ChiGoose

Captain Eyerolls coming in with his usual script. Talking points locked in. Brain turned off.

“The guy who hates NATO and supplicants himself before Putin would absolutely have defended NATO in a hot war against Putin” is quite the take.

Do you honestly believe that Putin was too scared of the guy who trusts him more than the US and says we shouldn’t necessarily defend our allies and wanted to pull out of NATO?

So you believe that Trump is responsible for Armenian-Azerbaijan war, the India-Pakistan border crisis of 2019, three separate Israel-Gaza clashes, the Tigray war, and the Ethiopian-Sudan conflict? I guess we should blame FDR for WWII as well

Russia wasn’t going to invade Ukraine either. Even though the US said they would, Ukraine and others doubted because it would be such a bad decision by Russia. Then what happened? I don’t understand people thinking that Russia is a rational actor making decisions based on considered thought of examinations of the facts. That’s not how it operates. As to the revanchism, you just need to listen to Putin himself, “In 2005, Putin called the Soviet collapse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” In 2008, then-Prime Minister Putin told President George W. Bush, “Ukraine is not even a country.” Soon Russia invaded Georgia and asserted “privileged interests” in the wider region. In 2014 and on a larger scale in 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In 2022, Putin claimed that prior to President Nursultan Nazarbayev's reign, “Kazakhsnever had statehood.” In 2016, Putin claimed that Russia's border “has no end.”” (Source) “Firebrand Russian politician Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that the Baltics belong to Russia. Writing on Twitter, the former Russian Prime Minister referred to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as "our" provinces, saying they had "soiled themselves" over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.“ (Source) Honestly, the idea that Russia doesn’t want to test NATO is just wishcasting at this point.

If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, reconstitutes its military and then invades Latvia, would you support sending US troops to defend it in accordance with Article V?

He also knew that he would capture Kyiv in three days. He wouldn’t be betting that he could beat NATO, he’d be betting that NATO wouldn’t actually come to the defense of a smaller Baltic state and risk global war.

I don’t understand the confidence that the guy who wants to destroy NATO, wants to resurrect Russian empire, has surrounded himself with sycophants, has killed or removed anyone who challenges him, who massively miscalculated the Ukraine invasion, wouldn’t, upon being triumphant in what he views as a war against the West, push the envelope for the goal he clearly seeks. I agree that it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, but are we willing to risk WWIII on Putin being rational and tethered to reality when the evidence clearly cuts against that?

Ukraine falling due to lack of Western support will make Putin think the West is weak. He miscalculated in launching the war in Ukraine but if he ends up winning it, it’ll reinforce his belief that the West is weak and Russia can regain its empire. At that point, it’s only a matter of time before he tests NATO. I’d rather avoid that scenario all together. Sending money now prevents sending troops later. As to China, the US has tariffs against Chinese steel, is stepping up export controls to hamper Chinese technological advances, stepping up US production of chips so we aren’t reliant on imports, banning TikTok to prevent CCP data collection, strengthening alliances and relationships with key Asian and Pacific countries like Japan, Australia, India, the Philippines and others to box in China. We probably have the most anti-China posture that we’ve had in decades. Not to mention, a Russian defeat in Ukraine due to Western support might make China hesitate to invade Taiwan.

Out of curiosity, I actually clicked the link. Just about every headline on the home page for that site is framed to be pro-right wing. If literally everything on a "news" site is reinforcing your priors, it means you've self-selected your media because you don't want to actually know the news, you just want to be comforted.

The FEC caps the amounts that can be contributed for an election. In 2016, the cap for an individual to contribute to a campaign was $2,700. The FEC also prohibits corporations from donating to a candidate. The FEC defines contribution as "anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election". This includes things of value that are not money, such as services: "Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for goods or services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate." In short, individuals can only contribute up to $2,700 to a campaign and corporations cannot contribute at all. If Donald Trump, through the Trump organization, spent $150,000 to quiet Stormy Daniels for the express purpose of benefitting (and therefore providing value to) the campaign, it would violate election law. In addition to that, since this is almost certainly an in-kind contribution to the Trump Campaign, the campaign would need to report it on their FEC filings. As I mentioned, had the payment come from the campaign itself, and was properly reported to the FEC, there would be no violation of law.

