IRS guilty, ordered to pay 3.5 million to conservatives..

[Bloodworth]

The two FBI agents did nothing wrong other than talk shit about Trump while investigating him, removed for conflict of interest reasons not because of any official misconduct

They were silenced on Facebook because they repeatedly violated the terms of service for hate speech. Besides Facebook got was more ad revenue from conservative sources than liberals

"Talks of" is conservative code for "shit I'm pulling out of my ass to make a point without any actual evidence " same as when Trump says anything

The media is overwhelmingly owned by conservatives. Fox is owned by conservatives. 3 out of 4 talk radio stations are conservative leaning. Newspapers are split about 50/50 and there are more conservative websites than Liberal...the myth of the media being a giant Liberal circle jerk isn't true. Also why during the election Trump was given almost 80% of all election coverage.

Underhanded thing done...like what? A management oversight in 2013 that totals a few million dollars in a lawsuit that more centered around the fact that a huge majority of the groups that were being discovered to be abusing tax laws in the election year of 2012 were conservative groups. This lead to the agency looking harder at conservatives than liberals in 2013. They shouldn't have done it, but they had reasons to do it. It was discovered and corrected, that happens. Sorry to be blunt bu a few million is pocket change in America politics and it was not found to be done with malicious intent. You make Obama sound like a mafia Don , if that was true that whole Hilary Clinton email fake scandal that cost her the entire election wouldn't have happened.

I wish that all he did was chain smoke. People talked about that because Obama was scandal free for his entire 8 years in office. Trumps had more scandals in one year than any modern president

Why is it that every single Trump supporter sounds like they dropped out of high school? Shouldn't surprise me when they voted for a man that says "biggly"

Clinton lost the election because Comey told the country he was opening another investigation into Clinton because she had so much illegal activity under her belt.

Trump supporters are tough out of high school bred.
Out of high school working a full time job and raising a family.
More common sense in them then book smarts.

Many today are over educated and have zero clue about raising a family, being patriotic or defending themselves.

And by the time they know it , they are 30 year old losers with zero common sense, but could pick out spelling mistake like nothing.

And the media went extra soft on Obama...Nobel peace prize?

The fact that his smoking wasnt mocked shows bias.

Osama had no idea what he was doing and came across as someone who didint like America

 

[PrinceOfPain]

"Partisanry" isn't a word

Yes, it is.

 

[Gandhi]

And you wonder why girls wont talk to you......

Two girl insults in row, are you in grade school by any chance?

 

[ocfightfan]

Good, now to put people like Lois Lerner in jail.

 

[nac386]

Agree to disagree then. Both got shit treatment from the media, the higher ups in their own parties, and have IRS agent messing with their political base. What more do you need lol

@nac386 since I was mostly discussing this with you, how off base do you feel I am? I respect your assessment.

I don't think you're very far off base at all, I just think some of this stuff gets twisted and spit out in different forms by different media outlets. What we end up with is a bunch of confusion.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not some expert on the topic, just what I've read in a handful of articles. If anything I say is false, somebody can correct it. But from what I've read, it seems like people pick certain aspects of these stories to focus on and sometimes exaggerate, in order to push whatever their agenda is.

In this case, we have the IRS using a pretty cheap and immoral technique to expedite the analysis of a huge rush of applications they received from political groups for tex-exempt status. They chose to isolate key words, which does not seem like a reasonable approach to me. It seems like a pretty crappy shortcut. But they did not only specifically target conservative sounding words like "patriot" and "tea party" like people insinuate, they also targeted words like "occupy" and "progressive" which are obviously left leaning key words.

So at that point, people would acknowledge that it was not just some anti-conservative move, right? Well, no. Even in this thread, people almost seem determined to ignore that. It just isn't good for their narrative.

Then you have the end goal, which appears to be, blame Obama. But Obama does not have any control of such things. It's not only illegal for him to make such demands, but I also think people tend to hold this belief that the President has enough time in the day to oversee literally everything that occurs in government, which just isn't the case. My girlfriend works for the government, at NIH, and Trump has nothing to do with day-to-day operations at all.

So then they say, well Obama may not have ordered it (since that's obvious), but he was supportive of it. But that's also not true, since Obama was clearly not supportive of it and requested the resignation of Lois Lerner. So then they say, well he may not be supportive, but he didn't press charges! Right, and neither is the Trump DOJ. Trump's DOJ could easily take another look, and they refuse to even look at it.

So in the end, we have the IRS doing something bad, and now being forced to pay out accordingly. That's what the real story is. The fake story, to me, appears to be that there is some huge conspiracy where Obama ordered the IRS to just go after conservative groups, and when caught, basically gave everyone a pass. I think that version of the story is bogus, based on the available information.

