Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[KoD]

Your most powerful action against politicians you don't like is voting. There are few if any protests that garner my sympathy enough to actually change my stance (but it gets get me to at least see their viewpoint). I'm sure this goes for a lot of other folks as well. BLM (a few of their protests devolved into outright riots), Dakota Access Pipeline, Occupy Wall Street, March for Our Lives, Women's March, etc. are all protests that haven't made much of an impact on my worldview...mainly due to the approach but even the fundamentals of the movement. And yes, this is coming from someone who has participated in the March for Life, which receives VERY little media attention year in and year out, despite drawing tens to hundreds of thousands. I never went into it thinking it would radically change America, but if it gets just a few people thinking...then I think it has accomplished some of its goals.

Yeah it's not like having a march is doing to be an effective means of rationalizing ones perspective on something. If anything it would motivate other like-minded folks to be more proactive in expressing their opinion or taking some kind of action.
There's plenty of nuts out there, and if they want to be ridiculous then there's not much we can do about that as long as their not infringing on anyone else's rights. I'm just glad the democratic base has rejected the crazies openly in regards to these circumstances. But it makes them look good to their constituents and in the end that's what they're trying to achieve. It's hard to be legitimately wholesome when you're also the epitome of manipulation. Lol.

 

[Matt]

It sure was, glad to see you agree. So you must really be opposed to Trump doing it on a much larger scale.

I think Trump put a stop to it. It happened under barry and george too. Why on earth did Congress pass the law if they are so upset when it is enforced ?

 

[Evan]

McCain is a rat! The worst kind of rat!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...elp_all_along_john_mccain_.html#ixzz5JA7SEQuF

I read the opinion piece (these are always opinion pieces as a straight news piece based on such obviously false premises would get them sued) and the document that Judicial Watch obtained. The document is extremely clear that McCain's staff director was absolutely in the right. 501c(4) groups were abusing their non-profit status and engaging primarily in political work when they are supposed to be engaged in social welfare advocacy.

The IRS was unable to revoke the non-profit status of the groups in violation because the reporting and FEC cycle meant things didn't happen in realtime. And, if the money was "gone" and the 501c(4) shuttered after an election, there was essentially no penalty or enforcement that could be applied. The people got away scot-free, and had a major advantage over 527 groups (PACs) in political spending as they don't have to disclose the names of their donors while 527 groups do.

In fact, what started to occur was that 501c(4) groups would raise money anonymously (remember they don't have to disclose the names of their donors) and then funnel the money to a 527 group. The groups claimed they were "technically" complying with the law, but courts and officials easily saw through that subterfuge as it pertained to groups that weren't legitimately advocating for social welfare and/or primarily engaged in politics.

TIGTA (Treasury IG) released a report under the ***TRUMP*** admin saying the so-called "political" targeting was much broader than simply being targeted at Conservative groups (although about 75% of groups held up by the IRS were right-leaning).

Here's what resulted from our lax campaign finance laws and enforcement:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/right-wing-scam-machine-jonah-goldberg/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/right-wing-scam-machine-contd-jonah-goldberg/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...63587891b57_story.html?utm_term=.3e89f3c8bcb3

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/t...-and-spending-millions-but-not-on-candidates/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/tea-party-pacs-ideas-death-214164

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/tea-parties-dead-mostly-dead-or-what-jonah-goldberg/

http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/50-million-tubes-17-conservative-pacs-spending-money/

https://www.redstate.com/erick/2014/12/22/the-latest-tea-party-scam-called-from-202-750-2399/

I've seen disingenuous people try to say that "Obama's targeting of the tea party cost us elections." Like with McCain, there's no evidence that Obama was even remotely involved in the IRS unit's decision to use tags like "patriot" or "tea party" as part of their screening criteria for applicants they were violating the law. They shouldn't have done so. But, there's a much simpler explanation for WHY it happened in the first place. The IRS and federal government were caught off-balance by the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United. At the same time, a bipartisan group of people in the Senate and House were pushing them to crack down on 501c(4) groups that were providing anonymous dark money for 527 groups. With a straight face, you can't say a lot of those groups were playing by the rules. They took advantage of the chaos after Citizens United, and it was absolutely never the intent of Congress to allow a non-profit group to funnel anonymous money to another type of non-profit and allow political races to be decided/controlled by untraceable donations.

