Wrestleknownothing

Break up the Mithletes

I also have my doubts he will be convicted. While I am certain Trump has committed many crimes as outlined in his last two indictments, I am also highly skeptical that they can find a jury to convict him. Several posters on here like to talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome as though it is an anti-Trump phenomena. I view it as a pro-Trump phenomena. It is the only way I can explain how anyone can know what we know about his actions, (including, but certainly not limited to, the speech on Jan.6, the call to Raffensperger, the memos outlining the plan to seat false electors, the attempts to actually seat false electors, the "you tell the lie and we will do the rest" conversation with the Justice Department, the attempts to intimidate his own vice president) and still think he has any business running for president.

I do not think it is likely he will go to jail pending trial. There is the law, and then there is legal realism. Holding a former president, who is also a current presidential candidate, in jail is not realistic. They can, and will I think, convince themselves that he can be muzzled, all past experience to the contrary. And as a presidential candidate he has a strong reason not to flee the US, perhaps the strongest possible reason, meaning he is also not a flight risk.

Your second paragraph seems like wishful thinking to me. But I too was struck by the irony of Giuliani being on the other side of a RICO case given his prior history. However, I also applaud it as he has proven to be a truly awful human being. I had forgotten his racist attempt to put the Georgia election worker in the crosshairs of Trump's worst followers until the tape of him saying deplorable things ("passing around USB drives like they were vials of heroin or crack cocaine") was played again. What an awful person.

Pennsylvania to Idaho? That is a big move. Why Idaho?

You are analyzing the numbers wrong. Chicago or Chicagoland? Either way, there is a large percentage of the state's population in a small percentage of its land. Of course the percentage will be higher. As it is for every metropolitan area in every state. As for handguns vs rifles, that isn't the right breakdown. Not all rifles are covered by the law and some handguns are covered. Secondly, the types of guns covered by the law result in more deaths per instance. Removing one of them is like removing 3 or 4 guns not covered by the law.

How do you define sensible? The Illinois law was summarized in the article I posted this way: The law bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices. No rifle is allowed to accommodate more than 10 rounds, with a 15-round limit for handguns. But it carves out exceptions. Those who possessed semi-automatic guns before it became effective on Jan. 10 are allowed to keep them but must register them with the state police by Jan. 1, 2024. And seven categories of "trained professionals," such as police officers, active-duty military, corrections officials and qualified security guards, may carry them. Is that sensible? Or is there some element you do not care for? I am genuinely curious because I see the term sensible gun laws, but I rarely see it defined.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-state-georgia-appears-set-file-charges-against-donald-trump-court-document-2023-08-14/#:~:text=Aug 14 (Reuters) - The,the document down without explanation. It is probably just a list of charges prosecutors will ask for, rather than what the grand jury might return.

Upon second thought. I choose A. and B. I have intimate knowledge of the desires of one football (both kinds) loving boat owner, and he definitely wants this. I assume people who own gun stores do not want this because it hurts profits. I assume criminals do not want this because it would be one more thing can go to jail for.

Paint someone else with that brush

Your attempted Socratic method is failing with me. Those are not mutually exclusive sets, nor are they complete.

can I have multiple choices?

A criminal is defined as someone who does not obey the law. That is not a good argument for not having laws. It is a good argument for having law enforcement.

Bob Dylan John Hiatt Paul Westerberg For me it comes down to how creative their lyrics are.

oops. Completely mis-read that.

I am curious about this statement. Isn't Biden saying the opposite of Trump, that the election was not rigged? And isn't he saying it waaaaaaaay less often? And doesn't he only feel the need to say it so that Trump's lie does not go unchallenged?

More often than not I think of the name calling as lazy. But the name calling is also very generic and non-specific. You were very specific which made it more of a personal attack. My reaction was more visceral, less intellectual. When I see nitwit, dum dum, and the like I mostly roll my eyes. Your post made me cringe. For me that is the difference, my level of immediate reaction.

I just listened to The Rewatchables podcast on "A Few Good Men" during my bike ride. In their Unanswerable segment they asked "Was Jonathan Kendrick at the Capitol on Jan. 6?" I almost wiped out laughing.

The personal attack makes it hard to pay any attention to anything else you said.

He was ranked #1 once and took second in SV. He beat his seed twice, missed it twice but still AAed, and was injured once. Hardly choke stuff.

Just found him. One of the all-time great names, too. Sam Manella. His parents must have had a good sense of humor. Oh, and he played from 1978 to 1981. Not late 80's.

There wa a guy who played basketball at DePaul in the late 80's, Sam something. I can't remeber his last name, but his nickname was "The People's Choice". The crowd would go crazy whenever he entered the game. He was truly beloved. But legendary? No, I can't even remember his last name. Iowa wrestlers who don't win titles will be filed under "what ever happened to that guy?" in 20 -30 years.

I saw the coyotes making a home for themselves in my backyard high pawing each other.

Illinois Supreme Court Upholds State's Ban on Semi-Automatic Weapons Progress being made in The Land of Lincoln.

Offshore accounts are used as a tax arbitrage. Most of finance is about gaining favorable tax treatment. If you can do a transaction in a jurisdiction with low taxes it is better than doing it in a jurisdiction with high taxes. Sometimes that happens domestically, for example a lot of people move to Florida, or at least move there part-time to lower their taxes. As with all things there are legal ways to do this and illegal ways to do this. If you claim to live in Florida more than half the year and thereby receive a tax benefit, but do not actually live in Florida the minimum required time, that is illegal. I am not sure how often that is noticed or prosecuted. Corporations use offshore accounts all the time. Coca Cola, McDonalds, and many other US corporations, rarely repatriate profits earned overseas in order to avoid paying US taxes on top of local taxes. There have been many attempts over the years to force repatriation, though I am not sure of the current status. Hedge funds are often incorporated in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or Ireland because those jurisdictions recruit them by offering low, or no, tax regimes. It is why FTX and its associated trading firms were all located in Bermuda. As for why you and I do not use offshore bank accounts and shell companies, we are nowhere rich enough. To set these up requires lawyers, accountants, banks, and others. And everyone gets paid. So it only makes sense if you have a lot of money with a large potential tax benefit. The existence of offshore accounts could hint at illegal activity, or it could just be good estate and tax planning.