Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:
“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”
Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This election has it all. Reality stars, the outsider, threats to leave the country, and now we have The American Revolution 2; Electric Boogaloo
"Due to the obvious farce of Democracy that is Our Presidential Election, We have come to the undeniable conclusion that the Will of the People is no longer the driving force of the American Government."
What a horrible start. One does not use the word Farce nor random capitalizations in the opening line of a Declaration of Independence.
"In conclusion, as a true American Patriot and Citizen, I believe the 2016 Presidential Elections have certified the fact that our Democracy is Dead."
"In conclusion?" What is this, a 7th grade book report?
"We have an irrevocable choice before Us, We can either continue to be oppressed and allow Senator Sanders Political Revolution to be quelled, dismissed, and illegally destroyed, or We can rise up and DEMAND Our Country back. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, "Government For the People, By the People, and Of the People shall not perish from this Earth"; however to Our shame, We have allowed it to perish from the once Great Nation that was The United States of America and it is apparent that the Powers that Be will not surrender it back willingly."
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Democracy is Dead because Colonel Sanders is losing this primary in an open election per the rules as written.
Mike Webb is a right wing candidate for the United States Congress (VA-8). According to his campaign announcement, he is seeking to start a conservative revolution with a hands-on approach and bring “responsiveness and accountability” to Virginia’s Eighth District via an unlikely victory. He said in a press release:
“If we succeed in winning this race as a conservative Republican in the most liberal district in the nation and the most Democratic in the South, that will be a real revolution that will have national implications.”
Webb has set out to prove his hands-on method by personally taking control of his social media accounts in order to “engage in dialogue” with voters and offer a personal touch. Unfortunately for Webb, he may have gotten too personal. While attempting to prove a point about trying to find jobs, which involved him posting a screenshot of a Yahoo! search to look up a conspiracy theory on Facebook, he forgot to close a few tabs.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: This election has it all. Reality stars, the outsider, threats to leave the country, and now we have The American Revolution 2; Electric Boogaloo
"Due to the obvious farce of Democracy that is Our Presidential Election, We have come to the undeniable conclusion that the Will of the People is no longer the driving force of the American Government."
What a horrible start. One does not use the word Farce nor random capitalizations in the opening line of a Declaration of Independence.
"In conclusion, as a true American Patriot and Citizen, I believe the 2016 Presidential Elections have certified the fact that our Democracy is Dead."
"In conclusion?" What is this, a 7th grade book report?
"We have an irrevocable choice before Us, We can either continue to be oppressed and allow Senator Sanders Political Revolution to be quelled, dismissed, and illegally destroyed, or We can rise up and DEMAND Our Country back. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, "Government For the People, By the People, and Of the People shall not perish from this Earth"; however to Our shame, We have allowed it to perish from the once Great Nation that was The United States of America and it is apparent that the Powers that Be will not surrender it back willingly."
Holy run-on sentence, Batman! Democracy is Dead because Colonel Sanders is losing this primary in an open election per the rules as written.
Bwahahaha! That's some serious butt-hurt there.
And no, we ain't going to have another Rebellion.
In other news... remember that case about Obama's Immigration DACA/DAPA rule change?
The Judge mandated the government lawyers to take ethics classes.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It looks like that petition has a whole whopping 500 supporters. Yup, the revolution will not be televised as it got cancelled due to poor ratings.
And 500 people voluntarily added themselves to the FBI/CIA/Big Brother watch list!
Democracy!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/20 15:15:39
The Government knowingly acted contrary to its representations to this Court on over 100,000 occasions. 11 This Court finds that the misrepresentations detailed above: (1) were false; (2) were made in bad faith; and (3) misled both the Court and the Plaintiff States. ... The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct. There were over 100,000 instances of conduct contrary to counsel’s representations; such a sizable omission cannot be classified as immaterial.
To remedy this, the Judge ordered:
Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. 15 It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction. The format of this continuing education shall be left to the independent expert lecturer. Self-study or online study will not comply with this Order, but attendance at a recognized, independently sponsored program shall suffice.
!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's da Judge's HAMMER:
The Court does not have the power to disbar the counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state lawyers who act unethically in court. By a separate sealed order that it is simultaneously issuing, that is being done.
Hooboy.... That means those DOJ attorneys who made the material misrepresentations cannot practice law unless admitted to the state bar in that jurisdiction.
