domain:kvetch.substack.com
omfalos
9hr ago
I wouldn't say an invasion is likely, but China has an ace up their sleeve which they can use to win a war against Taiwan, and the ability to win affects the probability of invasion. If Taiwanese shore defenses, the US Navy, and the US Air Force are strong enough to defeat China's initial invasion force in a conventional amphibious assault, China can launch a second wave and give it an improved chance of success by DETONATING SUPER EMPS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE OVER TAIWAN TO FRY THE ELECTRONICS OF ENEMY FORCES.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
11hr ago
He asked if he’s suffering from Gell-Mann amnesia, I answered in the affirmative. It’s not throwing shade, it’s telling a person who doesn’t know algebra and calculus that he can’t contribute to advanced physics. Your response is “well teach him!”, to which I reply: “no”.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
11hr ago
You think people vote according to policy positions? Are you new to politics? They vote to the religious-right party because of the type of kippah they wear - knitted. They vote for the party that has an MK that’s a friend of a friend. They vote the same way their dad did. Does that explain it? Is it any different where you’re from?
RegularlyExpressed
11hr ago
I get that it's poor form to call out other posters like this, and maybe I'll get punished by the mods, but @coffee_enjoyer is a pretty hardcore Jew-hater*, I wouldn't recommend engaging with him/her for good good-faith takes on anything relating to Jews or Israel.
*This isn't a "boo outgroup" thing btw, I'm pretty sure the poster in question proudly embraces this label.
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
12hr ago
To make your defense more explicit, are you arguing that now that you’re done with the genocide, it has become immoral? Was it not immoral in the 19th and 18th centuries, only arbitrarily now when it’s convenient for you?
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
14hr ago
My understanding is that the law says that if the expenditure would not have occurred but for the candidacy, then it is a campaign expenditure. If it would have occurred anyway, then it is not. So in reference to the Trump case, the question is if Cohen would have paid off Daniels if Trump had not been trying to get elected. Presumably, the jury was satisfied that the evidence showed he would not have.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
17hr ago
If you explained the crime in a few sentences to George Washington, would he say, "what? I don't even understand why that is a crime in your era." Or would he say, "Of course that is a crime."
You don't think insider trading should be considered a crime?
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
14hr ago
I think this just is one of those where you are not well-versed with a very different legal regime than your own. I notice that you avoided talking about McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. Do you have any comment on that case or how it could play in to a hypothetical future case that directly addresses reporting requirements?
I haven't read that case and I don't intend to.
Express advocacy has reporting requirements.
So it does. TIL.
What's the difference? You just said "any" expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure. So, shouldn't the latter be one, too?
Implicitly I meant "any expenditure by the candidate or people coordinating with the candidate". The distinction I was drawing was that I believed unconnected individuals did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".
Let me one more hypo you. One that I would be very unsurprised if it literally actually came up in arguments if we had a SCOTUS case directly on the reporting requirements. Would the pseudonymous Federalist Papers have been legal? They were all essentially politicians of various sorts and were surely running for elections at various times. The papers, themselves, were certainly aimed at influencing voting, and they could very plausibly think that it would influence things in ways that would get them elected (as they were, indeed, elected to various positions). Pseudonymous? Or reporting requirement? Criminal?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Why would they be impacted by campaign finance laws at all?
pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
15hr ago
Re: NYT, it’s a stand-in for media in general. I couldn’t care less about the NYT specifically.
Gell-Mann amnesia is exactly what’s on display here. Like it or not, this is a perfect example: trusting a media report about a subject he’s less familiar with, despite already knowing how the media falsely represents subjects he’s closely familiar with.
I know he doesn’t understand Israeli politics by the things he says in the post. Again, thinking that 10% of Israelis want to because they vote for the same party they’ve always voted for is as ridiculous as thinking anyone who votes R wants to strip women of rights, and everyone who votes D wants to trans all the kids. It’s not even surface level understanding, it’s cartoonish thinking.
“You’ve been controversial for decades”, said the people living on lands stolen by genociding the natives and importing slaves. Who cares what you think?
knightrider
11hr ago
You only make assertions but don't back them up
I've got a thread going on with a couple of the mods on how they are killing this place, and owe them a response -- this is a perfect example to include. They've shifted the (important!) norm of 'be charitable to other posters' to 'be charitable to every-fucking-body' -- and I don't think it's possible to get at truth when people are handcuffed this way.
(and of course I'm elsewhere in this very thread arguing strenuously against @Tomato's thesis here -- but if we aren't allowed to put our theses forcefully to the forum, how are we gonna test our shady thinking, eh?)
Do you think that paying Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet is "express advocacy"?
Clearly not. Accordingly, if some random individual with no connection to Trump paid her to keep quiet, that would not be a reportable expenditure.
We've been doing this question-and-answer thing for a while, and I'm still not sure where you're going with it. It seems like you think election finance law is unconstitutional under the first amendment for some reason, but I'm failing to see how and none of these hypotheticals have gotten me any closer to understanding your position.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
13hr ago
I'm still not really getting it. I was under the impression that the Federalist papers were a series of essays published in newspapers. As far as I know, they weren't ads. Why would they be governed by the rules that apply to modern ads and not the rules that apply to modern newspaper editorials?