What you claim is a conspiracy is more of the stereotypical bureaucratic incompetence. I've used to personally deal with the IRS on a very frequent basis in a profesional capacity. Don't blame on malice what can best be blamed on incompetence and ignorance. The IRS is a bloated and decrepit organization that can't even execute small policy tweaks from the top down. To think that they setup a well-disguised conspiracy to target Conservatives out of animus is at odds with the fact. TIGTA found no evidence that they did what they did out of political bias or animus. It was bureaucrats trying to take shortcuts to enforce a cryptic law under rapidly changing circumstances. They still screwed up, but McCain and Obama weren't the reason why.

 

[Evan]

I think Trump put a stop to it. It happened under barry and george too. Why on earth did Congress pass the law if they are so upset when it is enforced ?

What law are you referring to? There's no law that says you have to separate minors and put them in tent cities or cage-like spaces inside of warehouses/converted big box stores.

 

[gangstonc]

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...st-week-shattering-his-dishonesty-record.html

 

[Kory]

 

[Kory]

 

[ARCC]

Well this ought to be interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...rt-announces-retirement/ar-AAzfFnp?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[Kory]

Well this ought to be interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...rt-announces-retirement/ar-AAzfFnp?li=BBnb7Kz

Gives Trump the ability to swing the court even moreso to the right.

 

[Jacob]

Well this ought to be interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/j...rt-announces-retirement/ar-AAzfFnp?li=BBnb7Kz

Good news, hopefully Trump's next pick will be as good as Gorsuch.

 

[Evan]

Last year, I had said there was no way Trump would get another pick unless someone died. Clearly that ended up being wrong. I knew that Kennedy doesn't care for Trump (read his latest decision), so I expected he'd hold out as a balancing force until we had a new President.

I started hearing rumblings a few weeks ago that Kennedy might be done. All speculation, but several people pointed to his activity and decisions over the past six months or so. He punted on cases he's always wanted to address. He gave in to arguments he'd previously discounted.

The rumor was that he'd given up. He didn't believe it was the court's job to check an unstable President not faithfully following the law and the Constitution, because of the deference the President is supposed to receive. Kennedy didn't like a lot of what Trump was doing, but didn't believe it was his place to use SCOTUS to derail his activities. The voters have to do that or SCOTUS becomes more powerful than the President instead of being a co-equal. Essentially, he didn't want to have to rubber-stamp decisions he didn't agree with, but as a matter of law and philosophy didn't believe he had the power to necessarily block those things. And, he eventually reached a point of friction. He didn't want to put his name on decisions that confirmed the power of a President acting in bad faith, and didn't completely trust himself not to give in to his own personal beliefs instead of the judicial philosophy he's staked out over his career.

One might think the above argument is illogical, but it is perfectly logical if you actually think about it. He didn't want to go down in history as enabling things he saw as wrong, but was conflicted by the limits of the Constitutional power he had to stop any of it. The only choice left was to retire. Let it be someone else's problem.

Now, all of that is rank speculation. It may turn out to be egregiously wrong. But go and read Kennedy's last few decisions - - especially the one on the Muslim ban. If I had to bet, I'd say to expect that Kennedy will not keep his mouth shut once he's retired. He may well wait until a successor is appointed. But, I fully expect that Kennedy is planning to let his opinions about Trump be known, and why he didn't feel he had the authority to do much about it beyond prior precedent (or what is limited by the Constitution).

I may be wrong like I was about Trump getting another chance to nominate a SCOTUS justice without a death occurring. But Kennedy is anything but a fool even if I have often disagreed with him. There's a reason he chose to retire, and barring something unforeseen like cancer or another health reason, I believe he resigned so he can speak out. We shall see.

 

[Evan]

Good news, hopefully Trump's next pick will be as good as Gorsuch.

