President Donald Trump

[Redbirds Fan]

And here's where we part ways. The Dems have been weaponizing the executive branch and the Senate for years. As Trump's predecessor was fond of saying, elections have consequences - and before we give an inch, the Dems need to learn that sword cuts both ways.

This is the third time, fairly recently, you have referred to "weaponizing" the executive branch, twice mentioning the IRS specifically. You have appeared to be most interested with the scrutinization of groups seeing c4 status which was discussed so much and investigated endlessly.

The nuts and bolts seemed to be pretty simple. This tax exempt status was being abused by groups, right and left, who were political in nature rather than social welfare organizations. To limit this, the IRS created a computer program which would kick out certain applications for further scrutiny.

The computer program worked on words in the organization title usually associated with groups which were political in nature rather than social welfare groups. These words were 'conservative' and 'liberal' in nature, to the extent words can be.

The result was that a lot more conservative groups than liberal groups got pulled for further scrutiny. Why? Maybe they had more of a closely matching set of "conservative" words in the scan program. Or maybe there were just a lot more conservative groups trying to scam on (c)(4).

One point is that conservative groups weren't the only ones who underwent extra scrutiny. The larger point is this: Although they were subjected to greater scrutiny in their application for tax exempt status for their groups, almost none were denied this status. They weren't denied housing or medical care. They weren't denied due process. The idea of their having been the victims of a "weaponized" IRS is comical.

Their complaint, in a nutshell, is that the computers spit out more of them to be scrutinized because more conservative words were put into the program than liberal words. What a bunch of snowflakes.

[nots]

This is the third time, fairly recently, you have referred to "weaponizing" the executive branch, twice mentioning the IRS specifically. You have appeared to be most interested with the scrutinization of groups seeing c4 status which was discussed so much and investigated endlessly.

The nuts and bolts seemed to be pretty simple. This tax exempt status was being abused by groups, right and left, who were political in nature rather than social welfare organizations. To limit this, the IRS created a computer program which would kick out certain applications for further scrutiny.

The computer program worked on words in the organization title usually associated with groups which were political in nature rather than social welfare groups. These words were 'conservative' and 'liberal' in nature, to the extent words can be.

The result was that a lot more conservative groups than liberal groups got pulled for further scrutiny. Why? Maybe they had more of a closely matching set of "conservative" words in the scan program. Or maybe there were just a lot more conservative groups trying to scam on (c)(4).

One point is that conservative groups weren't the only ones who underwent extra scrutiny. The larger point is this: Although they were subjected to greater scrutiny in their application for tax exempt status for their groups, almost none were denied this status. They weren't denied housing or medical care. They weren't denied due process. The idea of their having been the victims of a "weaponized" IRS is comical.

Their complaint, in a nutshell, is that the computers spit out more of them to be scrutinized because more conservative words were put into the program than liberal words. What a bunch of snowflakes.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-irs-apologizes-for-targeting-tea-party-groups-2013may10-story.html

IRS apologized for 'inappropriately'targeting them and acknowledged that asking for a list of their donors is against the law (which wasn't done via a computer program, lol). Read Lerner's own statement (before she invoked her 5th amendments rights). She apologized for targeting conservative groups. I don't know how it can be any clearer that something was going on beyond normal vetting. The entire agency was rebuked for gross mismanagement. People resigned.
Defending what went on with the IRS and calling the victims 'snowflakes' is.....what was your term? Ah yes, 'partisan nonsense'.

[Teenwolf]

So, you guys can argue about the economic benefits of approving pipelines regardless of environmental impact. That's fine. But can somebody please explain the benefits of allowing mining companies to dump their debris in rivers and streams?

Funny the way that Trump subtly dismantled all the protections against personal enrichment. Saying you need to lighten banking regulations because "some friends of mine can't get loans"?! Or the recent push to support Ivanka's clothing line?! Bringing Ivanka on trips with foreign leaders? Approving a pipeline which he has personal investments in? Oh, but he's been doing this all along, since he appeared with that ridiculous buffet table of Trump Wine and Trump Steaks... Emolument clause? Pssh, who can even pronounce that? Who cares about personal enrichment?

Bringing the level of discourse with foreign leaders down to a level of "Are you my friend? Do you like me? Aren't you impressed with how big my inauguration was?" He's a buffoon, and the people who support him continue to look like buffoons for doing so.

