Author Topic: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.  (Read 2831 times)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« on: July 06, 2019, 10:21:48 AM »
Saw a repost on the 4th of July which was an anti-Trump rant, and I've decided to transcribe it here, because after going over it in more detail I found it amusing on a few levels.

Quote
Happy 4th of July!
  • All Three Branches of Government are ruled by the party that lost the popular vote
  • The Congressional map has been distorted so badly that Democrats could win by 8 points nationally and still not take Congress
  • Presidents who lost the popular vote have chosen 4 of the 6 most recent Supreme Court nominees
  • The Courts legalization of dark money has unleashed an unprecedented and largely unseen wave of corruption
  • now it is time to get so black out drunk that you forget what country you live in
  • please vote so I don't have to do this again next year, you ding dong

Evidently the House doesn't matter, only the Senate does when it comes to Congress?

Second point is mostly rage over the make up and composition of the Senate than anything else. Where Gerrymandering can't be an issue. Gerrymandering in the House is an issue, but not as bad as many try to make it look. And again, a lot of that rage can be pointed towards being a consequence of how Congress apportions congressional seats, and how the House of Representatives has capped its own membership at 435 seats.

Third point get's to be richly ironic depending on how you want to interpret "lost the popular vote" to mean.

  • Clinton appointed(not just nominated) 2 Justices to the Supreme Court in his first term of office. You know, the race where he ran against Ross Perot and George H. W. Bush and won with only 43% of the vote. 57% of the country voted against him, yet he appointed justices to SCotUS during that time, and nobody complained(much). Further Clinton we re-elected a second time, in another 3 way race(As Perot ran a second time) where he again failed to achieve a popular majority, as he only gained a plurality at just over 49% of the vote. But it's moot, no ScotUS seats opened during his second term.
  • George W Bush did attain office through the Electoral College in 2000, but he didn't appoint anybody to the Supreme Court until the fall of 2005, during his second term. Bush 43 won re-election with over 50% of the popular vote in 2004.
  • Trump is another Electoral College President, but it should be noted he won over 46% of the vote in 2016, which is still better than Bill Clinton's 43% in 1992. Now granted, unlike Clinton in 1992, someone else did get to claim they won a plurality of votes(49%) but even they cannot claim they held majority support among voters.

Not really going to bother with the fourth point, although I find it odd that Unions were capable of spending on political ads prior to that decision, even if their employers couldn't.

5th point isn't actually relevant, almost omitted it, but left it for completeness.

6th point was funny as well. I guess the author forgot that it is 2019 rather than 2020, the elections he wants people to vote in aren't for another 17 months, so he will be complaining about it again next year.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 10:25:04 AM by TheDeamon »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2019, 04:18:50 PM »
Trump has broken these people.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2019, 09:52:35 AM »
Trump has broken these people.

When you're right you're right, Crunch. I only wish these types of people would stop bringing the rest of us left wingers down and act as honorably as the right wing did in regards to President Obama.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 09:58:16 AM by DJQuag »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2019, 10:48:05 AM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2019, 01:03:09 PM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

From a highly college educated person as well. But then, he was trained in bio-tech and soured on the Republicans during the Bush years when Bush restricted stem-cell research using federal funds, because it hurt his jorb.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2019, 05:08:01 PM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

Yeah. I mean, I found people that support racial segregation and sexualizing children for adult entertainment. It was surprisingly easy.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2019, 05:09:57 PM »
Trump has broken these people.

When you're right you're right, Crunch. I only wish these types of people would stop bringing the rest of us left wingers down and act as honorably as the right wing did in regards to President Obama.

Who?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2019, 06:01:38 PM »
Trump has broken these people.

When you're right you're right, Crunch. I only wish these types of people would stop bringing the rest of us left wingers down and act as honorably as the right wing did in regards to President Obama.

Who?

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking about right wingers who made stupid statements or said things about Obama they never would have about a Republican president?

If so, are you being serious?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2019, 06:03:38 PM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

From a highly college educated person as well. But then, he was trained in bio-tech and soured on the Republicans during the Bush years when Bush restricted stem-cell research using federal funds, because it hurt his jorb.

