Trump threatens to withhold federal funding from universities that allow protests (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Apart from this being a blatant First Amendment violation and highly fascist - the craziest thing about this whole "the president can cut off all federal funding for anything at any time" is that its going to come back around - and the next president will have a different agenda and do the same thing. It's illegal and just a terrible way to run a country.

 

[MT15]

You prove my point. Knowingly and purposefully destroying evidence under a valid legal subpoena is not equivalent to “catcalling”. THAT is a false equivalency. It’s closer to obstruction. So tell me OP, when exactly is obstruction okay from a sitting SOS and a person who seeks the highest office in the land?

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

I mean explain what your rules and standards are here because I don’t see that you have any that can be applied on a consistent basis without bias to party.

That is exactly what you accuse Republicans of. You blow off misconduct when it is applied to Democrats and then wonder why the GOP does the same thing.

Just repeating falsehoods isn’t making the point you think it’s making.

The IRS targeted ALL sides of political organizations, not just the Tea Party or anyone else in particular.

Clinton didn’t knowingly and purposefully destroy evidence.

Good grief. Just stop with the right wing propaganda.

That was the claim and yet it’s funny how NONE of those progressive organizations were denied and NONE of them cared enough to show up at a hearing and testify.

So yeah, I can see where coming up with a BS explanation can be tiresome for you.

So the hearing WAS politically motivated. It was a total dog and pony show by the GOP.

Reality isn’t BS, well, except to you. And yes, it’s tiresome to try to keep you from spreading lies.

Here, at least make an effort to educate yourself.

Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And from the Trump IRS website:

“Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.”

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

The IRS sought out entities that had certain keywords within their 501c's and a couple examples of the words that they sought were " words such as "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy".

They did so in an effort to discover if any of those were making fraudulent filings. Something that seems to be an important emphasis these days.

Only the right-wing entities and their congressional lackeys cried political targeting because that is their nature.

 

[TampaJoe]

Just repeating falsehoods isn’t making the point you think it’s making.

The IRS targeted ALL sides of political organizations, not just the Tea Party or anyone else in particular.

Clinton didn’t knowingly and purposefully destroy evidence.

Good grief. Just stop with the right wing propaganda.


So the hearing WAS politically motivated. It was a total dog and pony show by the GOP.

Reality isn’t BS, well, except to you. And yes, it’s tiresome to try to keep you from spreading lies.

Here, at least make an effort to educate yourself.

Hillary Clinton email controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And from the Trump IRS website:

“Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.”

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

 

[Optimus Prime]

You prove my point. Knowingly and purposefully destroying evidence under a valid legal subpoena is not equivalent to “catcalling”. THAT is a false equivalency. It’s closer to obstruction. So tell me OP, when exactly is obstruction okay from a sitting SOS and a person who seeks the highest office in the land?

The IRS targeted the Tea Party because certain members of the legislature were raising hell. It was purely political. The IRS later paid civil damages to settle the case and had to issue an apology. So when is it okay to use public institutions to target groups of people for political purposes? When in your book is that okay?

I mean explain what your rules and standards are here because I don’t see that you have any that can be applied on a consistent basis without bias to party.

That is exactly what you accuse Republicans of. You blow off misconduct when it is applied to Democrats and then wonder why the GOP does the same thing.

Yet another non answer

 

[MT15]

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

I don’t know. Do you? Is it your contention that none were? I will bet there were some.

The whole lawsuit and its settlement was politically motivated. It was settled by the Trump DOJ, in a way to make the conservative groups look justified in their suit.

“ In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[3]

In October 2017, the Trump administration agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than four hundred conservative nonprofit groups who claimed that they had been discriminated against by the Internal Revenue Service for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs' counsel as "very substantial." The Trump administration also agreed to settle a second lawsuit brought by forty-one conservative organizations with an apology and an admission from the IRS that subjecting them to "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" was wrongful.[4][5]”

 

[coldseat]

How many progressive org were denied 501c3 status?

We currently have a lot of 501 c3 organizations that operate very politically and shouldn't be able to claim 501 c3 status. A lot of those are conservative. We honestly need a lot more scrutiny of all 501 c3 organizations to prevent and fight that fraud so that they aren't claiming an illegal tax status.

While the government shouldn't target only one side of the political isle (which it was proven they didn't by the inspector generals report), it also shouldn't shy away from or be scared of putting 501 c3 organizations under the microscope to make sure they aren't claiming tax preferences/status illegally just because conservatives cry alligator tears.

 

[TampaJoe]

I don’t know. Do you? Is it your contention that none were? I will bet there were some.

The whole lawsuit and its settlement was politically motivated. It was settled by the Trump DOJ, in a way to make the conservative groups look justified in their suit.

