It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wake up America! They aren't playing politics..

page: 2
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Anathros
They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary.


Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.


And you quote a VOX article while insulting someone about Facts?

I cant decide if you troll posts, or if your thinking is really that delusional.




posted on Apr, 13 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

Commander and Chef.

Pure comedy gold right there. Can I quote you?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Legal scholars who have studied the provision and Mr. Neal’s request believe that if the Treasury Department does object, it will argue that the Ways and Means chairman has overstepped Congress’s oversight authority by making a request that lacks a legitimate legislative purpose and is meant only to achieve a political end. A resulting legal fight could ultimately make it to the Supreme Court and have significant implications on the expansiveness of Congress’s investigative powers.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, Mr. Trump’s White House aides, and his personal lawyer, William S. Consovoy, have all argued that Democrats are merely out to politically embarrass the president and urged the I.R.S. and Treasury Department to reject their request as illegitimate.

Mr. Neal’s letter on Saturday punched back at some of their objections. Notably, it was addressed not to Mr. Mnuchin but to Charles P. Rettig, the I.R.S. commissioner, whom Democrats believe should make the decision himself.

At the news briefing on Saturday, Mr. Mnuchin defended his decision to oversee the request, noting that the Treasury Department supervises the tax collection agency.

Mr. Neal argued that the statute in question was clear that Mr. Rettig must hand over the information. But he added that the administration had no authority to question how the committee would handle the information or the validity of its legislative purpose.

“There is no valid basis to question the legitimacy of the committee’s legislative purpose here,” Mr. Neal wrote, citing a 1957 Supreme Court case, Watkins v. United States, as saying Congress’s investigative powers were “broad” and “encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”

But legal scholars say that the administration could seek to cite the same 1957 ruling against the committee, because it also holds that while the powers of Congress to investigate are “broad,” they are also “not unlimited.”



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I’m starting to see some of these bigger issues too. I think that all these wars and such were also about global power, resources, etc. I protested them consistently. But like the Syrian war, I didn’t see the other potential strategy such as causing mass regional disruption and migration.
a reply to: Wide-Eyes



I'm glad I'm not the only one looking at the bigger picture.

Thanks for acknowledging my post.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Anathros
They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary.


Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.


And you quote a VOX article while insulting someone about Facts?

I cant decide if you troll posts, or if your thinking is really that delusional.


I'm pretty sure the latter is true.

There is a still a problem with racism from minorities of all sides but leftists like dfnj cherry pick the ones that suit their leftist agenda.

A tiny percentage of people on this planet are truly racist. The rest is just virtue signalling.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Anathros
They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary.


Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.


And you quote a VOX article while insulting someone about Facts?

I cant decide if you troll posts, or if your thinking is really that delusional.



A tiny percentage of people on this planet are truly racist. The rest is just virtue signalling.


I don't "think" that is, at all, a true statement.

I'm not argueing either side of the point being discussed, but is that subjective opinion, or are there studies that back up the statement?



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

NOBODY, knowingly. pays more than required.



I don't think s single person here has wrote a little extra for the Treasury, and even the IRS has stated over and over "pay your fair share". That fair share is all based on tax laws and if a rich person pays zero due to write offs and charities etc then they are being smart about picking where their want their money to go. In the past this is the way people saw it, but today we have the evil rich that are not paying their fair share unless it is 70% or higher.

If anyone pays more than what they should they are idiots, and in Trump's case he most likely gets audited every year due to the size of income he earns and international dealings. He has a team of people to make sure his taxes are right, so one needs to ask what bases is the Ways and Means committee using to force IRS to send them his taxes? Last time I looked we in America don't arbitrary investigate people to fish for something with nothing to start with.

Well at least that was the way America was in the resent past, but today it seems the goal is to find something..anything...



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

In 1921, there was a scandal involving the administration of the US President, Sec of the Interior, that has been around the leasing of the petroleum reserves at Teapot dome, in Wyoming and California. There was a federal contract at the time to provide fuel and oil to the US Navy. One oil company was bribing officials in the administration to keep the contract, and get around the inspection of the contracts. As a result, one of the provisions that had not been law was made law, and that was the Committee access provision, of 1924.

It is under this law that said tax returns would have to be given to the chair of the House Ways and Means committee, and the Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation. Once a request is made, no floor action is necessary, it goes straight to the Treasury Secretary, who oversees the IRS, or the person whose tax returns are being questioned. The 1924 law gave the tax committees the unqualified right to request the tax returns of any taxpayer. In short the Treasury Sec can not refuse this, and if he does, it may very well result in him going to prison for violating the law.

While it is acceptable for those in congress to view such information, however, they may not simply just leak to the press the actual documents, as that would violate other laws, that are written into the code to protect the subject of the investigation. IN short they can see it, but can’t say anything.



posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The president can cite executive privlidge and seal them 50 yrs and avoid it too.



posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa
It could work, but only for the time when the man is in office, and not for the years before he was in office. So if the man does that and they get his tax records from before that time, it would give them a picture, however is that the picture he wants them to see or know about?



posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
"Democrats support illegal" - that says it in a nutshell.



posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Lumenari

Funny you should mention that, but the head of some committees, such as the Ways and Means committee, have the legal right, as set in law, to ask for and see any tax record of anyone at any time. All that is required is a written request and the head of the IRS much provide such, failure would result in the immediate removal from office and 5 years in prison.