 

[nac386]

@cottagecheesefan I just noticed you mentioned the "occupy" and "progressive" don't necessarily align with the left. But "patriot" doesn't necessarily align with the right either. I think 99% of the time though, we know with which groups to associate those words.

As far as Bernie goes, I think he was not treated very well by the DNC. I think he should have had more opportunities to debate Hilary in front of a national audience, and I think the DNC had a pretty clear favorite. But I don't think those things amount to sabotage or anything. The guy was on TV all the time, he was just in an underdog role. I'm not saying that's fair, but it's kind of like being the B-side in fight negotiations. Again, not that it's fair, and it shouldn't be that way in politics, but it's not exactly sabotage.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I don't think you're very far off base at all, I just think some of this stuff gets twisted and spit out in different forms by different media outlets. What we end up with is a bunch of confusion.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not some expert on the topic, just what I've read in a handful of articles. If anything I say is false, somebody can correct it. But from what I've read, it seems like people pick certain aspects of these stories to focus on and sometimes exaggerate, in order to push whatever their agenda is.

In this case, we have the IRS using a pretty cheap and immoral technique to expedite the analysis of a huge rush of applications they received from political groups for tex-exempt status. They chose to isolate key words, which does not seem like a reasonable approach to me. It seems like a pretty crappy shortcut. But they did not only specifically target conservative sounding words like "patriot" and "tea party" like people insinuate, they also targeted words like "occupy" and "progressive" which are obviously left leaning key words.

So at that point, people would acknowledge that it was not just some anti-conservative move, right? Well, no. Even in this thread, people almost seem determined to ignore that. It just isn't good for their narrative.

Then you have the end goal, which appears to be, blame Obama. But Obama does not have any control of such things. It's not only illegal for him to make such demands, but I also think people tend to hold this belief that the President has enough time in the day to oversee literally everything that occurs in government, which just isn't the case. My girlfriend works for the government, at NIH, and Trump has nothing to do with day-to-day operations at all.

So then they say, well Obama may not have ordered it (since that's obvious), but he was supportive of it. But that's also not true, since Obama was clearly not supportive of it and requested the resignation of Lois Lerner. So then they say, well he may not be supportive, but he didn't press charges! Right, and neither is the Trump DOJ. Trump's DOJ could easily take another look, and they refuse to even look at it.

So in the end, we have the IRS doing something bad, and now being forced to pay out accordingly. That's what the real story is. The fake story, to me, appears to be that there is some huge conspiracy where Obama ordered the IRS to just go after conservative groups, and when caught, basically gave everyone a pass. I think that version of the story is bogus, based on the available information.

Do you believe anyone else should have been fired?

 

[Bloodworth]

Two girl insults in row, are you in grade school by any chance?

No your the one in the pampered school safe space setting.
Wait until you meet the real world

 

[cottagecheesefan]

@cottagecheesefan I just noticed you mentioned the "occupy" and "progressive" don't necessarily align with the left. But "patriot" doesn't necessarily align with the right either. I think 99% of the time though, we know with which groups to associate those words.

As far as Bernie goes, I think he was not treated very well by the DNC. I think he should have had more opportunities to debate Hilary in front of a national audience, and I think the DNC had a pretty clear favorite. But I don't think those things amount to sabotage or anything. The guy was on TV all the time, he was just in an underdog role. I'm not saying that's fair, but it's kind of like being the B-side in fight negotiations. Again, not that it's fair, and it shouldn't be that way in politics, but it's not exactly sabotage.

You don't think occupy people in Ohio would have Voted for Paul?, just as they would have Bernie? And with Bernie.. I mean, the head of the DNC resigned, over what the public knew about. What goes on behind closed doors? Why would he want to debate someone being fed the questions before him? The Media painted him as an underdog... but most liberal people I knew in person were in favor of him vs Clinton. The media, just like both of these articles in the OP and the one you told me to read. The people who are on CNN as pundits are people who are higher up in the DNC and similar organizations, who you just said had a clear favorite.. so how will they portray someone like Sanders?

But back to this topic.

I never said Obama set this up. My point was that elites on both sides engage in election fuckery. The guy who posted an article you told me to read is saying the IRS acted as they should have, there is no election fuckery, and that I am completely off base. Other typical liberal posters on her parrot those statements. You tho, have already agreed the IRS acted poorly, there is election fuckery, and that I am not really off base.

I get you might have different opinion... but how can I even have a discussion with someone like that?

edit: had a lot of little typos because I wrote response while running. Tried to fix before shower lol.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Lol on "election fraud" after Russia helping out Drunpf

You're aware the IRS was found guilty and has to pay conservative groups $3.5 million because they were audited out of participation of the 2012 election.

We already have evidence of election fraud in 2012 for the benefit of Democrats. A court of law agrees with me. The same court disagrees with your assessment.

Democratic favored election fraud that has been proven in 2012: $3.5 million dollars worth of election fraud according to a court of law.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2012:
None.