“ In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[3]

In October 2017, the Trump administration agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than four hundred conservative nonprofit groups who claimed that they had been discriminated against by the Internal Revenue Service for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs' counsel as "very substantial." The Trump administration also agreed to settle a second lawsuit brought by forty-one conservative organizations with an apology and an admission from the IRS that subjecting them to "heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays" was wrongful.[4][5]”

There is more than one way to discriminate against your political opposition. The claim was always that the IRS did not discriminate in targeting. The problem was the disparity in treatment. Few if any 501c3’s were denied to liberal orgs. Few of them were asked to surrender donor lists. Few of their donors were subsequently audited by the IRS as individuals.

It has been posted here as it regards the Trump administration that such treatment by the government against its political opposition could be considered as infringing upon free speech. No one knows that better than those conservative 501c3’s who experienced such treatment by the Obama IRS.

 

[RobF]

There is more than one way to discriminate against your political opposition. The claim was always that the IRS did not discriminate in targeting. The problem was the disparity in treatment. Few if any 501c3’s were denied to liberal orgs. Few of them were asked to surrender donor lists. Few of their donors were subsequently audited by the IRS as individuals.

It has been posted here as it regards the Trump administration that such treatment by the government against its political opposition could be considered as infringing upon free speech. No one knows that better than those conservative 501c3’s who experienced such treatment by the Obama IRS.

Absolute bollocks.

IRS used conservative and liberal keywords for flagging from 2004 to 2013. As usual, you just ignore the part about liberal keywords and the fact that by your 'logic' you're claiming the Bush IRS was targeting conservatives.

You also ignore the fact that groups that actually had tax exemptions revoked were Democratic (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/advocacy-groups-denied-tax-exempt-status-are-named.html , https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...me-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row).

You seem to think that if you just repeat yourself and ignore anything that shows you're wrong, it'll somehow make the knowledge pop out of everyone else's heads. That isn't how this works. Everyone who doesn't ignore the things that show you're wrong can still see that you are, very, clearly, unambiguously, wrong. They can also see you're a clearly partisan poster who unquestioningly swallows right-wing narratives under a superficial "both sides!" veneer.

Knock it off, and stop trying to derail every thread you post in into a "TampaJoe is wrong and refuses to recognise it" thread.

 

[MT15]

At some point I think we all are going to have to consider putting him on ignore. He keeps repeating falsehoods. It would be one thing if he ever supported his claims.

And there is real damage being done to this country right now by a lawless GOP administration. Excusing that with absurd claims that Democrats do the same stuff is just adding to that damage. If regular GOP partisans could at least be honest with themselves, we could at least mitigate some of the damage. But the right wing propaganda has so taken hold of hearts and minds that we cannot even agree on facts anymore.

I’ve said this before - but for anyone new here - I was never a member of any political party, and am really not now either. I voted independently my entire life, that’s how I was raised.

But I could not and cannot go along with the real damage being done by so-called conservatives who spread lies to excuse everything they want to do to America. Once upon a time there were real conservatives who weren’t beholden to the billionaire class, who wanted to better society but just had different ideas about how to do it. Who didn’t look at the poor as merely pawns to be exploited.

Nobody who has an ounce of morality or decency would support who Trump is or what he is doing. And the fact that people have to distance themselves from the person while supporting everything he is doing is just transparently disingenuous. And one of the worst bits of propaganda is the fallacy that he isn’t doing anything that Democrats haven’t done.

 

[TampaJoe]

Absolute bollocks.

IRS used conservative and liberal keywords for flagging from 2004 to 2013. As usual, you just ignore the part about liberal keywords and the fact that by your 'logic' you're claiming the Bush IRS was targeting conservatives.

You also ignore the fact that groups that actually had tax exemptions revoked were Democratic (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/advocacy-groups-denied-tax-exempt-status-are-named.html , https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...me-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row).

You seem to think that if you just repeat yourself and ignore anything that shows you're wrong, it'll somehow make the knowledge pop out of everyone else's heads. That isn't how this works. Everyone who doesn't ignore the things that show you're wrong can still see that you are, very, clearly, unambiguously, wrong. They can also see you're a clearly partisan poster who unquestioningly swallows right-wing narratives under a superficial "both sides!" veneer.

Knock it off, and stop trying to derail every thread you post in into a "TampaJoe is wrong and refuses to recognise it" thread.

I don’t ignore it. Tell us Rob. Just how many liberal 501c3 applications were involved. How many were liberal. How many were conservative. How many of those got approved in each category.

You appear to believe that if one or two liberal orgs were targeted and/or denied versus hundreds of conservative orgs that were targeted and denied, that is somehow equal treatment.

I watched the hearings back in the day. I do not recall a single liberal org that testified. Not one. So maybe there were one or two. I don’t know. But the vast majority of those orgs that were indeed targeted and denied were conservative.

What I ironic is how folks here are worried that Trump will employ the same tactics used by the Obama administration. I guess it’s only weaponization if it targets liberals and Democrats. They are the only ones with 1st amendment rights.

 

[efil4]

At some point I think we all are going to have to consider putting him on ignore. He keeps repeating falsehoods. It would be one thing if he ever supported his claims.

he says his age is 65.

based on his leanings, id say that checks out.

