E. Jean Carroll/Trump verdict reached

[JoeMemphis]

I thought you would just demand they be reported. I guess, because of my incisive arguments, you've changed your mind?

Do you agree or not.

[gounion]

Do you agree or not.

I'm the one that proposed no gifts, aren't I?

Why did you change your mind so quickly?

It's easy to handle you or your immediate household. It gets dicier as you deal with other relatives.

I mean, say your brother is in the political business too. Must he retire? I mean, relatives of Presidents used their relative's fame to make money. Not sure how you can ban that. I mean, Billy Carter licensed his name for "Billy Beer". Overseas companies hired Hunter Biden, but it didn't get them any favors.

GOP Congressman Chris Collins was at a White House event with Trump, where he found out valuable insider info, and was stupid enough to call him on video tape from the White House to give him the stock tip. He did go to jail for that.

I would be VERY tight on all money going to elected and appointed officials, with jail time for serious infractions. I would ban (a) gifts (b) stock ownership and (c) campaign contributions, going to a publicly funded system of campaigns.

Another problem I see is getting jobs AFTER your time in office, including lobbying. Members of the military also have such a problem taking high-dollar lobbying jobs when they retire.

GOP SC Governor Nikki Haley gave Boeing billions in taxpayer subsidies during her time in office, and when she left public service, Boeing hired her on their Board of Directors.

I would like to ban such practices. I think that personally profiting from public service in any way is corrupting.

So where do YOU stand?

[JoeMemphis]

I'm the one that proposed no gifts, aren't I?

Why did you change your mind so quickly?

It's easy to handle you or your immediate household. It gets dicier as you deal with other relatives.

I mean, say your brother is in the political business too. Must he retire? I mean, relatives of Presidents used their relative's fame to make money. Not sure how you can ban that. I mean, Billy Carter licensed his name for "Billy Beer". Overseas companies hired Hunter Biden, but it didn't get them any favors.

GOP Congressman Chris Collins was at a White House event with Trump, where he found out valuable insider info, and was stupid enough to call him on video tape from the White House to give him the stock tip. He did go to jail for that.

I would be VERY tight on all money going to elected and appointed officials, with jail time for serious infractions. I would ban (a) gifts (b) stock ownership and (c) campaign contributions, going to a publicly funded system of campaigns.

Another problem I see is getting jobs AFTER your time in office, including lobbying. Members of the military also have such a problem taking high-dollar lobbying jobs when they retire.

GOP SC Governor Nikki Haley gave Boeing billions in taxpayer subsidies during her time in office, and when she left public service, Boeing hired her on their Board of Directors.

I would like to ban such practices. I think that personally profiting from public service in any way is corrupting.

So where do YOU stand?

I agree personally profiting from public service is corrupting. Gifts to immediate family members can be covered without forcing anyone to retire. The IRS deals with such issues all the time. Corporations deal with such issues all the time. I would use the IRS modem where the FMV of what is received is significantly different from value given or services rendered. So if my brother gets a payment from a foreign government that falls within my policy portfolio and the value of the payment is significantly larger than the value of services rendered, it’s a gift. An improper gift.

[gounion]

I agree personally profiting from public service is corrupting. Gifts to immediate family members can be covered without forcing anyone to retire. The IRS deals with such issues all the time. Corporations deal with such issues all the time. I would use the IRS modem where the FMV of what is received is significantly different from value given or services rendered. So if my brother gets a payment from a foreign government that falls within my policy portfolio and the value of the payment is significantly larger than the value of services rendered, it’s a gift. An improper gift.

Why did you flip-flop so quickly from just requiring reporting of gifts to banning them?

I would also point out that if you're living overseas for a certain time period, overseas payments aren't reportable to the IRS. As a CPA, you may know that, and you may have more detailed information about it. But I recall, back in the eighties when I was thinking of taking an assignment overseas to Turkey, that, after a certain time frame, I was told the money I made there wasn't taxable in the USA. I ended up not taking the assignment, though.

And I made a pretty all-encompassing proposal on preventing corruption, which is what you demanded.