We can let China handle stem cell technology and just kind of creep in afterward and gain some benefit.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2019, 06:25:34 PM »
Trump has broken these people.

When you're right you're right, Crunch. I only wish these types of people would stop bringing the rest of us left wingers down and act as honorably as the right wing did in regards to President Obama.

Who?

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking about right wingers who made stupid statements or said things about Obama they never would have about a Republican president?

If so, are you being serious?

Obama. I’m seriously making a joke about you whataboutism.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2019, 06:26:26 PM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

From a highly college educated person as well. But then, he was trained in bio-tech and soured on the Republicans during the Bush years when Bush restricted stem-cell research using federal funds, because it hurt his jorb.

We can let China handle stem cell technology and just kind of creep in afterward and gain some benefit.

If there’s one thing you can trust in, it’s communists.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2019, 06:52:48 PM »
Trump has broken these people.

When you're right you're right, Crunch. I only wish these types of people would stop bringing the rest of us left wingers down and act as honorably as the right wing did in regards to President Obama.

Who?

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking about right wingers who made stupid statements or said things about Obama they never would have about a Republican president?

If so, are you being serious?

Obama. I’m seriously making a joke about you whataboutism.

Okay.  Well, just off the top of my head, we had right wing attacks on Obama on things like which type of mustard he used, was he holding coffee when he saluted his guards, how he greeted the Saudi dictator, is he really an American.

I get what you're saying about TDS but for your own sake don't try to pretend the opposite wasn't a thing during Obama'a term.

On the whataboutism...I have to admit I'm confused. You're a right wing apparatchik, you spread your conspiracy theories and Facebook posts like a good boy. Your side already set the scene with how you treated Obama. Why in the world would you object to treating Trump the same way?

PS I'm not actually confused.

Edit - Don't forget the right wing attacks on Obama playing golf or basketball or whatever because who cares. Ya'll dinged Obama on time off, reap what you sow.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 07:03:03 PM by DJQuag »

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2019, 06:55:28 PM »
That's pretty stupid all right. You found somebody saying dumb *censored* on the internet. Must have been quite the search.  :P

From a highly college educated person as well. But then, he was trained in bio-tech and soured on the Republicans during the Bush years when Bush restricted stem-cell research using federal funds, because it hurt his jorb.

We can let China handle stem cell technology and just kind of creep in afterward and gain some benefit.

If there’s one thing you can trust in, it’s communists.

Stem cell technology holds a lot of promise for a lot of people. It was cut short in the US. I can only hope other countries take advantage to pull ahead on that front.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2019, 07:19:56 PM »
Whataboutism just doesn't work in this case. Obama was treated like crap by the rightwingers. There is no case for complaints from the right on whataboutism when certain parts of the left wing party choose to use the same dirty attacks.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2019, 11:07:19 PM »
Yeah, I recall all the media lining up in collusion with Republicans to take out Obama. The multiple investigations costing millions and using dozens of lawyers and agents that amounted to nothing and all that. Sure, I member.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2019, 09:27:25 AM »
Okay.  Well, just off the top of my head, we had right wing attacks on Obama on things like which type of mustard he used...

Never heard of this one, did any one take it seriously and what was the context?  The google searches, where most of the articles are left wing and 8 years after the event make it look like a deliberate case of pulling up something nonsensical to justify truly hatefilled nonsense attacks now.

Quote
...was he holding coffee when he saluted his guards,...

Kind of remember that, was a breach of protocol, and I'd guess interested about 2% of the country? 

Quote
...how he greeted the Saudi dictator...

This one bothered me a lot, I don't think a President should be bowing to any royalty or foreign dictator.  America prohibited grants of nobility for a reason.  This is fully distinguishable, from a custom where both parties bow.

Quote
...is he really an American.

I think has been beaten to death, but it actually goes to a Constitutional requirement to hold office.

In any event, that's a pretty poor list of soft criticisms that largely would have filtered through 1 station - FOX - for minor amounts of time, and a whole bunch of web based media sources - that at the time - were considered little better than extremist or fringe sources.

That doesn't honestly compare to the main stream media's deliberate campaign against Trump.  Heck, it doesn't even compare to the media campaign against George Bush.  There is no comparison, as much as you want to imagine the slights against Obama were bad, the attacks on Trump and Bush outweigh them at 100:1, and the lies against those 2 are even greater.

