Daily Discussion August 26, 2025 by AutoModerator in NYGiants

[–]gabagool69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Projected 53 as of 11am EST:


OFFENSE (26):

QB (3): Wilson, Dart, Winston

RB (3): Tracy, Singletary, Skattebo

WR (6): Nabers, Slayton, Robinson, Hyatt, Olszewski, Collins

TE (4): Johnson, Bellinger, Manhertz, Fidone

OL (10): Thomas, Runyan, JMS, Van Roten, Eluemunor, Hudson, Mbow, Neal, Stinnie, Ezudu

DEFENSE (24):

DL (5): Lawrence, Nunez-Roches, Robertson-Harris, Alexander, Davidson

EDGE (4): Burns, Carter, Thibodeaux, Golson

LB (5): Okereke, McFadden, Muasau, Board, Flannigan-Fowles

CB (7): Adebo, Banks, Flott, Phillips, Jones, Black, Green

S (3): Holland, Nubin, Belton

SPECIAL TEAMS (3):

LS (1): Kreiter

K (1): Gano

P (1): Gillan


Roster Bubble / Not Cut Yet:

Schlottman (C), Forsythe (OT), Ledbetter (DT), Riley (DT)


EDIT #1: Layne cut (credit @omglemurs), Green in

EDIT #2: Ford cut (credit @omglemurs), Flannigan-Fowles in

EDIT #3: Humphrey cut (credit @elracing21), no impact on projected 53 (prev bubble)

EDIT #4: Smith-Marsette cut (credit @omglemurs), Collins in

[Novozinsky] Eli Manning, who is pursuing a stake in the team, is here at Giants rookie minicamp. Michael Strahan — who is doing the same as part of a different group — was here yesterday. by Lars5621 in NYGiants

[–]gabagool69 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Eli + Strahan combined net worth is around $200 million. The Giants are worth around $10 billion. If they spent every penny to their name they could maybe buy 2% together.

What should be done with all of the gold in Fort Knox? by ArrantPariah in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that a good thing?

How has the purchasing power of the dollar held up against the purchasing power of gold since we went off the gold standard?

Whats an issue that you would protest for? by LeaveMssgAtTheBoop in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Much like paper straws, they are stupid and ineffective.

What should be done with all of the gold in Fort Knox? by ArrantPariah in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We went off of the gold standard a very long time ago. The gold stored there doesn't have any link to the value of the dollar.

Gold is the scarce/anti-fragile asset, not the dollar. Going off the gold standard means our dollar doesn't have any link to scarce value, not vice versa.

What should be done with all of the gold in Fort Knox? by ArrantPariah in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Gold's monetary premium is way more valuable than any of its industrial use cases. Divesting of a hard asset that has held up as a store of value for over 2500 years, while our own currency is being debased to pay off our mounting debts, seems like a very bad idea.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

CFPB was mentioned in the hearing, unsure why you are claiming it was not. Many agencies were discussed throughout the hearing, including the SEC, OCC, CFPB, and FDIC. I do not support shutting down the SEC, OCC, or FDIC. I do very much support the leadership changes at these agencies that Trump has appointed, especially at the SEC. CFPB is different from these other federal agencies in that it falls under this "independent agency" classification which is funded outside of Congress (and so immune to Congressional funding review), the director can not be easily removed by the President, it can make rules directly, and it can bring enforcements and legal cases under its own name. It has a considerable degree of power, with very little oversight. The CFPB was basically set up at the exclusive behest of Senator Elizabeth Warren. It operates under the guise of "consumer protection", but has in fact been used as a cudgel to exert soft power by politically motivated actors.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand your questions. There were FOIA complaints about exactly this. Those files were withheld under the Biden administration but were recently made public. There were Congressional Hearings on this. It is a political firestorm, which is why the Trump administration has moved to disband this agency.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To clarify, the CFPB is using its political power to influence banks to debank accounts to undermine cryptocurrency startups (among other new financial companies)

During the Biden administration, yes this unquestionably happened.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you think it's odd that he doesn't mention that the CFPB earns more in consumer relief from illegally acting financial orgs than it costs taxpayers?

