|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 22 2019 00:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 00:36 Mohdoo wrote:On May 21 2019 11:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 21 2019 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On May 21 2019 11:34 xDaunt wrote:On May 21 2019 11:15 Mohdoo wrote:On May 21 2019 11:09 xDaunt wrote:On May 21 2019 10:07 On_Slaught wrote:On May 21 2019 08:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 21 2019 07:18 Danglars wrote:
Trump will appeal the ruling. Congressional democrats are trying to get around passing legislation to force any president to disclose his tax information. They also tried to get around legal action against the IRS to produce them by subpoenaing the accounting agency that prepares them. Pretty ridiculous, but that's this Congress. It will drag out in the courts for a while, maybe even past the 2020 election. Maybe we'll get a supreme court ruling on legitimate Congressional oversight vs separation of powers, and rights relating to private accountants and lawyers. I think Judge Mehta is likely to get a kick in the ass on appeal. His basic argument is that Congress can subpoena these records as an exercise of its inherent investigative authority for the purpose of drafting legislation. And in making this argument, he fails to identify any reasonable bounds for when Congress may exceed this authority. That's an obvious problem. The most outrageous part of his opinion is where he refuses to stay the order pending appeal. So what, we should prefer the alternative raised by the WH of the executive getting to decide when they should be investigated? Also, the Dems need to hurry up and go to court on the IRS request. That is the most surefire path to the records given its unambiguous legal basis. Congress does not and should not have carte blanche to investigate the private business affairs of the president or any other private citizen. Hell, law enforcement doesn't have that power unless there's probable cause of a crime. May I ask what disadvantage there is to investigating the president? What do we lose when the president is investigated? Giving congress unfettered power to make the president's life miserable is not good policy. This current congress is out of control already. The subpoenas on Barr are particularly egregious. There's not even a little grey area there. I mean what makes it bad policy? What damage is done? I don't think you've effectively argued why it is a bad thing, just that you disagree with it. I am asking what bad thing is created or what good thing is lost. Are you able to answer that? It's an abuse of the president's rights. Just because someone takes office doesn't mean that they surrender all rights at the door. There are huge compliance costs with those types of subpoenas. The subjects of those subpoenas have to lawyer up to ensure not only compliance but also the lawfulness of the subpoena itself. This is one of the largely untold stories of the true harm of Mueller's investigation. Tons of innocent people were swept up into the whole mess and had to spend exorbitant sums on their own legal counsel while they were being interviewed or otherwise producing things for the special counsel. How is it an abuse of the president's rights? Are you really saying he is surrendering "all" his rights? That is clearly not the case. Which rights are you saying are being taken away from Trump? Other people caught up in Mueller's investigation are not the issue here. I am asking about my above questions with regards to Trump. So far, you have only elaborated on why you think this whole thing is a stupid waste of time. You have not shown why this is fundamentally wrong and you have not shown how Trump's rights are being taken away. Fourth Amendment rights? Right to privacy? Right to be free from government interference in your own affairs? If you don't understand the basic principle that we live in a society in which the government is not empowered to investigate anyone and everyone for whatever reason, then that's a very big problem. This isn't communist China. This is the USA. This is one of the big themes to come out of the FBI and Mueller investigations into Trump: the unlawful use of government power for political purposes. These people clearly had such animus towards Trump that they were willing to do whatever they could to justify investigating him and his team, including lying to a FISA court. This is police state-level bullshit that has no place in this country. I sincerely hope that most democrats are eventually going to wake up to the fact that they are very much on the wrong side of this stuff.
To me, the fact that the charity got shut down itself justifies a full investigation of every dollar he has. People in government or other positions of authority are more likely to engage in stuff like money laundering. We have all sorts of oversight mechanisms throughout government because we have found many times they are necessary. When we take that and a past history of being financially sketchy, we should feel significantly more motivated to to investigate Trump than you or I.
