You're not talking about the phone call specifically. You're putting up a smoke screen for the sheep.


Given his past and the "quality" of what he writes in terms of misleading, obfuscating the like, I don't put much credence in what Solomon may say all on it's own. He's just the typical "fake news" person who's intent is to convince sheep to a certain bias. Like you apparently.

Besides that, it's all just a smoke screen to try and distract from what was said in the phone call. Trump clearly said if you want more stuff, you need to do this for me/us. So none of what you're saying or posting is applicable. Even his own spokesperson said it was a quid pro quo and he also said they held back aid by the way. Until it can at least be agreed on that Trump's call was a quid pro quo, the discussion cannot move onto the other issue of whether or not it was specifically for political gain or for other interests.

I said if they produce a 100% "accurate" one, then one has to wonder if it's been "faked" or not given all the lies and crap that's been going on in the WH. But until it happens, if ever, it's a moot point. Are you so derange in your worship of dear leader that you have reading comprehension issues?

I'm not done but I don't have the time right now to respond to your long drivel that contained nothing factual. Despite all the documentation I've given you that explains congressional subpoenas, you've shown yourself to either be too dense to get it, or you simply want to spread bullshit for the sheep.

I figure that one needs to use you're own form of discussion for it to ever sink into your head.

Talking about the phone call being a quid pro quo. Pay attention. I know it's hard for you but I was talking about the phone call which is what triggered all this. As for Ukraine not knowing, that's certainly debatable unless you've been in a cave and not paying attention to what's been coming out about what was going on prior to the phone call.

The transcript says right on it that it's not completely accurate so once again you show your ignorance of the facts. I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what's going on at all but just parrot talking points like a good little sheep.

Someone says they'd like to buy something from you and you immediately tell them you want them to do a favor for you though. If you have a problem comprehending how that isn't a quid pro quo, then I feel sorry for you cause you must be damn easy to manipulate and take advantage of.

If Trump had just said he'd like a favor and didn't say "though", then maybe (although it's still a stretch to not see what's there unless you support dear leader in all things regardless) one could try and make the argument it wasn't.

Here's something I noted that I haven't seen anyone clue into yet. When it comes to manipulating the media, he's brilliant. One day he said the transcript was an exact word for word record of the call or something like that. Of course all the media jumped on that and pointed out it's not. And they've kept doing that since then. It wouldn't surprise me if, assuming the "real" one gets released, it turns out to be a bit different and it's different enough that it muddies the water. Course with Trump I wouldn't past him to forge some transcript but I guess we'll see what happens.

The GDPR is "global" and in the same way the US has countries around the world cooperate with them due to treaties, the US does as well for other countries and organizations etc.

Having said that,
1. He has to be a EU resident and would need to prove that first before I would do anything.
2. Scrap #1 because as far as I know, this forum does not "target" any one but instead they find it all on their own. And so, GDPR probably doesn't apply
3. Scrap #1 because, unless he did business with the forum, I doubt GDPR would apply either.

Also, even IF Theymos decided to attempt to adhere, companies are allowed to retain information for some length of time. I'm sure the argument could be made that, in the OPs case since he carried out business on the forum, the info needs to be retained for X years in case law enforcement came a calling and/or for liability reasons.

The problem with GDPR is that there's going to need to be a lot of different legal cases before everyone really knows what the hell they need to do because it's crap.

It's not that the request was made, it's how he did it and that he tied aid to it. If he had gone through official channels and made it about corruption in general, none of this would be happening now.

Zelensky will say whatever they want him to in order to not tick them off and keep getting aid. Then when Trump is gone he could say something different. But then you all would claim the new government forced him to say it for the exact same reasons. Throw in there that so many of the players have corrupt pasts and say one thing one day and something else another that there's no way we can ever believe anything that would come out from any investigation. So we're all stuck with opinions and feelings revolving around what our bias says we should believe. They're all lying self serving scum bags.

