I'm fine with a national vote, because these characters wanted to take down our NATION, as they did others. They were not a part of the building of this country. But it'd be entertaining to hear the debates.
If Tammy Duckworth gets Biden's VP pick, you'll hear Mike Pence grill her over her stance on statues in a VP debate. Pence is a fantastic debater and won't let her absurd stance on statues slide. "The Left" will view Pences anti-lgbtq stances as equally absurd as "The Right" views removing statues. |
|
|
|
Exactly, if you add a space at the end of the client seed the result shows 1.03x
But why i add space ? i put my own client seed and there was no space in it or it must to add a space at the end ? You seem to have a habit of adding a trailing space to the end of lines when you type, as well as some weird extra spaces before periods. Seems like just a habit you have that you aren't aware of. Some (but not all) examples from this thread ( archived): I want all money back which is only 0.009143 BTC on this account as they are cheating
i have recorded a video where you can see the same .
i'm going to attach images and my bet ID .any one can go and verify it
They given me result in my bet 1.03x but when i verified the bet on there verifier i got 8.53x
|
|
|
|
One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical. If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right? Each subreddit has their own set of rules. I'm not surprised a local mod removed the post from your screen shot. It's a controversial opinion, but it's not unpopular. This kind of reminds me of when you were complaining about click bait tabloid articles being removed from r/science, where the first three rules are: - Must be peer-reviewed research - No summaries of summaries, rehosts, reviews, or reposts - No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles |
|
|
|
One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical. |
|
|
|
On July 23rd in 2016, Hillary Clinton announced Tim Kaine as her running mate. There isn't really a formal time to announce your VP pick but around July prior to the DNC convention would make sense. I think we're getting close to that point. Obama on the other hand announced Joe Biden as his running mate on August 23rd 2008, just a few months ahead of the election but obviously waiting late to announce your VP is a bad campaign strategy so I think we're close to finally seeing who Biden picks.
Kamala Harris is still on my list as Biden's top pick, as with almost everyone. With how well Biden's doing in swing states, he doesn't really need a governor to help him pick up a state meaning he's got an nonrestrictive list of potential picks. Kamala tops that list.
Kamala is definitely the big favorite, which isn't surprising. According to most books, until a week or so ago Val Demmings was #2 and Susan Rice a distant third - now Rice seems to be favored over Demmings across the board and I'm not sure what changed.  https://www.sportsbook.com/sbk/sportsbook4/politics-betting/democratic-vp-nomination.sbkIt seems like tapping Demmings could give Biden a boost in FL, GA, NC and maybe TX - she was a cop in Orlando for 20+ years and eventually police chief - maybe that's a negative, or maybe she's perfectly suited to ease tensions ... I don't know. Kamala is safest choice - but she doesn't really have much to offer when it comes to potential electoral votes. |
|
|
|
Good investigation. But I think the op wil not reply to anybody, as he is only posting some promotions here and games.
We can not take Betcoin.ag serious anymore. How is it possible that these kind of sportbooks can still be active?
They've been responding and it looks like they took dice out of their provably fair sections. |
|
|
|
Nice work. How did you figure out that this is what they're doing to HMac256(server, client)? Just curious since I tried and failed. let hash = CryptoJS.HmacSHA256(serverSeed, clientSeed).toString();
let PRNGSeed = parseInt(`0x${hash.substr(hash.length - 8)}`);
mt.srand(PRNGSeed);
document.getElementById("resultBox").className = "card mt-3 bg-success"
document.getElementById("resultText").innerHTML = `Roll: ${mt.rand(0, 10000)}`; (Not familiar with the JSMTRand package) |
|
|
|
So what's the point of continuing the masks
"Still Confused About Masks? Here’s the Science Behind How Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus" https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-preventand distancing?
Why practice social distancing?
COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period. Spread happens when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks, and droplets from their mouth or nose are launched into the air and land in the mouths or noses of people nearby. The droplets can also be inhaled into the lungs. Recent studies indicate that people who are infected but do not have symptoms likely also play a role in the spread of COVID-19.