Democratic favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016: Donna Brazile giving the Hillary campaign debate questions in advance, in an attempt to make Hillary appear more competent than she was, thus defrauding the voters of knowing the candidates true thoughts on the matter.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016:
None.

Whenever leftists talk about election fraud, I always remember this timeless axiom:

"Leftist always project."

 

[cottagecheesefan]

You're aware the IRS was found guilty and has to pay conservative groups $3.5 million because they were audited out of participation of the 2012 election.

We already have evidence of election fraud in 2012 for the benefit of Democrats. A court of law agrees with me. The same court disagrees with your assessment.

Democratic favored election fraud that has been proven in 2012: $3.5 million dollars worth of election fraud according to a court of law.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2012:
None.

Democratic favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016: Donna Brazile giving the Hillary campaign debate questions in advance, in an attempt to make Hillary appear more competent than she was, thus defrauding the voters of knowing the candidates true thoughts on the matter.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016:
None.

Whenever leftists talk about election fraud, I always remember this timeless axiom:

"Leftist always project."

btw, isnt it interesting that this came out after the 2016 elections. These progressive and occupy groups would have had not only more money for their funding, but also had this ammunition to highlight the fuckery the elites in the government. Seems kind of shady, no?

edit: can you imagine if CNN interviewed a Bernie supporter who brought this up? The TV feed would mysteriously go out, and cut the person off.

 

[spamking]

That's not true. Obama's ratings have been going up with every political group, even conservatives.

 

[nac386]

You don't think occupy people in Ohio would have Voted for Paul?, just as they would have Bernie? And with Bernie.. I mean, the head of the DNC resigned, over what the public knew about. What goes on behind closed doors? Why would he want to debate someone being fed the questions before him? The Media painted him as an underdog... but most liberal people I knew in person were in favor of him vs Clinton. The media, just like both of these articles in the OP and the one you told me to read. The people who are on CNN as pundits are people who are higher up in the DNC and similar organizations, who you just said had a clear favorite.. so how will they portray someone like Sanders?

I definitely think all those things could be problems. But I watched the coverage, and I did not see the media (CNN or otherwise) depicting Sanders unfairly. I felt like he was covered very, very positively actually. He got less bad press than anybody in the race. So it's hard for me to say he was targeted when I just didn't see any evidence of it. He seemed to be treated very well by cable news.

But outside of that, the DNC had favorites, which is fucked up and immoral. It goes against the nature of democracy and it should not be that way. We know that stuff goes on across the board, these people are sleazy as hell.

But as far as "occupy" potentially targeting Sanders and Paul, I don't think that's feasible for 2012-2013. Nobody gave a shit about Sanders back then, he was not a guy that was going to cause anybody any issues. Ron Paul was never in a position to upset Obama, and honestly, more votes for Ron Paul would have just meant less votes for Romney.

They just weren't people that required the extra attention of the IRS to keep down to protect elites or deep state, or whatever.

In that election, 2012, "progressives" (a targeted term) were overwhelmingly Obama voters.

I guess I just don't see this massive conspiracy here. There's some obvious fuckery, like the DNC having favorites, but beyond the obvious sleaziness of the entire ordeal, I don't see much else there.

But back to this topic.

I never said Obama set this up. My point was that elites on both sides engage in election fuckery. The guy who posted an article you told me to read is saying the IRS acted as they should have, there is no election fuckery, and that I am completely off base. Other typical liberal posters on her parrot those statements. You tho, have already agreed the IRS acted poorly, there is election fuckery, and that I am not really off base.

I get you might have different opinion... but how can I even have a discussion with someone like that?

edit: had a lot of little typos because I wrote response while running. Tried to fix before shower lol.

I don't really think you're off-base at all. I think we're pretty much agreeing on the events that took place, but we have different interpretations of how deep and how meaningful the events were. The IRS definitely took a bad short-cut that is I'd consider unacceptable, and the election process (specifically the DNC) definitely showed a level of unfairness that undermined true Democratic values.

I think those things need to be acknowledged and criticized. But that conversation gets derailed when the conspiracy gets introduced. "Obama had the IRS go after Republicans, then granted leniency when caught" gets repeated over and over regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary. So when the real problems are packaged along with some bullshit, the conversation becomes focused on the bullshit instead of the real problem.

 

[nac386]

You're aware the IRS was found guilty and has to pay conservative groups $3.5 million because they were audited out of participation of the 2012 election.

We already have evidence of election fraud in 2012 for the benefit of Democrats. A court of law agrees with me. The same court disagrees with your assessment.

Democratic favored election fraud that has been proven in 2012: $3.5 million dollars worth of election fraud according to a court of law.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2012:
None.

Democratic favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016: Donna Brazile giving the Hillary campaign debate questions in advance, in an attempt to make Hillary appear more competent than she was, thus defrauding the voters of knowing the candidates true thoughts on the matter.

