It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.
He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen. But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation. I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it. If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time. Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance. Let me try again: 'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them. Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things. (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them) Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property. They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not. He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company. |
|
|
|
It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.
He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen. But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation. |
|
|
|
"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."
You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.
I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad. I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process. I just looked it up: noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition. Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime. They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State. Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think. Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law. Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president. They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law. You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary. "Introduction The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_processSo in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment? That's a good article on due process. It helped me organize what I'm trying to say a bit. Life, Liberty and Property are things that only an official court of law can deprive another human of. Congress does not have the power to deprive anyone of their life, liberty or stuff. They don't need it though, because Impeachment does not threaten the Presidents life, liberty or property - therefore due process of law is not required. |
|
|
|
"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."
You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.
I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad. I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process. I just looked it up: noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition. Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime. They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State. Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think. If the people elect a congress that removes a president, the president isn't owed anything and he hasn't been denied any rights. It's a privilege to serve as the President - never a right. The president serves the people. Not the other way around. Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law. Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president. They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law. |
|
|
|
Only heavily damaged brains are able to create such strange things!  To me it looks more like this:  I guess you must have one of them, if you can see it as well. Are you not able to see it? BOFA? |
|
|
|
Trying to get a mod to delete those posts in the impeachment thread wasn't cool - I don't think suchmoon or nutil were out of line at all considering the general tone of the thread. How often do you report posts like that? You gotta admit, it's kind of funny going back and reading this post and the following like 10 or so responses knowing that you were actually pissed off enough to try and get a mod to delete suchmoons and nutils posts. |
|
|
|
I mean, if you really want to sell Bitcoin for Paypal in 10 min transactions to anyone, you could go make a thread in this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=53.0You'll have no problem doing big volume. You're gonna get scammed though. |
|
|
|
Don't know much about these types of projects, but I read some of the conversations and this guy was trying to take advantage of you from the very beginning. He is using your situation to make him feel good about himself. He probably has a really shitty life and pretending to be hot shit to vulnerable strangers on the internet is all he's got. Just ignore him, live and learn. Edit Lollypop posted a ton of screen shots, I posted them all but they made the thread unreadable. You can see them all here |
|
|
|
In any case, i'm willing to donate money as well.
Unless you want to get scammed for more, don't even consider working with Game-Protect. "Give me some money and I'll recover the money you've been scammed for" is his thing. He's only here in hopes of finding one of Betkings victims to scam. I have contact to an UK lawyer specialized on internet crimes like the BetKing scam.
Can we make a list of the damage caused?
I won't derail this thread any more and just leave it at that for now. |
|
|
|
Real world definition for stealing: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Exactly, that's you! At what day and how did I steal something from h4ns? Click on the link in your scam flag. All the info is there. In the real world, July 2019 is not a day!!!  Despite of this, it does not explain how the theft happened  Click on the link in your scam flag (the third one). All the info is there. |
|
|
|
Real world definition for stealing: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Exactly, that's you! At what day and how did I steal something from h4ns? Click on the link in your scam flag. All the info is there. |
|
|
|
In the real world a successful brand does not change its brand name! You claim that you have this and that, but so far you have not shown any proof of your claims! For example, where is the accounting of the eosbet.io operation? You claim that you are so successful, but BET fantasy token holders lost around 70% of its investment as soon as the token was listed on Binance! Since the 23 September 2019 ATH investors lost 50% of its investment! Why suffered investors so hugh losses even though you made USD 5 million profit? There's a lot of exciting things coming in 2020 q1 it will open up for mainstream adoption from normal users to being ready to learn about a blockchain casino and why it makes sense to be a part of a casino instead of giving all their money to Bet365, PokerStars and not get anything in return. No, it does not make any sense to pay 50% more rajke to get a fraction of it back! It makes sense to pay 50% less rake and get more rakeback like on earnbet.io! You are obviously absolutely clueless about accounting! If they showed you a screen shot of a bunch of open support tickets would you believe them? (This is what Games-Protect does to try and convince people to send him money for his "services", it's the only way he can think of to trick people into thinking he isn't a scam) |
|
|
|
So I went through the github for Earths. It's a fork of Waves. https://github.com/wavesplatform/Waveshttps://github.com/earthspay/EarthsPretty much all the commits since they forked it, except 1, are just replacing any mention of "Wave" with "Earths". Every variable, filename, directory, documentation etc. There was one commit called "fix" that caught my eye: https://github.com/earthspay/Earths/commit/4aaca912c9da5424b76499e8f957baec4e76c6fd So the only real technical change they made to the project was in this file: src/main/scala/com/earthspay/settings/Constants.scala The original file looked like this: package com.wavesplatform.settings
import com.wavesplatform.Version
import com.wavesplatform.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "waves"
val AgentName = s"Waves v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInWave = 100000000L
val TotalWaves = 100000000L
} They deleted that file, and replaced it with this one (notice the change in TotalEarths goes way up):
package com.earthspay.settings
import com.earthspay.Version
import com.earthspay.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "earths"
val AgentName = s"Earths v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInEarth = 100000000L
val TotalEarths = 9223300000000000000L
} Then they changed only the TotalEarths, deleting a few zeros:
package com.earthspay.settings
import com.earthspay.Version
import com.earthspay.utils.ScorexLogging
/**
* System constants here.
