Thanks for the lecture in ethics. No.

I don't care what he did or says. A moderator deleted those posts

I don't care what he did or says. A moderator deleted those posts

Even posts deleted from self moderated threads by the op don't say. "A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator." in the message. Are you accusing me of manufacturing the quotes now?

Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.

Jesus your are fucking stupid.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201316.msg53780581#msg53780581
That is the post from your locked fucking thread. It clearly links to a self mod'd thread.

I don't know why you feel the need to make stuff up that is clearly is proven by your own evidence.

Thanks for your stand up defense of the guy. Of course, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said he was true to SELF. Then to determine if he did good, you have to look into what SELF is. Also,  for info on Romney, I'll rely on my Mormon friends.

Meanwhile, Pelosi really looks bad today, sort of incoherent rambling. What do you think? Her long, heroic struggle is wearing her down? I wouldn't be surprised if she resigns after the mess she's created.

And I hear Burisma's hiring.

What I chose to present to you may not be my sources. News articles are fine. But certainly, scientific sources must be available. My life is fine. How is yours going now that your Serious Discussion has came to an end?

Really? So you think a Carrington event would be some minor, unimportant thing?

I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody.

Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.

I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years.

I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign.

Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting.

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the president’s team presented three defenses, first that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime, second that the Bidens’ conduct justified the president’s actions, and third, that the judgment of the president’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they’re not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.

Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasked senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.

What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I “stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind: You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I voted with him 80 percent of the time.

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court, the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the president’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate, but irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.

I will only be one name among many, no more, no less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong. We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but in the most powerful nation on Earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/

But I have already admitted to just not liking Romney, so it's not exactly like I'm logically debating his merits or lack of. None the less, WTF? Pelosi's son and now someone close to Romney? How many "Jobs" are those guys handing out?

The Bitcoin transaction fee is a miner fee?

What is the difference between node and miner?

That doesn't seem to bother the conservatives anymore, just like the trillion-dollar budget deficits and other things they used to be vehemently opposed to.

I don't make threads Vod, you make threats. Like this threat you made to me in the Nullius trust abuse thread to try to stop me from having the discussion about the abusive trust ratings you made in the past as well as the one made by Nullius.


It is very clear you are using the threat of using frivolous negative trust ratings to attempt to extort me into silence.

Import tariffs - socialism or capitalism?

I don't care what he is..
I have a problem with him hindering the fight against left extremism, of which he is supposed to be an ally.. (Romney)

If he was really a Christian he wouldn't let his disagreement with Trump distract him from battling the LGBT agenda with the extreme perverted sexualization of everything they can imagine to relate, including sexualizing children with promotion and acceptance of "theybes", non-binary children, using hormone blockers on children, trans surgeries for children, child drag dancing, and generally exposing children to the topics of such filth in general, teaching children that being queer or especially TRANS is normal or acceptable and should be promoted..
Newsflas, Transexualism is not normal and should not be encouraged.. Look at the suicide rates.. You want that for your child?
Forcing Christians to make gay wedding cakes.. Forcing Christians to pay for, via their tax dollars, free abortions as plan B for sluts.. Late term abortions up to the day of birth..
On and on..

If he was battling for his "Christian Principles" then Trump would just be a minor annoyance to him compared to his actual enemies of the faith.. (which I don't see him raising much of a fuss about)

I would contend that a system very close to pure capitalism is MUCH less "extreme" than a system very close to pure socialism..

A capitalist system allows voluntary charity/socialism requiring little to no government intervention via authority..
A more purely socialist system would require great authority using the threat of violence to stop voluntary capitalistic actions..

I would like to eliminate the vast majority of socialism in place in America today, which is enforced by authority at the threat of violence..