Political So now what

[TRD270]

You are basically saying Trump IS the Republican party.

At no point did I say or infer that. Merely stating they have just as many people blindly following as so called magaites

 

[nnnnnate]

Yes and I even have a brother-in-law that works for the IRS.

Can you please explain this to me? Is it a matter of more spending or something else?

Out of all the gov agencies I would expect that money spent at the IRS would have a higher return then just about anything else. Kind of like what Cody said, they don't have the staff to process taxes for the "little guys" i.e. us, and the big guys don't get scrutiny that could potentially bring in much more tax dollars to the system that the rest of us already pay.

 

[Pike2350]

At no point did I say or infer that. Merely stating they have just as many people blindly following as so called magaites

No offense, but you most certainly did infer it. If you are wanting to pose the same question to Democrats, you would ask about Obama or Hillary....not about the Democratic party.

I didn't ask what it would take to not support the Republican party...I asked about Trump and Trump alone. You posed it "The other way...." By saying the Democratic party is the other way, is indirectly calling Trump the Republican party.

I do not see the same adoration or following among Democrats to say Biden, Hillary or Obama, especially to the point that any Democrat went against them, they would start calling them traitors, DINO's or acting so hostile towards them.

 

[TRD270]

Leave Hillary and Biden out of this....I believe both of them are guilty of crimes as well...but it isn't a "Yeah...but them" type of argument.

This is the reason I specified Democratic Party not Hillary.

And the fact that they don’t hold a candidate up like trump I beg to differ. Obama was basically observed as the second coming of Christ

 

[Spork]

Can you please explain this to me? Is it a matter of more spending or something else?

Out of all the gov agencies I would expect that money spent at the IRS would have a higher return then just about anything else. Kind of like what Cody said, they don't have the staff to process taxes for the "little guys" i.e. us, and the big guys don't get scrutiny that could potentially bring in much more tax dollars to the system that the rest of us already pay.

I have issues with 87,000 new employees. It's not like the IRS has ever been used for political purposes. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/5603...or-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

 

[glockman]

I am not trying to divide anyone....again, it's a pretty basic question.....it's curiousity. It just seems very difficult for people to answer with projecting or bringing up the "yeah, but" crap.

I would venture to say that Democrat's are much better at shunning and ostracizing their members when they have been accused of wrong doing (maybe that's a bad thing) You compare Trump to the Democratic party in asking what it would take to get people to stop voting for them...I find it interesting. You are basically saying Trump IS the Republican party. I don't see any Democrats looking for Hitlary's endorsement. I think I have seen more Democratic congressmen and senators step down or having been asked to step down for misconduct then Republicans.

I agree with treating every politician the same...and do feel that Hillary's house should've been raided and looked at. I am not saying the Democrat's should be less scrutinized or prosecuted/investigated. I just feel that I see a huge hypocrisy on the Right regarding supporting a candidate (not the party) no matter what.

You can't ask a question in a vacuum. That is why you aren't getting the answer you want.
What your asking is, why would a person cut their arm off? You are not acknowledging that the only choices are amputate your arm or your leg. You have to pick, it's not an open ended question and you can't bow out. You keep getting upset when people say they support him because X,Y or Z is worse as if their support is happening in a vacuum.

I'd say 90 percent of the people I know who support Trump don't like him, they just hate the establishment and career politicians more than they dislike the bad things he does and has done. So to answer your un-answerable question, I don't support him but I like when he upsets the establishment and I support any actions he takes that accomplishes that end. It's like hiring a morally bankrupt mercenary to kill bad people. It takes that type of person to do that type of work. A good person cannot do what is needed to break the establishment.
If you are actually being unbiased and paying attention you cannot deny the evidence that the establishment is doing everything they can to get Trump out of the way. The FBI committed treason before Trump even took office. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a verified fact. It's absurd to act like none of that is happening and get angry when people use that as a logical point to argue their support.
To be transparent, I didn't vote for Trump in either election. I have voted for the Libertarian candidate in every election I've voted in.

 

[glockman]

I do not see the same adoration or following among Democrats to say Biden, Hillary or Obama, especially to the point that any Democrat went against them, they would start calling them traitors, DINO's or acting so hostile towards them.

You obviously don't follow Politics. Joe Manchin and another Democrat refused to vote for Build back better and were actually threatened with physical violence and had their party affiliation called into question by the White House Press Secretary. It happens on both sides, your bias and mine just help us forget.

 

[nnnnnate]

I have issues with 87,000 new employees. It's not like the IRS has ever been used for political purposes. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/5603...or-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

Right, like the audits of McCabe and Comey.

 

[nnnnnate]

The FBI committed treason before Trump even took office. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a verified fact. It's absurd to act like none of that is happening and get angry when people use that as a logical point to argue their support.

This isn't a fact, it's opinion. Trump said that Stzrok and Page committed treason. Liz Cheney said that there may be evidence of treason and a coup.

William Barr said he didn't think FBI officials committed treason during their investigation of trump's campaign. He says they probably made biased decisions but not treason.

 

[glockman]

This isn't a fact, it's opinion. Trump said that Stzrok and Page committed treason. Liz Cheney said that there may be evidence of treason and a coup.

William Barr said he didn't think FBI officials committed treason during their investigation of trump's campaign. He says they probably made biased decisions but not treason.