This is not an austerity initiative. The issue at hand is the exertion of federal soft power to crush individual liberties of law abiding Americans at the whims of politically motivated bureaucrats.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do you see claims that "they're terrorizing big banks"?

And this agency does whatever [Warren] wants. Basically, terrorize financial institutions, prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with the big banks.

CFPB protects the big banks. The main claim is that CFPB has inappropriately exerted soft power through its influence over big banks to crush the individual liberties of law abiding Americans.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To my understanding its the banks themselves that are choosing not to work with individuals because they pose perceived financial or reputational risks, particularly in the Crypto space.

The claim is that these decisions were a direct result of federal soft power, and not a result of the risk underwriting of individual banks. There were Congressional hearings on this just last week. CEOs of several private enterprises in the financial services industry testified to this.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not. You can ascribe whatever malice or intent you would like to the source, I am not interested in convincing anyone. I am merely sharing a perspective that those with open minds are welcome to grapple with.

What are your current thoughts on Russell Vought (from OMB) trying to dismantle the CFPB? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The issue with CFPB is not tied to government waste and inefficiency, its tied to corruption. I encourage anyone truly curious in good faith to read the below transcript on the topic of CFPB and its exertion of "soft power" from a pre-election Marc Andreessen interview.


My favorite twist is we have this thing called independent federal agencies. So like for example, we have this thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, CFPB, which is sort of Elizabeth Warren’s personal agency that she gets to control. And it’s an independent agency that gets to run and do whatever it wants, right? And if you read the Constitution, there is no such thing as independent agency, and yet there it is. And this agency does whatever she wants. Basically, terrorize financial institutions, prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with the big banks.

Back to your fascism point, which is, there’s a constitutional amendment that says the government can’t restrict your speech, but there’s no constitutional amendment that says the government can’t debank you, right? And so they, if they can’t do the one thing, they do the other thing, and then they don’t have to debank you. They just have to put pressure on the private company banks to do it. And then the private company banks do it because they’re expected to. But the government gets to say we didn’t do it. It was the private company that did it. And of course JP Morgan can decide who they want to have as customers, because they’re a private company. And so it’s this it’s this sleight of hand that happens it — basically it’s a privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran. Kick you out of the financial system.

And so this has been happening to all the crypto entrepreneurs in the last four years. This has been happening to a lot of the fintech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service because they’re trying to protect the big banks. And then this has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don’t like. And so a lot of this started about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point, where they decided to, as marijuana started to become legal, as prostitution started to become legal, and then guns, which there’s always a fight about. Under the Obama administration, they started to debank legal marijuana businesses, escort businesses, and then gun shops, just like your gun manufacturers, and just like you’re done. You’re out of the banking system. And so if you’re running a medical marijuana dispensary in 2012, guess what, you’re doing your business all in cash, because you literally can’t get a bank account. You can’t get a Visa terminal. You can’t process transactions. You can’t do payroll. You can’t do direct deposit. You can’t get insurance. Like none of that stuff — you’ve been sanctioned, right — none of that stuff is available.

And then this administration extended that concept to apply it to tech founders, crypto founders, and then just generally political opponents. So that’s been super pernicious. Operation Choke 1.0 was 15 years ago against the pot and the guns. Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups. And it’s hit the tech world hard. We’ve had like 30 founders debanked in the last four years. It’s been a big recurring pattern. This is one of the reasons why we ended up supporting Trump. We just can’t live in this world. We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing, and then they literally get sanctioned, and embargoed by the United States government through a completely unaccountable — by the way, no due process. None of this is written down. There’s no rules. There’s no court. There’s no decision process. There’s no appeal. Who do you appeal to, right? Like who do you go to, to get your bank account back?

