ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Sweet
WASHINGTON – The Biden-Harris Administration today announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a final rule that requires airlines to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when owed. The new rule makes it easy for passengers to obtain refunds when airlines cancel or significantly change their flights, significantly delay their checked bags, or fail to provide the extra services they purchased.
“Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them - without headaches or haggling,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Our new rule sets a new standard to require airlines to promptly provide cash refunds to their passengers.”
****
Under the rule, passengers are entitled to a refund for:
- Canceled or significantly changed flights: Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits offered. For the first time, the rule defines “significant change.” Significant changes to a flight include departure or arrival times that are more than 3 hours domestically and 6 hours internationally; departures or arrivals from a different airport; increases in the number of connections; instances where passengers are downgraded to a lower class of service; or connections at different airports or flights on different planes that are less accessible or accommodating to a person with a disability.
- Significantly delayed baggage return: Passengers who file a mishandled baggage report will be entitled to a refund of their checked bag fee if it is not delivered within 12 hours of their domestic flight arriving at the gate, or 15-30 hours of their international flight arriving at the gate, depending on the length of the flight.
- Extra services not provided: Passengers will be entitled to a refund for the fee they paid for an extra service — such as Wi-Fi, seat selection, or inflight entertainment — if an airline fails to provide this service.
****
The final rule improves the passenger experience by requiring refunds to be:
- Automatic: Airlines must automatically issue refunds without passengers having to explicitly request them or jump through hoops.
- Prompt: Airlines and ticket agents must issue refunds within seven business days of refunds becoming due for credit card purchases and 20 calendar days for other payment methods.
- Cash or original form of payment: Airlines and ticket agents must provide refunds in cash or whatever original payment method the individual used to make the purchase, such as credit card or airline miles. Airlines may not substitute vouchers, travel credits, or other forms of compensation unless the passenger affirmatively chooses to accept alternative compensation.
- Full amount: Airlines and ticket agents must provide full refunds of the ticket purchase price, minus the value of any portion of transportation already used. The refunds must include all government-imposed taxes and fees and airline-imposed fees, regardless of whether the taxes or fees are refundable to airlines.
-
1
-
Trump is a co-conspirator in Michigan's 2020 false electors plot, state investigator says
"Michigan prosecutors consider former President Donald Trump and some of his top aides co-conspirators in the plot to submit a certificate falsely claiming he won Michigan's 2020 election, an investigator for Attorney General Dana Nessel's office testified Wednesday in court.
Howard Shock, a special agent for Nessel, said Trump; Mark Meadows, who was Trump's chief of staff; and Rudy Giuliani, who was his personal lawyer, are "unindicted co-conspirators" in Michigan's false elector case. In total, over the last two days, Shock has identified 11 conspirators who haven't been charged. That means prosecutors believe they participated, to some extent, in an alleged scheme to commit forgery by creating a false document asserting Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes when Democrat Joe Biden had won them.
Shock's testimony came on the sixth day of preliminary examinations in Ingham County District Court as Nessel's office pursues felony charges against a group of Republican activists who signed the certificate of votes claiming Trump won."
On a side note, was there some memo that went out on the right telling everyone to use the word "lawfare?" It's like the "collusion" BS all over again.
-
2
-
-
56 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
The Clinton campaign did more than violate election law. They created an entirely false narrative to lie and deceive the American public on an epic and historical scale.
But as for this problem, falsifying business records? People charged with falsifying business records perform the act of falsifying business records in order to obscure, misrepresent, or hide a previously performed criminal act. Like embezzlement. Is anyone suggesting the source of funds Trump used was illegally gained?
Otherwise, the source of funds being legal there was no criminal act leading up to the payment. The payment itself was legal. Lying and calling it "legal expenses" was a lie but is lying illegal here. That's the point of contention. And that point is trivial and not worthy of legal action by the State. But the State believes its a standalone "crime" and charge to make a legal payment and classify the payment on your internal accounting records as something else.
Entering into a NDA is not a crime. Neither is making a payment to another party. Neither is legally transferring monies to your lawyers escrow account. Neither is the lawyer using the funds to make a payment to another party.
You still seem to be confusing what you think the law should be with what the law actually is.
As I previously stated, all Trump needed to do was pay the money out of the Trump Campaign.
If he did, he would be facing an FEC fine at worst, but most likely no penalty.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Doc said:
Any (ridiculous) way they can try and get him, they're all for it.
If that was true, he’d already be behind bars. -
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day. And she continues to lie about it. So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it?
As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul. So the payment was classified "legal expenses". So what? What harm or damage did the State of New York incur? Nothing. Or anyone else? Nothing. The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise. There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment. The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA. No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated. There was no victim, period. So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone. That seems utterly foolish. But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional.
Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case. But the goal would have already been achieved. Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid. A diabolical but effective plan.
You seem to be conflating your view on the impacts of their actions with the actual violations of law.
The Clinton Campaign violated federal election law and was fined for it by the FEC.
