Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Lenonis]

Pay your fuckin taxes, yo.

The funny(?) part of this is if it were one of trump's kids conservatives would be cheering tax evasion because taxation is theft blah blah blah.

[tehdang]

This is a good conclusion to the acts of IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. They testified that they had sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with crimes, but higher-ups did nothing with it. Now, the very evidence that they first uncovered is being used in criminal charges. Justice served.

Don't try to write off payments to prostitutes and sex clubs as business expenses when dealing with the IRS.

[Ivanstone]

The funny(?) part of this is if it were one of trump's kids conservatives would be cheering tax evasion because taxation is theft blah blah blah.

They cheered when Trump himself evaded taxes.

They cheered when Romney evaded taxes.

[Breccia]

Don't try to write off payments to prostitutes and sex clubs as business expenses when dealing with the IRS.

You know who else did that?

Trump.

Cohen paid off a prostitute. We haven't heard the last of that. I expect such an upstanding, genuine poster such as yourself to be consistent when this topic comes up again.

[shimerra]

This is a good conclusion to the acts of IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. They testified that they had sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with crimes, but higher-ups did nothing with it. Now, the very evidence that they first uncovered is being used in criminal charges. Justice served.

Don't try to write off payments to prostitutes and sex clubs as business expenses when dealing with the IRS.

Funny. When a Republican did it he was good enough to be elected president.

I also hope maybe you can see that properly funding the IRS to go after tax cheats instead of cutting their already insufficient funding so like Republicans want is something all of us should support.

[tehdang]

Funny. When a Republican did it he was good enough to be elected president.

I also hope maybe you can see that properly funding the IRS to go after tax cheats instead of cutting their already insufficient funding so like Republicans want is something all of us should support.

Yes, the famously right-wing IRS that suppressed prosecution of Trump crimes prior to Trump's election.

Institutional rot is, surprisingly enough, a poor argument for funding the rot much harder. Two unmoving truths about the American bureaucracy is that failures are due to not having enough money, and successes are proof of deserving additional funding.

[shimerra]

Yes, the famously right-wing IRS that suppressed prosecution of Trump crimes prior to Trump's election.

Institutional rot is, surprisingly enough, a poor argument for funding the rot much harder. Two unmoving truths about the American bureaucracy is that failures are due to not having enough money, and successes are proof of deserving additional funding.

Typical of you to misunderstand the issue using stock conservative dribble.


No institution is perfect, but spare me your rambling about some arbitrary concept of small government or rot. You show zero interest in actually addressing said rot and actively encourage it when it benefits your ideology. And much of that rot you're citing was explicitly put there at the request of Republican voters. Case in point the Trump tax cuts that expired for the bottom brackets but were permanent for high earners.

The IRS has been woefully understaffed for decades and the ones who remain are deinceitvized to prosecute much of the white collar crime they do find. This is 100% explicitly intentional overwhelming thanks to Republicans. One such example when you could file paper forms, something conservatives kept open despite that it was the preferred avenue to commit fraud, was how Republicans specifically cut funding for the people whose job it was to transcribe the physical tax forms as well as restricting the information they transcribed making it harder to find fraud.

Republicans will shit their pants if a single low income individual gets food stamps that shouldn't. But a wealthy donner abuses incorporation laws and charitable write offs letting them cheat their way out of millions in taxes? Go for it! And folks like you cheerlead them along as it's done because most of you seem to think you're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire hoping you can benefit yourself one day.
If we rooted out every single cent of fraud from the food stamp/welfare programs it would still pale in comparison to the billions of taxes people like Trump dodge every year. But the mere idea of a fast-food worker using his EBT card for lobster enrages you far more than the billions of taxes dodged by the top earners.

The two unmoving truths of American society is partisan hacks like yourself continue to misunderstand issues and their causes and that solving them is impossible because of some conservative principle you only apply when convenient or the solution is actually socialism and evil. If you'd like to actually educate yourself on something for once two excellent books are Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch.

[tehdang]

Typical of you to misunderstand the issue using stock conservative dribble.


