4 ms·
> Even worse is that it's not even really that far-fetched Partizan politics aside... SBF's very mom was running a fundraising campaign. And after George Sor
by TacticalCoder 4y ago
> Even worse is that it's not even really that far-fetched
Partizan politics aside... SBF's very mom was running a fundraising campaign. And after George Soros SBF was the biggest donor.
SBF had already siphoned $95m out of Canadian teachers pension funds.
> This is just reinforcing the worst conspiracy theories out there
At this point it's not just conspiracy theories anymore. BlockFi had already reached an agreement with the SEC (and SBF "bought" BlockFi when it was in trouble) and it's totally obvious that FTX would have been a licensed regulated exchanges once the current bill would have passed.
It's an undisputable fact that the chief FTX lobbyist was an ex-CFTC commissioner. He apparently also was an ex- colleague of the SEC's chair, Gary Gensler.
And as weird coincidence would have it: Gary Gensler was an ex-colleague of Alameda's 28 years CEO's father.
And you dare to say it's "re-inforcing conspiracy theories"?
Let the scum of this earth be exposed for what it is.
I'm not defending people because they happen to be leeches close to the political party I'm voting for.
- celestialcheese 4y agoI should have been more clear - this isn't a conspiracy theory. The money disappeared and there were huge donations to left-wing causes. It's fraud propping up political spending. No defence and not defending them. It boils my blood. The conspiracy theories I was referring too are the"jewish space lazers, George Soros Jewish Cabal Running The World Drinking Babies Blood" type anti-semetic conspiracies spouted off by people like Kanye and other far-right conspiracy nuts. This gives them ammo and confirmation bias that the more nutty and harmful theories have legs, and that can have real-world, extremely dangerous outcomes.
- vkou 4y agoWhich left-wing political causes were championed by the ~40 million he gave to the Republican party? Without digging into the minutia, it seems like a classic example of 'pay both sides so that no matter who wins, we get a seat at the table.' Unsurprisingly, the incumbents got paid more. The causes don't seem to matter, pay to play does. Now, if the right is ready to embrace an end to corporations and millionaires donating to political campaigns, it's a fantastic idea that we should embrace. If, of course, it's just sour grapes and complaining after losing a midterm senate election after putting forward a slate of some of the worst candidates they could field, I don't have a minute of time for it. Given the historic track record on campaign financing, I think it's the latter.