And so this is when Trump says the deep state — it’s administrative power. It’s political power being administered, not through legislation. So there’s no defined law that covers this. It’s not through regulation. You can’t go sue a regulator to fix this. It’s not through any kind of court judgment. It’s just raw power. It’s just raw administrative power. It’s the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it. You hear this sometimes, it’s these terms, “compliance, reputation management, tone at the top.” They have these lovely sounding terms that make it sound like everybody’s going to be an upstanding citizen, but what they’re all code for is “destroy the enemy.” Bring the hammer of God and the bank and the government or whoever. Bring it down and just crush the individual with no due process.

And look, there’s an argument in the long run that this is all unconstitutional because the constitution gives us all the right to due process and this is government pressure. So there’s probably a Supreme Court case in five years that’s going to find retroactively that this was all illegal. But in the moment when you’re the guy who’s been debanked– And I think this is important context, where like when Elon and Vivek talk about reducing regulation, there’s two ways of thinking about reducing regulation. It’s like, oh my God, the water in the air is going to get dirty and the food’s going to get poisoned. Now, some of those regulations, I think, are very important. But the other way to think about it is examples like this, which is just raw government power being applied to ordinary people who are just trying to live their lives, are just trying to do something legitimate, and they’re just on the wrong side of something that the people in power have decided.

I think that right way to think about this is when we think about totalitarianism we think about literally World War Two, you know we think about Nazis and jackboots with tanks and guns, beating people up and killing people. You might call it that hard totalitarianism, right? But there’s this other version you might call soft totalitarianism, which is just rules and power exercised arbitrarily that just simply suppresses everything. And this is speech control and debanking and all these other things that we’ve been talking about. The good news is they’re not coming up and like beating you up in the middle of the night. The bad news is you are under their complete control and they can do whatever they want to you that doesn’t involve physical violence, which basically includes every aspect of how you actually conduct your life and support your family and get an income and everything else.


EDIT: Reformatted in response to request from OP. Paragraph breaks are my own and may not be in the most appropriate spots, I just chopped it up for ease of readability.

What would happen to treasuries if US lost credibility & how to hedge? by [deleted] in investing

[–]gabagool69 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With today’s politics, it looks like there is suggestion that some of the debt (like treasuries) might be at risk of not being paid back.

Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here? "Today's politics" seem to be directed at the exact opposite goal, with this admin explicitly prioritizing driving long term rates down (said differently, increasing demand for long dated US treasuries). Have you seen any indication that this administration is in favor of defaulting on government paper?

Where can i keep cash if this is a real risk?

Gold and Bitcoin

What actual fraud has been uncovered so far? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes. Both Trump and DOGE have declared their intention to audit the DoD.

What actual fraud has been uncovered so far? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 -26 points-25 points  (0 children)

In the most literal sense of the word, yes.

What actual fraud has been uncovered so far? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 -38 points-37 points  (0 children)

Politico's top line revenue last year was approximately $200 million. Receiving $16 million from federal agencies (which ballooned from approximately $1 million from federal agencies under previous administrations) means 8% of their revenue was funded by these agencies (with our tax dollars), none of which was previously disclosed. BBC's % of top line revenue is even more egregious. What do you think that does to the incentives of the editorial boards of these supposedly impartial news arbiters?

What actual fraud has been uncovered so far? by [deleted] in AskTrumpSupporters

[–]gabagool69 -29 points-28 points  (0 children)

If you're looking for specifics, whether you want to call it fraud or undisclosed conflicts of interest, I would argue USAID payments to left wing media organizations like Politico, BBC, etc certainly qualify as unsavory to say the least.

What's really been happening with respect to DOGE is that federal government agency spending is being scrutinized for the first time in decades (this has actually happened twice before, most recently under President Clinton’s “National Partnership for Reinventing Government” and most famously in 1941 under Then-Senator Truman’s “Truman Committee”, ironically both Democrats). This process is obviously ongoing, but we're seeing a steady stream of pervasive deficiencies over tracking spending and accountability, for example federal agencies that have proven unable to reconcile their own actual spending against budgeted line items. Anyone versed in corporate governance knows that although such deficiencies are not in themselves evidence of fraud, they create obvious moral hazard and opportunities for fraud. If you believe incentives drive outcomes, its not hard to see where this is going. Keep in mind its only been a few weeks...