No institution is perfect, but spare me your rambling about some arbitrary concept of small government or rot. []

I'm not going to recommend repeating stock lib/prog drivel, then appearing shocked when you receive the stock response. For the rest of the post, I'm well aware of the construction of >>[Progressive policy] is correct, but [bad/wrong/evil/bigoted] opposition party does not admit it because of [progressive characterization of opposition party's failings]. The [bad/wrong/evil/bigoted] opposition party is motivated by [evil/bigoted/corrupt/fascist] motivations, which is proof of [progressive policy's] correctness.<< Yes, I could echo boilerplate conservative thinking back to you, but it's likely going to receive the same reaction I had to your post: I've heard the same pablum so many times before.

What I do want to point out is that you refuse to defend the only interesting thing about your prior post: "When a Republican did it he was good enough to be elected president." In the context of government corruption requiring whistleblowers to expose it in testimony in order to get charges, it's a remarkable claim. I was interested in whether you had any serious backdrop to why you said it, or even had something specific you were referring to.

[CastletonSnob]

Hot take: Democrats need to grow some balls and call out Republican cheating and corruption. Make ads that talk about voter suppression tactics and outright cheating Republicans use to win elections.

[shimerra]

I'm not going to recommend repeating stock lib/prog drivel, then appearing shocked when you receive the stock response. For the rest of the post, I'm well aware of the construction of >>[Progressive policy] is correct, but [bad/wrong/evil/bigoted] opposition party does not admit it because of [progressive characterization of opposition party's failings]. The [bad/wrong/evil/bigoted] opposition party is motivated by [evil/bigoted/corrupt/fascist] motivations, which is proof of [progressive policy's] correctness.<< Yes, I could echo boilerplate conservative thinking back to you, but it's likely going to receive the same reaction I had to your post: I've heard the same pablum so many times before.

What I do want to point out is that you refuse to defend the only interesting thing about your prior post: "When a Republican did it he was good enough to be elected president." In the context of government corruption requiring whistleblowers to expose it in testimony in order to get charges, it's a remarkable claim. I was interested in whether you had any serious backdrop to why you said it, or even had something specific you were referring to.

I actually exactly addressed the situation. There's a famous tax attorney Matthew blattmachr(Sp?). Him combined with people like Norquist, there are more but those two are big ones, having been explicitly using the Republican party to hobble the IRS's ability to enforce existing tax law in addition to ensuring tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. This isn't even a secret but the fact that I constantly have to explain it to people like you is exhausting. As I demonstrated to you with my example about what tax information was transcribed from paper to digital, set by law makers, Republicans have explicitly hobbled and attacked funding of the IRS to make it less effective at investigating white collar tax theft. All the while providing that same top bracket tax cuts while slashing services for the lower brackets. This isn't lib/prog dribble it's a fact of life and the explicitly stated goal of Republicans and conservative and written right into the party platform. If you want more examples you can also look at what Republicans did to the Alternative minimum tax and the whole debacle with the estate tax debate.

You provided exactly nothing of substance. Just the vague conservative BS about government is evil and can never do anything right therefore we should do nothing to improve it. Oh and the only way to improve it is always to cut. All you do is echo boilerplate conservative pundit outrage and talking points. You just did it now and you did in all your other posts. And more often than not you spend your life hurling those pundit talking points at a strawmann and willfully misinterpreting the points actually made.


I also didn't refuse to defend "my only interesting point". Not that you care but for as low as my opinion of your politics and intelligence is even I honestly didn't think you weren't smart enough to understand who I was very obviously referring to given that other posts explicitly stated who and really it's pretty painfully obvious. Trump is at this very moment on trial and losing badly for lieng about the valuation of his companies, and more, to dodge taxes and also attempted to hide/avoid tax scrutiny. He also is directly involved in covering up payments to sex workers. And Trump continues to use non-existent legal claims like Presidential immunity to try to avoid consequences even for acts he committed while not president.

[tehdang]

Trump is at this very moment on trial and losing badly for lieng about the valuation of his companies, and more, to dodge taxes and also attempted to hide/avoid tax scrutiny. He also is directly involved in covering up payments to sex workers. And Trump continues to use non-existent legal claims like Presidential immunity to try to avoid consequences even for acts he committed while not president.

Okay, I now understand that I was meant to reinterpret "good enough to be elected President" to mean "it had nothing to do with being elected President, it was all post-election or post-presidency stuff."