Your entire country looks like a disaster, the longer you have a buffoon speaking as the public face of the nation.

Just watch the crap hit the fan when he announces the US is backing out of the next global climate change summit... Or when your next Muslim domestic terror incident is used to predictably despicable ends, trying to start a new war to justify increasing the military budget. Distraction after distraction.

Despite his widespread support from his small army of brainwashed Breitbart/Fox News folks, all of these side-notes make him extremely vulnerable for whatever his first clusterf*** happens to be. I could see the Yemen disaster happening on a much larger scale, where Trump pushes through an ill-advised military action that costs many more than the single American life lost in Yemen (nevermind the 23 dead innocent civilians, as if those count!)... But would all the shrieking Benghazi folks even raise an eyebrow? The Yemen raid which has effectively shut the US out from future military actions in that country, which forfeited a $70 Million helicopter, and which the primary target for capture was not captured... doesn't even register as a blip on all the Benghazi shriekers radar. Oh, John McCain called the raid a failure? The Trump supporters will say "He's a loser who got captured!".

Finally, I want to echo GITH, since he's been right about a lot of things for the last 2 years. After decades of apathy, the country seems to have woken up now, so as long as Trump's attempt to erode voting rights aren't too severe, hopefully he can be ousted by a left-wing populist in 4 years. If Dems try to nominate another corporate stiff, they will lose. We'll see the first domino to this end fall when the Dems elect their party chair on Feb. 25th. Tom Perez seems like the only corporate stiff candidate. If it's Keith Ellison... watch out for the rise of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. If Sanders is still alive by 2018-2019, he could be leading an unstoppable revolution. Even if they poison/assassinate him like they do political opponents in Russia (hey, we're killers too! He's just doing what he promised, guys!)... the transparency will be too great, and it will lead to revolt.

Thanks to Hornsby, Redbirds Fan, Sour Masher, DMT, and most of the posters here for keeping a sane and well-reasoned level of discourse. I don't have time to stay involved in these discussions, but I've been reading them for months, so thanks for posting.

[Moonlight J]

today, he blast FAKE NEWS when the NYT writes a story about him speaking to President Xi in China for the first time since 11/14 when they were reporting the said event where he spoke to him for the first time in over two months. He's truly a child

[nots]

And here's where we part ways. The Dems have been weaponizing the executive branch and the Senate for years. As Trump's predecessor was fond of saying, elections have consequences - and before we give an inch, the Dems need to learn that sword cuts both ways.

I get that, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. At some point, the Dems will be back in power and they will be forced to take things a step further. Then, at some point, the GOP will be back in power and the situation repeats itself. Why not take the opportunity to hit the reset button?
Marco Rubio gave a great speech following one of the confirmation debacles ( think it was the after the Warren-MCConnell flap). You should Google it. I was never much of a Rubio fan, but he said a lot of what needed to be said.

[Bernie Brewer]

When Bill Frist was trying to gather enough votes for the nuclear option during the Bush presidency, John McCain and others cut the famous "Gang of 14" deal with Democrats to avoid it and get certain Bush nominees approved, including William Pryor (who came dangerously close to being a SCOTUS nominee). The Republicans wouldn't budge in 2013 on Court of Appeals nominees in particular. The overwhelming majority of Obama's District Court nominees received well over 60 votes, for whatever that is worth.

So because I'll admit I am a bit naive on these matters and I would typically defer to your well known area of expertise on this topic, how does this fact not reflect well on the GOP. It doesn't reflect the obstructionist narrative they've been given when in fact several GOPers had to have voted in favor of an appointment.

[Redbirds Fan]

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...y10-story.html
IRS apologized for 'inappropriately'targeting them and acknowledged that asking for a list of their donors is against the law (which wasn't done via a computer program, lol). Read Lerner's own statement (before she invoked her 5th amendments rights). She apologized for targeting conservative groups. I don't know how it can be any clearer that something was going on beyond normal vetting. The entire agency was rebuked for gross mismanagement. People resigned.
Defending what went on with the IRS and calling the victims 'snowflakes' is.....what was your term? Ah yes, 'partisan nonsense'.

I agree that they shouldn't have scrutinized 'tea party' groups more any differently than other groups. But we still don't know, unfortunately, how many of these groups are scamming tax exempt status. What we need to do is simply eliminate tax exempt status for these groups altogether.