I mean really the "worst" attack on Obama was the birther controversy, which the friendly media labelled a conspiracy theory and defended him from to the point where he didn't have to prove anything.

Quote
I get what you're saying about TDS but for your own sake don't try to pretend the opposite wasn't a thing during Obama'a term.

I actually think there was more derangement with Bill Clinton's first election than Obama's.  You may recall, with Perot in the mix it really seemed like a stolen election at the time.  Heck, I think I remember that Rush opened every show with a counter of how many day's it had been since the stolen election (my barber at the time was a huge fan), not that this stopped Bill from getting reelected. 

Quote
On the whataboutism...I have to admit I'm confused. You're a right wing apparatchik, you spread your conspiracy theories and Facebook posts like a good boy.

Turn on your critical reasoning.  What specific conspiracy theories?  Are you really digging back to Obama's birth certificate as your evidence?

Meanwhile, you openly ignore the falseness of the media narratives that get pushed.  I mean I read an article on the NYT's that flat our said the Trump tax cuts were a middle class tax cut, and asked why does no one believe it?  Their conclusion was that Democratic propaganda so poisoned the message that people actually didn't believe the facts.  We discussed that real time, has any revised their thoughts?  Nope.  Apologized?  Nope.  That was an actual propaganda effort, not an imagined conspiracy theory.

Quote
Your side already set the scene with how you treated Obama. Why in the world would you object to treating Trump the same way?

Because your concept of relativism is not true.  You seem to live in a world where if the other "side" reaches across the table and steals a fry from your plate, then the seen is "set" for you to whip out a 9 mm and shoot him in the arm.  There's no actual attempt at proportionate response, and the whole idea of "both sides do it" is just a cover so that your side can tell any lie, make any attack or promise anything real or imagined and it's all justified.

Quote
PS I'm not actually confused.

I agree, I think you're cynical and not prone to honest examination because of rage.

Quote
Edit - Don't forget the right wing attacks on Obama playing golf or basketball or whatever because who cares. Ya'll dinged Obama on time off, reap what you sow.

So by "reap what we sow" should we expect more attacks on Trump playing golf?  Or on how he eats Ice Cream?

Or have we "sown" false claims that he raped someone?

There's plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize a President, that doesn't justify either side lying or making false representations.  That's on us personally and no amount of the other side does justifies it.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2019, 10:44:21 AM »
Edit - Don't forget the right wing attacks on Obama playing golf or basketball or whatever because who cares. Ya'll dinged Obama on time off, reap what you sow.

Oh, so I guess that Bush 43 was constantly harped on for his time spent playing Golf is not relevant to the handling of Obama?

The Obama Admin taught us "nobody cares" about holding both sides to the same standard except for us, so why should we bother being concerned about what Trump does on his off time?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2019, 10:53:22 AM »
Stem cell technology holds a lot of promise for a lot of people. It was cut short in the US. I can only hope other countries take advantage to pull ahead on that front.

Adult Stem Cell technology yes, Embryonic Stem Cells? Not so much. It was promising technology at the time, a small number of people still think it is, but most of the bio-tech industry has since moved on and consider it to be something of a dead end/false trail.

Embryo's aren't exact matches with the patients they're trying to treat, so even if you could do a lot of things with it, you'd still be left with all the associated issues of organ donations that already exist. Besides which, the underlying technology for both options still has a lot of ground to cover, not quite 20 years later.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2019, 12:53:01 PM »
dropping fields that don't pan out is fine.  Theocratic dictate suppressing science in the name of morality...  That's not so cool. 

Then again, that's how you get mad scientists!   ;D

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2019, 12:59:58 PM »
suppressing science in the name of morality...

This part is entirely normal. The idea that "theocratically dictated" makes it worse is only relevant if the theocrat in question is...well...wrong about morality.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2019, 01:06:47 PM »
Much better if our rights are spelled out and we know what is and is not legally protected, and keep the guess work out of who's morality is correct.  :) 

This one's all tied up in personhood issues, but in general I think most people suck at dictating morality to others, let alone trying to legislate it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2019, 04:08:28 PM »
Yeah, I recall all the media lining up in collusion with Republicans to take out Obama. The multiple investigations costing millions and using dozens of lawyers and agents that amounted to nothing and all that. Sure, I member.