OK, not treason, the FBI tapped an elected President without a warrant. Is that any less troubling?

 

[J Kimmel]

So there is nothing Trump can do to make you lose his support. Got it.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind....I asked what would have to happen for you to change your mind. You answered it without actually answering it.

Maybe something real.

I hear from the left daily, still, two years after he’s gone about how he should go to jail for his crimes.

Do tell, what are they?

Hillary got off, I guess a personal classified containing server was ok. I guess smashing phones that were subpoenaed was ok. I guess inventing Russian collusion was ok.
I guess the parade of intelligence officials demonstrably lying before congress (comey?) was ok. Who cares about Hunter and the big guy. That was all disinformation right up until it wasn’t.

I’d stop supporting him when I hear after all of the atrocities he’s committed which one is actually real and chargeable.

 

[shortstraw8]

What would it take for you to stop backing Trump and admit he is guilty of some crime?

I don't really back Trump and just curious which potential crime you are talking about?
I agree he is probably guilty of "some crime" along with probably 100% of our politicians
During his time in office I think he did far more good for America than any recent president and current president

I just feel that I see a huge hypocrisy on the Right regarding supporting a candidate (not the party) no matter what.

Are you saying it is not important to back a candidate you believe in when the rest of the party might not reflect the same ideals as the candidate you support? Just because they are R or D doesn't mean I need to back the whole party. I like Mike Lee and don't care for Mitt Romney I liked Tulsi Gabbard don't care for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Im not going to back a whole party just because of few people I think have a good direction in that party.

 

[nnnnnate]

OK, not treason, the FBI tapped an elected President without a warrant. Is that any less troubling?

Are you referring to when Trump claimed Obama tapped his phone between the election and when he was sworn in? Even his press secretaries walked that back in the next couple days saying it was reported by other news media. None of which was substantiated.

I suppose to answer your question an illegal wiretap would concern me. Whether it was on an individual or the president. I just don't believe that that happened.

To tap a phone takes work and documentation. The phone company won't just tap the number you want them to because you ask nicely or not nicely. They need paperwork and documents to cover themselves. Had this actually happened I'd have expected the details to come out during his 4 years in the big chair. As far as I can tell it never did.

 

[jeeper]

Out of all the gov agencies I would expect that money spent at the IRS would have a higher return then just about anything else. Kind of like what Cody said, they don't have the staff to process taxes for the "little guys" i.e. us, and the big guys don't get scrutiny that could potentially bring in much more tax dollars to the system that the rest of us already pay.

I don't have the exact numbers, but regular folks similar to most of us are audited at an extremely higher rate than poor or rich people. Poor people result in no gain, and rich people have their lawyers argue it back and forth. Guys like us can't afford to fight, so the IRS see's it's highest net gain by auditing us.

 

[nnnnnate]

I don't have the exact numbers, but regular folks similar to most of us are audited at an extremely higher rate than poor or rich people. Poor people result in no gain, and rich people have their lawyers argue it back and forth. Guys like us can't afford to fight, so the IRS see's it's highest net gain by auditing us.

That's absolutely how I understand it too. Either perspective you see it from it seems to benefit the little guy. Waiting for your return to be processed? Great, more people looking at the paper copy you mailed in so you get a faster return.
They are already hassling the little guy on audits so the only direction that can go is towards people making buckets of money. You get the guy making a million to pay his fair share then that accounts for 50 or 100 of the littles guys pittance.
Maybe with the extra bodies the IRS can finally get that audit done on Trump's taxes that has been happening for 15 years so he can release his returns when he runs in '24. 🤣 (Laughing at releasing his taxes, not that he'll be running in '24.)

 

[Spork]

IRS story for your enjoyment

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1557390432832667650

 

[N-Smooth]

Wait so you guys are assuming that having more employees at the IRS is going to make it more efficient? Riiiiiight

 

[glockman]

Are you referring to when Trump claimed Obama tapped his phone between the election and when he was sworn in? Even his press secretaries walked that back in the next couple days saying it was reported by other news media. None of which was substantiated.

I suppose to answer your question an illegal wiretap would concern me. Whether it was on an individual or the president. I just don't believe that that happened.

To tap a phone takes work and documentation. The phone company won't just tap the number you want them to because you ask nicely or not nicely. They need paperwork and documents to cover themselves. Had this actually happened I'd have expected the details to come out during his 4 years in the big chair. As far as I can tell it never did.

Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman | CNN Politics

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN.

www.cnn.com

I had better, more detailed sources but CNN will have to due until I find the stories. I assume you won't think CNN was playing along with a Pro Trump conspiracy here.

 

[nnnnnate]

I don't personally read or listen to CNN but that article explicitly says that Paul Manafort was tapped per a warrant which was discontinued and a FISA warrant was issued sometime later.

It didn't say any of that was illegal or done without a warrant.

I wasn't searching for info on Paul Manafort though, I was searching for illegal wiretaps on an elected President.

 

[nnnnnate]

Do you know what goes into a FISA warrant? The scrutiny they receive and the ongoing reporting that is required while they are up?

I stand behind my point that had anything nefarious happened with the procurement of those warranted wire taps trump would have made it very clear during his 4 years in the big chair.