I don't recall anyone acknowledging that asking for a list of donors in a (c)(4) inquiry is illegal. It may not be common, but I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal. Do you have some authority on this?

The "normal vetting" was the problem. Too many groups were getting (c)(4) status who shouldn't have qualified, namely political groups. They were trying to cut down on that. Normal vetting wasn't doing the trick.

Yeah, the entire agency was rebuked. The entire agency is rebuked weekly. There were a very limited number of people involved. Lower level people.

People got hysterical though. Plenty hysterical. "This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach", said one Tea Party official. I'll bet I can think of ten more extreme examples of illegal government activity and overreach by lunchtime. (And though I can't believe I have to say it, this is the type of unfounded outrage and hyperbole which led to me calling the offended tea partiers 'snowflakes'. It was a very bad thing. But wait until Jeff Sessions has been in office for a month. You'll see some things worth really getting upset about. He is lying about the national crime rate already...God knows what type of programs he has in mind address this fantasy.)

[swampdragon]

today, he blast FAKE NEWS when the NYT writes a story about him speaking to President Xi in China for the first time since 11/14 when they were reporting the said event where he spoke to him for the first time in over two months. He's truly a child

His comment make even less sense when you read the article

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/w...T.nav=top-news

[Redbirds Fan]

So because I'll admit I am a bit naive on these matters and I would typically defer to your well known area of expertise on this topic, how does this fact not reflect well on the GOP. It doesn't reflect the obstructionist narrative they've been given when in fact several GOPers had to have voted in favor of an appointment.

I don't believe you are a bit naive on much of anything, but I appreciate the deference. I'm no expert on this either, but the post I was responding to had mentioned district court appointees. I was pointing out that the problem the Dems were primarily concerned with was appeals court confirmations. That's why I said that about the Obama district court judges being approved at such rate.

Strictly an opinion, but I don't think the GOP had as much of a problem with the district court positions, since they don't really make much law, just process cases on a day-to-basis. Appeals courts, as you know, are a different kettle of fish. They do make a good bit of law, but they are still essential to keeping the day-to-day operations of the court system moving. Most folks hear about the federal court, especially the appellate courts, on these federal issues, but many Americans don't know the massive amount of civil litigation processed daily. Contract cases, property disputes, construction claims, injury suits, intellectual property...the nation needs a Supreme Court, but the business world needs even more the district courts and the courts of appeal.

This left a bit of a quandary for the GOP. They know they needed appeals judges. Many just didn't want Obama's judges.

[nots]

I agree that they shouldn't have scrutinized 'tea party' groups more any differently than other groups. But we still don't know, unfortunately, how many of these groups are scamming tax exempt status. What we need to do is simply eliminate tax exempt status for these groups altogether.

I don't recall anyone acknowledging that asking for a list of donors in a (c)(4) inquiry is illegal. It may not be common, but I'm pretty sure it isn't illegal. Do you have some authority on this?

The "normal vetting" was the problem. Too many groups were getting (c)(4) status who shouldn't have qualified, namely political groups. They were trying to cut down on that. Normal vetting wasn't doing the trick.

Yeah, the entire agency was rebuked. The entire agency is rebuked weekly. There were a very limited number of people involved. Lower level people.

People got hysterical though. Plenty hysterical. "This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach", said one Tea Party official. I'll bet I can think of ten more extreme examples of illegal government activity and overreach by lunchtime. (And though I can't believe I have to say it, this is the type of unfounded outrage and hyperbole which led to me calling the offended tea partiers 'snowflakes'. It was a very bad thing. But wait until Jeff Sessions has been in office for a month. You'll see some things worth really getting upset about. He is lying about the national crime rate already...God knows what type of programs he has in mind address this fantasy.)

