Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-21-2014, 11:05 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,450,111 times
Reputation: 4799

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
I have said repeatedly that I am not an Obama supporter.

This isn't about dissenting POV's or how much money either party raises legally. Its about both parties misusing exempt organizations to illegally fund political activities and remain anonymous while doing so and getting rewarded for their illegal activities with tax breaks.

Don't try to distort the issue.

What is your point anyway? That democrats raise more money legally so Republicans should be able to raise money illegally to offset that? That's nuts.
If it was illegal you think Eric "Tyrant" Holder wouldn't be prosecuting them right and left?

What you call legal amounts to this:

Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure, the total amount given by donors via ActBlue is considerably greater than the totals listed below, which are based on FEC filings of candidates and committees that receive this money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=D000021806

That's "legal" and still fits your definition of what makes you irate.

If what they did was illegal the IRS wouldn't have needed to drown them out with attrition and TIGTA wouldn't have backed up the assertions of the targeting and attrition. Not to mention the SCOTUS ruling that it's not illegal. Do you have some sort of extra legality clause or standard you're using or are you basing your opinion on emotions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2014, 11:30 PM
 
13,388 posts, read 6,434,576 times
Reputation: 10022
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
If it was illegal you think Eric "Tyrant" Holder wouldn't be prosecuting them right and left?

What you call legal amounts to this:

Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure, the total amount given by donors via ActBlue is considerably greater than the totals listed below, which are based on FEC filings of candidates and committees that receive this money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=D000021806

That's "legal" and still fits your definition of what makes you irate.

If what they did was illegal the IRS wouldn't have needed to drown them out with attrition and TIGTA wouldn't have backed up the assertions of the targeting and attrition. Not to mention the SCOTUS ruling that it's not illegal. Do you have some sort of extra legality clause or standard you're using or are you basing your opinion on emotions?
The TIGTA report did not say the exempt orgs in question were legal. He simply said they couldn't be singled out based on party affiliation or terms expressing religious/political values for review. The report didn't say they couldn't all be audited just that objective criteria had to be used to subject them to audit or additional scrutiny before they were approved as exempt orgs in this case.

The SCOTUS ruling didn't say any of these orgs were legit. Its up to IRS to determine that. Simply said corps could contribute to them. That didn't change the way these orgs are supposed to operate in order to legally have this status. Their time is supposed to be devoted primarily to social welfare.

That is not what is happening. Many of them are devoted most of their time to campaign activity. That is illegal. The IRS needs to audit all of them never mind which party and put and end to that abuse. Congress will never allow that.......watch and see. They will call it targeting no matter how IRS goes about it.

But lets get real. Does anyone seriously believe that large corporations want to anonymously give money to social welfare causes? Huge unlimited amounts of money for which they get no credit?
That silly just on the face of it. No. They want to be able to funnel large amounts of money to the candidates/party of their choice anonymously. I doubt if most Americans understood that's what is happening that they want that to be happening.

Its bad enough all our politicians are bought and sold. We should at least know who is buying and selling them.

Any information you've posted about legal campaign contributions is irrelevant. Apples and oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2014, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,647 posts, read 26,363,905 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Yep. They have decided on the outcome they want. Now they are in search of a reason. That is the purpose of all of these bogus investigations. They want desperately to impeach him for something. It doesn't matter what, anything will do.

And yet, all their bogus witch hunts have turned up nothing credible. So sad.

You actually believe the hard drive story?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 12:18 AM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,501,648 times
Reputation: 7472
Would you support impeaching Obama if emails are found

of course, that is breaking the law. we can't have a president who breaks the law and holds himself to a higher standard than the rest of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 12:28 AM
 
4,571 posts, read 3,518,799 times
Reputation: 3261
What you people don't get is that only republican presidents can do bad stuff. The cd idiots that defend obama tell us much about themselves and their hypocrisy. The will forgive the obamas any sin. It simply doesn't matter to them. A loathsome bunch all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,330,107 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
This is not about free speech. This is about corporations being allowed to anonymously pour money into exempt organizations who by law are supposed to be engaged primarily in social welfare causes.

Instead, many of these so called exempt organizations are abusing the law and engaging primarily in political activity.

Those engaged in political activity should be required to(and are in fact are required by law) to register as a different type of exempt org where the donors(i.e. large corps and the wealthy) are identified to the public....not anonymous.

Like I said, exercise your free speech politically all you want. But if your goal is to influence votes either left or right, stand up and do it in the light of day as the law requires. Don't use my tax money to cower in anonymity.

You don't get it. No surprise. Most low information voters don't. The mess at the IRS is bad; but the real scandal is that they are not auditing these abusive organizations. And Congress' dirty little secret on both sides is that they don't want them to.
That is BS. The Tea Party groups are mostly local groups supported with $25 donations. They meet in small groups of 10-20 people. You are being brainwashed and you don't know it. This is absolutely about free speech!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 11:25 AM
 
13,388 posts, read 6,434,576 times
Reputation: 10022
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
That is BS. The Tea Party groups are mostly local groups supported with $25 donations. They meet in small groups of 10-20 people. You are being brainwashed and you don't know it. This is absolutely about free speech!
No brainwashing. More and more political money is residing in these types of groups on both sides.

BTW this is not a new problem. Its been an area of tax abuse for decades.

Size of the org has nothing to do with anything. The issue is whether or not they are primarily involved in social welfare or political activity. Do you really think that the interests that want large corporations to be able to donate anonymously to these orgs went to the Supreme Court so large corps can send $25 donations to support local issues in Podunk Town, Any State? BS.........they aren't sending donation to the local garden clubs. They are sending donations to organizations with the sole intent of driving election results.....on both sides. If you believe otherwise, you are really naïve.

Last edited by Blondy; 06-22-2014 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 11:27 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,191,594 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331 View Post
No impeaching Presidents is bad for the country. Even if I don't agree with the President.

Talk is cheap.

if any potus is found to openly breaking the law, they should be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,330,107 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
No brainwashing. More and more political money is residing in these types of groups on both sides.

BTW this is not a new problem. Its been an area of tax abuse for decades.

Size of the org has nothing to do with anything. The issue is whether or not they are primarily involved in social welfare or political activity. Do you really think that the interests that want large corporations to be able to donate anonymously to these orgs went to the Supreme Court so large corps can send $25 donations to support local issues in Podunk Town, Any State? BS.........they aren't sending donation to the local garden clubs. They are sending donations to organizations with the sole intent of driving election results.....on both sides. If you believe otherwise, you are really naïve.
Most of the Tea Party organizations denied the Tax exempt status ARE small groups in Podunk Town, Any State. Can you get that through your thick skull?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 07:10 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 2,184,507 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
Most of the Tea Party organizations denied the Tax exempt status ARE small groups in Podunk Town, Any State. Can you get that through your thick skull?

Specifically, which tea party group was actually denied tax exempt status?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top