We're still decades away from island nations disappearing due to global warming. I don't think anyone expected nations to be wiped out by 2020 and the article clearly didn't make that claim.
So sea level is rising about a foot every ten years, then? Much less. 3.3mm per year (which converts to less than 1.5 inches per decade if the rate stayed constant) .... So why not just say "thousands of years" instead of "decades"? The Maldives could be gone by 2100. global cooling is the big threat.
lol ok. moving on. I thought I only had 10 years to move away from the coast? Obama even is trying to help people who need to leave the coast by buying a house on the water. This is why Michelle Obama is so oppressed, she is being forced to live in a multimillion dollar mansion on the water that will flood in a dozen years, while trying to satisfy her obligations under a Netflix deal estimated to be worth 9 figures, all for doing nothing other than divide the country apart over 8 years.
Come on now, you are better than this. |
|
|
|
Higherhighs is definitely a weird hire, given that he is all but confirmed cheating at their OFCp tables. I wonder if the SWC team thinks he helped or hindered the site.
Seems like you have a personal vendetta but I'll bite in case I'm wrong. How is he all but confirmed cheating? Solver? collusion? |
|
|
|
So I love betting on horse racing and in the start everything was ok. Now it is a big problem, I never get the payouts for the odds I play even when no horses drops out from the race.
The worst was when I had a race where only 2 horses where left and my bet was before dropouts. I understand that odds get lower etc but I won the bet but only got 10% of my stake! So a WIN and I get -90% back of my money. Nothing from support and this is not the first time.
Today is my last day on Sportsbet.io !
Sounds like you're making parimutual wagers where the odds are not set until a minute or so before the race. |
|
|
|
We're still decades away from island nations disappearing due to global warming. I don't think anyone expected nations to be wiped out by 2020 and the article clearly didn't make that claim.
So sea level is rising about a foot every ten years, then? Much less. 3.3mm per year (which converts to less than 1.5 inches per decade if the rate stayed constant) great resource: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/Just google the Title: https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/stein2017.pdf |
|
|
|
if the winner talks about getting money instead of lambo and try to work something out with Stake with money instead of the car, I do not think that stake will stay in the middle of it neither, they are not going to just go "either get the car or you get nothing" type of situation, they will definitely give either the car or the money if money is requested by the winner.
I am just curious what will be the choice of winner here. Lambo has become "an usual thing" for this crypto gambling community but I am not seeing that any of this forum member posting their photo with lambo got for their gambling activities  . Still I think it depends on the winner and at the same time that we are talking about the majority of the public, who are not rich enough to get a Lambo, from tax purposes to signing over fee to many other stuff, it would cost a lot but also it is a Lambo so it is still quite free, whatever you are going to pay will not be remotely close to what Lambo would cost you to buy, so it is still almost a free Lambo for sure. I won a car a few years ago in a random casino drawing I didn't even know I was entered into. Wasn't even offered an actual car, they just sent me a check for $25k. (was a Toyota not a Lamborghini  ) The only people that would prefer a car over cash are people that don't need the cash and really want that specific $200k car, and even then - depending where they live it would probably be easier for them and Stake if they just take the cash and just buy the car themselves. |
|
|
|
I'm going to assume that like most people who've fallen victim to the climate scare scam, you are ignorant of the fact that the arctic has been free of sea ice even in the holocene:
Ok I'll bite. How did you figure out that there is no arctic sea ice despite all the satellite images, photographs, scientists, historical shipping records, first hand accounts, peer reviewed scientific studies about arctic sea. If you're right, it wouldn't be as surprising to me as if the Earth were flat, but it would be pretty close. Here is an article from 1989 talking about a warning from the UN about "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels" if global warming is not solved by 2000. Is anyone able to remind me which nations have been wiped off the planet due to rising sea levels? We're still decades away from island nations disappearing due to global warming. I don't think anyone expected nations to be wiped out by 2020 and the article clearly didn't make that claim. |
|
|
|
Biden has moved far to the left, and the DNC picking Harris for Biden makes the Democratic ticket the most radical ticket of a major party ever. The DNC is trying to hide how far the ticket is by trying to hide the most outspoken radicals; see how AOC is only getting a minute of speaking time for example.
She should easily get the progressive vote. The question is if Biden/Harris will turn off the moderate wing of the Democratic party. The DNC propaganda machine is trying hard to paint her as a moderate so to not turn off moderate democrats and independents.
I think Sanders has really screwed the Democrats, now two election cycles in a row. If it were not for Sanders, the DNC could have picked someone more moderate to be Biden's VP pick.
This is all being spread in an effort to help Trump get elected. It's not based in reality. The AOC DNC thing I hadn't heard about - boy is it a stretch: Next week they will play a pre recorded 60 second message from AOC during the virtual DNC. We don't know how long other people are speaking or the structure of the event, but somehow it has morphed into "The DNC is hiding how extreme it is by only giving AOC 60 seconds". |
|
|
|
Probably incompetence, but I mean more in regards to like - I highly doubt that the Trumps are the first people to do this (if all of the allegations are true) -- I also doubt that they're going to be the last ones to do so. An excuse to this could be that it is very expensive for NYS DTF and the IRS to go after this, but like, this is where the money is so wouldn't it be a net gain to be doing this and going against the rich people?