TL;DR: don't dick around with Judges...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/20 15:17:19
That opinion is very sad. Why did the DOJ attorneys do that? Surely they didn't think that lying about dates of action on the record and in writing wouldn't be an issue? This is bad and an light of similar actions regarding the IRS, indicates a pattern of dishonesty under the current administration. While the State Bar should certainly investigate whether their should be additional disciplinary action, it will do little to address the problems at the top. Hopefully AG Lynch will deal with this issue and make it clear that such behavior is utterly unacceptable and start reversing some of Holder's damage.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
SENATOR BOXER Claims Bernie Supporters Made Her Fear for Her Life: “It Was Scary” (VIDEO)
Senator Barbara Boxer was booed off stage as all hell broke loose at the Nevada Democratic Convention last weekend. She also claims that Bernie Sanders supporters were so unhinged that she feared for her life.
CNN reports:
" Earlier Wednesday, California’s other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, said Sanders supporters should attempt “to change the primary process, but not to go out there and throw chairs and to put people’s lives in danger because the democratic process as put forward and ratified by the two parties is being carried out.”
Boxer said she felt threatened after outbursts and threats at the Nevada Democratic Convention from supporters of Sanders over the weekend.
“I feared for my safety and I had a lot of security around me,” she told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “At This Hour.” “I’ve never had anything like this happen.”
After Sanders supporters thought the Nevada Democratic Convention was being shut down prematurely, shouting ensued and there were reports of chairs being thrown. The phone number and address of the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange, was posted on social media — prompting a flood of more than 1,000 calls, angry voicemails, text messages and even death threats.
“It was a scary situation,” said Boxer, a Clinton supporter. “It was frightening. I was on the stage. People were six feet away from me. If I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”
Democrats didn’t seem to mind when Bernie supporters showed up and caused trouble like this at Trump rallies. They didn’t mind it when Bernie supporters threw punches at Trump supporters. But, now that it’s happened to them, it’s a matter of national security.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Could be using those morally dubious but legal tax haven things.
Not that it would dissuade anyone who supports him.
Well... I don't support him. But, using tax haven isn't morally dubious. It's legal practice.
The Clinton's has offshore accounts too... but, I don't really care about that. I care more about the shady Clinton Foundation itself for apparent quid pro quo.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
I'll bet you real money it's because he isn't as rich as he says he is. He's such a thin-skinned posturing blowhard that "only" having 1 billion instead of 10 is a big deal to a someone with a hands/ego ratio that is off the scale like him.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
However, I did read an article (I shared it earlier) that the value Trump is claiming for his properties on his income tax varies significantly from what he is saying they are worth for property taxes.
It's legal to use tax havens and write offs to minimize your taxes, there is nothing wrong with that. The main "problem" would be that he is running on a message of stopping the elite class who are using these loopholes to get out of paying taxes because he thinks rich people should be paying their fair share of taxes.
Not that it would hurt him any at all. We are talking about the guy who talks about how evil China is for stealing our jobs and that he will bring those jobs back to America, while at the same time manufacturing all his crap in China. And people didn't care about that either.
Yeah, it's been established by now that reasons for supporting Trump are best described as "undefined".
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
In a sense it does matter because for one thing, part of his story is being a super-successful businessman. Actually this is the only bit of his CV that supposedly looks good, apart from being a reality TV star. Though, saying that, Ronald Reagan was a film star, although compared to Trump, Reagan had a fair bit of political experience as Gov of California, etc.
Anyway, not only are there indications that he isn't nearly as successful at business as he claims, but also, if he is worth 1 bill or 10 bill, it's a lot easier and therefore less impressive to scale those heights if you don't pay any tax.
“At some point, he could be the tax-collector-in-chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”
I agree with this guy I've never heard of.
Here's what I have trouble understanding...
Are you asking for these tax returns to see if he filed a valid tax return?
Or, is it he paid his 'fair share'?
Or, is it to authenticate that he's truly worth as much as he campaigned on...
... or?
Furthermore, let's say that he legitimately filed his taxes and strategically (legally mind you) minimize his tax liabilities.
Does that hurt Trump? Does it matter that he's really worth 1 Billion... rather than the 10 Billion he's claiming?
He's still fook'n rich.
In a sense it does matter because for one thing, part of his story is being a super-successful businessman. Actually this is the only bit of his CV that supposedly looks good, apart from being a reality TV star. Though, saying that, Ronald Reagan was a film star, although compared to Trump, Reagan had a fair bit of political experience as Gov of California, etc.
