The Joe Rogan Experience (JRE)
- Thread starter Lanx
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
sakkath
Trakanon Raider
- 1,768
- 1,084
"Everyone just cared about making money anyways possible." isn't the counter argument you think it is, it actually supports my assertion that the guy is pissed with the CFPB because it shut down one of his businesses that was stealing money from customers.
Also who assured you conservatives weren't being debanked? I literally posted a link to the court filing of the CFPB taking a group of banks and bank lobby groups to court to try to STOP the banks from debanking conservatives.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,692
- 161,527
Your argument was that these evil SV fintech companies were actually trying to to get rid of the US dollar and institute 5% surcharges on transactions. Produce me evidence of that. I have direct experience working with those kinds of people, in that industry, in that milieu, at that decision making level. What's your experience?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,692
- 161,527
It's already common knowledge in AI circles that Biden admin promoted regulatory capture for the AI industry. This type of totalitarianism is exactly why agencies with almost unlimited power like CFPB were created
He alleges that the goal was to ensure that only a small number of large companies would survive, and all agreed to be completely regulated and controlled by the government.
“We had meetings this spring that were the most alarming meetings where [regulators] were taking us through their plans: Basically just full government control,” he claimed. “They told us, ‘Just don’t even start startups, don’t even bother, there’s no way they can succeed, there’s no way we’re going to permit that to happen.’”
One tactic he claimed he personally witnessed was the federal government’s attempt to coerce his business partners and even his own partner’s father, author and fellow Trump supporter David Horowitz, by pressuring banks to revoke their access to the financial system entirely.
Andreessen said the party no longer tolerated dissent within its ranks and instead demanded lockstep conformity enforced through cancel culture, effectively reducing the Democrats to a religious cult minus the opportunity for redemption.
“You might call [it] ‘soft totalitarianism,’ which is just rules and power exercised arbitrarily that just simply suppresses everything,” he continued, citing de-banking as just one example.
fortune.com
CFPB isn't some noble watchdog. It's another government cudgel (with almost unlimited power thanks to US bureaucratic state) designed by Democrats to target people that they can't target otherwise.
He alleges that the goal was to ensure that only a small number of large companies would survive, and all agreed to be completely regulated and controlled by the government.
“We had meetings this spring that were the most alarming meetings where [regulators] were taking us through their plans: Basically just full government control,” he claimed. “They told us, ‘Just don’t even start startups, don’t even bother, there’s no way they can succeed, there’s no way we’re going to permit that to happen.’”
One tactic he claimed he personally witnessed was the federal government’s attempt to coerce his business partners and even his own partner’s father, author and fellow Trump supporter David Horowitz, by pressuring banks to revoke their access to the financial system entirely.
Andreessen said the party no longer tolerated dissent within its ranks and instead demanded lockstep conformity enforced through cancel culture, effectively reducing the Democrats to a religious cult minus the opportunity for redemption.
“You might call [it] ‘soft totalitarianism,’ which is just rules and power exercised arbitrarily that just simply suppresses everything,” he continued, citing de-banking as just one example.
Marc Andreessen tells Joe Rogan that Silicon Valley is split in half following Trump’s win
“There’s now two kinds of dinner parties.”
CFPB isn't some noble watchdog. It's another government cudgel (with almost unlimited power thanks to US bureaucratic state) designed by Democrats to target people that they can't target otherwise.
sakkath
Trakanon Raider
- 1,768
- 1,084
What's that got to do with the CFPB? I'm also surprised you're in favour of handing even more power to Zuckerberg. You'd prefer that than the US govt I suppose.
Cash, not US dollar. It's the banks, governments and globalists dream to get rid of cash and have everything digital. Transaction fees everywhere, knowing everything you spend and where you spend it, track and trace, law enforcement purposes, the list goes on. Another thing Zuckerberg would love if the regulators would have let him, even more data on everyone to sell. The only people who want to keep cash are those pesky end users, the consumers. It's an interesting enough tangent but again it doesn't have anything to do to do with Andreessen lying about the CFPB.
Just more of the same statements with no evidence. Again, on this JRE episode, Andreessen was talking specifically about the CFPB terrorizing startups. Joe asked him for an example, and Andreessen started talking about de-banking. He talks about that Horowitz example and how to his knowledge it only affects right wingers. It's all around half way through the podcast. I already posted plenty of evidence debunking this. The CFPB is actively suing banks to get them to stop de-banking people. I'm sure Andreessen knows this and has a personal hatred of the CFPB because of examples like the one I already posted.