So, please respond to the entire thing, with either agreement or a counter-proposal.

[JoeMemphis]

Why did you flip-flop so quickly from just requiring reporting of gifts to banning them?

I would also point out that if you're living overseas for a certain time period, overseas payments aren't reportable to the IRS. As a CPA, you may know that, and you may have more detailed information about it. But I recall, back in the eighties when I was thinking of taking an assignment overseas to Turkey, that, after a certain time frame, I was told the money I made there wasn't taxable in the USA. I ended up not taking the assignment, though.

And I made a pretty all-encompassing proposal on preventing corruption, which is what you demanded.

So, please respond to the entire thing, with either agreement or a counter-proposal.

I don’t know that I understand your point as far as campaign contributions. Contributions to politicians are reportable and subject to limitations. As to tight controls over gifts of money or property to politicians and members of their direct family or household members, I good with tight control over that. We already discussed non political gifts from family members and friends.

I know placing a waiting period on working as a lobbyist after leaving public service has been discussed in the past and I am open to similar proposals covering other types of employment as well. You can’t prevent someone from making a living but I’m sure a balance can be reached.

[gounion]

I don’t know that I understand your point as far as campaign contributions. Contributions to politicians are reportable and subject to limitations. As to tight controls over gifts of money or property to politicians and members of their direct family or household members, I good with tight control over that. We already discussed non political gifts from family members and friends.

I keep forgetting your ignorance. I have talked several times about it on the board, you can look it up. There are also many sites on the internet discussing it. My bottom line is, not one thin dime should go to candidates. Campaigns could be publicly funded, and equal time for all candidates can be given on our media, so that elections can be fair and not bought off - by ANYONE.

And think what it could do for our economy, when people and companies no longer had to shell out lots of money to help their candidates win. They could re-invest it in their business or give it to their shareholders.

That would go a long ways to reduce corruption.

I know placing a waiting period on working as a lobbyist after leaving public service has been discussed in the past and I am open to similar proposals covering other types of employment as well. You can’t prevent someone from making a living but I’m sure a balance can be reached.

I see no reason at all for a former office holder to be a lobbyist. What he or she is doing is monetizing their influence gained in public office. I also see no reason to have anything to do with contracts with the government, nor positions on Boards of Directors or some such.

Not for a waiting period, FOR FUCKING GOOD. I mean, for instance, former Speaker of the House John Boehner is now making far more than he did as Speaker lobbying for Cannabis companies. Fuck that.

And yes, you can bring up any number of Democrats doing the same thing. I just think it's hilarious that Boehner spent his career against such things, but we quickly found out what his price was.

So, NONE of it. If a former Congressman wants to go to work at the local plant making machine tools, he can go and apply and get a job like anyone else. But again, you shouldn't run for office because you can make big bucks as soon as you're out. NOTHING to do with politics or his former job allowed. Permanently.

[JoeMemphis]

I keep forgetting your ignorance. I have talked several times about it on the board, you can look it up. There are also many sites on the internet discussing it. My bottom line is, not one thin dime should go to candidates. Campaigns could be publicly funded, and equal time for all candidates can be given on our media, so that elections can be fair and not bought off - by ANYONE.

And think what it could do for our economy, when people and companies no longer had to shell out lots of money to help their candidates win. They could re-invest it in their business or give it to their shareholders.

That would go a long ways to reduce corruption.

I see no reason at all for a former office holder to be a lobbyist. What he or she is doing is monetizing their influence gained in public office. I also see no reason to have anything to do with contracts with the government, nor positions on Boards of Directors or some such.

Not for a waiting period, FOR FUCKING GOOD. I mean, for instance, former Speaker of the House John Boehner is now making far more than he did as Speaker lobbying for Cannabis companies. Fuck that.

And yes, you can bring up any number of Democrats doing the same thing. I just think it's hilarious that Boehner spent his career against such things, but we quickly found out what his price was.

