>>15601986

She brings up good points but is severely biased against any sort of digital currency.

Anon watched the interview she referenced. I don't remember the guy talking about his own woes. Seemed like a legitimate attempt to get around what they saw coming AND IT'S WORTH MENTIONING it actually came.

Rather than notabling potential morale killer all day long, why not dig more into the people she's worried about? Facts over feelings?

GiveSendGo seems to be doing God's work. They ARE free. the small fees go directly to the merchant processing. They don't see a dime unless you tip.

She knows politics up there more than I do… more than many of us… that can be good and bad. Understand though: SHE WANTS EVERYONE TO DITCH THEIR SMART PHONES, so she'll NEVER think crypto is a good idea, whether it is or not.

seemed to me like anyone expecting money from those funds is in a pickle on how to get them right now.

Any other ideas on how to let it flow? Cuz if it's flowing and you take this away you just fucked them and hurt morale.

Risk vs Gain.

Maybe she's right about the leaders. Dig.

please no all day notables though.

>>15602303

fwiw I love her idea about ditching the smart phones.

>>15602374

It has everything to do with it. If I'm right about the crypto guy's interview, it means she was so blinded by her bias she missed the main point of that guy trying to develop a way to get the funds to the truckers when the government dropped the hammer (like they did)

This was a big beef of hers. Don't act like I missed the point. Sure she's worried about ties to libs and a bait and switch, but the big issue is the money and who controls it and that ties directly back to the guy's interview which ties to his intentions (focused on himself or the truckers). Just saying. A lot of feelings need to be sifted through to sort out the facts and… personally… I'm not sure this isn't best dealt with later. Risk vs gain. To each his own but would prefer anons dig more then amplify facts.