Can someone outline these crimes please?
- He's already an unindicted coconspirator in campaign finance charges his lawyer already served prison time for. <> Naming Trump in that case was a political move intended to hurt Trump. The prosecution of Cohen was political, and Cohen decided to become a Trump opponent in order to gain leniency. Bringing this up really removes credibility from your post. What I said is a fact, actually. Feel free to dispute it and I'll provide the evidence. If you think he's innocent or above the law, just say so. Playing the 'it was political' card over and over removes credibility from all your posts. You could say that about any politician that commits a crime - it doesn't mean politicians should not be held accountable. |
|
|
|
My zero-research take on things is that if the previous bitch was a favorite with the globalists, the people will probably be better served by the military cleaning up things for a while.
If 'exercise instructors' can stop wearing a mask during physical exercise, alone, and outdoors, under the new 'military dictatorship' then it's very solid evidence that the military is more on the side of the peeps than was the previous globalist certified dictatorship.
Just listened to the latest pod save the world and learned a bunch about this. The 'previous bitch' (Aung San Suu Kyi) was first elected in 1990 with over 80% of the votes after campaigning on making changes to their constitution that would strip some political power from the Military. So they captured her before the election, nullified the results, and basically locked her in her own home for ~20 years. (they assassinated most members of her party, and prob would of killed her, but it could have caused a revolt as her father was like their version of George Washington) In 2015 (25 years later) she ran again, and won more than 80% of the vote again. So this time the Military added a clause to the rules that made her ineligible since her her husband was born in another country. Instead of locking her up this time, they made a new roll and allowed her to be 'State Counselor' while the Military was able to keep their power while she handled the more public stuff. Then beginning in 2015-16 there was the whole genocide thing where the Military executed ~25k Muslims, gang raped 18,000 muslim women and children, and burned down ~100k Muslim homes. Almost 1 million Muslims fled the country. Mission accomplished. In the November 2020 election Aung San Suu Kyi won again by a landslide and then started talking about amending the constitution again. The Military claimed there was widespread election fraud and despite no evidence to support their claims locked up Aung San Suu Kyi and here we are today. Fun Fact: Back in 2016 facing enormous pressure Facebook started banning top Military leaders for spreading misinformation that was leading to violence. Here's a good article about it: A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military |
|
|
|
5 whole jews you say? My god, they're taking over. The particularly nasty ones often pass themselves off as something else. Often 'Catholic', and when so usually of the 'Jesuit' variety. Some say that that sect was created by and for 'conversios'. I wouldn't pretend to know. Anyway, let's say it is true and my source (the Jerusalem Post IIRC) is all washed up. Even 5/18 is a pretty high ratio when one considers that Jews are supposedly 2% of the population. That's 1/50 for the mathematically challenged. Must the the superior intelligence that they go on about perhaps? I'm sure it has nothing to do with influence from the financial sector and Jewish lobbying groups or anything like that. I can assure you that Biden is not going to be as friendly to Israel as Trump was if you're worried about pro Jewish lobbying groups. Biden was clear about reopening negotiations with Palestinians and within his own party are antisemites like Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar. I wouldn't be too concerned. I'm guessing he won't be too pleased with Biden being friendly with Muslims either. |
|
|
|
'Your withdrawal will have 0.00030000 subtracted from your remaining balance to cover the fee required to process the transaction."
Thats 10$ withdrawal fee, are you crazy?
At the moment 25sat/b would be way enough. This site really is robbing its players. How often do you want to raise the withdrawal fee?
Hey did you contact the support about this and what did they have to say, also it’s quiet possible that at the time of withdrawal the network was charging a higher fee and hence they charged you that fee. Furthermore did you check at regular levels, was the fee same and if you didn’t check why did you withdraw when the fees were high?. I did not withdraw yet, because this fee is a fking joke. And like I said, the fee right now would be way less than 10$. When I deposited I took a "fast fee" and paid 0.00014 for the network. The fee they're charging is in line with a reasonable network fee if you hope to have it confirmed next block. But if you're making small deposits or withdraws with Bitcoin, you're doing it wrong. I'd recommend paying the 2 or 3% fee to exchange with dinabot for trx or ltc and then withdraw for about 5 cents and stick with anything but bitcoin going forward.