*/
object Constants extends ScorexLogging {
val ApplicationName = "earths"
val AgentName = s"Earths v${Version.VersionString}"
val UnitsInEarth = 100000000L
val TotalEarths = 92233000000L
} So it looks like the only thing they were interested in changing was TotalEarths. My guess is that first they added too many zeroes and got an error, so they reduced it a bit with a new commit. I'm not familiar with the waves platform so I'll let someone else determine if this actually could be part of a scam. OP, could you just let your users know what's up with the totalEarths please? And let me know if I missed anything. |
|
|
|
What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process.
I'm just sharing my thoughts. I'm not trying to change your mind or attack you. My point is just that I think at the moment, a lot of Americans feel like they have root for either the Dems or the GOP like it's a Football game. They picked their team in 2016 based on each parties policies and now all that matters is a win at the end of the day (term). Only problem is that the 'official rule book' that everyone swears to defend was written 100 years before electricity was even invented. We've got a bunch of rules that are vague and barely ever used or updated. It's really easy to interpert the rules to benefit the team that you've already decided to be loyal no matter what. I just think that's a super dangerous path. Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent.
I don't think it's ok for anyone to ignore the rule of law. Due process is also vital to any civilized society. But politics and the criminal justice system don't go hand in hand like you seem to think. A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption. For example: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in our Criminal Justice system, is based on Blackstone's Ratio (we'd rather let 10 guilty people get away with a crime than jail one innocent person). In reality it's probably much closer to 100 - 1 today in America, especially when it comes to people who can afford to hire the best lawyers. If we make it as easy to get away with corrupt acts for the leaders of our country as it is for private citizens, we risk the country becoming corrupt. If we impeach and remove a president because it seems pretty damn likely they are corrupt, without reaching the same burden of proof that a criminal prosecutor is required to prove, the result is the VP becomes President (same political party), the Cabinet and Congress stays the same, and if the country thinks Congress didn't represent them accurately by removing the president, they get voted out when their term is up. This is a concept I think the founders made clear. The office of the president and the person who holds the office of the president or two separate things with separate rights. That's why they went out of their way to give Congress the responsibility of oversight and impeachment, but not the power to charge anyone criminally. Also the term limits are great. They obviously didn't want a President to be able to use the office to become a King. As for precedent in Congress. It's fine to break it. As long as you aren't breaking any rules, it's up to the people you represent (and your party/committee leader, or 2/3's of the entire House or Senate I suppose) to decide whether or not your actions are acceptable. |
|
|
|
You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!
I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want. It would be foolish to give them the power. They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with. And I wouldn't fault them for doing that. There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed. Remember, this is not the trial. We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial. We don't do special prosecutors anymore. The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself. We have already established you don't care about due process, the rule of law, or precedent. You can call being able to present a defense "muddying the waters" all you want, that doesn't wave a magic wand over totalitarianism and make it right. Rather convenient you can just unilaterally declare a defense not necessary, because after all nothing should get in the way of this extrajudicial railroading right? Your proclamation that if the roles were reverse they would act the same is nothing but you justifying democrat totalitarianism with assumptions based on absolutely noting. The House has oversight authority, not just one half of The House. Nothing about this process is within the law. So again, those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still pretty quiet... No matter, just keep shifting to new accusations as you fail to justify the last, people have short memories and you can perpetually justify this insanity by simply sliding the topic. I'm simply pointing out the massive amount of hypocrisy that goes on in US politics from both sides. I think that most peoples views on this whole impeachment thing is mainly driven by a drive for whatever side they agree more with policy wise to win. That's fucked up. Your views on immigration or healthcare or taxes shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it's ok to blatantly lie to the country. Yet whenever a politician lies, only the opposition calls them out. And I'm not just talking about Trump. This is just a general example. It's become perfectly normal to respond to someone you disagree with by insulting them and trying to make them look or feel stupid which just creates a vicious cycle of non-productive 'debate'. (if you can even call it that). Without productive debate, we aren't really a democracy. The best ideas won't be considered. We'll just use the ideas of whoever is best at making the other politicians look the most stupid. |
|
|
|
You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!