1. The second paragraph in the article I linked said asking for a list of donors 'violates IRS policy in most cases'. I guess illegal is the wrong term, but it is not allowed.
2. Yes, and the groups they were cutting down on were almost exclusively conservative in the beginning.
3. The entire department is mostly certainly not rebuked weekly by the Obama Administration, nor are the leaders made to resign or retire on a weekly basis either. Even accepting your belief that it's only a few low level people doing the targeting, how is that acceptable? Or better yet, why shouldn't the delicate snowflakes be upset? Because the targeting didn't come from the top?
4. Plenty of Democrats spoke out against this abuse, not just the POTUS. Defending or excusing this kind of breach or finding 10 worse examples by lunchtime is a sad commentary on your partisanship. If you are willing to excuse this, I think you are willing to excuse anything your team does. And for the record, I am sure you could find 10 worse examples by lunchtime. Big government can be awfully corrupt and inefficient. Welcome to my world of (quasi) libertarianism--we are always looking for new converts
5. What Jeff Sessions may or may not do as AG, has nothing to do with you calling people 'snowflakes'and 'hysterical' who felt targeted by the IRS. It smells an awful lot like deflection. If you want to bash Sessions, go ahead. But that's not the topic you brought up last night, nor does it have anything to do with my post.

[Redbirds Fan]

1. The second paragraph in the article I linked said asking for a list of donors 'violates IRS policy in most cases'. I guess illegal is the wrong term, but it is not allowed.
2. Yes, and the groups they were cutting down on were almost exclusively conservative in the beginning.
3. The entire department is mostly certainly not rebuked weekly by the Obama Administration, nor are the leaders made to resign or retire on a weekly basis either. Even accepting your belief that it's only a few low level people doing the targeting, how is that acceptable? Or better yet, why shouldn't the delicate snowflakes be upset? Because the targeting didn't come from the top?
4. Plenty of Democrats spoke out against this abuse, not just the POTUS. Defending or excusing this kind of breach or finding 10 worse examples by lunchtime is a sad commentary on your partisanship. If you are willing to excuse this, I think you are willing to excuse anything your team does. And for the record, I am sure you could find 10 worse examples by lunchtime. Big government can be awfully corrupt and inefficient. Welcome to my world of (quasi) libertarianism--we are always looking for new converts
5. What Jeff Sessions may or may not do as AG, has nothing to do with you calling people 'snowflakes'and 'hysterical' who felt targeted by the IRS. It smells an awful lot like deflection. If you want to bash Sessions, go ahead. But that's not the topic you brought up last night, nor does it have anything to do with my post.

I want to bash Sessions. I will bash Sessions.

When you say "targeted" by the IRS it sound so boogey-man, like they are screwing you for extra taxes and penalties or sending you to jail. Not asking you extra questions before you get your tax free stamp.

My first paragraph I said they shouldn't have done it. My last paragraph I said it was a very bad thing. I never said it was acceptable. I didn't excuse it or defend it. Pointing out the absurdity of calling it a "new low" in government illegality and overreach (and it is truly absurd...and hysterical) does not in any way endorse the action.

EDIT: This notion is reflected in one of the weaknesses of our President. He has no medium settings. Everything to him is either 'wonderful' or 'a disaster'. The IRS targeting scandal was something to get worked up about, but it wasn't Watergate. If Congress and the DOJ would spend that sort of attention addressing the issue of excessive police force, our tax dollars would be much better spent. That is an issue truly worthy of serious outrage. And that is an issue I don't think we will see our new AG jumping right into, him being a Tenth Amendment advocate and all.

[cardboardbox]

I'll take that bet.

lets do it!

[cardboardbox]

I get that, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory. At some point, the Dems will be back in power and they will be forced to take things a step further. Then, at some point, the GOP will be back in power and the situation repeats itself. Why not take the opportunity to hit the reset button?
Marco Rubio gave a great speech following one of the confirmation debacles ( think it was the after the Warren-MCConnell flap). You should Google it. I was never much of a Rubio fan, but he said a lot of what needed to be said.

ah, if only Rubio hadn't screwed up in that debate, maybe he would have had a chance to challenge Trump. Sigh...

I'm conflicted on this, on one hand I agree with you on not breaking the senate more than Reid already did. But otoh, the dems were happy to go down this road when they thought they would never be in the minority again so they thought to hell with giving the minority any power.

[nots]

ah, if only Rubio hadn't screwed up in that debate, maybe he would have had a chance to challenge Trump. Sigh...

I'm conflicted on this, on one hand I agree with you on not breaking the senate more than Reid already did. But otoh, the dems were happy to go down this road when they thought they would never be in the minority again so they thought to hell with giving the minority any power.

I did not care for Rubio at all, but his concession speech was outstanding and the speech the other night was almost as good. There maybe something more to him than I thought that experience and time will cultivate....or not, what do I know, lol.

[Fresno Bob]

Speaking of the IRS, when will I get to see the president's taxes?