Rich people have expensive lawyers and the government has limited resources so it has to pick and choose. Which somewhat ironically means the biggest white-collar criminals often get away while someone who forgot to put a $5000 stock sale on their tax return may get the book thrown at them. NY Times have him inheriting around half a billion from his Dad and the real estate empire. He's worth a couple more billion then that now, so I wouldn't say that he's just not successful. Guy did do pretty well for himself throughout the years with his real estate holdings.
Given how he misrepresented his wealth over the years I doubt "billions" is true. Properties are likely mortgaged up the wazoo and money spent on fake tans. This has the advantage of being able to walk away and leave the banks holding the bags, like he did with his multiple bankruptcies. BTW S&P 500 went up more than fivefold in the last 30 years so there's that too. Pro tip for when you inherit half a billion  True in regards to the expensive lawyers and such, totally can't fight ya on that one. Makes it a lot more expensive for the government, and I highly doubt that Congress is going to allocate tons of money to catching rich people. They'd most likely lobby for that unit to get like nothing and no one would ever know. But back to the Trump side of things. S&P has gone up five fold so that would put the $500 mil he received to around $2.5B if it was all in the market. Trump was worth $3.1B (according to Forbes) before the pandemic, but now he's worth $2.1B b/c of the Pandemic effects. Most likely will go back to what it was before. So I mean, he has outperformed the market with his real estate holdings if you disregard this pandemic. The Forbes list is notoriously inaccurate and rich people get caught lying and pulling tricks to get on it all the time, including Trump. Even if you assume the list is right and he's not actually a fish over the past 50 years....it's just barely. Id do the same thing.. Get out of paying all taxes legally possible.. whatever keeps more money between tax lawyers and taxes, choose the lesser..
Wouldn’t you?
Legally? Yeah. I would definitely never donate money to the government. Nobody is criticizing Trump for not donating money to the government. (he actually is donating his salary now...I wonder if he can write that off the same as if it were charity) |
|
|
|
Most likely too long for anyone to read. Hard to put that into a one sentence headline which pretty much means that most Americans won't know about it. Not trying to shit on just Americans here, this is an everyone problem - no one has an attention span and wants to do large scale research on topics that they can just be spoon fed about. Excellent article, I am reading up on it now but had to post here after reading this part: " The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show" Q - Why didn't the IRS or NY State Department of Tax and Finance go after him about this? Is it just common for rich people to do this so no one wants to go after this? I guess you could say incompetence, but I imagine it's a lot easier to get away with fraud when you have several family members participating and many different types of assets and separate companies. The more complicated the better. imo the tax evasion and bank fraud aren't nearly as damning as the fact that Trumps entire "I'm a self made super successful business man that turned a small loan into billions" is false. (yes TECSHARE and spendulus, we know, he had success in the 2016 election) That may describe Fred Trump, but not Donald who blew tons of money that was given to him and whenever he got in trouble (often) his father just gave him more, and when his father was near death he took control of everything. |
|
|
|
Not sure why anyone would think that she is the most far left person in the Senate.
It's basically Trump's campaign slogan now. So no thinking is required. Just repeat it until you believe it. Also she was born in Kenya. Birth certificate is fake. Might be muslim. Don't forget race traitor, she slept her way to the top, dictator, authoritarian, and my favorite criticism from Trump - very rude and disrespectful to Biden during a debate! |
|
|
|
if you only want to consider a small aspect of reality, sure. Voting record sure would seem like a good way of measuring it, but I guess there are other ways. If you had to pick just one, then looking at bills sponsored makes a lot more sense than voting record but it wouldn't make sense to just ignore either one, or the campaign promises, speeches, interviews, background should all be considered when coming up with your own opinion of a member of congress' opinion. I'm sure you can find some good things to say about the MOST FAR LEFT MEMBER OF THE SENATE. Nobody really thinks Kamala is the most 'FAR LEFT MEMBER OF THE SENATE'. At least nobody that's informed. They're just saying that bc she's VP pick. Consensus would probably be Bernie then Warren as 'most to the left'. Next shit post please. |
|
|
|
You didn't say 'Biden isn't quite putting himself out there', and I wouldn't have pushed back if you did.
This is a semantics argument. Essentially disagreeing just to disagree. Hiding in the basement, not quite putting himself out there -- call it what you want. I think it's just Trump being effective at convincing people to believe something and then go repeat it other people.  Recently it seems to be happening more and more. Trump says something like 'Kamala Harris is a radical leftist' and boom - talking point for everyone. |
|
|
|
if you only want to consider a small aspect of reality, sure. Voting record sure would seem like a good way of measuring it, but I guess there are other ways. If you had to pick just one, then looking at bills sponsored makes a lot more sense than voting record but it wouldn't make sense to just ignore either one, or the campaign promises, speeches, interviews, background should all be considered when coming up with your own opinion of a member of congress' opinion. |
|
|
|
Harris is in no way moderate. By some metrics, she is to the left of Sanders who is widely seen in the Democratic Party as unelectable.