If we see smoke in politicians, we should investigate much more easily than people who are not in positions where corruption/blackmail are huge deals. If someone tries to blackmail me, they can only get so much. I don't matter. Neither do you. But people in government can impact social, medical, military...every type of policy. Millions or billions of dollars can be moved by getting definite support from Trump, senators, congressmen, mayors and governors. It just makes more sense to watch them more closely and give them less privacy. There is too much in play.
|
Not surprisingly, within the past 48 hours trump felt the need to tell lies to the country about his finances. It has been reported and documented for decades that, following his major bankruptcies that amounted to a failure of the bulk of his business enterprise, and for which he needed bailouts from family members in order to avoid total personal bankruptcy, banks ceased doing business with him because they lost over $1B.
|
On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction.
xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely.
The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor.
Being in total poverty in the US is a crime, but maintaining a system that allows/forces it isn't. So a poor person in front of a store is a crime, but buying the store, then destroying all the employees livelihood is perfectly legal. But if those people whose lives you destroyed come back to the store and linger you can send them to jail.
|
On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor.
Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
|
On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
This conversation started with me asking you how the Trump Foundation isn't probable cause. Trump is a criminal is stretching that quite a bit to suit your narrative.
|
On May 22 2019 05:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon. This conversation started with me asking you how the Trump Foundation isn't probable cause. Trump is a criminal is stretching that quite a bit to suit your narrative.
Again, probable cause of what?
|
By the way, reports are coming out that Mueller is refusing to testify before congress. I guarantee you that he knows that he's going to get hammered by republicans on various aspects of his report and investigation, particularly as it pertains to the Russia collusion narrative. Let's see if Nadler subpoenas him.
|
On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
Do you believe that things that are legislated to be criminal are inherently worse things to do than something that is legal?
Like are there actions that are legal but worse than (the most closely related) crimes in your view?
It seems like you're either under the impression that crimes are defacto worse than non crimes, or at least arguing from that perspective.
|
On May 22 2019 05:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon. This conversation started with me asking you how the Trump Foundation isn't probable cause. Trump is a criminal is stretching that quite a bit to suit your narrative. Again, probable cause of what?
You cite yourself as a non-expert on tax law and then someone was kind enough to explain to you how this works. The fact that these cases don't go to trial for criminal charges and end with Trump in jail doesn't mean it never happened and there is no probable cause for further investigation into his finances.
The foundation was shut down in December so it's not like they're digging back ten years for some non-issue here.
|
The IRS audits any standing president but only concerning tax law, also IRS audits aren't as hollywood indepth effective as people here seem to think. Trump has not set up a blind trust to run his assets while president his presidential decision and potential conflicts of interest are clear as day, this falls well under congressional oversight.
|
On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
So someone isn't a criminal until they get caught?
Pack it in folks. No reason to try to find criminal behavior, because nobody's really a criminal anymore.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 22 2019 04:11 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote:
Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). No, it’s not. The intention of the abortion is not to destroy the body of the fetus, it is to remove the fetus from the body of the mother. The fetus may rely upon support from the mother but it is not entitled to it. A fetuses bodily autonomy is not interfered with by not giving it a womb to live in, no more than a patient with renal failure is the victim of your failure to donate a kidney. Ultimately it’s lack of independent viability is its own problem and does not create an obligation for any other individual to endure what is a pretty damaging and dangerous condition to relieve it of that problem. How is that different from leaving a child out to starve to death? It seems to me like once you grant the fetus any recognition of personhood or autonomy then you're basically left with trying to find a way to call infanticide something other than what it is.
I’m okay with forcing people to give up a small portion of their excess income to subsidize CPS, foster care, food stamps etc. I’m not okay with forcing people to give up their wombs.
A child may depend upon care but if the mother abandons it the state can pick up the slack. For what it’s worth I’d be fine with state funded incubation pods for unwanted fetuses if they existed. But they don’t, and in lieu of them I’m not going to mandate that women serve as pods.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon.