Republican favored election fraud that's been proven in 2016:
None.

Whenever leftists talk about election fraud, I always remember this timeless axiom:

"Leftist always project."

@cottagecheesefan This is kind of what I mean. This post states that the IRS was "found guilty" and that a court of law has ruled that there was "election fraud" in 2012. But neither of those statements is true.

How can anybody respond to this, without first just laying out all of the factual inaccuracies included? It would take a full page of explanation just to clear up all the misleading information in this single post.

 

[Gandhi]

No your the one in the pampered school safe space setting.
Wait until you meet the real world

*you 're

@HomerThompson

 

[second sight]

Lerner skates and the tax payers get to pay, our government is so fucked up

 

[Jack V Savage]

Good, now to put people like Lois Lerner in jail.

It's interesting how Republicans are always calling for people they don't like to be thrown in jail even with no evidence of any crimes.

btw, isnt it interesting that this came out after the 2016 elections. These progressive and occupy groups would have had not only more money for their funding, but also had this ammunition to highlight the fuckery the elites in the government.

It came out long before the 2016 elections. No groups were denied funding (?) related to the keyword issue. And what the whole episode showed is that the IRS is badly understaffed.

 

[nac386]

It's interesting how Republicans are always calling for people they like to be thrown in jail even with no evidence of any crimes.

Trump's DOJ refuses to even take a fresh look at it. I think they've come to the obvious conclusion that Lois Lerner is a better scapegoat than actual villain.

Why pursue something that will end in disappointment, when a huge group of people can just circulate memes with fake information about it? The misinformation is so much more valuable than the truth.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

@cottagecheesefan This is kind of what I mean. This post states that the IRS was "found guilty" and that a court of law has ruled that there was "election fraud" in 2012. But neither of those statements is true.

How can anybody respond to this, without first just laying out all of the factual inaccuracies included? It would take a full page of explanation just to clear up all the misleading information in this single post.

Haha, I don't blame you for not wanting to. I mean, I just tried with that Jack that dude, and look how that went. But my point was that he and others on here have their fragile ego rustled by a troll remark about Obama, so they have to completely put their head in the dirt to a much bigger issue.

But as far as "occupy" potentially targeting Sanders and Paul, I don't think that's feasible for 2012-2013. Nobody gave a shit about Sanders back then, he was not a guy that was going to cause anybody any issues. Ron Paul was never in a position to upset Obama, and honestly, more votes for Ron Paul would have just meant less votes for Romney.

I agree that no one was supporting Sanders at that time, and about the "progressive" groups. However, "Occupy" people, who are against Wall street and big companies were likely against Obama (wall street bail out big healthcare), are generally more middle of the pack people. A lot of them are the types who register as one party, but often vote for the other party, depending on the candidates. So my marginalizing that would be in support someone like Paul (who you said would take votes from Romney), you help ensure that it is Romney vs Obama, rather than a dark horse like Paul (or Sanders).

Not just saying it is democrats either. Higher ups in the GOP, Fox news and other conservative media outlets all downplayed him, the same way the DNC, Black caucus, and liberal media treated Sanders.

If it had been Paul vs Obama, a number (not a majority) of registered democrats, would likely have voted for Paul. . Just look at our hometown, a very liberal area. Most of the people our age from that area were in support of Ron Paul, just like they wer of Sanders. This IRS thing could be one of several strategies, or an isolated incident. It is kind of weird that the IRS would take this upon themselves... meh.

That is why in the next election, the dark horse, with a legit shot (Sanders) was marginalized as well. Who would have thought Trump was going to beat Clinton (well, besides people like me who called it)? So the dark horse and threat to the establishment, Sanders, was equally marginalized, by higher ups on both sides. Only problem was it back fired because it happened one to many times, and the people in the middle got pissed off when Sanders was fucked over.

I have the personality, where I like puzzles and math, try to find patterns etc, so I always over extrapolate. I completely understanding only going off concrete facts, tho.

It came out long before the 2016 elections. No groups were denied funding (?) related to the keyword issue. And what the whole episode showed is that the IRS is badly understaffed.

I could be wrong, but it seems the lawsuit was settled in 2017?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I could be wrong, but it seems the lawsuit was settled in 2017?

Yeah, that's the end of the process. When we talk about something coming out, we are generally referring to the information becoming known. The story was widely reported on in 2013 (though it was incomplete, which led to some of the misunderstandings we've seen ITT). 2017 is just when the administration decided to pay off some of the groups with names that were targeted (you can draw your own conclusions there...).

Haha, I don't blame you for not wanting to. I mean, I just tried with that Jack that dude, and look how that went. But my point was that he and others on here have their fragile ego rustled by a troll remark about Obama, so they have to completely put their head in the dirt to a much bigger issue.

What the heck are you talking about?