How much did all those Benghazi investigations cost? How about whitewater?

And amounting to nothing? How many indictments were there again?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2019, 04:57:11 PM »
suppressing science in the name of morality...

This part is entirely normal. The idea that "theocratically dictated" makes it worse is only relevant if the theocrat in question is...well...wrong about morality.

Bigger thing is he didn't outlaw it, the research still legally happened in the United States after his decision. It just didn't get any further Federal funding going forward from there. As he issued an executive order directing that funding for such endeavors be restricted to certain (embryonic) "stem cell lines" so he didn't even fully defund it at that.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2019, 05:42:37 PM »
How much did all those Benghazi investigations cost? How about whitewater?

So to be clear are you saying that Benghazi should not have been investigated?  That the President is entitled to tell you lies - that are for no purpose other than to help his reelection - and not the truth about why our people died?  Is this a rule you will apply to Trump as well?

What about Whitewater?  Are you asserting that it was all above boards?  Or is it just enough that it couldn't be proven (and do you apply that standard equally to Trump on things like the Mueller report that demonstrate what can't be proven)?  What about Trump's tax returns?

Is this just an area where you are pointing at the other side, or do you have a consistent principal to apply to the situations that you can demonstrate?

Quote
And amounting to nothing? How many indictments were there again?

Lol.  Is your complaint that Obama's DOJ didn't indict him or his staff?  Cause the Republican Congress doesn't have that authority.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2019, 06:30:16 PM »
Absolutely it should have been investigated, but maybe not ten different times. None of which unearthed any kind of collision to mislead the American people. I guess they should have just ignored the subpoenas when the House Comittees issued them.

Whitewater was a real thing. It just didn't have much to warrant the investigation that sprang from it.

I accepted the conclusions of the Mueller report. I don't support continuing investigations in congress.

I'm disturbed about congress using taxation oversight to obtain trumps returns. I'm also disturbed that Trump didn't release them voluntarily.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2019, 10:55:59 AM »
Absolutely it should have been investigated, but maybe not ten different times. None of which unearthed any kind of collision to mislead the American people. I guess they should have just ignored the subpoenas when the House Comittees issued them.

Congress is not a great body to conduct investigations.  I agreed then and I agree now.  But both then and now you have a problem with a justice department trying to investigate the executive branch that controls it.  Subpoenas issued by Congress need to comply with the Constitution and with their actual legislative/oversight functions.  What happened in a US embassy does fit in that wheelhouse.  What they are doing with Trump grossly oversteps the Constitution, doesn't involve oversight of a executive department, and has nothing to do with legislation.

Benghazi irritates me, because it went far over the line in question President Obama's executive judgment.  The discretion to decide what to do was exclusively his.  The explanation though?  Not so much, and when they lied for political gain, that was also not a protected activity.  Honestly, if Trump was caught in that kind of lie he would be impeached.

Quote
Whitewater was a real thing. It just didn't have much to warrant the investigation that sprang from it.

The investigations of Trump's finances have less.  Everyone acknowledges that Clinton made a mistake in appointing a Special Counsel.  The situation and the law was so bad that Congress let that law expire, that's part of the reason I found Mueller's appointment so offensive, it's a deliberate walk back (based on political expediency) to a policy that was terrible in conception and worse in execution.  An unelected bureaucrat should never be in a position of exercising the full weight of the executive branch without oversight.  In Rome they used to appoint a dictator to deal with a crisis, and expect that control would revert back to the consuls afterwards.  You only get so many chances on doing something like that before it goes wrong.  Can we all agree that with Starr and Mueller it has gone wrong 2 out of 2 times?

Quote
I accepted the conclusions of the Mueller report. I don't support continuing investigations in congress.

That's good.

Quote
I'm disturbed about congress using taxation oversight to obtain trumps returns. I'm also disturbed that Trump didn't release them voluntarily.

I'm fascinated by the argument with Congress on its high horse when more that 450 of the 535 of the them have never released their own tax returns, with some of them in office for decades in which them become multi-millionaires on a salary that doesn't get you there.

