....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) According to testimony, is the key portion here. I'm not going to believe such into I see it written somewhere, confirmed by multiple people, in a phone call, text, etc -- from Trump or one of the advisers around him. I think that's pretty fair -- I don't think it's fair to believe hearsay It's already been confirmed by multiple people under oath, most of them career staffers with decades of experience without any sort of political past or scandal. Also, Trump has instructed his advisors and State department to ignore subpoenas and refuse to cooperate with the investigation. The State Dept has tons of documents turned over by the 2 witnesses today, for example, and none of them have been given to congress. It seems pretty unlikely to me that that everyone that has shown up for the hearings are lying and the White House is refusing to allow anyone from the Presidents staff to explain what really happened under oath. I do think that "they're all lying" is a much more valid defense than some of the ones that were used today. Especially the "the money was released, and Ukraine didn't open the investigation, nothing else matters, end of story" defense. Well yes. The Dems did a VERY good job combating that line of thought, by saying that the money was only released AFTER the house had begun their investigation. I think the timeline is as follows: House begins the investigation into the President - Sep 9th Money is released - Sep 11th If Trump had released this money the 5th or something along those lines, this would've been a different story. Not totally cleared, but at least the Republicans could've fought on that front. |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) According to testimony, is the key portion here. I'm not going to believe such into I see it written somewhere, confirmed by multiple people, in a phone call, text, etc -- from Trump or one of the advisers around him. I think that's pretty fair -- I don't think it's fair to believe hearsay |
|
|
|
|
Just to talk about your first couple sentences. Not all prisons fail in regards to rehabilitation -- I've totally seen an article or two talking about how Norway/Swedens prisons systems attempt to get people back on the right track.
People forget that in the US, the typical mentality towards criminals is that they're horrible people -- mostly non dependent on the crime itself. We're just starting to come around to the idea that people shouldn't be in jail for a long time (or at all) for non violent crimes related to drugs possession.
It's going to take sometime to lower mandatory minimums, and turn jails into a place of rehabilitation instead of a place of punishment and pain/suffering.
|
|
|
|
Trump Campaign Public-Impeachment-Hearing-Eve Email: ----snip---- I'm going to assume that the Dems ran an email blast similar to this, talking about how the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SELLING THE NATION FOREIGN POLICY OUT FOR HIS OWN CAMPAIGN If anyone has that, would be cool to post it here. Opening statements and first 45 minutes are over, a staff lawyer questioned Taylor and Kent for the Democrats for most of the time. I think Kent did a good job of laying out the timeline of events since he became ambassador last Spring. ....
Taylor came across as an arrogant, frustrated mid level bureocrat. I thought it was quite interesting how he presumed that HE (and his ilk) should be the main forces in policy, not the POTUS. Deep state, right there. Trump appointed Taylor as acting US ambassador to Ukraine (at the recommendation of Pompeo). Taylor agreed under the condition that the general US policy towards Ukraine, especially when it comes to helping them defend themselves from Russia, did not change. (I assume this was because Trump previously mentioned the possibility of recognizing Crimea as part of Russia). The main force in foreign policy is not the presidents alone. Congress is very involved. The Senate confirms Ambassadors* and the House decides where money should go based on information from the Ambassadors that the President appoints. *Taylor hasn't been confirmed as he is officially the "Acting Ambassador to Ukraine" since the previous Ambassador (who is testifying on friday) was fired suddenly. I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds. |
|
|
|
Jack Ma, founder of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba discusses globalisation and trade, and shares tips on business at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. See Video and Learn How to Handle your business https://tupify.net/v/BROKHYWell, Alibaba was purely created to counter Ebay in China. Jack Ma was handpicked by the Chinese politic party, and had full support from them. In my point of view, you dont really have to be smart, you can be an average, but what matters is who you know, and who supports you. E Who you know, who supports you, who you're willing to work with, if you're willing to throw away your orgiginal ideas to grow (think of google: Don't Be Evil, being removed from its Code of Conduct - https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393) It's a lot, but many people are willing to change massively (or at least put on a persona) in order to get success. And honestly, it's not too surprising. |
|
|
|
Jack Ma just isn't a smart guy in general, I fully noticed it when I took a look at this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHGd6LqAVzw - He's a guy that maybe had some initial success, but I fully think the rest of it was because he was willing to bend over and take it from the Chinese government. He works with them, and they gave him a monopoly with his company. Yes his company is great and all, but I doubt hes the first one to do it. Just the first one that the Chinese allowed to flourish. Major difference. |
|
|
|
Does Macron think that after the departure of Merkel, he should naturally become the new leader of Europe?