Remember that Trump isn't charged with violating either of these statutes. He is charged with falsifying business records to conceal his violation of laws like these. The fact that Trump avoided using his campaign fund to pay for an in-kind contribution to the campaign is itself a violation of election law. As I stated, if he had just paid from the campaign fund, he'd be fine. Maybe a slap on the wrist from the FEC but probably not even that. But that would require the payment to be publicly disclosed in reporting. So to avoid disclosure of the payment, he paid from the Trump Organization and falsified business records to conceal it.

Campaigns are required to disclose their spending. Paying for an in-kind contribution to the campaign from his business (instead of the campaign itself) and not properly reporting it, Trump violated the disclosure requirement. Had he paid Daniels from the campaign, Trump would not have this legal exposure to the Manhattan DA. He might have faced a fine at worst from the FEC. But then he would have to disclose the payments to the FEC, which makes the reports public. So he took actions to conceal a payment that he believed would help him win the election and thereby cause Hillary lose it. This creates legal exposure for Trump under a couple of laws, mainly: NY Law 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election 52 USC § 30118 Notably, the FEC reached a settlement with AMI over AMI's violation of 52 USC § 30118(a) for the catch and kill of the McDougal story

18-year-old pizza delivery driver shot at 7 times after driveway mix-up “ASHLAND CITY, Tenn. (WTVF) - An 18-year-old pizza delivery driver in Tennessee was shot at multiple times while on the job after he accidentally parked in the wrong driveway. Caiden Wheeler, an 18-year-old high school student, is still processing what happened to him Monday night in Ashland City. The Domino’s employee was on his first and only delivery of the night when he was shot at seven times after parking in the wrong driveway.” ”On the quiet, residential North Poole Street, most of the houses are only a few feet from each other. Wheeler accidentally parked at 114B instead of 118, which is next door. He dropped the pizza off at the correct house and got back in his truck. Police say that’s when 32-year-old Ryan Babcock used a handgun to shoot the driver-side below the gas tank, the wheel on the driver-side and right above the driver-side window. Police recovered seven shell casings at the scene.“

Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that the DoJ is in the pocket of the Dems and is charging Dems solely on the basis of their views of Joe Biden? Is that something you actually believe?

DOJ expected to announce indictment of Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, sources say "WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is expected to announce the indictment of longtime Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, on Friday, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News. Cuellar’s home and campaign office in Laredo, Texas, were raided in January 2022 as part of a federal investigation into Azerbaijan and a group of U.S. businessmen who have ties to the country, law enforcement said at the time. His office had pledged to cooperate with the investigation. In April, Cuellar's lawyer, Joshua Berman, told some news outlets that federal authorities informed him he was not the target of the investigation. Cuellar is a one-time co-chair of the Congressional Azerbaijan Caucus. It wasn't immediately clear if the indictment was related to the 2022 raid. The Justice Department declined to comment. NBC News has reached out to Cuellar and a lawyer representing him for comment."

Keep telling on yourself. It’s very funny

I’m sorry, I suppose the reality of how things actually work is a concept far too difficult for you to understand. Maybe grab some toy blocks to smash together and leave the rest of this to the adults.

It must be tough struggling to understand very basic concepts. I hope someone close to you can help you with your struggles.

Well this is certainly weird considering we‘ve been told that the gun show loophole was a myth.

The best analogy I’ve heard about this (and I forget who said it) is that the extreme of the left vs the extreme of the right is like cancer vs a heart attack. The cancer is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but the heart attack is the immediate existential threat that needs to be dealt with now.

Maybe it’s the dementia that keeps him from understanding basic things

I am eagerly awaiting the arrested protestors' rendition of the national anthem.

No idea what Travis Media Group is. Their Twitter account doesn’t have a website or any info on who is behind it or what their qualifications are. Most everything I’ve seen from them posted here about the trial shows total ignorance of the process or even the facts. And now they can’t even figure out who the witnesses are. Seems legit.

Nah, I read things from people I disagree with. I just don’t waste my time with an ignorant troll who has no idea what he’s talking about.