For the past 2 months the fee was ~$2 we charged users while we were often paying $10+ out of pocket. Between BTC and ETH we would have spent hundreds of thousands this month alone in fee subsidies for users which gets unsustainable when users are using stake as a wallet to avoid paying normal fees. We will keep our fee under the current transaction fee so users will still benefit. As the network normalizes and fees come back down our fee passed to users will be reduced further. We are working on making it so users can set a custom fee More inputs to a casino, of course, increase the size of the transaction. Consolidating many small deposits to withdraw a winning amount (expected to be much higher than the average deposit) means a potentially expensive transaction. What's the average deposit size? It might be worth investigating a sliding withdrawal fee determined by the value of your transactions - incentivizes reduced size usage. Doing a few batches of btc cashouts a day and then giving the user the option to pay the fee for instant or pay a reduced fee and wait for the next batch could work also. |
|
|
|
Biden isn't president
Yes he is. No, he isn't. Yes, he is. |
|
|
|
Can someone outline these crimes please?
- He's already an unindicted coconspirator in campaign finance charges his lawyer already served prison time for. - He obstructed the investigation into foreign interference in the election he won. (up to 10 different obstruction felony charges have been outlined) - He likely used the office of president for personal gain (emoluments) - He threatened/begged the Georgia Sec of State to 'find him' enough votes to win the state after being told he did not have enough votes. (I think there are 2 state laws and 2 federal he could be charged with for this) - He incited a violent insurrection. - It looks pretty clear that he committed a ton of bank and tax fraud before he took office. I'm probably missing a few things. |
|
|
|
IMO Giuliani was trying to discredit Biden's Presidency, similar to how the Steele dossier was used to discredit Trump's Presidency. In both cases, innocent people were caught in the crossfire.
Giving Rudy a pass bc of the Steele Dossier is pretty weak. The reason you think the Steele dossier was a joke is the same reason those people stormed the capital and millions of people believe the Trump actually got more votes than Biden. Trump repeated it over and over and over, and so Republican lawmakers and the media repeated it over and over and over. and so you repeated it over and over and over. In reality, there's far more disinformation about the Steele Dossier than in it. A lot of it has been confirmed, including the most important point - that the Russians were planning to influence the US election by helping Trump win. Most of what hasn't has confirmed has been determined likely true. The Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation. The Russians fed disinformation about both Clinton and Trump, hoping that the losing party would claim "election interference" by the Russians. The Russians had little to gain from a Trump Presidency, but they had a lot to gain from trying to make the election illegitimate. I would agree that Trumps behavior surrounding the 2020 election was similar to Russias for the 2016 election. But the SD was not a big factor in the grand scheme of things, a lot of it has been confirmed true, and very little of it discredited. America shouldn't tolerate Russia or Trumps behavior. |
|
|
|
Biden isn't president
Yes he is. |
|
|
|
|
Username: TwitchySeal
Post Count: 4627
BTC Address: bc1q6hv3jzwsnnrumx0g7udmc8n53dcw7dtjzrfdf9
|
|
|
|
Who's going to be the first congress person to be censured after the 2020 elections? Ilhan Omar was close over her blatant anti-semitism but dems couldnt fully commit. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is going to be my pick. She is an actual crazy person. Q anon believer and anti-semitic making the bold claim that the California wild fires were a result of the evil jews and their space laser. Apparently she thought Parkland was a false flag? Or maybe Sandy Hook?
Anyways, yeah -- she's actually crazy. Perhaps the first mentally unstable woman elected to congress.