It is established that the Trump family used foundation funds to unduly enrich themselves. What you’re doing right now is like arguing in a murder case that the dead body of the victim is just in a very deep sleep and generally smelly.
The self dealing happened. If you must defend it you need to at least acknowledge it. You can’t just lie forever about whether it happened, they have the damn checks.
|
United States44203 Posts
For what it’s worth the standards of my profession require I not be involved in an engagement of any financial institution to which I have an outstanding liability in excess of $5,000. Full disclosure of any such interests is required at all times. The ethical standards of the Presidency are apparently far lower, including permitting the individual to lie about conflicts, lie about assets, misrepresent business interests and withhold documents.
The idea that this level of intrusion into his private life is unconstitutional is absurd. This is a result of his refusal to meet the bare minimum standard of ethical behaviour. If I refused to disclose to my employer which banks I owed money to and how much they’d fire me on the spot. Congress is simply attempting to hold Trump to a much lower ethical standard that national accounting firms hold their CPAs to. It’s not an intrusion, it’s a damn prerequisite.
|
On May 22 2019 06:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 04:11 Starlightsun wrote:On May 22 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote:
Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). No, it’s not. The intention of the abortion is not to destroy the body of the fetus, it is to remove the fetus from the body of the mother. The fetus may rely upon support from the mother but it is not entitled to it. A fetuses bodily autonomy is not interfered with by not giving it a womb to live in, no more than a patient with renal failure is the victim of your failure to donate a kidney. Ultimately it’s lack of independent viability is its own problem and does not create an obligation for any other individual to endure what is a pretty damaging and dangerous condition to relieve it of that problem. How is that different from leaving a child out to starve to death? It seems to me like once you grant the fetus any recognition of personhood or autonomy then you're basically left with trying to find a way to call infanticide something other than what it is. I’m okay with forcing people to give up a small portion of their excess income to subsidize CPS, foster care, food stamps etc. I’m not okay with forcing people to give up their wombs. A child may depend upon care but if the mother abandons it the state can pick up the slack. For what it’s worth I’d be fine with state funded incubation pods for unwanted fetuses if they existed. But they don’t, and in lieu of them I’m not going to mandate that women serve as pods.
The most frustrating part of this is that if men carried babies this wouldn't even be a discussion. There'd be no question that the government can't force them to carry a child they don't want or risks their health.
|
On May 22 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are coming out that Mueller is refusing to testify before congress. I guarantee you that he knows that he's going to get hammered by republicans on various aspects of his report and investigation, particularly as it pertains to the Russia collusion narrative. Let's see if Nadler subpoenas him.
I can only imagine Mueller testifying under oath. Why such relative silence on the dossier claims? Why did the Trump tower meeting only get a footnote and line worth of mention as well? Why was the dossier's origination not investigated as possible attempts by Russia to influence the election?
And of course, wtf did he mean with the no-conclusion conclusion but kinda conclusion but prosecutorally nothing at all. What's he think his role is as prosecutor in a criminal justice system? What's it mean to air all the dirty laundry not rising to a crime, but leave the actually statement of such to the AG?
|
|
|
On May 22 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are coming out that Mueller is refusing to testify before congress. I guarantee you that he knows that he's going to get hammered by republicans on various aspects of his report and investigation, particularly as it pertains to the Russia collusion narrative. Let's see if Nadler subpoenas him.
