Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Cult of Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir, They do not need Trump's ok. The only "road block" is Trump's pervasive flouting of the law.
    As I already mentioned above, Federal Law states that Congress shall receive tax returns of anyone they choose. Congress, furthermore, has oversight over the Executive Branch, full stop.

    IRS Code section 6103(f)

    “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.”
    Then, the question is why the fuss and why are the returns not in the Committee's Hands?
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      Then, the question is why the fuss and why are the returns not in the Committee's Hands?
      Sir, are you being serious?

      We've known what the fuss is:

      Donald Trump believes that he answers to no one and that he is above the law.

      We've known why the returns are not in the Committees's hands:

      Donald Trump has engaged in a pervasive obstruction of virtually anything requested or subpoenaed of him by Congress.
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Sir, are you being serious?
        I am serious. Congress should have been at the IRS's doors with Court Enforcement grabbing boxes after boxes.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by snapper View Post
          Yea, like the difference between a charitable foundation and a person - which the Trump family failed to observe.




          Fine but you say he was a 'successful businessman' despite all the evidence. If your business is so 'successful' (apart from all the ones that went bankrupt or got sued - like 'Trump University') why won't local banks back you? Why do need $2bln of loans from Deutsche Bank, allegedly guaranteed by VTB Bank? Why will you not comply with IRS law when asked to do so by the US Congress? The most we can say about his wealth (or lack of) is that it is unproven and he is very reluctant to disclose it to the point of being willing to challenge Congress' legal right to know about it.
          I'm not questioning these accusations. I'm not following the case and don't really know much at all about what Trump is up against. Point is, he's got balls as a President and he's getting things done that the ones before him were too scared to act upon. His approval rating is about as high as it can get, he's converted scores of Democrats to become Republican, few presidents before him have issued as many executive orders as him, meaning that hes an action man and always working to put productive action into motion. His biggest enemies in the government are the backstabbing crooks. That doesn't mean his own hands are clean, but say you remove him and Pence steps in, what do you think would happen with Trumps progress? Would Pence reverse some of it or continue Trumps work? Would Pence simply do what Trump is doing?
          Hit the grape lethally.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
            I am serious. Congress should have been at the IRS's doors with Court Enforcement grabbing boxes after boxes.
            Sir, when you say "Court Enforcement", what you are you referring to? A court ruling?
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              Implying authoritarian ?

              Here's why that phrase is bunk.
              So that means you didn't read the essay from 1993 by a leading expert on the subject. Why, of course not. You're dismissed...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                I am serious. Congress should have been at the IRS's doors with Court Enforcement grabbing boxes after boxes.
                If I am not mistaken the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury and therefore under the control of Secretary Mnuchin who I also believe has already said no to a release irregardless of any demand by Congress.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                  Sir, when you say "Court Enforcement", what you are you referring to? A court ruling?
                  Yes.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Yes.
                    1. It shouldn't even be necessary, given the wording of the law.
                    2. There are multiple court rulings, but...
                    3. It's been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

                    But, again, the argument of Trump all along is that he's immune from prosecution in the first place.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                      Interestingly, I've asked several of Trump's defenders on this board what they think about that claim of complete immunity from prosecution. Unsurprisingly, they have been either unable to respond or unwilling to respond.
                      I don't buy it

                      Should things come to such a pass i'm confident your guys will ensure it never happens ever again by passing a law of some sort : )

                      I get that in a presidential system you don't want the top guy taken down easily but this does not mean he gets licence to commit a crime which is what that hypothetical you mentioned is insinuating

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        You need a court order to do that and thus the legal procedure which I believe is awaiting a hearing in the US highest court.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Wonderful Plans View Post
                          I'm not questioning these accusations. I'm not following the case and don't really know much at all about what Trump is up against. Point is, he's got balls as a President and he's getting things done that the ones before him were too scared to act upon. His approval rating is about as high as it can get, he's converted scores of Democrats to become Republican, few presidents before him have issued as many executive orders as him, meaning that hes an action man and always working to put productive action into motion. His biggest enemies in the government are the backstabbing crooks. That doesn't mean his own hands are clean, but say you remove him and Pence steps in, what do you think would happen with Trumps progress? Would Pence reverse some of it or continue Trumps work? Would Pence simply do what Trump is doing?
                          So "he's got balls" is a defence of crime? "Yes your Worship I shot him but I got balls so should be excused?"

                          His approval rating has consistently remained at around 40 -45% Not a majority of US citizens.

                          You think executive orders are healthy in a democracy? Allegedly he told Mnuchin to draw up an executive order that overruled an existing law regarding bribery and US companies not practicing it. Sadly he had to be informed that this was not possible as of course the passing of laws is the rightful province of the legislature not the executive. If that were not the case we would have rule by personal whim of an autocrat. Please consider the implications of your support.

                          As for Pence, personally I would impeach him too as an accessory to this whole criminal syndicate. And Barr.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            I don't buy it
                            What exactly don't you buy?

                            That such a claim is lawful? Well, I don't buy it either because it isn't lawful.

                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            Should things come to such a pass i'm confident your guys will ensure it never happens ever again by passing a law of some sort : )
                            "Our guys"? Who are "our guys" that will ensure that this never happens? "Passing a law"? The law is already passed: The President is not immune from prosecution, the President is not a King, full stop. But that is what Trump's lawyers are arguing.

                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            I get that in a presidential system you don't want the top guy taken down easily but this does not mean he gets licence to commit a crime which is what that hypothetical you mentioned is insinuating
                            Trump's lawyers say you're completely wrong. And it's not an insinuation at all. They've declared it, in clear and unequivocal language. I've posted their words and the relevant links multiple times on the board, including in this thread. Bolded it, even.

                            Does this claim by Trump give you have a better understanding of why this man is so dangerous to the United States?
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                              So that means you didn't read the essay from 1993 by a leading expert on the subject. Why, of course not. You're dismissed...
                              Can you challenge what i said ? otherwise the phrase is bunk

                              You're unaware this nonsense was said quite frequently in India since 2014

                              I called it out early only the very ignorant repeat it these days, ones on the left who won't be told otherwise

                              Not into fear mongering, prefer fear bashing
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Jan 20,, 00:59.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                I don't allude to anything, what I say should be taken at face value. Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't claim any of those things.

                                I already wrote my position clearly, "I'm not questioning these accusations. I'm not following the case and don't really know much at all about what Trump is up against." And as such, none of my comments can be attributed to being opinions on the trial.
                                Hit the grape lethally.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X