Anyway, not only are there indications that he isn't nearly as successful at business as he claims, but also, if he is worth 1 bill or 10 bill, it's a lot easier and therefore less impressive to scale those heights if you don't pay any tax.
That's why.
I agree but at this point, based on all of the ridiculous things he has already said, do you think there is anything he could really say or any new revelations that come forth for people who are supporting him to not do so? I guess it comes down to how many of those people haven't really been paying any attention thus far and so have no idea what he has all said.
Core upporters are already committed and we can see some trad Republicans accommodating themselves to the idea that Trump will be a better President than Clinton.
However there still are the swing voters who might be influenced either way.
These jurist need to bitch-slap these government lawyers like that DACA case:
The IRS’s Ugly Business as Usual ‘How much has really changed?’ a judge asks. Answer: not much. The scandal goes on.
Spoiler:
Amid the drama that is today’s presidential race, serious subjects are getting short shrift. No one is happier about this than Barack Obama. And no agency within that president’s administration is more ecstatic than the Internal Revenue Service.
That tax authority’s targeting of conservative nonprofits ranks as one of the worst federal scandals in modern history. It is topped only by the outrage that no one has been held to account. Or perhaps by the news that the targeting continues to this day.
That detail became clear in an extraordinary recent court hearing, in front of a panel of judges for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The paired cases in the hearing were Linchpins of Liberty, et al. v. United States of America, et al. and True the Vote Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. They involve several conservative nonprofits—there are 41 in Linchpin—that were, as they said, rounded up and “branded” by the IRS. The groups are still suffering harm, and they want justice.
A lower-court judge had blithely accepted the IRS’s claim that the targeting had stopped, that applications for nonprofit status had been approved, and that the matter was therefore moot.
The federal judges hearing the appeal, among them David B. Sentelle and Douglas H. Ginsburg, weren’t so easily rolled. In a series of probing questions the judges ascertained that at least two of the groups that are party to the lawsuit have still not received their nonprofit approvals. The judges determined that those two groups are 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups, which are subject to far less scrutiny than 501(c)(3) charities, yet are still being harassed by the IRS five years later. The judges were told that not only are the groups still on ice, but that their actions are still being “monitored” by the federal government.
As one lawyer for the plaintiffs noted, despite the IRS’s claim that it got rid of its infamous targeting lists, there is “absolutely no showing” that the agency has in fact stopped using the underlying “criteria” that originally “identified and targeted for mistreatment based on political views.”
The hearing also showed the degree to which the IRS has doubled down on its outrageous revisionist history, and its excuses. IRS lawyers again claimed that the whole targeting affair came down to bad “training” and bad “guidance.” They blew off a Government Accountability Office report that last year found the IRS still had procedures that would allow it to unfairly select organizations for examinations based on religious or political viewpoint. The lawyers’ argument: We wouldn’t do such a thing. Again. Trust us.
More incredibly, the IRS team claimed that the fault for some of the scandal rests with the conservative groups, for not pushing back hard enough during the targeting. In response to complaints that the groups had been forced to hand over confidential information (information the IRS now refuses to destroy), one agency lawyer retorted: “They didn’t have to give the information to the IRS if they thought it was inappropriate, they could have said so.” Really.
The government lawyers also smugly noted that some of the targeted conservative groups had blown their chance for nonprofit approval when they turned down the IRS’s “fast track” procedure (an Obama Treasury creation that bestows nonprofit status on groups that agree to give up their political speech rights). The IRS team even excused its continuing harassment of these groups by blaming Congress: The Obama IRS came up with a new rule in 2013 to help “clarify” nonprofit regulations—by essentially outlawing nonprofit speech—but congressional Republicans keep blocking it.
At one point, an incredulous Judge Sentelle noted that the IRS might be more believable if it had ever shown “a bit more contrition.” He said: “The Court would have to be awfully ignorant not to recognize that there has likely been an egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of American citizens by the IRS, and the IRS to this day seems very resistant to acknowledgment of that.”
An IRS lawyer rolled out the defense used by former agency official Lois Lerner that the targeting was just the unfortunate use of “inappropriate” criteria, but Judge Sentelle reminded the lawyer of the IRS’s vindictiveness. He noted that on one occasion the IRS simply shelved the application of an organization that had sued it. The agency “came to Court not having done anything to eliminate” the problem, he said, so “It’s just hard to find the IRS to be an agency we can trust, isn’t it?”