Not that you care but for as low as my opinion of your politics and intelligence is even I honestly didn't think you weren't smart enough to understand who I was very obviously referring to given that other posts explicitly stated who and really it's pretty painfully obvious.

I genuinely thought you replied to my post about whistleblowers and their accomplishments today with something similar. I was very mistaken.

[DarkTZeratul]

Okay, I now understand that I was meant to reinterpret "good enough to be elected President" to mean "it had nothing to do with being elected President, it was all post-election or post-presidency stuff."

If by "post-election" you mean "we've known about it for years, well before he became president."

[tehdang]

If by "post-election" you mean "we've known about it for years, well before he became president."

I should ask now if this has anything to do with whistleblowers and justice department/investigator conduct like seen with Hunter Biden. I know the default standard for "but Trump" arguments is "but I also consider this other thing to be bad." There's a thread to indulge in that stuff as much as you'd like.

For the bolded, how did you come to that conclusion, given the bolded/italicized comments in shimerra's post?

For the part you didn't bold, "Trump is at this very moment on trial and losing badly." 2016 election voters, however despised they are for the resulting electoral majority, did not have the benefit of Letetia James's 2019 probe and legal theory or Michael Cohen's 2018 plea deal. I was just a little bit thinking I had missed something with the post (bolded)

This is a good conclusion to the acts of IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. They testified that they had sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with crimes, but higher-ups did nothing with it. Now, the very evidence that they first uncovered is being used in criminal charges. Justice served.

We did have two whistleblowers testify on Capitol Hill that this was different from anything that had happened in their multiple decades of service in the IRS. I'm not aware that Trump political appointees in his Justice Department to defend himself against IRS investigators. I thought maybe I'd missed that, or something unrelated was currently being construed that way. It's fine, the poster has clarified.

---

@tehdang At least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct before he was elected president. The only new part post presidency was that Trump committed multiple crimes trying to cover one of those incidents up.

I did just get done explaining that in my post. I now know what you meant. These are post-election things you're talking about. I'm fine with you adding, essentially, "Justice for Hunter Biden? You know who else got mixed up with prostitutes and past lovers? Trump!"

[shimerra]

If by "post-election" you mean "we've known about it for years, well before he became president."

Just like his history shady business practices which included a habit of not paying people he promised to pay and abusing litigation to essentially exhaust people out of money/their ability to hold him accountable.

@tehdang At least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct before he was elected president. The only new part post presidency was that Trump committed multiple crimes trying to cover one of those incidents up. And his questionable business practices were also well known pre-election. For one his tendency to not pay smaller contractors and to abuse the court system to tie up/run them out of money to ensure he didn't pay them.

Okay, I now understand that I was meant to reinterpret "good enough to be elected President" to mean "it had nothing to do with being elected President, it was all post-election or post-presidency stuff."

You didn't have to reinterpret anything. There was a litany of issues pre-election about Trump's sexual impropriety and his shady business practices as well as a frank discussion of how the wealthy like Trump use that wealth and power to avoid consequences. Republicans and conservatives simply chose to ignore them because he pandered to their hatred and ignorance. The only thing new post presidency was tieing the disgusting sexual behavior with his tax avoidance and tendency to misreport his finances directly. And like usual your concern only applies to Hunter Biden and not the man who left classified documents unsecured in his private residence on top of the rest.

I genuinely thought you replied to my post about whistleblowers and their accomplishments today with something similar. I was very mistaken.

Discussing how we fund the the IRS to catch these criminals is directly relevant. And whistleblowing laws, something Trump tried to violate/circumvent during his impeachment, are one part of that. I'm sorry you lack the ability to comprehend how my response about finding and prosecuting tax avoidance is directly related to whistleblowers calling out unprosecuted tax avoidance.

I should ask now if this has anything to do with whistleblowers and justice department/investigator conduct like seen with Hunter Biden. I know the default standard for "but Trump" arguments is "but I also consider this other thing to be bad." There's a thread to indulge in that stuff as much as you'd like.

Considering how Trump has shown himself to use the power of his office/public platforms to attack whistleblowers, judges, court staff, and witnesses to avoid investigation into his own possible wrong doing if you can't draw this connection yourself I hope to god every corner in your house is padded for your safety. I also explicitly spelled it out for you, again, above.

