity pay that money back? Is that what the law demands? I guess that would make it even harder to run such a thing, since you always have to plan for the case where you might have to pay back donations you received… how long ago?
But then again, political parties and campaigns may need different treatment. And you also somehow want to recover these funds for the people originally owned that money. Rough call to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is there any evidence they're actually good at math?
> is there any evidence they're actually good at math? Both went to MIT and Stanford respectively, then went on to be professional traders (Jane Street Capital); now, one wouldn't think that was all because of who their parents were, right? As in this only possible because of their own merit to be sure. That is how this system works, after all! Honestly, I went to private school, and these idiots reminded me of the c…