• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
Each State handles how it votes for Federal elections individually. And please don't call me Shirley.
Click to expand...

Gosh.. I didn't know that. Thanks Shirley.

So what would happen if a state required all voters to sign a declaration of LBGT rights, or be registered Democrats, before their name could appear on a voting paper ?

What if a state demanded that only Black people could appear on a voting paper ?

Surely there is SOME form of federal oversight ? Or would that come down to the courts ?
 
Last edited:
Roofgardener said:
Gosh.. I didn't know that. Thanks Shirley.

So what would happen if a state required all voters to sign a declaration of LBGT rights, or be registered Democrats, before their name could appear on a voting paper ?

What if a state demanded that only Black people could appear on a voting paper ?

Surely there is SOME form of federal oversight ? Or would that come down to the courts ?
Click to expand...

That would not fall under voting regulations, but under civil rights protections. Others, under state regulations. Do you know how to use a search engine? These things are very easy to find out.
 
Last edited:
Roofgardener said:
So what is the PURPOSE for the WaM Committee to inspect his tax returns ?
Click to expand...

The way the law is written, the request need not be predicated upon any particular purpose. The intent of the writers appears to have been specifically NOT to require a specific purpose - if they had meant to, it would have been a simple matter to include such language in the law.

Here is the law as written:

1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
The way the law is written, the request need not be predicated upon any particular purpose. The intent of the writers appears to have been specifically NOT to require a specific purpose - if they had meant to, it would have been a simple matter to include such language in the law.

Here is the law as written:

1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
Click to expand...

If it is a closed session, can they get outside expertise to review it?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm sorry not everyone knows the same things as you.
Click to expand...

That isn't really true though, is it? I rather doubt you are sorry, it's more likely you don't have an opinion on it.

That said, what I suspect you were really trying to do is admonish Thai for suggesting that another poster is ignorant, and that's fair enough. Roofgardener, for his part, could easily have found the answers to at least some of his questions by using google. Seems like a case of willful ignorance to me.
 
Roofgardener said:
Soooo... let me see if I understand this properly ?

The Chairman of the Ways and Means committee - a Democrat and hence political opponent of President Trump - wants to see the Presidents tax returns.

Why ?
This has never happened before. Doesn't this look a bit like political harassment ? We already know that there is nothing illegal in the Presidents tax returns, or the IRS would have intervened. So what is the PURPOSE for the WaM Committee to inspect his tax returns ?
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. In any year that he wasn't audited, there could be evidence of rampant criminality. Even an audit doesn't guarantee otherwise. An audit isn't going to reveal the sort of damning facts that came out via Cohen that might cast new light on the return.
 
What so many people say they don't understand is, you get these conservatives or Trump supporters or reactionaries -- whatever you want to call them -- on this forum and many others, and they all seem to share a common trait. They can't just discuss something, make their argument, state their opinion. It always has to be sarcastic, provocative, evasive. I don't get it; nobody gets it.
 
TofuFighter said:
That isn't really true though, is it? I rather doubt you are sorry, it's more likely you don't have an opinion on it.

That said, what I suspect you were really trying to do is admonish Thai for suggesting that another poster is ignorant, and that's fair enough. Roofgardener, for his part, could easily have found the answers to at least some of his questions by using google. Seems like a case of willful ignorance to me.
Click to expand...

Roofgardener didnt make the claim. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. They can't say it is on someone else to prove it.
 
Really? We're having a "bob-off" this morning already?

Roofgardener is asking questions that are easily answered by the most basic of searches. It's stuff that's been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. There's no reason to quibble about something this minuscule.

The fact is the Ways and Means has every right to these tax returns. The reason it hasn't been done in the past is because previous presidents voluntarily turned information over. That's it.
 
plague311 said:
Really? We're having a "bob-off" this morning already?

Roofgardener is asking questions that are easily answered by the most basic of searches. It's stuff that's been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. There's no reason to quibble about something this minuscule.
Click to expand...

Does not dismiss the burden of proof.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Does not dismiss the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you think it does or not. Everyone already knows that you'll argue to the death something this trivial.

If anyone wants to be apart of the current conversation then it's up to them to catch up with the facts stated. The proof has been given, as I already said, in this thread. Being lazy isn't an excuse. This is the last post I'll make addressing this as it's irrelevant.
 
plague311 said:
I don't care if you think it does or not. Everyone already knows that you'll argue to the death something this trivial.

If anyone wants to be apart of the current conversation then it's up to them to catch up with the facts stated. The proof has been given, as I already said, in this thread. Being lazy isn't an excuse. This is the last post I'll make addressing this as it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Does not dismiss the burden of proof.
 
newyorkguy said:
What so many people say they don't understand is, you get these conservatives or Trump supporters or reactionaries -- whatever you want to call them -- on this forum and many others, and they all seem to share a common trait. They can't just discuss something, make their argument, state their opinion. It always has to be sarcastic, provocative, evasive. I don't get it; nobody gets it.
Click to expand...

It does seem to be a pretty common trait here, and on social media as well. I blame the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter for setting the sneering tone way back during the Clinton Presidency, and of course Trump has only caused people to ratchet such nastiness up a notch.
 
acbytesla said:
Nixon tried to get the IRS to go after the political opposition (his enemies list) but the head of the IRS just ignored him.

Interestingly both Nixon and his Vice President violated tax laws. VP Agnew was even convicted and resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford and then Ford replaced Nixon. Nixon pardoned Agnew and then after Nixon resigned Ford pardoned Nixon preemptively.
Click to expand...

Which is why I hope they do NOT go too hard after this till Trump is out of office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom