ChiGoose

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.

Oh, I don’t read the rantings of a clearly very unwell person. I imagine this thread is mostly comprised of an individual with some serious issues loudly struggling in their confusion and ignorance, combined with citing Julie Kelly, a “legal expert” so dumb that last I checked, she thought Trump was being charged under the PRA.

"Keith Davidson, who was Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, just explained that he used pseudonyms for Daniels and Trump in the written deal he drew up, and that Trump’s pseudonym, as has been reported, was David Dennison. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks Davidson if David Dennison was a real person and Davidson responds that he was, and that they were hockey teammates. “How’s he feel about you now?” Steinglass asks. “He’s very upset,” Davidson responds to general laughter." (per NYT) Ok, that's pretty funny

No idea what Travis Media Group is but they seem to have no idea how any of this works. They should maybe do a little research before showing their whole a** like this.

Probably doesn’t mean much to Trump, but $1,000 is the max financial penalty available. The next penalty up is jail. I can’t imagine the judge wants that headache so he’ll probably just do fines for the gag order violations.

What's that? People need more data about gun ownership and gun deaths? No problem! There's plenty of it because the connection is both true and obvious! From Johns Hopkins: "Overwhelming evidence shows that firearm ownership and access is associated with increased suicide, homicide, unintentional firearm deaths, and injuries." "It has been well-documented that firearm ownership rates are associated with increased firearm-related death rates. Among high-income countries, the United States is an outlier in terms of firearm violence. The U.S. has the highest firearm ownership and highest firearm death rates of 27 high-income countries." "The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is nearly 25 times higher than other high-income countries and the firearm suicide rate is nearly 10 times that of other high-income countries." "In general, the states with the highest gun death rates tend to be states in the South or Mountain West, with weaker gun laws and higher levels of gun ownership, while gun death rates are lower in the Northeast, where gun violence prevention laws are stronger." "Over four decades of public health research consistently finds that firearm ownership increases the risk of firearm homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury. Nevertheless, more than 6 in 10 Americans believe that a firearm in the home makes the family safer—a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.13 This increase in perceived safety is reflected in shifting reasons for firearm ownership. In a 2023 Pew Research survey, more than two-thirds (71%) of firearm owners cited protection as a major reason for ownership.14 This represents a notable increase from the mid-1990s, when the majority of American firearm owners cited recreation as their primary reason for ownership and fewer than half owned firearms primarily for protection." "Research runs counter to these changing public perceptions of firearms providing safety. It shows that firearm ownership puts individuals and their families at higher risk of injury and death. Individuals who choose to own a firearm can mitigate many of the risks associated with ownership by always storing their firearms unloaded and locked in a secure place, and refraining from carrying their firearms in public places. " "Firearm owners can make their homes safer through secure firearm storage practices. Unfortunately, the majority of U.S. firearm owners choose to leave their firearms unlocked, allowing children or persons, who are at risk for violence to self or others, to access them. An estimated 4.6 million children live in households with at least one firearm that is loaded and unlocked. These unsafe storage practices lead to countless suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries by individuals who should not have access to a firearm. This includes children, prohibited persons with a history of violence, and family members who may be suicidal or temporarily in crisis." "Leaving firearms unsecured also fuels theft—a primary avenue in which firearms are diverted into the illegal market and used in crime. There are an estimated 250,000 firearm theft incidents each year resulting in about 380,000 firearms stolen annually. In recent years, as more Americans carry firearms in public, theft from cars has skyrocketed. Firearms stolen from cars now make up the majority of thefts. In fact, one analysis of crime data reported to the FBI found that on average, at least one firearm is reported stolen from a car every 15 minutes." "Carrying firearms in public also increases the risk for violence by escalating minor arguments and increasing the chances that a confrontation will become lethal. Research has found that even the mere presence of a firearm increases aggressive thoughts and actions." "Some believe that carrying a firearm will act as a deterrent and help prevent conflicts or minimize harm. While there are specific examples where this was true, there are many more cases where firearm carrying escalates conflict and leads to firearm injury or death. In aggregate, research shows firearm carrying increases levels of violent crime." "It’s important for individuals to know the risks of firearm ownership, and the reality that higher levels of firearm ownership and carrying do not reduce violence or enhance public safety."

I'm glad you agree that the "good guy with a gun" defense for the pro-gun crowd is a dumb myth not supported by facts or reality.

Oh look! More guns means more gun deaths! What a surprise! Seems impossible though, since I've been reassured that there will be a good guy with a gun who will stop the bad guy with a gun... Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths "There was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r ¼ 0.80; P <.0001) (Figure, A), with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other." "We then sought to evaluate whether possessing guns would make a nation safer, as has been a widespread contention. We used the crime rate per 100,000 population as an indicator of safety of the nation. There was no significant correlation (r ¼ 0.33) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (P ¼ .10), arguing against the notion of more guns translating into less crime (Figure, B)." "The present data suggest that the number of guns per capita per country correlated strongly and was an independent predictor of firearm-related deaths. Additionally, in a linear regression model there was a correlation with mental illness, but this was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Although correlation is not synonymous with causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit-by-bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis purporting to show that countries with the higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

I’m sure that at any moment, one of the pro-gun people who believe that guns make us safer will post data showing that the more guns per capita, the fewer homicides. I’ll just hold my breath waiting for their data