Does he want to show strength that nothing can be resolved without France?
Is Macron at all capable of taking on the role of leader of a new Europe, especially because of his blockade of Macedonia and Albania, for what the EU has lost a lot on its credibility and appeal?
What do you think?
He may want to be leader, he may think he can be leader. But really it doesn't matter who is in charge, Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe, Germany has by some distance the biggest economy, and so the German leader, whoever that may be, has the loudest voice and is in charge. Similar to how the US is still the global superpower despite having an orange-skinned half-wit in charge. +1 to this. Even the rules in the EU are more or less subservient to the people in Washington, who provide large subsidies and NATO support to them. So Macaron is just another pawn to make France feel cool, that's it. The New World Order decides everything, didn't ya know? |
|
|
|
Throughout the 2012 election, Obama had such a polarizing presidency that he had cost Democrats many governorships, many state legislatures, and many seats in the House and the Senate. This election Republicans are starting to feel this same thing. The Trump presidency are pushing many suburban Republicans away from him, and towards Democrats down the ballot. Look at the recent Mississippi governors race -- where in 2015 Republicans had won by 34 percent. This year they won it by about 5 percent. That's too close for comfort in a race which is typically a lock down Republican. Or the fact that the Virginia state legislature has now flipped to Dem. Take this point from the article I'm referencing: This turnout trend has now continued for three Novembers, and Republicans who try to explain it away are fooling themselves. The GOP under Mr. Trump is losing more college-educated suburban voters, especially women, than it is gaining rural voters or working-class former Democrats. Republicans have to start picking up college educated suburban voters again, or this is going to get very interesting come 2020. The GOP has put the Senate in play in 2020, by swinging so hard right and it shouldn't be... Any republican running state wide in a purple state is looking at this and shitting their pants right now! Not only are the suburbs abandoning the GOP, young people are starting to vote, in VA 18-25 year old voting was up by 300% in a non presidential year... Or the fact that the Virginia state legislature has now flipped to Dem.
Or take the fact that, Texas almost elected a Dem senator in 2018, KY elected a Dem Gov (although to be fair the GOP incumbent was incredibly unpopular and the Dem is from a well known family name), Orange County CA went ENTIRELY Dem in 2018 (remember Orange County is Reagan country and where "good republicans go to die"). And on and on and on! There is a lot of good news bell weathers for liberals in 2020. It is entirely conceivable at this point for the Dems to sweep 2020 and if Bernie is the POTUS with a dem house and senate it's going to be awesome to watch the GOP's heads explode!!!! Hate to be the one to tell you this, but Bernie isn't going to be the nominee of the party. You're either going to have Warren or Biden, that's it. I doubt Bernie is going to surge in the polls with all these other people crowding the field. But I'd love to hear what you think about the matter. |
|
|
|
I mean at any point this leak is going to be shut down and silenced. This sort of leak is a major liability for the political elite. It's also a MAJOR liability for the two Pres candidates at the time of thee 2016 election - Clinton and Trump. Don't forget Neil Bush. Bush was a 2016 presidential candidate, and Florida governor at the time of the 2008 court case, which involved depositions about Epstein prowling for victims at Mar-a-Lago (and this is a big reason why the story took off at all, The Miami Herald was the only sizable media outlet to report on Epstein). The only person with the info is dead now.
And the FBI. And whoever Epstein was working for to obtain all the blackmail material. I'm assuming you mean Jeb Bush? I think Neil Bush is the businessman of the family, with no real ties to Epstein (that I can find from first glance at least) |
|
|
|
Minority leader Kevin McCarthy announced that Jim Jordan is taking Devin Nunez' seat as ranking member of the intelligence committee. That means it will be Jim Jordan that gets the 45 minutes to question each witness at the beginning of each hearing. Jordan has definitely been one of the most aggressive/confrontational members of the intelligence committee during past hearings, and Nunez not so much, so it seems likely that the Republicans are probably planning on him actually questioning the witnesses. The Democrats will most likely be using a staff member with a lot of court room experience. This is a massive power move right here. Putting Jim Jordan (a massive Trump ally) in the hearings who has been proven to ask very intense questions is something that I support. This does come from the fact that he is on the oversight committee though, and has been able to see a lot of this play out. We'll see! |
|
|
|
|
Well with all of your great reporting here I think it's fair to say that you're the authority on all things impeachment.