Trump violated NY criminal law and was indicted for it. Ironically, his actions almost certainly also violated federal election law but for some reason, the FEC has done nothing about it.
Also, on what grounds do you believe any conviction of Trump in the Manhattan case will be overturned on appeal?
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
OK. but fair is fair. I need to point out, Clinton's campaign laundered payments to Steele for the Russian dossier through her Perkin Coi law firm booked incorrectly as "legal fees" and then to FusionGPS. Fabricating the biggest election interference hoax of all time. Still claims its all true today. And got away with it with just a nominal fine. Why isn't NYS pursuing charges against Hillary, the campaign, and law firm? Because she's a Democrat and the powers aren't out for her scalp. Given the Trump transgression is less impactful I think my question is appropriate.
Also, I wonder how others disguise NDA payments they wish to keep secret?
Because Hillary paid it from the campaign, not through a NY business. Different laws, different jurisdictions.
Had Trump done the same thing through the Trump campaign, he'd have been in the same boat as Hillary.
-
2
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here. According to the stores:
- Norman was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions.
- Brega pleaded guilty to illegally donating to a political campaign by funneling cash through a family member.
- Luthmann was guilty of creating several Facebook pages in candidates’ names to try to influence political races making it appear those sites were legitimately associated with the candidates.
- Date plead guilty to embezzlement of party funds.
Trump concealed a privately funded payment to another person in exchange for signing an NDA. No campaign or public funds were stolen or misappropriated as is the case in the above examples and as such none of them are equivalent to the Trump charges. What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment. Is there any legal requirement to do so? Election or not? And if there is a legal requirement to disclose an NDA then why have one in the first place? It renders the idea moot.
As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"?
Each of those individuals was charged with falsification of records in connection to the election crimes.
If Trump wanted to keep the stories out of the news, he could have just paid it out of the campaign fund. That would require disclosure to the FEC. He could have been honest about what the payments were for, but that information is available to the public so it could be discovered before the election, undermining the whole point of the payments.
He could have paid out of the campaign and lied about what it was for. Think about the Clinton campaign and the Steele Dossier. They tried to cover it up by paying through an attorney. The FEC fined them for it, but that's just a slap on the wrist because the FEC is a toothless joke of an organization. Trump could have gone that route and probably gotten away with it the same way.
But by having the funds come through a NY business, falsifying business records to keep it from going public as a way to benefit a political campaign, he opened himself up to criminal liability in NY.
-
1
-
6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Biden's campaigning in Florida hoping to pick off that increasingly red state, which he might do on the strength of the pro-choice movement.
Trump is in court fighting to stay out of jail.
Ya, Dems are in a panic!
🤣
Biden isn't going to pick off Florida. It is almost assuredly going to Trump.
But Biden has about a 2:1 cash advantage and is outspending the Trump campaign 8:1. Florida is a very expensive media market, so my guess is that Biden is trying to put Trump in a position to spend some of his limited resources there, which will create bigger advantages for Biden in the actual swing states.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:
They could also get a car and run people over or do a suicide bombing. What's your point? That you can use a gun to kill a lot of people? I would argue that there are much easier ways. So let's ban cars right? Makes a lot of sense. There used to not be a lot of mass casualty events in this country as well. But meanwhile there was always guns. So what changed?
I don't think there's a single reason why firearm deaths are increasing. It's probably a confluence of multiple factors.
However, we do know ways to reduce them:
- Child-access prevention laws reduce total firearm self-injuries (including suicides) among young people
- Child-access prevention laws reduce firearm homicides or firearm assault injuries among young people
- Child-access prevention laws reduce unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among children
- Stand Your Ground laws *increase* total homicide rates, including firearm homicide rates
- Shall-issue concealed carry laws increase firearm homicides
- Dealer background checks and universal background checks reduce homicides
- Minimum age of purchase laws reduce firearm suicides
- Waiting periods reduce rates of firearm suicide and total homicide
- Gun possession prohibitions associated with domestic violence may reduce intimate partner homicides
5 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:So you volunteering to go door to door in gangland?
Forget the state. That's macro, go micro to see the patterns. Ie, counties with gun violence at the highest levels, don't allow legal ownership or make it almost impossible.
go by county or district if you really give a rats about the issue.
but you guys will spend all day parroting outliers and meta data.
If you want to go micro, you might learn that rural countries have a 37% higher rate of firearm deaths than most urban counties.
-
1
-
11 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:
There would be 1 and he would be going to the morgue and not prison. But they would never release the manifesto about how he's a he-she who identifies as a unicorn and it's all Trump's fault
Keeping in mind that the reason the Australian stabbing made international news is because of how rare mass killings are there, here's just some examples of how it goes when someone tries a mass killing in Texas:
- 2017: 26 year old Air Force vet opened fire at a church, killing 26 people
- 2017: 32 year old man opens fire at a football watch party, killing 8
- 2018: 17 year old killed 10 people at a high school near Huston
- 2019: 36 year old started randomly shooting people between Midland and Odessa, killing 7
- 2019: 21 year old opened fire at a Walmart, killing 22
- 2022: 18 year old kills 21 at Uvalde Elementary School
- 2023: Gunman kills 8 in mall shooting
Also, keep in mind that even in a country with so many guns:
- self-defense gun use occurs in only 1% of shootings.