It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or eyes. However, this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. COVID-19 can live for hours or days on a surface, depending on factors such as sunlight, humidity, and the type of surface. Social distancing helps limit opportunities to come in contact with contaminated surfaces and infected people outside the home.
Although the risk of severe illness may be different for everyone, anyone can get and spread COVID-19. Everyone has a role to play in slowing the spread and protecting themselves, their family, and their community. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html#:~:text=COVID%2D19%20spreads%20mainly,noses%20of%20people%20nearby. |
|
|
|
These are out of order. The allegations started months before the June phone call. Maybe over a year? It's hard to keep track. They were covering it on Fox daily in the weeks before the phone call though, which was also the first time Biden had emerged as a front runner in the polls, both likely factors in why Trump asked Ukraine to investigate.
Source for this? How could quid pro quo allegations against Trump occur prior to the phone call being made? This entire fiasco started because of the whistle blower complaint. I meant the allegations that Biden had the Ukraine Prosecutor fired to protect his son. I think the truth would be that he was greatly exaggerating in that video where he was bragging on stage. We know they didn't just fire him before he got on the plane, or whatever he claimed. It was months later their 'congress' voted to have him replaced. And we know from congressional testimony that a combination of multiple countries and international organizations applying pressure all played a roll in Shokin finally getting the boot. Again, we don't know the internal deliberations as to why Shokin was fired. Did the U.S. have any influenced on Shokin getting him fired? If financial aid depended on it, who knows? You're right. We don't know exactly what was said. But we (we as in Congress members who were on committees who looked into this kind of thing) were fully aware in 2015 - 2016 that the Obama administration was pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin, and Biden was the point man for Ukraine, and Bidens son had a job with a Ukrainian energy company which had an open investigation. All of this was public. And the Republicans controlled both houses for 3 full years after it happened and did nothing. And there was no revelation that occurred when years later they decided it was a big deal - the only difference was Joe Biden was not a political threat then, and he is now. It just doesn't add up. If they thought it was a big deal, they would've screamed from the roof tops and investigated the hell out of it when it happened - it's not like they're shy. Trumps actual sons are running his international real estate business right now. There's a Trump Tower in Turkey, Trump openly threatened sanctions on Turkey. They have multiple properties and other business ventures in Israel, Trump moved the embassy and basically gave Israel the Golan heights by recognizing it. Ivanka got a bunch of trademarks in China, Trump is negotiating major deals with China. Jareds family owns more real estate than Trumps, I don't think I need to keep going though. Yes, and I call this typical Washington D.C. shitty politics. But apparently it's okay when Joe Biden does it. I don't have an issue Trumps sons or Bidens son doing business with in another country, they're private citizens. I also don't think that either Trump or Biden shouldn't do what they were elected to do because of what their adult children are doing with their life. |
|
|
|
You linked to an advertisement for an ebook on how to double your money with gold.  Actually it is an article, but I am sorry you are too retarded to know how to use an adblocker. My condolences. I do use an ad blocker. If you're going to post something you should at least read it. It's an ad disguised as a click bait article. Here's how it ends: Once a technology company creates a way to remotely access a device, then that back door is available to ANYONE who can crack it.
It’s not like some hacker, or foreign intelligence agency, is going to probe the back door on your iPhone and say, “Oh, nevermind, this is only for the US government. I guess I’ll try to find another way in.”
If this law passes, not only will the government be able to access your devices, but hackers will have endless new treasures of data to steal… courtesy of the United States Senate.
It’s genius.
On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years.
That's why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.
Inside you'll learn...