Judge Sentelle said there is a “pretty good case” that “egregious violations of the Constitution” had been committed, and he dared an IRS lawyer to “stand there with a straight face” and say otherwise. Judge Ginsburg, who spent the hearing catching out the IRS’s conflicting statements, at one point simply asked: “How much has really changed?”
Answer: not much. It was good news, then, that the House Judiciary Committee recently announced it will hold two hearings to examine the conduct of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in this matter. Donald Trump, as the presumptive GOP nominee, could do worse than to use his megaphone to draw attention to the hearings. The IRS scandal needs to remain a story.
AdeptSister wrote: Can someone explain the logic of Trump attacking president Bill Clinton as an abuser of woman? What is the logic of how this relates to HRC?
That she's an enabler?
Or it's a means to deflect attacks on Trump's issues with women?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/20 21:03:27
Texas Republicans are worried about which bathrooms people use, but maybe they should be more concerned with hiring a proofreader.
Due to an apparent grammatical error, the party’s official platform — the Texas GOP’s policy goals for the upcoming election — declares that more than half of the state is gay:
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Several sharp-eyed readers spotted a few problems with that plank in the party’s platform. As the New Civil Rights Movement noted, the use — or misuse — of the comma in the sentence could suggest that homosexuality is “shared by the majority of Texans.”
NPR also pointed out the sentence’s verb problem: Because the word “has” is used instead of “have,” the sentence means homosexuality “has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”
Let’s not even get into that “nations founders” business.
NPR noted that a similar sentence was included in the 2014 platform, but without the errors.
Grammar aside, the document is both transphobic and homophobic. It calls for laws restricting the rights of trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity, and orders the state to reject the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. It also opposes women’s rights, denies climate change and demands a right to teach creationism in public schools.
"If she can't protect his victims, how can she protect the US."
"It's her fault he sticks his penis in other women."
"If my rage-boner lasts more than 4 hours I have to see the doctor, so I have to yell at the Clinton's for something to make it go down."
How would she be responsible? He can makes his only decisions. His actions would be his own. How is it her fault? I am trying to figure out how one can think she is responsible for his actions?
By that logic, can she take credit for his presidency? Did she enable his policies?
Edit: This just seems like a terrible path of attack on all levels...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/20 21:13:32
AdeptSister wrote: How would she be responsible? He can makes his only decisions. His actions would be his own. How is it her fault? I am trying to figure out how one can think she is responsible for his actions?
By that logic, can she take credit for his presidency? Did she enable his policies?
Edit: This just seems like a terrible path of attack on all levels...
Primarily it's a deflection imo, as Trump has issues with women as well...
But to get down to it, Hillary Clinton (and Clintonites) were instrumental in destroying any of the women who claimed the Bill raped, groped or sexually harrassed them.
The whiplash is when she says things like this:
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
the Signless wrote: First you elect some democrats/republicans and push the country left/rightwards, then some socialists/libertarians who push it further left/right, then after decades of hard work and campaigning you can elect the left/right wing dream team.
It's true that you can move the Overton window with some patience and a large media apparatus but the critical flaw here is that Democrats and Republicans don't view themselves as merely stepping stones but rather fully fleshed ideologies in their own right and have no interest in paving the way for another lot entirely. The Republicans have done it but they're really not happy about losing control since they banked on angling for votes from current Trump supporters in the decades to come. The Democrats are working to suppress their left wing since the whole Sanders situation has really gotten out of hand. The main difference here is that the GOP had a weak set of candidates to feed Trump with whereas Clinton has been setting herself up as next in line for years now by turning the DNC into a Clinton machine.
And anyway, decades of voting for Democrats hasn't exactly given the US more socialist politicians, now has it, and libertarians aren't necessarily happy about the successes of Republicans. I think your line of reasoning here at best needs a lot of work.
No, I'm pretty sure that if I were to use the phrase "true belief" it would be quickly followed by the phrase "intellectually bankrupt". Believing in things makes you dumb, because you get emotionally attached to them.
Politics without values are monstrous and the idea itself is silly because policies ultimately serve a purpose. Whether it's making sure that everyone graduates high school or making sure that rich people don't pay taxes there is something that someone wants to happen. As soon as you genuinely start to think that the purpose of policy is to make numbers go up or down or sideways in the abstract, you lose control and will find yourself unable to explain why people are growing so unhappy. Nobody actually likes a technocrat.