I'm not sure if I'm not keeping up with the news here, but I didn't know much about Bolton -- only the fact that they didn't include him in the subpoenas.
So yeah -- keep doing what you're doing, this is very interesting and I will continue to track this.
|
|
|
|
I'd love to hear the argument against PP doing this.
1. Did "mom" gave written permission to use her "produce" as a test subject? 2. Did dad gave permission to use his "produce" as a subject of medical experiments? 3. Where they both informed about the possibility of such experiments? If all or just one of those answers is no, than we have a case of mismanage, depravation of "property" rights, theft and misdemeanour, that is fraud by concealment. That's for starters. I mean when an abortion happens I highly doubt that many states classify this as remains and force the medical provider to give them back in some sort of way. Even found an article on the matter titled "Dead Featuses are not 'Remains''' - https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/dead-fetus-burial-laws-personhood-indiana-texas.html where it states that only particular states have these sorts of laws in full effect (that state that dead fetuses are remains) I would go further and assume that there is some sort of opt in or opt out provided by PP when they're providing an abortion. I hate PP as much as the next guy, and think that there should be no federal funding provided to them and instead given to federal health clinics -- but that doesn't discount the facts here. |
|
|
|
What do you think Klopfer was doing with the fetuses? Why was he keeping them?
Serial killers like to collect trophies. He is perfectly aware of what he is doing, no one will persuade me that such crimes have zero effect on perpetrator's psyche. He went bonkers, rightfully so but its a shame he didn't blew his fallen brains out after first murder, he has time, he will manage. So -- that's the way you're able to get away with this. As that is what the letter of the law says.
Doesn't make it less immoral. I mean -- what's the argument against doing this? If the research follows all portions of the law, and is helping to promote resarch in fields where research is needed and can only be done through this medium then there's not much that can be done. I'd love to hear the argument against PP doing this. |
|
|
|
Just dawned on me.
The leak says 3 years ago.
2016 election.
That's the reason why it wasn't reported.
Well yeah, obviously. I mean at any point this leak is going to be shut down and silenced. This sort of leak is a major liability for the political elite. It's also a MAJOR liability for the two Pres candidates at the time of thee 2016 election - Clinton and Trump. I think it's pretty much confirmed that Clinton had been abroad his private jets and islands. I've read some conflicting info on Trump though -- as there is info that he's helped prosecutors involved in the Epstein prosecution, but there's also some info stating that he was aboard the planes and had parties with Epstein.... Who knows I guess. The only person with the info is dead now. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with this whole situation, after some research by myself, is that Planned Parenthood didn't make any profit from this situation. Any payment that they received, had been offset by other costs that had been incurred from providing the fetus' such as transportation, storage, etc.
So -- that's the way you're able to get away with this. As that is what the letter of the law says.
EDIT: My comment is in regards to the Planned Parenthood portion, not Ulrich portion of this.
|
|
|
|
....
I mean these people aren't shooting up in public when you're going to a location. You're physically going to some sort of clinic, being given a syringe and a 'room' (could be a real room, or a small private area) then you shoot up your heroin, probably stay for a little while and then leave. This limits the amount of LETHAL overdoses (as there are medical staff trained there to help) and the amount of diseases that are spread through people using and reusing needles.
It would seem that the many syringes in the streets and gutters disagree with your santized, pure view of blissful safe shooting up. You do understand that there are many studies that have shown that safe areas to use syringes and stuff ensure that people aren't dying, right? https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/01/12/injection-sites-provide-safe-spots-to-shoot-upIt gives people that are addicted the best chance of getting to treatment. Is that something that you support? Ideas like this are definitely worth supporting on a trial basis. I mean at this point it's not even trial basis. We've found out in multiple studies and 'tries' of it that it works and that we should truly expand it. It's not a permananet solution to the problem, but it's temporary while we work on the issues of drugs and addiction in our country. |
|
|
|
I know this wouldn't be '0 fee' but what if there was a way to go below the 1 satoshi limit. Think of something along the lines of fractional satoshis -- where you're practically at 0, but not fully.