We're about to see where members of the GOP really stand on abortion. That includes Trump and his family as well. I'm not celebrating the demise of Roe just yet. This is going to be one of the most intense, bitter, and nasty fights anyone has ever seen. It's time for Trump to either prove he can lead and deliver a solid pick while arm-twisting to get it through the Senate, or shrink into an impotent lame duck that Congress largely ignores.

The defeat of the immigration bill today shows that Congress doesn't trust Trump or his leadership. It's a big chasm to cross. Senators like Collins, Murkowski, or those in seats up this year or 2020 will be especially key. It's a historic moment for the GOP, the country, and the Pro-Life movement. I hope Trump defies my expectation. I really do. But, I have some serious doubts about a NY liberal that has paid for quite a few abortions over the years. But, the man wants to be loved, and only his base is willing to do it. He might give them what they want.

 

[KoD]

I wonder if Congress will want to wait until after the election cycle to vote in a new appointee

 

[Kory]

We're about to see where members of the GOP really stand on abortion. That includes Trump and his family as well. I'm not celebrating the demise of Roe just yet. This is going to be one of the most intense, bitter, and nasty fights anyone has ever seen. It's time for Trump to either prove he can lead and deliver a solid pick while arm-twisting to get it through the Senate, or shrink into an impotent lame duck that Congress largely ignores.

The defeat of the immigration bill today shows that Congress doesn't trust Trump or his leadership. It's a big chasm to cross. Senators like Collins, Murkowski, or those in seats up this year or 2020 will be especially key. It's a historic moment for the GOP, the country, and the Pro-Life movement. I hope Trump defies my expectation. I really do. But, I have some serious doubts about a NY liberal that has paid for quite a few abortions over the years. But, the man wants to be loved, and only his base is willing to do it. He might give them what they want.

And hopefully affirmative action, which Kennedy firmly supported, goes down the toilet as well. Time to end identity politics and bring back merit and qualifications.

 

[Matt]

We're about to see where members of the GOP really stand on abortion. That includes Trump and his family as well. I'm not celebrating the demise of Roe just yet. This is going to be one of the most intense, bitter, and nasty fights anyone has ever seen. It's time for Trump to either prove he can lead and deliver a solid pick while arm-twisting to get it through the Senate, or shrink into an impotent lame duck that Congress largely ignores.

The defeat of the immigration bill today shows that Congress doesn't trust Trump or his leadership. It's a big chasm to cross. Senators like Collins, Murkowski, or those in seats up this year or 2020 will be especially key. It's a historic moment for the GOP, the country, and the Pro-Life movement. I hope Trump defies my expectation. I really do. But, I have some serious doubts about a NY liberal that has paid for quite a few abortions over the years. But, the man wants to be loved, and only his base is willing to do it. He might give them what they want.

The defeat of the immigration bill proves there are many Republicans that are open border globalists that are beholden to the Chamber Of Commerce, The Business Round table and the Koch Brothers. Was Gorsuch not a solid pick ?

 

[Matt]

I wonder if Congress will want to wait until after the election cycle to vote in a new appointee

No.

 

[gangstonc]

No.

But there isn’t enough time for the public to decide, right? Should McConnell not play by his own rules?

In other news, manafort has a 10 million dollar loan from Oleg Deripaska. But, I’m sure he didn’t have any ties to Russians.

 

[Jacob]

But there isn’t enough time for the public to decide, right? Should McConnell not play by his own rules?

In other news, manafort has a 10 million dollar loan from Oleg Deripaska. But, I’m sure he didn’t have any ties to Russians.

I'm not commenting on the merits of what the GOP congress did with Garland and the election, but comparing it to this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison.

Lame duck president in an election year vs. midterm elections

 

[Kory]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/anthony-kennedy-retirement-legal-political-implications/

 

[gangstonc]

I'm not commenting on the merits of what the GOP congress did with Garland and the election, but comparing it to this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison.

Lame duck president in an election year vs. midterm elections

You’re right. I was just picking.

I do think even a lame duck oresident should get to pick the justice though.