ADreamOfLiberty

As for the “shoving it in my face” thing, everyone likes to express their beliefs and say it to everyone.

3. Are faggots are better than your faggots. Compare Blaire White to Dylan Mulvaney.  Not just that but our gays are sexier even when they don't transition and are predominantly tops or even better power bottoms. 

The old guard is bitching and moaning about JD Vance being the future of the republican party along with other associates of the PayPal mafia such as Vivek Ramaswamy. 

a VALID SSN. You can't use a fake SSN to register to vote. The government knows which numbers are real.

I get that you’re trolling, but please stop. You’re creating a straw man that people are going to point to and use against the rest of us.

But I dont want to stop. I like it.

But I am also a furry, so I am not sure if that negates the gay and straight thing.

I am attracted to species other than my own.

The other said that there were 9 mil as opposed to 4 mil, but this is not what is going on.

No, it’s 4 mil as opposed to 9 mil. The 9,000,000 number wasn’t even a real number,

This stuff happens all the time

I don’t know about the doxing, but the Supreme Court ruled that presidents are allowed to attempt to murder their own Vice Presidents (unclear how it would apply to winners who pull it off), and lead violent insurrections against congress… I expect future presidents will realize it’s not merely allowed, but mandatory to ensure second and third terms.

You are not different just because “I’m right”.

You might think they are rioters, but Trump sure doesn’t. 

To this day they lie about "many fine people" and deaths of capitol police when only protestors were killed on Jan 6. They have used the so called violent extremism as an excuse to begin surveillance against American citizens and enact censorship campaigns.

Gay men are 12x more likely than straight men to use amphetamines, 9.5x more likely to use heroin, and solid 25% of gay and transgender Americans are alcoholic.

This statistic doesn’t necessarily support your position. First of all, being Gay is completely Independent of using substances

"Or was the serious shooter, meant to miss the head and hit an ear?” You have to be exquisitely ignorant to think this.

Bestiality is degenerate and funny

but jailing doesn't make sense.  We kill animals for food and nobody complains about how animals can't consent to being slaughtered.  The harsh truth is killing animals for food is not needed for our survival because all nutrients can be obtained through plants.

Leave the issue up to the states.

I heard you got a good case against this.  What is it?

Just to be clear this was an incident, not a assassination attempt.

It was probably down fringe leftist. Most people on the left are going to come out and say this was horrible, including me.

Jurors do not have to agree on what actually happened

they only need to agree on the components that make up the crime

The Trump team knew exactly what the prosecution’s case was because they laid it out in painstaking detail 5 months before the trial.

Trump does not have to commit the crime in order for it to apply because the law makes clear that the only requirement was for him to have had the intent when he committed the falsification of records.

intent to commit another crime

intent to commit =/= actually committed

I think my house arrest analogy works perfectly here of we tweak it.

And btw, this whole concept of using an out of jurisdiction crime as the underlying crime was litigated prior to the trial. If you are actually interested see below.

Wouldn't that mean under New York law that pretty much every expenditure would have to be handled this way as there's always an argument that any candidate's purchase would affect the election to some degree, even if it is just buying food. (people have a right to know what goes inside their candidate as well as what he puts into other people)

It's such a whacky interpretation of the law you would typically see in fantasy dystopian novels or some obscure 1800's wild west laws. You wouldn't normally expect this in 2024 New York law.

That’s what Brad Smith (former FEC commissioner) was prepared to testify. In fact, Trump paying for this NDA with campaign funds which he was apparently supposed to do may have actually been illegal under federal law. On the other hand, New York State is the final arbiter of federal law everybody knows that

“1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made "for the purpose of influencing an election," and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York. /8

One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, "for the purpose of influencing an election." Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense. /9

this legal analyst for CNN made the point that no prosecution in all fifty states had ever used a federal elections violation as a predicate for a state crime. None, ever, zero.

I am quite frankly, just tired of this argument. Trump is the most unprecedented political figure in our lifetime and probably in the nation’s history. Of course the way he is dealt with would be unprecedented as well.

This argument is essentially one big question begging fallacy. It’s like mob bosses from the 40’s claiming that they are being persecuted because RICO laws are being written specifically to take them down.

The issues seem so immense because there is a concerted effort on the political right to ensure people remain confused about it rather than to educate people on what the charges were and how they can be interpreted reasonably.

The law Trump was convicted of is falsifying business records with the intent of covering up another crime. They did not need to adjudicate whether he actually committed a federal crime, because the intent is the only thing that was required.

And yes Trump knew what these second charges were because everyone in earth did given that his personal attorney who handled this exact violation already pleaded guilty to it.

It [FEC excludes NDA payments from campaign contributions] doesn't, but it doesn't exclude them from personal expenses either which means they are in the overlap which means nobody can convict anybody of anything without getting a change in policy from the FEC

There is no literature anywhere that supports this interpretation.

Nothing about the law or FEC page says if something is not singled out to be excluded then it’s fair game.

A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.

Note how it does not say “a contribution occurs only if it’s specified below”.

Again, does not say “if it’s not listed here then the expense is whatever the candidate says”

Bla bla sophistry

It doesn’t take sophistry to recognize that the negation of “this debate will be over” is “this debate will not be over”. As in, we will continue the conversation. Not “this debate will be over and I win”.

“Will determine” =/= “automatic”

The term “contribution” includes— (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

Apply it to a tuxedo bought for a campaign rally.

I did, that was the gotcha you laid out for me and I fell into. That’s why the FEC singled this out for exclusion, which follows from the word “automatic”.

My interpretation doesn't require the automatic personal expenses to be in contradiction with the default (irrespective test).

Your interpretation of campaign finance law is that a bunch of lawmakers sat around and wrote thousands of pages explaining what are campaign expenses vs personal expenses just so that the candidates can chuck it all in the trash and determine it for themselves. That’s absurd.