Wouldn't that still achieve the goal here of 0sat/byte -- or at least be close to it. 'Course the achievement will be the same, if you can include a 0.9sat/byte transaction in a block then you can do the same with 0sat/byte. Because by default, anything under 1sat/byte is considered as 0sat/byte. There's a way to create <1sat/byte fee since the unit in the config is in BTC/kB ( 0.00001 defaut). Ex: mintxfee=0.000009 & minrelaytxfee=0.000009But other nodes with default config will still reject your transaction just like a 0sat/byte fee tx. Obviously none of this can confirm if it's going to be confirmed nor rejected for being too low of a fee. But it's something to keep in mind.
it will be rejected like a 0sat/byte transaction. Not because of the low fee like a 1sat/byte during a long " tx clogging", but because most nodes wont relay it. I see. So the only way something like this would be able to occur would be if nodes begun accepting that as allowed. That still obviously doesn't confirm if miners are going to confirm transactions this low , but it would allow for people to send them out and hope that at some point the miners would mine -- as people do now with 1 sat fees. |
|
|
|
|
Well just to start, unrelated to the topic, its nice to see the serious discussion tag present. I think if this is self moderated correctly you're going to be able to bring about some great conversation, I'll proably start using the same disclaimer on my post. So, thanks for that.
But back onto the topic:
This isn't going to end by Christmas. Even if the information present isn't enough to convince the American people that Trump is guility of a crime -- it makes the most sense for them to keep this up for as long as possible to continue to throw shit at the wall relating to Trump and hope that something latches on.
And if they do find something -- They're going to continue to poke and prod at it to try to find more. Because we don't know if the American people want to see the removal of a President right now -- even if he is 'guilty'
Will continue to post here once I watch the public hearings. Can't wait for this.
|
|
|
|
Any chance the donation address will be updated to SegWit? Didn't think a new topic is needed, but wanted to bump this reply. |
|
|
|
Thank you for the answer. I admit I didn't really quite understand everything needed for a person to get the tx confirmed, but I understand that there is still a possibility, and because of that possibility, it could be worth just sending a transaction that's 0 fee you don't need to confirm in 1 month, and see if someone will take it.
Do those miners set it up like that on purpose I wonder?
Well... I wouldn't count on it... If you just create a 0 fee transaction, it'll allmost certainly get rejected by the nodes you are connected to if you try to broadcast it trough them, or relay it to them. If you find a single node that still accepts a 0 fee transaction, odds are it'll just stay in the mempool of that single node untill it gets pruned after a couple of days since the odds are big this 0-fee-accepting node is only connected to nodes that reject 0 fee transactions... What i meanth is that if you want to create a 0 fee transaction and even have a very small chance of getting it confirmed, you'll have to find a "path" of 0-fee-accepting node(s) that lead to a 0-fee-accepting node that belongs to a miner... Only if you find such a path, you'll have a (very small) chance the miner will put your transaction into the block he/she is working on, and an even small chance the miner finds a valid blockheader... Finding 0-fee-accepting nodes is not easy to begin with... You can probably try to connect to as many nodes as possible and look at their versions, recent bitcoin core versions would have had to actively patch their node's code in order to accept 0 fee transactions (thus, the odds of them actually accepting said transactions is VERY small). Older core versions and alternative versions would (theoretically) have the highest odds of accepting 0 fee transactions. If you want to test out wether or not a node accepts your transaction, you'll probably have to create 2 nodes on 2 different machines, connect them both to the node you are testing. Then broadcast your 0 fee transaction to said node from your first node and see if the tested node broadcast the 0 fee transaction to your second node. If it does, at least you know the tested node RELAYS 0 fee transactions  Here's a small, non-technical, intersting reading piece about how transaction relaying works... It's interesting, but it does not offer a real "answer" in this discussion tough => https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network#Standard_relayingI know this wouldn't be '0 fee' but what if there was a way to go below the 1 satoshi limit. Think of something along the lines of fractional satoshis -- where you're practically at 0, but not fully. Wouldn't that still achieve the goal here of 0sat/byte -- or at least be close to it. Obviously none of this can confirm if it's going to be confirmed nor rejected for being too low of a fee. But it's something to keep in mind. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