Now here is a quaint tradition: Since Richard Nixon, every single person who has run for the office of president has been willingly provided their taxes for the review of the public. This is cause Nixon did indeed cheated on his taxes, and paid the penalty. And it is not against the law for the taxes to be released even if the person is under audit.

And as a matter of Law, every year a person is a sitting president they are automatically audited. So there are 2 laws that are on the record, one being about the Chairman of either Comittee in congress being given any and all records asked for, and the Audit. And the Tradition of releasing the Taxes for the public to see.



So if your saying that Trump is being automatically audited every year, why do the Democrats believe there is something foul about it?

If the IRS had something on Trump, they would go after Trump. Why do Democrats want his personal tax record in their hands and do you believe the Democrats could be trusted not to leak info from those records?



posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Lumenari

Funny you should mention that, but the head of some committees, such as the Ways and Means committee, have the legal right, as set in law, to ask for and see any tax record of anyone at any time. All that is required is a written request and the head of the IRS much provide such, failure would result in the immediate removal from office and 5 years in prison.

Now here is a quaint tradition: Since Richard Nixon, every single person who has run for the office of president has been willingly provided their taxes for the review of the public. This is cause Nixon did indeed cheated on his taxes, and paid the penalty. And it is not against the law for the taxes to be released even if the person is under audit.

And as a matter of Law, every year a person is a sitting president they are automatically audited. So there are 2 laws that are on the record, one being about the Chairman of either Comittee in congress being given any and all records asked for, and the Audit. And the Tradition of releasing the Taxes for the public to see.



So if your saying that Trump is being automatically audited every year, why do the Democrats believe there is something foul about it?

If the IRS had something on Trump, they would go after Trump. Why do Democrats want his personal tax record in their hands and do you believe the Democrats could be trusted not to leak info from those records?


The IRS is the most ruthless government department there is, when it comes to the general citizenry.

That tells me that Trump is probably as clean as any other very rich guy, as far as tax evasion goes.

The Dems want to pick apart every business, and charity, to make, out of context, talking points.

Would they illegally leak it? Lol



posted on Apr, 16 2019 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

So why don't they? It seems like such a waste of time to go through all of this political posturing just to get something that could be so easily gotten, no?

IMHO, if what you say is true(and I don't doubt it), then we must conclude that the Left is only doing this to try and rally their base. If that's truly the case, then the Left is in it's final death throws I think. If all they can do now is bluster about and scream and cry about how they keep losing, then it's game over.

For the record, I'm politically neutral, so watching both sides fight this out has been very educational, and quite entertaining, but I've grown tired of the vitriol and hatred. It's time for this country to get back to business.

TheBorg :-)



posted on Apr, 16 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Actually, Illinois is not the only state, several more have, and the reason is quite simple:

The main reason he is not going to be on the ballot in those states, and far more, is that he has not released his taxes, and refuses to do such.

Regardless of whether or not he 'can' release his taxes due to an ongoing audit, the fact and reality is, there is no law that says a President has to release their tax returns.

PERIOD.

No State will get away with not putting Trump on the ballot, any that are making such noise is pure grandstanding, nothing more.
edit on 16-4-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Anathros

If they theoretically kept Trump off the ballot, couldn't people still vote for him as a write in candidate?

Illinois Law seems to allow such, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections website:

www.elections.il.gov...



posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Lumenari

Funny you should mention that, but the head of some committees, such as the Ways and Means committee, have the legal right, as set in law, to ask for and see any tax record of anyone at any time. All that is required is a written request and the head of the IRS much provide such, failure would result in the immediate removal from office and 5 years in prison.

Now here is a quaint tradition: Since Richard Nixon, every single person who has run for the office of president has been willingly provided their taxes for the review of the public. This is cause Nixon did indeed cheated on his taxes, and paid the penalty. And it is not against the law for the taxes to be released even if the person is under audit.

And as a matter of Law, every year a person is a sitting president they are automatically audited. So there are 2 laws that are on the record, one being about the Chairman of either Comittee in congress being given any and all records asked for, and the Audit. And the Tradition of releasing the Taxes for the public to see.


They are allowed to request a person's taxes for the purposes of setting tax policy. It is not the job of Congress to make sure someone is following tax laws. That's why the IRS exists. These requests are transparently political in nature.



posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Actually, Illinois is not the only state, several more have, and the reason is quite simple:

The main reason he is not going to be on the ballot in those states, and far more, is that he has not released his taxes, and refuses to do such.

Regardless of whether or not he 'can' release his taxes due to an ongoing audit, the fact and reality is, there is no law that says a President has to release their tax returns.

PERIOD.

No State will get away with not putting Trump on the ballot, any that are making such noise is pure grandstanding, nothing more.

The constitution spells out the requirements on who can be president. It does not give the states any right to impose additional requirements, and as other have pointed out, allowing them to do so would raise a host of messy problems. These laws will get tossed out.

For that matter, it's not even clear that Congress has the authority to enact any such law. If they did, you could take it to the Supreme Court, under the argument that allowing additional conditions opens the door to all manner of crooked laws designed to place the presidency out of reach of certain demographic groups.







 
30
<< 1   >>

log in

join