How you could Double Your Money with an asset
That Has a 5,000 Year History of Prosperity
Why gold could potentially DOUBLE, and why silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES
The 5 smartest, safest and most lucrative ways to own gold and silver (and one way you should definitely avoid)
Why gold is the ultimate anti-currency and insurance policy against the systematic destruction of the US dollar (that everyone should at least consider owning)
Why ETFs are a lurking timebomb and why you want to avoid them like the plague
And everything else you need to know about buying, owning, storing and investing in precious metals
This 50-page report is brand new and absolutely free. It's an ad. |
|
|
|
I said Joe Biden needed to explicitly make the case at the time why the prosecutor should have been fired, and he didn't. Secondly, it's not even clear why the U.S. urged the prosecutor as an obstacle because of Ukraine Russian conflicts at the time. No one knows if it was a quid pro quo attempt with Joe Biden and Burisma or if it was done as an anti-corruption, pro-western democracy effort. So the case was not articulated at all, and even looking at US Ukraine relations, the case wasn't retroactively articulated either. You don't get to go back and argue Joe Biden's case for him when he didn't make it clear. That's not how it works. I think the truth would be that he was greatly exaggerating in that video where he was bragging on stage. We know they didn't just fire him before he got on the plane, or whatever he claimed. It was months later their 'congress' voted to have him replaced. And we know from congressional testimony that a combination of multiple countries and international organizations applying pressure all played a roll in Shokin finally getting the boot. This is the talking point former Obama officials gave on the matter of Burisma which makes too many assumptions on what exactly the prosecutor was investigating. I'm more than willing to look at sources that directly prove Burisma wouldn't have benefited from the firing of Viktor Shokin if they're out there. But they aren't. Yeah I can't find any proof either way. That was what I was trying to say. A lot of people believe that the Shokin was elbows deep in the investigation and about to throw Hunters boss (and maybe Hunter) in jail for life so his father had to rush to Ukraine and sort things out for him. Look, replace Joe Biden with Trump, and Hunter Biden with Jared Kushner and tell me again that you wouldn't call this behavior unethical. The standards are always shifting. Easy. Trumps actual sons are running his international real estate business right now. There's a Trump Tower in Turkey, Trump openly threatened sanctions on Turkey. They have multiple properties and other business ventures in Israel, Trump moved the embassy and basically gave Israel the Golan heights by recognizing it. Ivanka got a bunch of trademarks in China, Trump is negotiating major deals with China. Jareds family owns more real estate than Trumps, I don't think I need to keep going though. Trump asking a foreign country (with corruption problems none the less) to conduct a criminal investigate on a US citizen is. It should be up to the US Attorney General on what gets investigated and the investigations should be done by US law enforcement and intelligence or congress.
Trump had numerous contacts with the President of Ukraine after the phone call in July (or earlier) when Trump mentioned the dealings with Burisma. There isn't any evidence that Trump had pursued his request to open a criminal inquiry onto Hunter Biden. This suggests that Trump mentioned the Joe/Hunter Biden deal as a citation to the overlying corruption that existed in Ukraine which indicated to Ukraine that anti-corruption efforts needed to be made for the U.S. to invest aide in their country, not a call to action that they needed to immediately investigate Joe/Hunter Biden. It really didn't look that bad in 2016 when it happened. And all the Republicans were fully aware of both Joe and Hunters actions. For some reason the shock and outrage didn't happen till a couple years later... Because democrats tried to use this as grounds for impeachment when Trump had a legitimate reason to inquire about Ukraine corruption citing Joe Biden. Democrats overlooked the fact that Biden acted wrong here. The outrage you refer to was merely pointing out how ridiculous and unethical the behavior of Joe Biden was.
The allegations started months before the June phone call. Maybe over a year? It's hard to keep track. They were covering it on Fox daily in the weeks before the phone call though, which was also the first time Biden had emerged as a front runner in the polls, both likely factors in why Trump asked Ukraine to investigate. |
|
|
|
You linked to an advertisement for an ebook on how to double your money with gold. |
|
|
|
Ukraine had just gone through a bit of a revolution by literally running their pro-Russia president out of the country. (The guy that paid Paul Manafort, Trumps future campaign chairman, millions to help run his campaign)
The west wanted to support Ukraines independence from Russia. The prosecutor (basically the Attorney General) was pro Russia - he was known for going after only people who were fighting for Ukraines independence and letting off people who were working to help Russia reclaim Ukraine. If we gave them aid while the prosecutor was still in power it likely would've ended up being counter productive.