Let's try not to push your fantasies onto reality. Mueller is considering saying no because he only wants to discuss things in the report in an open session with the rest in closed session. Ofc, the House wants everything in open session, hence the complication. This is entirely consistent with Mueller's approach to this whole process.
|
On May 22 2019 06:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 04:11 Starlightsun wrote:On May 22 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote:
Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). No, it’s not. The intention of the abortion is not to destroy the body of the fetus, it is to remove the fetus from the body of the mother. The fetus may rely upon support from the mother but it is not entitled to it. A fetuses bodily autonomy is not interfered with by not giving it a womb to live in, no more than a patient with renal failure is the victim of your failure to donate a kidney. Ultimately it’s lack of independent viability is its own problem and does not create an obligation for any other individual to endure what is a pretty damaging and dangerous condition to relieve it of that problem. How is that different from leaving a child out to starve to death? It seems to me like once you grant the fetus any recognition of personhood or autonomy then you're basically left with trying to find a way to call infanticide something other than what it is. I’m okay with forcing people to give up a small portion of their excess income to subsidize CPS, foster care, food stamps etc. I’m not okay with forcing people to give up their wombs. A child may depend upon care but if the mother abandons it the state can pick up the slack. For what it’s worth I’d be fine with state funded incubation pods for unwanted fetuses if they existed. But they don’t, and in lieu of them I’m not going to mandate that women serve as pods.
We are living in the real world, and we are mostly men, who do not have to bother about being pregnant and giving birth, so I find diminishing the discussion to one about fostercare disrespectful.
Deciding to remove a fetus is not something any woman will do lightheartedly, but I find their right to decide when and with whom they have a baby extremely important, and the state should interfear with that right as little as possible.
I trust the mothers to know what is best for them, and the many terrible childhoods and dangerous abortion attempts are no way worth the "rights" of the fetuses.
Not long ago, so many babies died they barely counted as people before they could talk. I have no understanding for the sudded sympathy craze for embryos maximum at the size of a golf ball. I believe there are other motivations, and they are not pretty!
|
On May 22 2019 06:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2019 05:58 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 05:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 22 2019 05:47 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 22 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On May 22 2019 00:49 JimmiC wrote:
xDaunt my question (other then Kwarks foundation question which keeps being missed) is, is there anything that could happen to Trump that would not be someone else's fault or a grand conspiracy against him? I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't mean this disingenuously. I mean like if after his presidency if he gets arrested, charged and convicted would this be enough to show that he is criminal? Or would it be a politically motivated attack even after he is gone? Is there any event that could change your perception or is your lack of trust in the institutions of American so low and your Trust in Trump so high that you can never be swayed? I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. xDaunt feels more like hes arguing like a defense attorney than sincerely. The thing I think is important is this is a pretty naked example of the "if it's not illegal, it's not wrong" thinking that leads to our system taking the criminals and asking them whether they want their own activity to be criminal or not. Unless you're poor, in which case you're criminalized even for simply being poor. Hey, if people are going to make the claim that Trump is a "criminal" despite the fact that he has neither been convicted nor charged, they should articulate why that is, including with reference to specific criminal statutes that have been violated. And this is precisely what I keep asking people around here to do, yet they repeatedly fail. All they do is baselessly bloviate in the face of indisputable facts that rebut their arguments. This Trump tax return business is a perfect example of this phenomenon. This conversation started with me asking you how the Trump Foundation isn't probable cause. Trump is a criminal is stretching that quite a bit to suit your narrative. Again, probable cause of what? You cite yourself as a non-expert on tax law and then someone was kind enough to explain to you how this works. The fact that these cases don't go to trial for criminal charges and end with Trump in jail doesn't mean it never happened and there is no probable cause for further investigation into his finances. The foundation was shut down in December so it's not like they're digging back ten years for some non-issue here.
The problem is that you guys keep conflating issues. Remember, the foundation came up in the conversation in the context of Trump's tax returns. I presumed that the questions being asked about the foundation concerned tax issues. The governance/self-dealing issues concern NY state law -- not federal law. So again, I'm not seeing how the foundation issues give rise to probable cause for any type of federal action, including congressional inquiry. If you were caught stealing a candy bar from a gas station, the prosecuting authorities would not have probable cause to dig through your entire financial history. The same principle applies to Trump and the myriad of investigations being launched against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