So, NONE of it. If a former Congressman wants to go to work at the local plant making machine tools, he can go and apply and get a job like anyone else. But again, you shouldn't run for office because you can make big bucks as soon as you're out. NOTHING to do with politics or his former job allowed. Permanently.

I don’t think we are going to get to publicly funded campaigns in this country. It’s been discussed and gone no where. I’m not sure it’s Constitutional.

As far as employment, like non compete agreements, I think it’s reasonable to limit such things for a reasonable amount of time. A number of years. I don’t think you can prevent someone from taking a board position “for good”. I’m not opposed to a reasonable time limit.

[gounion]

I don’t think we are going to get to publicly funded campaigns in this country. It’s been discussed and gone no where. I’m not sure it’s Constitutional.

It depends upon the Supreme Court. If you have corrupt Justices like Clarence Thomas who wants to get rich off his position, it won't happen. I'm calling for ridding the system of corruption. How about you?

It's certainly worth discussion on this board.

As far as employment, like non compete agreements, I think it’s reasonable to limit such things for a reasonable amount of time. A number of years. I don’t think you can prevent someone from taking a board position “for good”. I’m not opposed to a reasonable time limit.

Why? Again, I'm tired of the quid pro quo, like with Nikki Haley. Give Boeing money, they'll hire her for the Board of Directors as soon as she leaves public service. That's a payoff.

I don't agree with a time limit. If you want to be in public service, you need to understand you can't monetize it, period.

[Glennfs]

It depends upon the Supreme Court. If you have corrupt Justices like Clarence Thomas who wants to get rich off his position, it won't happen. I'm calling for ridding the system of corruption. How about you?

It's certainly worth discussion on this board.
Why? Again, I'm tired of the quid pro quo, like with Nikki Haley. Give Boeing money, they'll hire her for the Board of Directors as soon as she leaves public service. That's a payoff.

I don't agree with a time limit. If you want to be in public service, you need to understand you can't monetize it, period.

Haley was a good hire for Boeing. Look at her background what company wouldn't want her.

[gounion]

Haley was a good hire for Boeing. Look at her background what company wouldn't want her.

Yeah, she gave Boeing a shitload of money, didn't she? It's called "a payoff".

[JoeMemphis]

It depends upon the Supreme Court. If you have corrupt Justices like Clarence Thomas who wants to get rich off his position, it won't happen. I'm calling for ridding the system of corruption. How about you?

It's certainly worth discussion on this board.
Why? Again, I'm tired of the quid pro quo, like with Nikki Haley. Give Boeing money, they'll hire her for the Board of Directors as soon as she leaves public service. That's a payoff.

I don't agree with a time limit. If you want to be in public service, you need to understand you can't monetize it, period.

The Supreme Court doesn’t pass legislation. So your whole Clarence Thomas rant is irrelevant to whether there is support for an amendment to limit speech in the form of contributions.

As far as the prohibiting former public servants from earning a living in the private sector, I doubt you have the votes in your party for such a proposal. I also doubt it will pass muster constitutionally.

[gounion]

The Supreme Court doesn’t pass legislation. So your whole Clarence Thomas rant is irrelevant to whether there is support for an amendment to limit speech in the form of contributions.

The legislature doesn't decide Constitutionality. Only the Supreme Court can do that, after the fact. You really need to understand how our system of government works.

As far as the prohibiting former public servants from earning a living in the private sector, I doubt you have the votes in your party for such a proposal. I also doubt it will pass muster constitutionally.

This is always your go-to, isn't it? Whenever we discuss things on a theoretical basis, you start in with "it won't pass" and "it's not Constitutional", instead of arguing the logic or whether it's a good idea or not.

I'm not talking about whether something can be done tomorrow or not; I'm talking about what SHOULD be done. I'm talking about what's right for our nation, and what's right for people.

All your side wants to do is find a minority and hate and attack them.

[JoeMemphis]

The legislature doesn't decide Constitutionality. Only the Supreme Court can do that, after the fact. You really need to understand how our system of government works.

This is always your go-to, isn't it? Whenever we discuss things on a theoretical basis, you start in with "it won't pass" and "it's not Constitutional", instead of arguing the logic or whether it's a good idea or not.