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
14hr ago
According to the jury instructions, the way the law handles mixed motives is as follows:
Under federal law, a third party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses is deemed to be a contribution to the candidate unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy. If the payment would have been made even in the absence of the candidacy, the payment should not be treated as a contribution.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
17hr ago
A personal payment from Donald Trump to Stormy Daniels would not be an issue under campaign finance law (spending your own money on your own campaign is 1st-amendment protected activity) and would not generate any business records that could become the basis of a "falsifying business records" charge.
Why didn't Trump do it that way? Partly because his personal lawyer was a lying crooked sack of shit who couldn't give him decent legal advice. Mostly because he doesn't think that laws apply to him in the way they do to little people.
sarker
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
8hr ago
The station isn't built in the middle of nowhere, so yes, there are existing homeowners already. Navigating past a parking lot is not a problem, this is America and everyone has a car.
Apartment buildings are probably less vulnerable to burglary than your average SFH, if only because you need a key to get into the lobby and smashing the lobby windows would attract too much attention. With a SFH it's easy to just go around the back, probably nobody will even notice in less dense neighborhoods.
Rov_Scam
9hr ago
Intent can't be proven in any of the three scenarios you put forward because buying paperclips isn't illegal, and legal impossibility is almost always a complete defense. In any event, whether you think something is legal or not is irrelevant, because in most cases, mistake of law isn't a defense. Ignorantia juris non excusat. What's tripping people up here is that the crime Trump was allegedly concealing has very specific intent requirements that does require knowledge of the law, while the crimes he was actually charged with don't. The relevant analogy here is where buying paperclips actually is illegal. In that case, if you falsified records relating to their purchase you'd be guilty of the falsification whether you knew they were illegal or not.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
10hr ago
Same could be said for space. You can't find 6 trillion dollars worth of platinum laying around here anywhere!
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
12hr ago
Okay, so is the answer to the hypothetical then that yes the Federalist Papers would have been legal but they would have needed to include a "I'm James Madison and I approve this message" style notification?
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
13hr ago
If you don't want to engage someone, then stop engaging. That means stop before you take your parting shot calling them bad faith or ignorant.
f3zinker
Its A/B testing all the way down
13hr ago
Looks like a decent itinerary. Keep in mind that Dec 29-Jan 3 is around Shogatsu so a lot of stuff will be closed/limited during those days. Double check that the stuff you want to do is accessible/open.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to call up a bunch of places and see if they are going to be open. Im assuming restaurants and bars are at least open, in the worst case?
Also, don't do the Shibuya go carts, you'll just look like a tool and piss off everyone around you. If you want to do something quirky there are a million more interesting things to do even just right there in Shibuya. There are a billion cool an unique bars, live music venues, edgy boutique stores, and more. TBH you could probably just wander around Dogenzaka for an hour or two and have a great time.
Nope, go karting through the city sounds like a grand fucking idea and I will do it. We like the act of driving and want various driving-based activities.
Nevertheless, what other quirky things would you recommend? A bit more specific.
Mt Fuji is impressive and worth seeing. Good choice. Instead of driving, you might consider taking a fancy train with a beautiful view so you can chill and eat snacks and enjoy the ride. Driving in Japan is IME pretty dreary, slow, and tedious. Around Tokyo, lots of of highways routed through ugly/inconvenient areas with no view and often with large sound barriers so you can't see much. Don't know about the route to Narusawa specifically.
I plant to redo this drive: https://youtube.com/watch?v=TUgfiNg06GQ
And rent a car from here: https://fun2drive-japan.com/
Never been to Sapporo but I've heard great things about it and Hokkaido in general.
I hope so. I want to sneak in some winter activities and Sapporo should be the place to be.
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
It's not a crime to try to conceal personal information, obviously. But whether or not that was Trump's intent in falsifying the records is a question for the jury. My point was simply that that the statute he was charged with violating has a lower standard of proof than the underlying act itself, and that the evidence was sufficient for the government to make a prima facia case; doing so doesn't require them to prove the underlying act, or even an attempt to commit the underlying act.
Rov_Scam
14hr ago
I'm not saying that res ipsa is sufficient on its own, just that there's a certain element involved when it comes to proving intent. If the falsification of the records happened in a vacuum and there was no obvious underlying motive, that would be the misdemeanor. But when you demonstrate that the concealed payments may have covered up a potential campaign finance violation, that's probably enough evidence that a jury can infer that the potential violation was behind the concealment. Like I said in the previous post, if a guy breaks into a store the prosecution doesn't have to demonstrate that the defendant was there specifically to steal a particular item for it to be anything more than trespass; the jury can infer that because there was a very obvious motive for the break-in that the defendant intended to commit a felony. The defendant can certainly argue that that wasn't his intent and present evidence supporting that, but that's a question of fact for the jury. We can argue all day about whether there was sufficient evidence of Trump's intent to commit a campaign finance violation for the purpose of the statute, but my overall point is that arguing about the specific elements of such a violation itself or the mens rea requirement to prove a campaign finance violation is irrelevant here because we're operating on two separate legal principles.
LOL. Shortening Ben Gvir to ‘Gvir’ is like shortening ‘McDonald’ to ‘Donald’. You’re betraying a ridiculous lack of familiarity.
You seem confused about the analogy, as well. The analogous act would be that republicans tried to overthrow American democracy on January 6th, and that your former president told you to grab women by the pussy. Does that make more sense now?
More options
Context Copy link