I can believe that he might only think it's happening to right wingers, although I suspect he's lying about that too. It happens to people all across the political spectrum. That's actually the reason I knew he was lying about the CFPB as soon as I heard it. I listened to a podcast a couple of months ago, about Lee Fang's anti corruption reporting. They talked at some length about de-banking. It was a left wing podcast and so they were heavily focussed on anti war/pro palestine protesters getting de-banked but one of the people on the podcast pointed out to them it happens to right wingers too, as reported by Lee Fang. Wish I could remember which podcast it was but I can't for the life of me find it right now.
Now the FBI on the other hand, I'm sure they would love to use de-banking as another one of their tools of terror. They probably already do.
All you have to do is post some evidence that the CFPB is getting people de-banked and this conversation will be over. I could believe it because Govt agencies tend to be so incompetent that they could be fighting both side of the same battle - but so far no evidence has been presented.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,692
- 161,527
This is getting tiresome.
I asked you for proof about these allegations that you keep making about these fintech companies and you keep deflecting. Normally, I wouldn't bother but I worked in that very specific industry so I have insight. Instead you demand proof for CPFB specifically while selectively ignoring proof that I offer about the government debanking and fucking around with private sector in general, such as this example of Fed and Libra. If you go and look at Pmarca's replies you'll see countless examples of people being debanked for being involved with crypto. That's a problem and it's pretty clear that this is tied to the government trying to either control or destroy crypto.
My premise is simple: I am asked to believe that in 2024 where we know that every govt agency (DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS, etc) is weaponized against the regime's (Dems) political enemies, that one of the most powerful agencies (CPFB) established by same regime is pure and untarnished by this rot. This is unrealistic.
I don't believe that letting Zuckerberg launch some crypto coins is "giving him more power" unless you were forced to used Facebook and Libra. The only one I see here using force to obtain results is the US government. That's a problem.
In the end Andreessen's general premise is accurate. We know we have given too much regulatory power to government, we know that government abuses that power constantly, and whether it does through this agency XYZ out of the 400+ it runs or Agency ZYX becomes largely an issue of semantics since their functions largely overlap due to the wide breadth of power these agencies are given.
Back to the original point, no I don't think Joe is being taken for a ride and no, I don't think guys like Musk and Andreessen are "anti-consumer" 1%'ers.
sakkath
Trakanon Raider
- 1,768
- 1,084
You're only finding it tiring because you keep trying to change the subject and echoing my own case back at me. That de-banking occurs has never been in question, I've openly stated it repeatedly, yet here you are once again telling me that debanking is occurring as if it's some revelation.
I have no interest in defending bullshit other government agencies do, including the FBI and CIA which I've already stated should be disbanded in this very thread. I'm only challenging Andreessen's comments about the CFPB which I've made abundantly clear here.
I didn't ignore your proof that the government is fucking around with the private sector. I even posted an article about the CFPB shutting down one of Andreessen's businesses, because it was lying and stealing from it's customers, amazing. I fully support regulatory agencies "fucking around" or "terrorising" (as Andreessen puts it) corpos that are doing corpo bullshit.
You state it's unrealistic that the CFPB is not weaponized against the Dems political enemies? I mean, maybe, but how about post some evidence? Here again is the court filing of the CFPB appealing against a Texas courts judgement to allow de-banking of Christian activists. This is the CFPB fighting to defend supposedly Dem enemies against corpo. Not evidence that they're not weaponized against Dem enemies, but it's evidence they're weaponised against the enemies of Dem enemies. Unless you consider Wall St to be Dem enemies, which would be weird considering how much money they just gave Kamala to set fire to in this election.
Also:
You don't think the richest person on earth is a 1%er?
You don't think this same 1%er who is currently teaming up with the 2nd richest person on earth to challenge the constitutionality of the major regulatory body that protects workers rights against big corpos is 'anti-consumer'? Ok, it's anti-worker, but I'm throwing this in there anyway since it's relevant!
You don't think this same 1%er who wants to delete the regulatory body that protects consumer rights against big finance corpo is 'anti-consumer'?