I'm not talking about whether something can be done tomorrow or not; I'm talking about what SHOULD be done. I'm talking about what's right for our nation, and what's right for people.

All your side wants to do is find a minority and hate and attack them.

You got to pass legislation first. You really need to understand how government works. There used to be some Sesame Street bits on this that might help you.

I actually believe in the Bill of Rights. So yeah if you pass a law it should be constitutional. Limiting who people can support financially is unconstitutional. Whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing won’t change the fact it’s not constitutional. I happen to like free speech. I think it’s a good thing. I get it is abused from time to time but overall it is part of what makes this country great.

The rest of your post is another tired over used bs talking point.

[gounion]

You got to pass legislation first. You really need to understand how government works. There used to be some Sesame Street bits on this that might help you.

You don't understand anything, as usual. Let's be clear, since you don't know: ONLY the Supreme Court can decide on Constitutionality. Got it?

I actually believe in the Bill of Rights. So yeah if you pass a law it should be constitutional. Limiting who people can support financially is unconstitutional. Whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing won’t change the fact it’s not constitutional. I happen to like free speech. I think it’s a good thing. I get it is abused from time to time but overall it is part of what makes this country great.

The rest of your post is another tired over used bs talking point.

You're the one that just can't debate anything. You don't have the ability. You've proven that yet again.

And BTW, again you don't know shit. You CERTAINLY don't know your history. In 1907 the Tillman Act banned corporations from contributing money to federal campaigns. Here's a history of money in politics from Open Secrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline

I'm sure you won't read it, you don't want to cloud your ignorance with facts.

It's interesting that you, like the nutjob right-wingers on the Supreme Court, thinks that money equals speech. So, a rich man or a corporation has LOTS more free speech than the poor man or the working man. It's how you guys think.

Again, instead of debating the issue on the merits, you just want to shut down debate. You've always done that.

I still think it's funny that you made one - JUST ONE - proposal, and after one post of mine, you completely flip-flopped and agreed with me.

That's because you didn't think anything through.

[JoeMemphis]

You don't understand anything, as usual. Let's be clear, since you don't know: ONLY the Supreme Court can decide on Constitutionality. Got it?
You're the one that just can't debate anything. You don't have the ability. You've proven that yet again.

And BTW, again you don't know shit. You CERTAINLY don't know your history. In 1907 the Tillman Act banned corporations from contributing money to federal campaigns. Here's a history of money in politics from Open Secrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline

I'm sure you won't read it, you don't want to cloud your ignorance with facts.

It's interesting that you, like the nutjob right-wingers on the Supreme Court, thinks that money equals speech. So, a rich man or a corporation has LOTS more free speech than the poor man or the working man. It's how you guys think.

Again, instead of debating the issue on the merits, you just want to shut down debate. You've always done that.

I still think it's funny that you made one - JUST ONE - proposal, and after one post of mine, you completely flip-flopped and agreed with me.

That's because you didn't think anything through.

Really. The Supreme Court doesn’t pass legislation. So those legislators pass bill they think will pass Constitutional muster. Lower courts often rule on constitutional matters as do appeals courts. It’s a multi faceted process. Probably over your head. Watch some Sesame Street reruns will ya.

And yeah GoU, if I decide to contribute to a campaign, that’s my right. That’s me voicing my support just as much as me doing a campaign speech.

I think it’s funny how you run from taking a position.

[gounion]

Really. The Supreme Court doesn’t pass legislation. So those legislators pass bill they think will pass Constitutional muster. Lower courts often rule on constitutional matters as do appeals courts. It’s a multi faceted process. Probably over your head. Watch some Sesame Street reruns will ya.

And yeah GoU, if I decide to contribute to a campaign, that’s my right. That’s me voicing my support just as much as me doing a campaign speech.

I think it’s funny how you run from taking a position.

You don’t know anything, do you? You didn’t bother to look and find out that it used to be illegal for corporations to give money.