Probably sports some white leather New Balance sneakers, with crew socks.

There is a definite stereotype

 

[RobF]

I don’t ignore it. Tell us Rob. Just how many liberal 501c3 applications were involved. How many were liberal. How many were conservative. How many of those got approved in each category.

You appear to believe that if one or two liberal orgs were targeted and/or denied versus hundreds of conservative orgs that were targeted and denied, that is somehow equal treatment.

I watched the hearings back in the day. I do not recall a single liberal org that testified. Not one. So maybe there were one or two. I don’t know. But the vast majority of those orgs that were indeed targeted and denied were conservative.

What I ironic is how folks here are worried that Trump will employ the same tactics used by the Obama administration. I guess it’s only weaponization if it targets liberals and Democrats. They are the only ones with 1st amendment rights.

Yeah, that - literally ignoring facts while declaring you're not, and substituting your personal vague recollections of partisan hearings instead - doesn't deserve more than another, "absolute bollocks."

Stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[MT15]

I don’t ignore it. Tell us Rob. Just how many liberal 501c3 applications were involved. How many were liberal. How many were conservative. How many of those got approved in each category.

You appear to believe that if one or two liberal orgs were targeted and/or denied versus hundreds of conservative orgs that were targeted and denied, that is somehow equal treatment.

I watched the hearings back in the day. I do not recall a single liberal org that testified. Not one. So maybe there were one or two. I don’t know. But the vast majority of those orgs that were indeed targeted and denied were conservative.

What I ironic is how folks here are worried that Trump will employ the same tactics used by the Obama administration. I guess it’s only weaponization if it targets liberals and Democrats. They are the only ones with 1st amendment rights.

This is simply ridiculously slanted. You watched hearings that were a complete sham meant to only smear the GOP’s political foes and you’re claiming that is somehow representative of anything?? You’re either being incredibly naive or dishonest.

In order to make the kind of judgement you are making one would have to know how many 501-c3 organizations existed from either side to begin with, and how many from both sides were indeed violating IRS regulations for their filing status.

Then you would have to know how many were audited and the results of the audits.

Your problem is you know none of those facts. None of them. And you are using a partisan political process instead of facts.

Without knowing the facts you are left with a right wing political conspiracy theory and you have surrendered to it.

 

[TampaJoe]

he says his age is 65.

based on his leanings, id say that checks out.

Probably sports some white leather New Balance sneakers, with crew socks.

There is a definite stereotype

Perhaps that’s your weakness. You think in stereotypes. You don’t see people. Just “groups”.

 

[TampaJoe]

This is simply ridiculously slanted. You watched hearings that were a complete sham meant to only smear the GOP’s political foes and you’re claiming that is somehow representative of anything?? You’re either being incredibly naive or dishonest.

In order to make the kind of judgement you are making one would have to know how many 501-c3 organizations existed from either side to begin with, and how many from both sides were indeed violating IRS regulations for their filing status.

Then you would have to know how many were audited and the results of the audits.

Your problem is you know none of those facts. None of them. And you are using a partisan political process instead of facts.

Without knowing the facts you are left with a right wing political conspiracy theory and you have surrendered to it.

Obviously you don’t know the facts. If you did you would answer the questions.

 

[RobF]

Obviously you don’t know the facts. If you did you would answer the questions.

You've already ignored the facts but to get right down to it, this is your claim, provide your own facts with actual, authoritative sources - no, your vague memory of partisan content does not qualify - or, to be as blunt (but probably more polite) as you deserve at this point, shut up.

 

[TampaJoe]

This is simply ridiculously slanted. You watched hearings that were a complete sham meant to only smear the GOP’s political foes and you’re claiming that is somehow representative of anything?? You’re either being incredibly naive or dishonest.

In order to make the kind of judgement you are making one would have to know how many 501-c3 organizations existed from either side to begin with, and how many from both sides were indeed violating IRS regulations for their filing status.

Then you would have to know how many were audited and the results of the audits.

Your problem is you know none of those facts. None of them. And you are using a partisan political process instead of facts.

Without knowing the facts you are left with a right wing political conspiracy theory and you have surrendered to it.

I know people who were audited because they were on a donor list. Further their businesses were audited. So it’s not just a theory.

So I get why you are worried that liberals might be treated in the same fashion. The difference is I can condemn all such behavior. You appear to want to defend it as long as it is directed at the other party. And you wonder why conservatives don’t trust liberals administrations anymore than you trust conservative administrations.

 

[MT15]

Obviously you don’t know the facts. If you did you would answer the questions.

I have provided facts. You choose to just explain them away with your feelings.

What you expect us to believe is that there was a conspiracy to target right wing organizations and it was directed by the Obama admin. Even though Trump’s own DOJ declined to prosecute anyone due to lack of evidence of any targeting or undue persecution.

As someone famously said, facts don’t care about your feelings.