I cant be bothered doing the research to work out if Andreessen is a 1%er but him having a big sad about the government protecting consumers from his thieving business definitely paints him as 'anti-consumer'.
It's fine to be one of those so called libertarians who thinks that the government should get out of the way and let corpo run rampant, but you should just own that position. Trying to pretend it's not anti worker or anti consumer is absurd.
You also must realize that you share this ideology with that bond supervillain from the WEF -> "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". (Unless you're Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or one of the other oligarchs everyone is renting from).
I have no interest in defending bullshit other government agencies do, including the FBI and CIA which I've already stated should be disbanded in this very thread. I'm only challenging Andreessen's comments about the CFPB which I've made abundantly clear here.
I didn't ignore your proof that the government is fucking around with the private sector. I even posted an article about the CFPB shutting down one of Andreessen's businesses, because it was lying and stealing from it's customers, amazing. I fully support regulatory agencies "fucking around" or "terrorising" (as Andreessen puts it) corpos that are doing corpo bullshit.
You state it's unrealistic that the CFPB is not weaponized against the Dems political enemies? I mean, maybe, but how about post some evidence? Here again is the court filing of the CFPB appealing against a Texas courts judgement to allow de-banking of Christian activists. This is the CFPB fighting to defend supposedly Dem enemies against corpo. Not evidence that they're not weaponized against Dem enemies, but it's evidence they're weaponised against the enemies of Dem enemies. Unless you consider Wall St to be Dem enemies, which would be weird considering how much money they just gave Kamala to set fire to in this election.
Also:
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
You don't think the richest person on earth is a 1%er?
You don't think this same 1%er who is currently teaming up with the 2nd richest person on earth to challenge the constitutionality of the major regulatory body that protects workers rights against big corpos is 'anti-consumer'? Ok, it's anti-worker, but I'm throwing this in there anyway since it's relevant!
You don't think this same 1%er who wants to delete the regulatory body that protects consumer rights against big finance corpo is 'anti-consumer'?
I cant be bothered doing the research to work out if Andreessen is a 1%er but him having a big sad about the government protecting consumers from his thieving business definitely paints him as 'anti-consumer'.
It's fine to be one of those so called libertarians who thinks that the government should get out of the way and let corpo run rampant, but you should just own that position. Trying to pretend it's not anti worker or anti consumer is absurd.
You also must realize that you share this ideology with that bond supervillain from the WEF -> "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". (Unless you're Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or one of the other oligarchs everyone is renting from).
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,692
- 161,527
I find it tiring because it's a broad problem in general but you're trying to narrow the discussion to CFPB to avoid discussing of what Andreessen is commenting on broadly, where he is 100% correct.
You demand evidence of me but refuse to provide any to substantiate your initial assertions that fintechs are trying to get rid of cash, etc. in reality we know that it is governments who are trying to ban cash to maintain control on its population like your very own Australia
That's why it's so tiring. The broader trends are pointing to Andreessen being right but you're so fixated on hating the 1% that you ignore the obvious.
You wanted to have a honest discussion and I gave you the benefit of the doubt whereas everyone (who are seemingly familiar with your M.o.) told you get fucked and put honest discussion immediately started of with lies and misdirection.
sakkath
Trakanon Raider
- 1,768
- 1,084
I can accept it's a broad problem in general. I've never disputed that, but you are missing that my argument has only ever been about the CFPB, because that is specifically the agency that Andreessen brought up and was lying about in that interview. If he hadn't named that agency, or had named some other agency then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But he did name that agency, which I've asserted is because he's mad about it shutting down one of the businesses he invested in for doing illegal shit.
100% governments want to get rid of cash, of course they claim it's for security/law enforcement purposes - the same excuse governments always use when they encroach on our civil liberties. Of course the banks and fintech companies who shave every digital transaction want every transaction to be digital, you'd have to be naieve to think otherwise. I can't prove that's their intent, so call me a liar on this one if you like, that's fine too.
You talk about the broader trends pointing to Andreessen being right, and yet I've shown how he was indisputably either lying or just wrong - the latter is hard to believe given his history with this specific agency.
Anyway you want this conversation to be about one thing, and I want to be about something else, but at least a sincere disagreement occurred.
FBI or DHS according to Lee Fang - he's an anti corruption journalist who's done a lot of great work (IMO).