- More guns equals more gun homicides: for every 1% increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
- States with higher rates of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of firearm related homicides
So yeah, if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people in Texas, they'd just get a gun and mow people down.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Well, if anyone has been convicted of violations of Sarbanes-Oxley applied to election law violations pertaining to NDA's and disclosure requirements including the timing of those disclosures where no campaign funds, either private donations or public funds, were involved I have no problem admitting I'm wrong but would appreciate an example.
Specific to the Manhattan case (the SOX issue is a different case) multiple people have been charged with felony falsification of business records in connection with an election campaign (what Trump is facing):
- Clarence Norman was convicted of felony falsification of business records in connection with campaign finance violations.
- Richard Brega was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records to conceal election law violations
- Richard Luthmann was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in furtherance of election law violations.
- John Dote was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in connection to election law violations.
-
1
-
1
-
14 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
You've got to know any conviction based on this flimsy interpretation and application of an SEC reporting law morphed into an election law violation is going to get overruled on an appeal. The court will rule the law as applied to the circumstances is inappropriate. The prosecutors know this too but the conviction is not the goal. And they're the real culprits here interfering with the 2020 election. By maliciously and intentionally keeping a candidate in court and off the campaign trail in order to support a failing and ineffective President in winning a second term.
This is just incorrect based on the law and previous cases.
Multiple politicians have been found guilty for similar acts under this law. Those convictions were not overturned on appeal.
Once again, if the goal was a grand conspiracy by everyone to stop Trump, he’d already be behind bars for violating terms of his bail.
-
2
-
-
On 4/13/2024 at 1:31 PM, KDIGGZ said:
If this happened in a mall in Texas is there 6 victims? Not likely
Agreed. It’d be a hell of a lot more.-
1
-
-
It’s almost as if Obama wasn’t a big LGBTQ ally at first.
Ironically, Biden was the one who pushed him towards the right idea on this.
-
53 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum. How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?
By breaking the law in an attempt to influence the outcome.He should have just paid out of the campaign fund and gotten a slap on the wrist by the FEC (if even that).
-
Trump violates his gag orders so frequently and routinely that if it were literally anyone else, they’d almost certainly have been locked up for contempt.
If this really was some vast organized conspiracy to stop Trump, he’d already be behind bars.
-
1 minute ago, B-Man said:
Again.
Not what I said.
It's almost like you assume what others are thinking and then speak for them.
You know, what you claimed everyone on the right was doing.
You literally said I was trying to whip up war. You don’t believe that whipping up war is pro-war? -
Russia invades Chechnya: surely they won’t do anything like this again
Russia invades Chechnya again: surely they won’t do anything like this again
Russia invades Georgia: surely they won’t do anything like this again
Russia invades Ukraine: surely they won’t do anything like this again
Russia invades Ukraine again: surely they won’t do anything like this again
Russian leaders say that Latvia is like Ukraine because it doesn’t exist and that other former USSR countries in Europe were actually part of Russia while Russian separatists control land in Moldova: surely they don’t mean it
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Well, since the Ukraine was one of the members of the USSR for 40 years,
I would expect there to be no big change.
Especially to US citizens.
BUT, keep trying to whip up the war. You are in the minority.
.
I guess not wanting broader war is being pro-war now.
Advocating to allow a revanchist country to run roughshod over any country they want is anti-war now.
Weird world you all live in.
-
41 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
How many more years of war, dollars or deaths until you change your mind on the war?
How do you think this ends if we don’t aid Ukraine?What do you think happens if Russia takes over Ukraine?
-
10 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
I answered with the fact he didn't, you ran with some weak attempt at an insult.
Josh Allen will never win a Super Bowl. I know this because he hasn’t.
Same logic.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
Cause he didn't.
Next
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?Putin wouldn’t have invaded because he didn’t invade before?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Doc said:
No, I'm making the exact point I wanted to make, to the person to whom I was responding, which wasn't you (initially). Which was: Putin wouldn't have invaded under Trump.
OK, do you didn't vote for Obama. But you voted for Biden, right?
Why do you think Putin wouldn’t have invaded under Trump?-
1
-
-
Majority of Americans support sending aid to Ukraine, poll says
“A majority of Americans (53%) support sending weapons and military aid to Ukraine, according to a new CBS News poll conducted with the market research firm, YouGov.”
More Americans Say U.S. Is Not Helping Ukraine Enough“This is the first time that less than 30% of Americans say the U.S. is doing the right amount to support Ukraine, which was the most common view as recently as June, when 43% held this opinion.”
-
1
-
The political scene on April 23rd 2024 ---
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I agree.
Oh wait…