Some people are saying that she is one reason why we have the Bill of Rights, although if Democrats win the Senate and Congress along with the Presidency, we probably won’t have Bill of Rights anymore. She is willing to do anything for power, regardless of anyone’s pesky constitutional rights.
Left of Sanders? You seriously believe that? If anything Kamala Harris is a conservative. Harris is the left-most senator. Only if you don't count Hawaii or Alaska. |
|
|
|
I am serious and I didn't claim what your implying I did.
He's avoiding tough interviews or any situation where he might fuck up and give Trump ammo and would be a fool not to. Notice how it's the republicans trying to get him to talk? That's because they want him to lose. I'm not sure what you would constitute as hiding. I guess we have different definitions. Reading a scripted speech word from word in a rehearsed press event isn't quite putting yourself out there. You didn't say 'Biden isn't quite putting himself out there', and I wouldn't have pushed back if you did. The press conference was 3 days ago. Press conference without answering any questions from the press? Brave. I was responding to your claim that Biden 'hasn't done a press conference in ages'. regardless of it being the main reason or not, "not Trump" shouldn't be a reason to vote for someone. Try thinking about it without Trump being involved, or even political parties.
If you felt very strongly that a victory for candidate A would be horrible, and didn't agree with candidate B but felt they would be a much better president than candidate A, would you have a reason to vote?
This was the point I was making. What you're describing is tribalism in politics. The reasons people feel inclined that Candidate A would be horrible are not policy based, evident from the Pew Research poll. Were you just trying to say that you don't think people should vote for Biden? Or are you making an argument that disliking one candidate shouldn't be a reason to vote for the other candidate? |
|
|
|
You def aren't game-protect.
Gosha@e-coin recently posted this about wolfbet's license: Yo are holding a valid license. You should take advantage of this better, I think.
Why not expanding the site with real casino games and sportsbook?
Game-protect lives on these kinds of topics, he loves it when someone loses money, think about it who profits from getting you to lose and who profits from scamming you?
However, game-protect wants it to be scam, he wants you to lose all your money, if all casinos are legit and good then we need no game-protect, hence he wishes you to be scammed, he wants you to be scammed, he is happy when you are scammed, do your own calculations based on that. Wolf.Bet pays extremely mentally ill bitcointalk accounts to publicly lie about and defame the online gambling consumer protection entity Game Protect! Think about what it means if an illegal online casino attacks online gambling consumer protection service? Are they trustworthy? Do you feel comfortable sending your money to an illegal online casino that attacks online gambling consumer protection? But casino operate under this license:  Game-protect saying 8048/JAZ is valid license? Now way, GP claim this site operates illegal. Information is on GP's website which I don't want to link here but here is screenshot from it:  He's also attacked them: Game-protect lives on these kinds of topics, he loves it when someone loses money, think about it who profits from getting you to lose and who profits from scamming you?
However, game-protect wants it to be scam, he wants you to lose all your money, if all casinos are legit and good then we need no game-protect, hence he wishes you to be scammed, he wants you to be scammed, he is happy when you are scammed, do your own calculations based on that. Wolf.Bet pays extremely mentally ill bitcointalk accounts to publicly lie about and defame the online gambling consumer protection entity Game Protect! Think about what it means if an illegal online casino attacks online gambling consumer protection service? Are they trustworthy? Do you feel comfortable sending your money to an illegal online casino that attacks online gambling consumer protection? But also he's a spineless scammer: Might have mixed one up, but pretty sure Casinoin, Coinbet, Goodwin and OneHash all have curacao /jazz licenses.  |
|
|
|
Please, you can't be serious. He's denied so many interview requests, including one from Chris Wallace, and hasn't done a press conference in ages.
I am serious and I didn't claim what your implying I did. He's avoiding tough interviews or any situation where he might fuck up and give Trump ammo and would be a fool not to. Notice how it's the republicans trying to get him to talk? That's because they want him to lose. That doesn't mean he's been hiding in his basement though. Hiding in your basement and not talking to reporters are not the same. Especially when the most recent example of turning down questions was at a press conference watched by millions of people. hasn't done a press conference in ages.
The press conference was 3 days ago. No it was 56 percent. Not sure why I put 53. Regardless of it being the main reason or not, "not Trump" shouldn't be a reason to vote for someone.
I posted a screenshot of the poll you linked above. Try thinking about it without Trump being involved, or even political parties. If you felt very strongly that a victory for candidate A would be horrible, and didn't agree with candidate B but felt they would be a much better president than candidate A, would you have a reason to vote? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