I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want. It would be foolish to give them the power. They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with. And I wouldn't fault them for doing that. There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed. Remember, this is not the trial. We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial. We don't do special prosecutors anymore. The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself. |
|
|
|
You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think? (Merrick Garland for example.)
That's what you guys sound like right now.
Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court. This isn't just "something", this is an attempt to unseat a sitting duly elected president. I believe you understand the gravity of this and are simply being disingenuous .... It does look that way. The thing is, these guys have publicly advocated impeaching Trump since the very first day he was in office, and they really didn't care if there were or were not valid reasons for doing so. And they've been upfront about it, not hiding it at all. The reason it took almost 10 months for them to have these impeachment hearings is because not enough democrats supported it. I'm one of those people that think Trump has at least 'deserved' to be impeached since not too far into his presidency. Like most people who agreed with me at the time, I believed my reasons were valid. Just because you believe they are not valid, does not mean I don't care whether or not they are valid. It just means have a different opinion on what valid is. |
|
|
|
Well now that's a crock of shit. Your side can call witnesses in its defense, but they must be approved by your adversary. Stalinist methods. It matters not how much they undermine the rule of law and due process, control must be taken at all costs. You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think? (Merrick Garland for example.) That's what you guys sound like right now. Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court. On the contrary, after Scalia passed away and left a vacancy on the SC, the ever-diplomatic, gracious Republicans cited the "Biden Rule" in deferring the discussion about the SC vacancy: The Senate's Republican leadership was quick to assert that the vacancy should not be filled until after the 2016 presidential election.[13] They cited a 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the "Biden rule". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination#Biden_rule_debateNo need to play these games man. He did it because he wanted a shot at filling the vacancy with a Conservative. And it worked. Which is fine. It's politics.
You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think? (Merrick Garland for example.)
That's what you guys sound like right now.
Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court. This isn't just "something", this is an attempt to unseat a sitting duly elected president. I believe you understand the gravity of this and are simply being disingenuous at this point. Speaking of being disingenuous... you seem oddly silent on the issue of the non-subpoena subpoena issue you insisted was legitimate so vociferously earlier. Funny how quickly such things become a non-topic for people trying so hard to topic slide when they run out of arguments. I mean, refusing to even hold a hearing for the guy the president nominated for the Supreme Court isn't just "something" either. Some would argue it would have a greater affect on the Country than any president. One party does everything they can to make something happen, and the other does everything they can to stop them. Both sides are going to do whatever they can to make the other side look as bad as possible. If Clinton won and the GOP were trying to impeach her using the same plays that Pelosi is using, would you really be like "wait a minute, that's not fair! The Dems should be able to subpoena whoever they want, even if they don't have control of the House!" Of course not. It would be foolish to allow the Republicans to subpoena whoever they want. They'd use it to keep the Dems from controlling the pace of the hearings, which is a huge advantage for them. You aren't really surprised the Democrats are keeping them on such a short leash, are you?
Had a big project to finish past couple weeks, that's why I haven't been active. |
|
|
|
Well now that's a crock of shit. Your side can call witnesses in its defense, but they must be approved by your adversary. Stalinist methods. It matters not how much they undermine the rule of law and due process, control must be taken at all costs. You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think? (Merrick Garland for example.) That's what you guys sound like right now. Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry but you act like r/ChoosingBeggars. They clearly won't pay and even if they pay, the reason will be: - F*ck, this guy talks so much, pay his shit and make him shut up. If you just skimmed the OP and thread I can see how you would think that. You're wrong though. It doesn't matter how obvious or easy to fix a bug is. It only matters how critical it is. The fact the bug existed and the way it was handled is a pretty big deal imo. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