This all might very well be the case, but it's a clear conflict of interest. I said before the legality of the situation doesn't really matter because Washington politics operates on the "barely legal" notion, but you cannot be the Vice President of the U.S. threatening to withhold aid unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor who was investigation a company your son was a part of. Furthermore, you if you want to articulate the case that aid was being withheld until Ukraine transformed its government into a pro-west democracy, that's fine, but Joe Biden needed to make that clear at the time and I don't think he did. The case had been articulated for almost two years. The US Monetary fund threatened to cut off Ukraine and specifically called out the Prosecutor as an obstacle, every leader in the G7 (formerly the G8 until they kicked out Russia for invading Ukraine) was open about the prosecutor needing to go. In Feb 2016, after Bidens infamous trip, 3 Senators (two of them Republican) even wrote a letter to the President of Ukraine about how important it was to end the corruption and also: "We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary." We have congressional testimony from multiple bipartisan federal employees that have all backed this up. It's not even clear that the firing of the prosecutor was good news for Burisma. When he became Prosecutor general in 2015 he inherited the investigation that started in 2012 and basically just didn't do anything with it. There are also reports that he was soliciting bribes though - so it depends on what's worse, being extorted and not being investigated or being investigated. Also keep in mind that the 2012 investigation was focused on the owner/guy in charge of Burismas actions in 2011. Hunter Biden didn't start working for them till 2015 after the investigation had stopped (although not officially closed). But the impeachment charges stemmed from this unethical action by Joe Biden. If they truly were unethical, which I think we all agree on, Trump withholding monetary aid on a condition to Ukraine to investigate fraud and corruption doesn't seem so unreasonable if Trump was using Joe Biden as a citation to the overlying corruption that existed in Ukraine.
We don't agree. I don't think what Biden said was unethical or inappropriate. Trump asking a foreign country (with corruption problems none the less) to conduct a criminal investigate on a US citizen is. It should be up to the US Attorney General on what gets investigated and the investigations should be done by US law enforcement and intelligence or congress. i didnt know about that republican letter. surprised it wasnt talked about more. it still doesnt look good but as more comes out that really is the only argument left. it didnt look good. It really didn't look that bad in 2016 when it happened. And all the Republicans were fully aware of both Joe and Hunters actions. For some reason the shock and outrage didn't happen till a couple years later... |
|
|
|
Ukraine had just gone through a bit of a revolution by literally running their pro-Russia president out of the country. (The guy that paid Paul Manafort, Trumps future campaign chairman, millions to help run his campaign)
The west wanted to support Ukraines independence from Russia. The prosecutor (basically the Attorney General) was pro Russia - he was known for going after only people who were fighting for Ukraines independence and letting off people who were working to help Russia reclaim Ukraine. If we gave them aid while the prosecutor was still in power it likely would've ended up being counter productive.
This all might very well be the case, but it's a clear conflict of interest. I said before the legality of the situation doesn't really matter because Washington politics operates on the "barely legal" notion, but you cannot be the Vice President of the U.S. threatening to withhold aid unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor who was investigation a company your son was a part of. Furthermore, you if you want to articulate the case that aid was being withheld until Ukraine transformed its government into a pro-west democracy, that's fine, but Joe Biden needed to make that clear at the time and I don't think he did. The case had been articulated for almost two years. The US Monetary fund threatened to cut off Ukraine and specifically called out the Prosecutor as an obstacle, every leader in the G7 (formerly the G8 until they kicked out Russia for invading Ukraine) was open about the prosecutor needing to go. In Feb 2016, after Bidens infamous trip, 3 Senators (two of them Republican) even wrote a letter to the President of Ukraine about how important it was to end the corruption and also: "We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary." We have congressional testimony from multiple bipartisan federal employees that have all backed this up. It's not even clear that the firing of the prosecutor was good news for Burisma. When he became Prosecutor general in 2015 he inherited the investigation that started in 2012 and basically just didn't do anything with it. There are also reports that he was soliciting bribes though - so it depends on what's worse, being extorted and not being investigated or being investigated. Also keep in mind that the 2012 investigation was focused on the owner/guy in charge of Burismas actions in 2011. Hunter Biden didn't start working for them till 2015 after the investigation had stopped (although not officially closed). But the impeachment charges stemmed from this unethical action by Joe Biden. If they truly were unethical, which I think we all agree on, Trump withholding monetary aid on a condition to Ukraine to investigate fraud and corruption doesn't seem so unreasonable if Trump was using Joe Biden as a citation to the overlying corruption that existed in Ukraine.