Trump hasn't released his returns for incredibly obvious reasons.  It doesn't bother me at all.  The "release tradition" remains a form of deliberate barrier to keep the reigns of power in a political class that has kept their returns scrubbed for decades.

No one needs Trump's returns to find violations of law.  It's just not true.  With any other person, obtaining financial information comes after you have probable cause to get a warrant.  Ergo its completely possible to get probable cause without invading someone's privacy.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2019, 12:18:00 PM »

Quote
I'm disturbed about congress using taxation oversight to obtain trumps returns. I'm also disturbed that Trump didn't release them voluntarily.

I'm fascinated by the argument with Congress on its high horse when more that 450 of the 535 of the them have never released their own tax returns, with some of them in office for decades in which them become multi-millionaires on a salary that doesn't get you there.

Trump hasn't released his returns for incredibly obvious reasons.  It doesn't bother me at all.  The "release tradition" remains a form of deliberate barrier to keep the reigns of power in a political class that has kept their returns scrubbed for decades.

No one needs Trump's returns to find violations of law.  It's just not true.  With any other person, obtaining financial information comes after you have probable cause to get a warrant.  Ergo its completely possible to get probable cause without invading someone's privacy.

QFT

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2019, 01:22:12 PM »
Just to be clear... we want to make sure that politicians who are use to hiding their crookedness, have to compete with crooks less use to needing to hide?  And that's... a good thing?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2019, 01:33:08 PM »
To be clear... we want to provide access points for talented people who haven't led politically scrubbed lives to work in government.  It's not escaped notice that talented people that Trump has appointed have been completely destroyed on a scorched earth basis for items that would barely register in the private world.

This is a trend that should horrify.  Our country is not going to be better if we evolve a Senatorial class from which all approved leaders must come.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2019, 01:52:18 PM »
So you have to be "politically scrubbed" in your tax returns? Mine aren't politically scrubbed, wouldn't be much of interest there. I think the end result of billionaires releasing their returns would be for people to be outraged at the loopholes and exemptions that they are able to use, and how little they pay. This crosses partisan lines, from Mark Cuban to Michael Bloomberg who agree with you, Seriati. I do see the point, this is invasive. But let's remember how the tradition started.

Quote
The tradition of voluntary tax return disclosure began with a scandal. In 1973 journalists discovered information suggesting that President Richard Nixon had taken large, hard-to-defend deductions on his individual tax returns. After months of media speculation (based chiefly on documents that came to light in an unrelated court case), someone at the IRS leaked information from the president’s returns confirming that he had paid just $792.81 in federal income taxes for 1970 and $878.03 for 1971 — despite having an income of more than $200,000 each year.

To help quell the ensuing uproar — which occasioned Nixon’s oft-quoted insistence that “I am not a crook” — the president decided to make a public release of his tax returns for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. That tax disclosure was the first made by a sitting U.S. president. (While running for president in 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower disclosed a few key elements of his tax history, but no complete returns.)

In other words, he was walking that tightrope line of justification for deductions that many do, but that a lot of us don't. It would be true that career politicians would likely avoid questionable deductions, but is that a bad thing?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2019, 02:23:55 PM »
And partially as a result of situations like that the entire tax code was overhauled to eliminate many of the abusive deductions, a process that Trump continued, by the way, and that the blue state activists opposed.  Heck state governments actively provide tax bribes to encourage businesses to relocate.  How would those returns look, when a major corporation makes billions and ends up with a negative tax liability?

I don't see this argument as related to Trump at all.  It's just about a war on tax policies.

In any event, the legal process to catch those problems is an audit.  It's now well known that every President's returns are under mandatory audit, and that Trump's returns on a personal level have been under repeated audits.  Why exactly do you think we need an extrajudicial process on top of that?   

Literally audit is the remedy to the problem you describe, and that's what has and is occurring.  Opening them to the public adds little that is legitimate to that process.  Creates a massive amount of "smoke" that has no fire connected to tax policies that are perfectly legal but that people still get mad about, and like I said, creates a huge disincentive for someone who hasn't been planning public service. 