Senate rules say they have to "take it up". However, it's very vague as to what happens to initiate a trial. There is this one short part in there that says they discuss it. It's possible I suppose they could dismiss it outright and not take it to trial. But they have to accept the articles of impeachment from the congress.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Side note. The rules also show an impeachment subpoena. In the form of a letter. Go figure.

Price drops, it's not profitable for some miners so they shut off the equipment or move to something else.

As price drops, so will the hashrate as more move away. It's still way higher than it was back at the beginning of the year.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-hashrate.html#2y

I smell a ban coming up soon.

Of course you and your ilk would say that. As soon as someone doesn't tow the party line you pile on. Hey. That's exactly what the left does. Go figure. You're all the same.

Side note.. He does have some "interesting" ideas on some things that's for sure.

So anything you have to say on the matter is worthless cause you only deal in opinion, feelings and theories. Gotcha.

I understand. Simply slapping a label on someone so you can justify in your mind dismissing what they say is a good tactic for those that don't want to look outside their little bubble. Carry on then.

Found a copy of the Napolitano video that didn't have some left or right wing commentary guy spouting off their own take on things.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/the-house-gets-to-write-its-own-rules-on-the-impeachment-process-judge-andrew-napolitano-says/vi-AAIVEUP

And his article

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-is-the-impeachment-process-fair

Take it all for what you will.

He is and he exagerates about it as well. But it's still not proof of what is being claimed.

I don't have a team.

Republicans sit on the committees and so are taking part in the interviews asking questions as well. But I guess there could be in on some
mass conspiracy if that's what you're proposing. Or maybe you're just blissfully unaware of what's actually going on.

Oh? I don't see anything backfiring at all. I do see the right running around not knowing what the hell to do.


You're not arguing anything so there's nothing to win. At least Tecshare can come up with some stuff that can be looked into. You just spout off nothing of value. And no, there really aren't any that I've seen so far. Not one can come up with a solid legal argument. It's funny. Judge Andrew Napolitano was on Fox and Friends saying all the same sort of stuff I and others have been pointing out. Google shows the videos being on fox news but it appears Fox has removed them lol.

She's not breaking any rules. If you have proof she is, then provide it or just stop wasting our time with "opinion". As for what the senate does, that's perfectly fine as that's within their authority.

Just a statement with no reasoning as to why it might be valid. Perhaps you have a hard time understand this. With the ability to create speech that can not be differentiated between fake and real, what a person heard cannot be trusted either.

You're not the person I was responding to so you can't correct my assumption. i.e. you don't know what he thinks.

Why don't you go read it as it says where that info came from instead of those useless sentences. I will tell you though that one of the sources is a well known US conservative group.

Says who? You? The rest of your comment was worthless drivel centered around some misplaced point of view. Go find some real analysis of socialism failures and quote that instead of making stuff up.

I'd like some of the coolaid you're drinking. Governments have already started to exert control over bitcoin and all crypto through things like the SEC and KYC. It will continue.

You didn't refute anything but just made statement without any reasoning.

Ok, if you say so. My perspective is that if I can read a transcript or whatever after the fact then I don't view it as secret. Fact is, I prefer they do things behind closed doors cause as soon as they do it for the cameras, it just becomes a circus wasting everyones time. The only thing that matters is seeing the transcripts after the fact.

What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.

I'll just assume what you're trying to say is that everyone is trading with the US and so has plenty of money in order to fund stuff. If it wasn't the US, some other country would be the one with all the money. i.e. it used to be Rome. it used to be the UK. Even so, it has little to do with the US and purely the strength of your economy etc. Lots of people these days love to point to Venezuela and it's failure. But really, those in charge were morons and put all their eggs in one basket. They viewed oil prices in the same way wall street viewed the housing bubble leading up to 2008. Saying their socialism proves it's a failure when they were inept is just foolish.

Side note, the US is "mostly" capitalistic. You might be surprised to see who ranks #1 in terms of the most capitalistic. The USA is 18th. Note how many countries that are more capitalistic then the US, also have more socialism.

https://www.thebalance.com/capitalism-characteristics-examples-pros-cons-3305588