And you don’t know that GOP state legislatures keep passing all kinds of obviously unconstitutional laws to move up to the Supreme Court to do things like overturn Roe, gay marriage, and even the right to BE gay.

You really DON’T know shit about how our government works, do you?

[JoeMemphis]

You don’t know anything, do you? You didn’t bother to look and find out that it used to be illegal for corporations to give money.

And you don’t know that GOP state legislatures keep passing all kinds of obviously unconstitutional laws to move up to the Supreme Court to do things like overturn Roe, gay marriage, and even the right to BE gay.

You really DON’T know shit about how our government works, do you?

Obviously I know that you have to pass legislation or have a current law in force to create a case to work its way thru the court system. SCOTUS doesn’t create legislation. What you would propose would require legislation and possibly a constitutional amendment. We could talk about colonizing Saturn but the question still remains is it doable? So passing legislation that limits speech is a long shot. A constitutional amendment is a long shot. So do we talk about what we can reasonably expect to get done or do we focus on your ideas that don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell.

[gounion]

Obviously I know that you have to pass legislation or have a current law in force to create a case to work its way thru the court system. SCOTUS doesn’t create legislation. What you would propose would require legislation and possibly a constitutional amendment. We could talk about colonizing Saturn but the question still remains is it doable? So passing legislation that limits speech is a long shot. A constitutional amendment is a long shot. So do we talk about what we can reasonably expect to get done or do we focus on your ideas that don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell.

I realize you don’t want to debate issues.

I mean, in 1990, would anyone envision gay marriage being the law of the land by the Supreme Court? Of course not, but some people had the courage to bring such things up, and debate them.

Even though people like you didn’t WANT to debate them. What is unthinkable now might not be in ten years.

Especially the crazy way you guys want to legislate.

One thing you certainly lack is courage to discuss things.

[JoeMemphis]

I realize you don’t want to debate issues.

I mean, in 1990, would anyone envision gay marriage being the law of the land by the Supreme Court? Of course not, but some people had the courage to bring such things up, and debate them.

Even though people like you didn’t WANT to debate them. What is unthinkable now might not be in ten years.

Especially the crazy way you guys want to legislate.

One thing you certainly lack is courage to discuss things.

Says the man who runs away from questions. Would you support a single set of ethical standards which apply to executive level public servants in the federal government. Simple question. Yes or No type question. Shouldn’t be difficult for a brave boy like you who never ducks a question. And yet that’s all you have done.

Come back when you have found your balls. Captain Courageous. Probably left them in your other cape.

[gounion]

Says the man who runs away from questions. Would you support a single set of ethical standards which apply to executive level public servants in the federal government. Simple question. Yes or No type question. Shouldn’t be difficult for a brave boy like you who never ducks a question. And yet that’s all you have done.

Come back when you have found your balls. Captain Courageous. Probably left them in your other cape.

I've already answered the question. Right here. http://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.p ... 117#p60117

I would be VERY tight on all money going to elected and appointed officials, with jail time for serious infractions. I would ban (a) gifts (b) stock ownership and (c) campaign contributions, going to a publicly funded system of campaigns.

When I say elected and appointed officials, that would mean EVERYONE. So, YES, ethical standards apply to everyone, unlike yourself who believes everything that Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis says.

You're the one that flip-flops. Here you say:

I would proposed that all gifts above a certain dollar amount be reported.

Then you say a few posts later:

I have no issue with prohibiting gifts over certain dollar amounts from certain individuals or groups directly or indirectly.

Because I pointed out that a Judge or Justice with a lifetime appointment could then accept millions or even billions selling his vote with zero repercussions, because he never faces the voters. You never thought it through. You also don't know our nation's history.

Money is politics is corrupting. I'm for getting it out. You argue over an over against it, you want it left it.

[Glennfs]

I've already answered the question. Right here. http://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.p ... 117#p60117



When I say elected and appointed officials, that would mean EVERYONE. So, YES, ethical standards apply to everyone, unlike yourself who believes everything that Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis says.