We don't agree. I don't think what Biden said was unethical or inappropriate. Trump asking a foreign country (with corruption problems none the less) to conduct a criminal investigate on a US citizen is. It should be up to the US Attorney General on what gets investigated and the investigations should be done by US law enforcement and intelligence or congress. |
|
|
|
Because Joe Biden or Hunter Biden didn't break any laws doesn't mean this wasn't an unethical move by Biden to be withholding aid unless Ukraine were to fire a prosecutor. Realistically it's typical Washington corruption and garbage politics, but running to defend Hunter Biden's actions here is hilarious. Ukraine had just gone through a bit of a revolution by literally running their pro-Russia president out of the country. (The guy that paid Paul Manafort, Trumps future campaign chairman, millions to help run his campaign) The west wanted to support Ukraines independence from Russia. The prosecutor (basically the Attorney General) was pro Russia - he was known for going after only people who were fighting for Ukraines independence and letting off people who were working to help Russia reclaim Ukraine. If we gave them aid while the prosecutor was still in power it likely would've ended up being counter productive. Biden was there on behalf of Obama. And when the Ukraine Prosecutor eventually left office it was a win for the US and US allies. The Hunter Biden thing was brought up, but nobody challenged whether or not it was ethical to tell a foreign country you'd only give them aid if they got rid of a corrupt prosecutor and the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate at the time so nothing was stopping them from investigating. |
|
|
|
While the book may have some truth to it, I really think the fact that he didn't go in front of congress and answer their questions shows that all he wanted to do is profit from his book. While we all know that everyone (most people) write books with a profit incentive as the motive, it really does take away from the legitimacy of the claim.
If this story was different and he went in front of Congress and said all of these things and then wrote a book, then we'd be having a different conversation right now. But this really isn't a good look for Bolton.
Going to take some time to see if his claims are actually true. Actually it shows he is full of shit. Lying to congress under oath is a crime. Lying in a book is not. He didn't say it in front of congress because he could legally be held responsible. If he just says it in a book he gets to attack Trump and manipulate the election with bullshit without facing possible criminal charges. It is really simple. He said he would appear for the Senate trial if subpoenaed. For the House he explained that he wanted a judge to rule on it to provide him legal cover and was surprised when the democrats just dropped it and moved without him. He thinks the democrats royally fucked up by rushing the hearings for political reasons (the Feb primaries) and having such a narrow focus and there should've been several other charges and also testimony about non-impeachable things he did as evidence of his mindset as a leader. Basically any time he met a dictator he tried to cut a deal not because it was in the best interest of the country, but to increase his chances of getting reelected. He did favors for China and Russia like ending criminal prosecutions and going easy on sanctions because he wanted them to want him to win in November. If you're a big Trump fan, and you want to remain one in good conscious - your only option is to assume that Bolton made all of this up. 
 |
|
|
|
On a global scale, gun crime remains incredibly low in New Zealand.
For instance, in the United States there are about 106 deaths per 1 million population each year.
In each of the last two years, New Zealand recorded 2.4 gun-related deaths per million people.
But if you go back to 2014, New Zealand had less than 1 death per million people, so there has been a steep rise over the past few years. That's nuts. Did you actually have a point or just fishing for more drooling retards like yourself with your low quality post that your moderator commrade will never remove because he agrees with your politics? Just sharing my thoughts on the article you posted. I wasn't personally attacking you. |
|
|
|
On a global scale, gun crime remains incredibly low in New Zealand.
For instance, in the United States there are about 106 deaths per 1 million population each year.
In each of the last two years, New Zealand recorded 2.4 gun-related deaths per million people.
But if you go back to 2014, New Zealand had less than 1 death per million people, so there has been a steep rise over the past few years. That's nuts. |
|
|
|
......
I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own. If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).
It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.
It reads to me 100% ike a typical ghostwritten book, style of writing could be National Enquirer. Makes sense considering tabloids are your go to when it comes to science (or anything at all really). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