For example, Hillary Clinton's tax returns don't contain compromising contributions to charities.  Is that because she hasn't given money to charities that could lose her votes?  Or is it because she's handled those through cut outs like the Clinton Foundation that sanitize the donation and that the willing refuse to accept she still controls?  For the professional politicians, nothing about this system has prevented them from engaging in massive corruption, nothing about it prevents them from hiding their true sources of income or expenditures, nothing about it has done anything you seem to think it was designed to do.   

For a non-politician?  They never thought through the need to engage all their financial transactions through cut-outs - and the IRS would hold them to account if they did.  They never had to consider if listing a thousand donations on their tax forms rather than forming a cloaking entity, would lead them to have a single line pulled up and promoted as a horrible crime (e.g., I've seen a candidate called out for a donation to the salvation army - because it was described as a hate organization). 

Honestly, arguing that it's a disincentive is a non-starter to me.  It's just factually wrong.  Arguing that it's better to keep good and talented people out of politics on this basis seems like a bad argument, though you could believe that the public policy on opening this is stronger (but then I fail to see why every politician, and every citizen for that matter, shouldn't have to meet the same standard).

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2019, 02:36:30 PM »
An audit? Good thing the IRS doesn't answer to the President or have any history of partisan bias. I'm sure we can trust them to be honest and forthright about anything dubious they discover in their audit.

I think it's also worth noting that you should probably hold the President to a higher standard than an average citizen.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2019, 04:07:51 PM »
I think it's also worth noting that you should probably hold the President to a higher standard than an average citizen.

Why? What standard should it be and who gets to set it?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2019, 04:16:08 PM »
Well, let's remember that the results of an audit are also private. So the audit can, theoretically, make sure that the President paid the right amount of tax (or his tax lawyers negotiate a settlement amount). It doesn't tell us whether he attempted to cheat on his taxes. The IRS can't make audit conclusions public.

For people in this particular class, I would imagine it is rare to have the result of an audit be "nice job, off you go". Even though all of the points of contention might be legitimate misunderstandings or errors, which is easy to do. Something egregious enough might result in actual criminal prosecution, except of course in the case involving a sitting president who can't be indicted.

It was an illegal leak of Nixon's audit that actually brought his returns to light, and I don't think that's the way to go about it.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 04:17:30 PM »
Why? What standard should it be and who gets to set it?

Because the President has more power and authority than the average citizen. Somewhat higher than "not provably a criminal, foreign asset, or traitor." The people, which means they need more information rather than less.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2019, 04:53:28 PM »
Trump doesn't give out his returns becsuse he's a punk bitch.

End of.

It'll show he wasted the money from daddy and just borrowed and borrowed again based on his name.

Trump doesn't and never has *done* anything.  He just wanders in and inserts his name and hopes to make money.

This *censored* lost money in casinos. Hahaha who loses money in a casino?

  Who honestly wonders why he might want to hide his background when a large part of his campaign is based on him being a successful businessman?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2019, 05:13:20 PM »
So your response to the actual legal process is meh?

Lol, you're not looking for assurance of good conduct or you would be satisfied.  Pretty sure that Congress could legitimately request details about how the audit process works, you know like whether a political appointee overrode an agency decision.  So why didn't they?  Honest answer, they already know there's nothing there but potentially embarrassing things they want to release.

Again, if you have evidence of crime then you have probable cause and you wouldn't be on here whining.  If you don't, all you are demanding is that we void the Constitution, because you really want to know something, believe in banana court justice and are firmly convinced that Trump is a bad guy (nevermind that 2 years of Mueller couldn't find a crime even after violating attorney client privilege).

Get the law changed to make release of returns mandatory, otherwise its YOU not Trump that doesn't believe in the Constitution and doesn't believe in equal justice and doesn't believe in the fair application of the law.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2019, 05:15:33 PM »
Actually, he may have done fine personally on the Casinos.

Quote
Though Trump maintains that he "made a lot of money," in Atlantic City, the "burden of his failures," mostly fell onto his investors. Trump shifted personal debts to his casino businesses, and collected huge salaries and bonus payments while shifting much of the risk onto his investors, according to The New York Times.

Trump's casinos posted losses year after year. In the early 1990s, he narrowly avoided "financial ruin," by taking his debt-riddled companies public, and shifting his losses onto stockholders.
According to financial filings, Trump pulled in more than $1 million for himself from his failing public company.