[Breccia]

What I do want to point out is that you refuse to defend the only interesting thing about your prior post: "When a Republican did it he was good enough to be elected president."

He doesn't need to defend it.

@Shimmerra 's statement is objectively correct.

[tehdang]

You can't be serious. Voters knew who Stormy Daniels was. They knew he loved dodging taxes(he told us all that in his debates with Clinton).

That he's being held accountable for it now that he's no longer President doesn't change what he did prior to being President.

You and I must have very different ideas of the current court cases. None are Stormy Daniels. One is a pretty ludicrous civil case involving bank loans (if you change your mind on reading articles, https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...ew-york-trial/ and https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...rump-molehill/). Neither really has me observing the connection to Hunter Biden, where whistleblowers argued that Biden political appointees had improperly shelved their investigative work. I said in the part you didn't quote that if the only alleged connection to Hunter Biden is their shared love of prostitutes, then I wish I had understood that at the start.

[tehdang]

Why do you do this? You literally just admitted earlier that you misinterpreted shimerra, was asked to elaborate and did, and now decide to attack me for pointing it out?

LOL - "ludicrous" bank loans that a judge has already decided he committed fraud.

It's a minor thing. You said "That he's being held accountable for it now" and I don't think the current lawsuits come even close to "holding him accountable" for anything discussed. Not Stormy Daniels nor his love for "dodging taxes." Not an attack, just that "You and I must have very different ideas of the current court cases." Now, if we both agree that I misunderstood why shimerra brought up Trump in the context of Hunter Biden finally being charged for whistleblower-complaint-related things, maybe we can let this lie?

[Paranoid Android]

So all this time I have been bashing Republicans but of course Biden shares responsibility. I always thought it was Republicans putting border policy into Ukraine, but in the end it was Biden all along.

Biden Tied Ukraine Aid to Border Security, and It Backfired on Him

When President Joe Biden sent his request to Congress last month for aid to Ukraine and Israel, he included a request for more money to help with security at the border with Mexico, a sweetener intended to both address a crisis and win over support of Republicans.

By putting the issue on the table, he ignited demands from the right for broad changes to border policy, leaving his own party divided on a topic that many Democrats see as a political vulnerability heading into 2024 and further complicating prospects for top foreign policy priorities.

The president signaled on Wednesday that he was open to further negotiations with Senate Republicans after they blocked his emergency spending bill.

So in short Biden thinks he can govern with Republican help. Of course Republicans always not wanting to govern and see an opening knew to ask for outrageous demands on border that would make funding collapse.

I get it people, Biden can't pass nothing w/o Republicans House so you have to offer something right? But border policy?

Amazing how Dems really, really want to blow money on funding a war but have put no policies to help here. I would at least work on border policy if it helped Americans. Of course Republicans would never go for that.

[tehdang]

"if you change your mind on reading articles" is an attack. A nonsensical one, but one nonetheless.

I would've preferred that you show some credibility when addressed with the comparison, and admit that Trump did the same thing, but I guess we can't always get what we want. You lose 0 credibility for admitting as such. In my opinion, you'd actually gain credibility by acknowledging the elephant in the room.

You had previously told me "I'm not gonna read a National Review opinion piece" a couple months ago, so I'm acknowledging that while asking you to change your mind in light of legal analysis by a lawyer. It's not intended as an attack, it's just our past history. If I had said the same to you, and you linked it again, maybe you'd also adopt an apologetic and hopeful mindset. At least, I hope you would do so out of your own personal charity.

I'm only commenting on the comparison that was made, its inaccuracies, and my interpretation of the post. I know from this forum that open commentary on a subject apart from the thread title invites further tangents. I've already said that the connection on prostitutes stands, as I now know the poster meant. Further than that can stay in their actual threads; I'm not seeking to curry favor by indulging them here. People can PM me already if they're intensely interested in just my particular opinion on subjects I'm not currently engaged in.

[Spectral]

So in short Biden thinks he can govern with Republican help. Of course Republicans always not wanting to govern and see an opening knew to ask for outrageous demands on border that would make funding collapse.

Which demand do you consider outrageous?