Oh, and it also plainly contradicts the FEC’s interpretation when they stated “the commission will determine…”

When it comes to campaign finance law, the essence of what separates the personal from the campaign comes down to intent,

If the candidate bought a pair of shoes for the exclusive purpose of propping up his own campaign then that does meet the legal definition of a campaign contribution

but it would be absurd for the FEC or anyone else to sit around trying to figure out what the purpose was of every shoe or pair of pants every candidate purchased

It’s a practical reality, not the purpose of the law.

You have asserted/implied that if someone intends to help their campaign by spending money, then whatever they are spending money on is a mandated campaign expense.

 That’s literally how the law defines it

ADOL has a thread up about this subject and he is pretty well versed in debating all the points. You may want to tag him to get a well thought out opinion

@Adreamofliberty Other facts of interest being the 60 million people communism killed through starvation.

I mean, Capitalism probably has killed much more. Look at 1800s India as a singular example.

if someone could be a dictator, they could increase taxes and decrease spending, with a scalpel approach, trim the fat.

Cause

effect

Principle

Knowledge

Will

It's called escalation.

Escalation only applies if your view of the circumstances surrounding the action are that the parties are already engaged in some kind of warfare, at which point the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is not wrong any more than it is wrong to kill someone in combat.

In other words you’re trying to have it both ways. Either the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is wrong because that’s not how we do things in this country, in which case you would feel obligated to ensure the rule of law is restored, or the justice system is just a tool to be weaponized in which case your only real gripe is that the democrats beat you to it.

Tsinghua

This exists even in the research settings with one's higher ups. Here is a joke here: If Hawking was working in China, he would be demoted for not knowing how to give a toast!

I just know that if you don't live here, chances are that you don't know what is actually the pressing issues.

It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers bend over backwards to justify both being outraged at the democrats weaponization of the justice department, and advocating for the republicans weaponization of the justice department

I told you to provide the part where the FEC excludes NDA payments from campaign contributions

At no point did I state, suggest, or imply that your failure to do so would affirm my position. You made that part up entirely because you either do not know how to read, do not understand logic 101, or have no interest in dealing with the actual arguments I am making.

You are still working with the original point I made even after I acknowledged my error.

Again, here is the Federal Campaign Finance Act defining what a contribution is:

The term “contribution” includes— (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

It wasn’t a contradiction, it was a failure to account for instances where the FEC singled out specific types of spending to be excluded from this test.

Because otherwise the irrespective test could be used by the candidate to abuse campaign laws, the opposite of its intention.

I already pointed out to you in post 213 how stupid it is to even be talking about this page in the first place given that these were not the circumstances of the payment we are supposedly discussing.

The notion that they would leave but for some unfortunate lack of boats is absurd.

The reason they didn't leave before is because they were rulers of the land, and held out hopes that Israel would give up and they'd stay rulers of the land. But with every mile Israel advances, giving up and going home becomes less and less thinkable.

There is a reason to lock up murderers and rapists besides the emotional satisfaction of it. When people get away with something, something that they wanted to do in the first place; there is an excellent chance they will try again.

How? If they're over in Iran or whatnot, and gave up their weapons when they evacuated, how could they storm Israel or Gaza? Would Iran hand them weapons and risk a war with Israel?

There is a reason to lock up murderers and rapists besides the emotional satisfaction of it. When people get away with something, something that they wanted to do in the first place; there is an excellent chance they will try again.

How? If they're over in Iran or whatnot, and gave up their weapons when they evacuated, how could they storm Israel or Gaza? Would Iran hand them weapons and risk a war with Israel?

But for 15+ years the moderates haven't had a voice in Gaza.

Giving them, say, two years to call the shots and prove better leaders than Hamas would offer the Gazans compelling reason to keep them in charge.

Any reasonable person, upon glancing at it for longer than two seconds, would realize this is not a serious proposal

In this case, an escape to a friendly third country (Muslims everywhere seem to love Hamas and deny they did anything wrong, so this shouldn't be too hard to arrange).

Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, and his cronies, will be allowed to spend the rest of their lives on a beach sipping martinis and reminiscing fondly about that time they killed a bunch of Jewish children and babies and got away with it.

#2. One year of Israeli military occupation to mop up any partisans who didn't evacuate, followed by one year of a new elected Gazan government backed up by the Israeli military, followed by Israeli withdrawal

The first election cycle? Israel will vet all candidates and parties, and ban Hamas-style radicals from running.

Now show me the example where the FEC says payments made to shut up pornstars are excluded from campaign expenditures and this debate will be over.

Implying that unless the FEC enumerates the exact circumstances as personal expenses, then they must be a campaign expenditure.

This isn’t even close to what I argued.

It also pulls out specific examples of expense types that qualify as automatic personal expenses.

you engage in a dishonest game of gotcha

That doesn’t refute a single argument I’ve made.

There is a reason the FEC singled out these types of expenses

because it would otherwise conflict with their own respective test, so it is there to clarify when to apply the irrespective test:

[ADOL] Not "any expense", "any expense in the overlap between personal and campaign expenses"

That overlap is huge, especially for celebrities. You have butchered election law into an absurdity by asserting that there is no overlap.

And yet, another strawman.

I never argued that there is no overlap, of course there is. Campaign finance is always going to be a difficult topic because there are always going to be grey areas.

the Commission will determine

Therefore, if you are claiming that the test does not apply to the Stormy payment

If you had a real argument you wouldn’t need to waste your time with these silly little games. But you don’t.

How would RFK be a bigot?  I can understand the conspiracy theory part.

what is the conspiracy theory you're thinking of ?

I guess the political affiliation runs in the family, there is no getaway. Am I right?