The casino companies appeared before bankruptcy court four times, and Trump persuaded bondholders to accept less money while he still added debt to his businesses.

Sounds like the plot from The Producers.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2019, 05:18:21 PM »
So your response to the actual legal process is meh?

Lol, you're not looking for assurance of good conduct or you would be satisfied.  Pretty sure that Congress could legitimately request details about how the audit process works, you know like whether a political appointee overrode an agency decision.  So why didn't they?  Honest answer, they already know there's nothing there but potentially embarrassing things they want to release.

Again, if you have evidence of crime then you have probable cause and you wouldn't be on here whining.  If you don't, all you are demanding is that we void the Constitution, because you really want to know something, believe in banana court justice and are firmly convinced that Trump is a bad guy (nevermind that 2 years of Mueller couldn't find a crime even after violating attorney client privilege).

Get the law changed to make release of returns mandatory, otherwise its YOU not Trump that doesn't believe in the Constitution and doesn't believe in equal justice and doesn't believe in the fair application of the law.

Directed at me? In what way do I violate the Constitution by asking that somebody voluntarily disclose information?

As far as I'm concerned, any audit that results in somebody owing more money to the IRS is bad conduct to a greater or lesser degree. It doesn't have to be illegal.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2019, 11:34:59 PM »
Actually, he may have done fine personally on the Casinos.

Quote
Though Trump maintains that he "made a lot of money," in Atlantic City, the "burden of his failures," mostly fell onto his investors. Trump shifted personal debts to his casino businesses, and collected huge salaries and bonus payments while shifting much of the risk onto his investors, according to The New York Times.

Trump's casinos posted losses year after year. In the early 1990s, he narrowly avoided "financial ruin," by taking his debt-riddled companies public, and shifting his losses onto stockholders.
According to financial filings, Trump pulled in more than $1 million for himself from his failing public company.

The casino companies appeared before bankruptcy court four times, and Trump persuaded bondholders to accept less money while he still added debt to his businesses.

Sounds like the plot from The Producers.

Hah, yeah. But to be fair a CEO fleecing the corporation he's hired to run, purely for his own gain, knowing he'll eventually be 'fired' and get the golden parachute, is no new thing. It's 'crooked' in the sense of dishonorable, but afaik legal and even essentially encouraged by the sorts of bonus structures built into these contracts.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2019, 07:13:04 AM »
Why? What standard should it be and who gets to set it?

Because the President has more power and authority than the average citizen. Somewhat higher than "not provably a criminal, foreign asset, or traitor." The people, which means they need more information rather than less.

Right, ok. Makes sense. Should everyone with more power and authority be required to release their tax returns? Everyone in Congress? Judges? What about police and prosecutors? They got a lot more power than the average person. We need to know they’re not a criminal, right?

What about people appointed to powerful positions, Secretary of State for example? They’re way more powerful than average citizens. Or what about IRS agents? Those guys have serious power over average citizens.

Local city council members have a lot more power than average citizens, include them too?

Basically, anyone getting a check from a state or federal agency or is there a place on the org charts where a line should be drawn?


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2019, 09:11:13 AM »
Sure, yes, anyone paid by Uncle Sam.
That sounds good to me.
Public record less redactions for any obvious methods of identity theft.

All this fretting about creating a "political class" is bullpoop.  It may be far FAR from perfect, but it is A tool in both holding our public officials accountable and knowing who it is we're asking to represent us.  (or who it is those people hire to work for us)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2019, 10:01:25 AM »
Sure, yes, anyone paid by Uncle Sam.
That sounds good to me.
Public record less redactions for any obvious methods of identity theft.

All this fretting about creating a "political class" is bullpoop.  It may be far FAR from perfect, but it is A tool in both holding our public officials accountable and knowing who it is we're asking to represent us.  (or who it is those people hire to work for us)

Everyone paid by Uncle Sam. Even the night time cleaning crews? They seem like average people to me, certainly they won't be making public policy. What about those in the military? Them too? Seems like a lot to put on the average infantry soldier.

Thinking about this, those guys on my HOA board have a lot more power than the average person. They're not paid by the government as it's a volunteer position but, since they have such power, don't we need to know if they're criminals? Or do they get a free pass on this?

