Why not use both? If your government requires KYC, you ain't getting around that. They want to track crypto the same way they track other assets, and that will involve monitoring all the on/off ramps. But once you have crypto assets, you now have the freedom to transfer them wherever you want, including wallets and exchanges that are more open/have fewer documentation requirements.

However, this freedom still doesn't exempt you from legal requirements, no matter how much bullshit you think they are. If the non-KYC exchange you transfer to happens to be under some sort of sanction, then you might get screwed if the authorities find out. Are they paying attention to you? Probably not. But it's up to you to decide whether the potential penalty is worth the risk.

Which one? They both suck.

That seems excessive, they could have just fired him....

This may be a bit heavy-handed, but it is done for a reason. Trump wants to use "lawlessness" as an excuse to send troops in.

By implementing this curfew and making these arrests, the LAPD can demonstrate that it has the situation under control, and there is no need for the Feds to get involved. If California's lawsuit against the Feds ends up working, and the court finds the troop deployment unlawful, this curfew enforcement might very well be the reason.

He even declared it an invasion of "military-aged men" at the time. He did that right around the time that the Supreme Court held that Trump couldn't be held off the ballot for formenting insurrection.

I am confident that if that ruling went the other way, Abbot would have declared an invasion was in progress, that Democrats were aiding it, and thrown Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and every single Democrat off the ballot in Texas.

called it!

TACO trucks, even

Since when does Trump listen to scholars?

Trump won't need to send them, Abbott would gladly send the Texas National Guard there himself

The pattern I see is that most on "the right" here will not be able to break out of their disinformation bubble unless it affects them personally. So only the small portion who have seen someone they know ("one of the good ones") harassed by ICE will respond.

I mean, this is technically exactly that, albeit in a much more limited scope.

The last time this was invoked was in 1965, during civil rights demonstrations in Alabama. But the Federal Government sent in the troops to protect the demonstrators from their local police.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-20/lbj-sends-federal-troops-to-alabama

This time it's the other way around.

This is the language from the law that would permit the President to mobilize National Guard troops in a state without its Governor's consent.

Edited to add: found the law here, it's small and easy to read: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1211-sec12406.htm

If it is invoked, it says:

Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States

But I parse that "shall" to mean the Governor is forced to comply.