You're the one that flip-flops. Here you say:



Then you say a few posts later:



Because I pointed out that a Judge or Justice with a lifetime appointment could then accept millions or even billions selling his vote with zero repercussions, because he never faces the voters. You never thought it through. You also don't know our nation's history.

Money is politics is corrupting. I'm for getting it out. You argue over an over against it, you want it left it.

Nice straw man and very typical. Yes on paper a judge could accept a gift of millions or even billions. But, here in the real world we know a judge who did that would get investigated and removed.

Odd how you are so concerned about the purchase of a 135,000 house but turn a blind eye to anything involving democrats.

For example let's say there was an 80 year old very powerful politician who was a good father and loved his kids very much.
You don't suppose that a person could funnel money to them in order to gain favors from him do you?
Rhetorical question because you never respond to questions anyway. But we both know your answer would be is the 80 year old in question a republican or Democrat

[gounion]

Nice straw man and very typical. Yes on paper a judge could accept a gift of millions or even billions. But, here in the real world we know a judge who did that would get investigated and removed.

No, Glenn, not if it's legal. That was Joe's proposal - that you could accept all the gifts you wanted to, you just had to report it.

Tell me, Glenn, should Clarence Thomas be removed for accepting and hiding the gifts?

Odd how you are so concerned about the purchase of a 135,000 house but turn a blind eye to anything involving democrats.

For example let's say there was an 80 year old very powerful politician who was a good father and loved his kids very much.
You don't suppose that a person could funnel money to them in order to gain favors from him do you?
Rhetorical question because you never respond to questions anyway. But we both know your answer would be is the 80 year old in question a republican or Democrat

It's possible. But that's just a wild accusation, with no proof at all. You saying so doesn't make it true.

I don't think it will be true because Biden isn't going to screw up a long and spotless career breaking the law for a drug addict son.

If you want criminal behavior and corruption, you just have to look at Donald Trump and his son-in-law getting billions from the Saudis for services rendered while he's the administration lead on the nation. Tell me why you're not concerned about that.

[Drak]

Why aren’t republicans concerned about Ivanka and Jared hauling in 540 mill over 4 years in the WH? Or Jared using his position to obtain 2 billion from the saudis? Or Trump raking in billions, or Trump using banks in China? Those are facts. Instead, they are concerned about unproven allegations and projection.

[Drak]

No, Glenn, not if it's legal. That was Joe's proposal - that you could accept all the gifts you wanted to, you just had to report it.

Tell me, Glenn, should Clarence Thomas be removed for accepting and hiding the gifts?

It's possible. But that's just a wild accusation, with no proof at all. You saying so doesn't make it true.

I don't think it will be true because Biden isn't going to screw up a long and spotless career breaking the law for a drug addict son.

If you want criminal behavior and corruption, you just have to look at Donald Trump and his son-in-law getting billions from the Saudis for services rendered while he's the administration lead on the nation. Tell me why you're not concerned about that.

It’s the same thing we see an across this entire board. They are concerned about allegations but don’t care about actual unethical, criminal behavior by the Trumps and the GOP. In the Durham thread, Joe Memphis is raving about a failed report of allegations that didn’t stand up up in court multiple times. But he doesn’t care about Trump’s blatant ties to Russia, when there’s been ample evidence and evidence posted to this very site over years, from intel agencies, the senate to Trumps very own words, actions and policies.

[Glennfs]

No, Glenn, not if it's legal. That was Joe's proposal - that you could accept all the gifts you wanted to, you just had to report it.

Tell me, Glenn, should Clarence Thomas be removed for accepting and hiding the gifts?

It's possible. But that's just a wild accusation, with no proof at all. You saying so doesn't make it true.

I don't think it will be true because Biden isn't going to screw up a long and spotless career breaking the law for a drug addict son.

If you want criminal behavior and corruption, you just have to look at Donald Trump and his son-in-law getting billions from the Saudis for services rendered while he's the administration lead on the nation. Tell me why you're not concerned about that.

Thomas should be issued some sort of reprimand and there should be strict rules of conduct going forward to prevent it from happening again.