You know, why is it illegal to release tax returns? What's the point of keeping that confidential for the rest of us?

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2019, 10:14:24 AM »
Right, ok. Makes sense. Should everyone with more power and authority be required to release their tax returns? Everyone in Congress? Judges? What about police and prosecutors? They got a lot more power than the average person. We need to know they’re not a criminal, right?

What about people appointed to powerful positions, Secretary of State for example? They’re way more powerful than average citizens. Or what about IRS agents? Those guys have serious power over average citizens.

Local city council members have a lot more power than average citizens, include them too?

Basically, anyone getting a check from a state or federal agency or is there a place on the org charts where a line should be drawn?

You think SoS's financials aren't checked by someone? Since Cabinet members aren't elected, there's no need for public dissemination of financial information. I think whether or not a position is elected is a good minimum standard. Another would be the opportunity for self-enrichment in a position and if there's good rules in place for avoiding conflicts of interest. I get that thinking things through is discouraged in this day of partei uber alles, but try actually answering your questions before asking them.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2019, 10:40:24 AM »
Quote
Even the night time cleaning crews?
Normally, I'd just say, YES, them too.
but...
I don't know how expensive it would be to make them all publicly available.  Maybe someone has to show up and request the records, pay for the copies and a fee for any man-hours required to go retrieve them.  Or, barring feet dragging, maybe let them send some intern there to show up and get them themselves (probably security issues with that...)

Logistics necessitate changing "everyone" to, just people someone has an interest in.  In principle though...  Everyone.  (Elected only, may be a good bar to improve logistics.  /shrug)

Public service is... well, public.  Privacy goes bye-bye.  See who still wants the job, and I think we'll all be better for it.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 10:43:04 AM by D.W. »

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2019, 10:48:21 AM »
Ontario, possibly Canada, makes public the salaries of all civil servants making over $100k. Not indexed to inflation so it's a growing list over the years.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2019, 10:48:37 AM »
Right, ok. Makes sense. Should everyone with more power and authority be required to release their tax returns? Everyone in Congress? Judges? What about police and prosecutors? They got a lot more power than the average person. We need to know they’re not a criminal, right?

What about people appointed to powerful positions, Secretary of State for example? They’re way more powerful than average citizens. Or what about IRS agents? Those guys have serious power over average citizens.

Local city council members have a lot more power than average citizens, include them too?

Basically, anyone getting a check from a state or federal agency or is there a place on the org charts where a line should be drawn?

You think SoS's financials aren't checked by someone? Since Cabinet members aren't elected, there's no need for public dissemination of financial information. I think whether or not a position is elected is a good minimum standard. Another would be the opportunity for self-enrichment in a position and if there's good rules in place for avoiding conflicts of interest. I get that thinking things through is discouraged in this day of partei uber alles, but try actually answering your questions before asking them.

Oh. ok. You're moving the goal posts here. You said it was about having more power than the average citizen but now you think it should be about being elected. Ok.

So we elect someone and that means they should expose their tax returns to public scrutiny. That include local officials? We elect HOA boards, them too?

I get that you think you're smart but littering your posts with logical fallacies like moving goal posts and ad hominems isn't the way to demonstrate that, ya know?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2019, 10:50:48 AM »
Quote
Oh. ok. You're moving the goal posts here. You said it was about having more power than the average citizen but now you think it should be about being elected. Ok.

Just because you tilt your head to the side and squint, doesn't mean the goalpost actually moved Crunch.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2019, 10:51:48 AM »
Quote
Even the night time cleaning crews?

Public service is... well, public.  Privacy goes bye-bye.  See who still wants the job, and I think we'll all be better for it.

Privacy goes bye-bye. No private life for anyone in government. I dunno man, that sounds terrible. Who in their right mind would sign on for the dissolution of privacy?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Selective outrage, and selective historical context.
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2019, 10:52:33 AM »
Quote
Oh. ok. You're moving the goal posts here. You said it was about having more power than the average citizen but now you think it should be about being elected. Ok.

Just because you tilt your head to the side and squint, doesn't mean the goalpost actually moved Crunch.

More power than the average citizen to elected. That's a huge difference.