I could see Marjorie Greene actually being removed from Congress at some point before her term is over. She's a bad look for Republicans, expulsion could end up being a good play politically and she's got enough crazy in her that she will likely give them a good reason to do it. I'm thinking something involving loaded guns inside the Capital. Most of the Republicans that voted to impeach Trump have already been censured by their state legislators. Not really a big deal though, I think John McCaine was censured like every other year or something (and they just censured his wife). |
|
|
|
It is not illegal to lie, even repeatedly. It's not illegal to shoot a gun either. Or walk out of a bank with cash. Or have sex. Doesn't make shooting someone, robbing a bank or rape legal. I am not sure what you are referring to that you describe as "violent rhetoric".
then google it? here's one that stood out to me for example.: A 78-year-old white male Trump supporter punched a Black male protester being escorted out of a Trump campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The Trump supporter was recorded on video saying he enjoyed “knocking the hell out of that big mouth” and “Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.” Trump the next day when asked about the violence at his rally: I thought it was very, very appropriate. He was swinging, he was hitting people and the audience hit back. And that’s what we need a little bit more of. There has not been a single documented case of protesters initiating violence against Trump supporters, according to Time. And at the Las Vegas rally that Trump cites, multiple security personnel told Politico that the protester threw no punches and that Trump was “over-exaggerating.” I'm not going to write up a report for you, from memory there's the "if he can do a body slam, that's my kind of guy" when the Republican running for governor (maybe congress?) was arrested for body slamming a reporter. And the rally where he said 'if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them and I'll pay your legal fees' The times he's fondly remembered the good old day when you could 'punch them in the face' and 'they'd be carried out on a stretcher' after protesters interrupted him. And there's plenty of others. Bringing charges against someone for political reasons is not necessarily illegal, so any conviction may stick provided the relevant statutes were violated. The problem is political. I can see there being a backlash against charging a former US President with crimes resulting in him going to prison. This backlash could ultimately lead to pressure on the Biden administration to drop the charges.
You're arguing that someone should be able to get away with crime because they were president. Take Trump out of the equation and you'll see how ridiculous (and political, ironically) of an argument that is. Think about why we have a criminal justice system. Why there are punishments for committing crimes. That's the argument for why a president should be charged with crimes that can be proven in court. |
|
|
|
Looks like a military base to me. Looks like they are getting ready for something?
It is kinda hard to connect the dots but this whole WSB/GME thing may go wider and wilder and trigger something big. Or maybe it is part of something big. Cannot tell yet.
It's a military base because people on reddit bought a bunch of gamestop stock. Really? Those are the dots you decided to connect? |
|
|
|
I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues.
It seems to be a pretty common misconception being pushed by the media that 'the speech' is the only thing to consider regarding Trump and the attack on the capital. Of course that's not true. You need to look at all the evidence. The tweets, the violent rhetoric, that blatant lies being repeated over and over. The speech was a pep rally before the big game. All the work has already been done, now it's time to get hyped and win the game. Also, the event was literally organized by him. |
|
|
|
there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges. What makes you think that? I know you don't trust polls that cast Trump in a negative light, but here's an ABC news poll from a couple weeks ago anyway:  https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/b2030ff6-7d13-4e12-83b1-42ef7ace3da5/note/f1766c48-a9bc-4c9b-8f39-d9abd05f9711.#page=1If you have a more reliable way to figure out what Americans think please share. This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton. The President doesn't have the authority to prosecute anyone. I don't think he has the authority to appoint a special council either, but I might be wrong about that. Like other political enemies (Biden, Obama, Comey, etc...), Trump attempted to have Clinton charged. It seems pretty clear that the reason she wasn't charged was the same reason Comey gave in his infamous presser: it was unlikely they'd be able to get a conviction. I don't think Sessions or Barr would've hesitated to charge her if they had a case that rose to the level that gives the DOJ a high 90% conviction rate. Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later. I'd be shocked if he wasn't involved in his business while he was president. I think most of the financial charges will come from before he was President. If he ends up facing any serious criminal charges, they would most likely be related to Jan 6th terrorist attack he organized. I'm torn personally on whether or not charging Trump would be best for the country. I think he deserves it, and not charging him creates a horrible precedent. But on the other hand, we need to be lowering the temperature so we can move on from the train wreck that was Trump and charging him would just be one more reason for one side to dunk on the other. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming he's charged within the next few months and it doesn't go to trial, I expect it to be 3-4+ years from now.
A more likely scenario is he refuses any plea bargain and spends the rest of his life successfully finding ways to delay the trial/sentencing.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
