2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[JohnboyND7]

28 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

No, they can’t hire whoever they want.  

The $747,622 figure came from Ivanka's financial disclosure when she joined the White House in 2017, meaning she was still an executive when this deal went down.  Or as the NYT wrote, Ivanka "had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects,".  

You cannot be a co-executive (inside the company) and an outside consultant. That consulting-fee arrangement is completely illegal.   

What happens if you are an executive at Company A and also Company B, and Company A hires company B for X amount of money...who later pays that money to the executive who works for both? Genuine question and not saying that happened here.

[Hayduke1]

2 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

 

It appears you have some weird belief that Trump is both an idiot and some evil genius mastermind. 

The more likely reality is that he doesn't want his taxes released because he doesnt have as much money as the he likes to lead people to believe because he's a pretty petty and vain dude.

 

I always knew he was an idiot.  A smarter person wouldn't have been caught red handed.  Especially a supposed "billionaire".  

[JohnboyND7]

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

I always knew he was an idiot.  A smarter person wouldn't have been caught red handed.  Especially a supposed "billionaire".  

aren't you the guy who suggested Congress pass a law declaring that SCOTUS can't strike down their legislation without at least 7 votes? I'd take it easy before calling others idiots. 

 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

World Covid deaths pass 1M

[Hayduke1]

5 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

aren't you the guy who suggested Congress pass a law declaring that SCOTUS can't strike down their legislation without at least 7 votes? I'd take it easy before calling others idiots. 

 

Really? 

Enlighten me of when I said that.  

[Frozen4sioux]

[UNDlaw80]

4 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:

What happens if you are an executive at Company A and also Company B, and Company A hires company B for X amount of money...who later pays that money to the executive who works for both? Genuine question and not saying that happened here.

 

Impossible to say without knowing more specifics.  That aside, almost all companies have an internal conflict of interest policy that prohibits such a scenario.  Shareholders are keen on this.  Keep in mind, decisions typically need to be approval by the board of directors. This prevents any single individual from personally benefitting from a transaction.  This is business ethics 101.  Plus, your scenario is entirely illegal for a public company, or a private company who uses government funds or contracts.  (Was the Trump Co. also using government money to fund the Vancouver and Hawaii projects?  I don't know).  Then there's state laws, laws governing certain types of businesses, etc.                   

As it pertains to taxes, according to the IRS, the fee arrangement must be an ordinary and necessary part of operating the company.   The Trump co. funneling an extravagant amount of money to Ivanka (who also happened to be a Trump co executive) for 'consulting fees' in a construction project is anything but ordinary and necessary.  Good lord, that's just blatant shenanigans.     If someone owning a small business did the equivalent the IRS would come down like a hammer.  But letting illegality slide for the upper 1% is what the IRS does best.  

[JohnboyND7]

3 hours ago, Hayduke1 said:

 

A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Really? 

Enlighten me of when I said that.  

According to the screen, roughly three hours ago. 

Consider yourself enlightened.

[Hayduke1]

51 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

 

According to the screen, roughly three hours ago. 

Consider yourself enlightened.

The stipulation if you look again is if more justices were added.  Not my writing though.

That would obviously not happen unless 4 more justices are added.  I doubt that would happen.

The author is Bill Svelmoe, a historian from St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN. You've heard of that school, right?   

I didn't credit him.  I can see how you may have thought I wrote it so I added the credit due to the author.  My bad. 

[UNDlaw80]

Ha!  Just read Trump deducted $70,000 for styling his hair and $100,000 for Ivanka's hair and makeup artist.    My God the comedy just writes itself.     The costs of maintaining personal appearance are not deductible.  Writing off a hair transplant is entirely illegal.    

[JohnboyND7]

24 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

The stipulation if you look again is if more justices were added.  Not my writing though.

That would obviously not happen unless 4 more justices are added.  I doubt that would happen.

The author is Bill Svelmoe, a historian from St. Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN. You've heard of that school, right?   

I didn't credit him, although I did say it wasn't my writing.  I can see how you may have thought I wrote it so I added the credit due to the author.  My bad. 

If they added 4 additional justices there would be no need to pass a law saying "it takes 7 votes to overturn Congress" unless he is saying what I think he is saying. Its pretty clear contextually that his objective is to not only expand the court but also dilute its power to stand against Congress. And I'm pretty sure that Congress has no authority to say that "if it is not at least 10-3(7 vote majority), then our legislation stands." If im remembering Con law correctly, overturning a SCOTUS ruling can only occur under two circumstances, 1.) SCOTUS itself overturns their own past decision, or 2.) Constitutional Amendment which is very difficult.

Its possible that I'm forgetting some other methods or that we didn't discuss them in class. But SCOTUS isn't going to let Congress create a genuinely ludicrous standard to find their laws unconstitutional. They would have next to zero check on the Legislative Branch. I dont think you'd get a single member of the Court to sign off on that. Those folks have their own leanings left and right but that's the sort of institutional threat that they'd all probably reject unless they are some goofy goofy activist.

Once they reject that law (which no congressman with a remote shot at losing their seat will vote in favor of, but we will pretend they voted for it), you'd need a constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS.  Has it been done in the past? On a few occasions. But that dude has a bizarre pie in the sky theory that I can't imagine anyone rational acting on. 

The result of that idea is basically "we have two branches of government now because the third branch will pretty much never have the votes to stop anything." That guy is an idiot.

Tl:Dr .... just no. 

[UNDlaw80]

9 hours ago, zonadub said:

This is for a guy who was arrested NINE times; was a convicted drug dealer; held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant lady while his five buddies robbed her home; did prison time three different times totaling about eight years and obviously didn't learn from our penal system  And America is memorializing him by painting murals of the guy on the sides of buildings like he's a hero?  Unbelievable!!  You got to be kidding me.

And to pour salt in the wound, Pelosi presented his brother a folded American flag flown over the Capitol in his honor in a beautiful tri-cornered presentation case. A flag that should be reserved to honor those who have served America with honor. (think fallen soldiers and first responders)

Don’t get me wrong, I am not justifying George Floyd’s death at the hand of a police officer, but what is wrong with this picture?

 

C'mon, you can't be that oblivious.  

George Floyd has effectively been transformed into a symbol.  (Based on what happened to him) he was the right guy at the right time.  He was a rallying point.     

When people 'take a knee' for George Floyd they are taking a knee for what he symbolizes, which is the need for equality.    

This is nothing out of the ordinary.  There exists many 'great' individuals throughout history who were total POS in their personal lives, yet we iconize them as they’ve become symbols of the ideals we cherish.  

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

Trump and Biden will debate Tuesday night in Cleveland. Voters will get opportunity to compare the candidates policies five weeks before the Election Day.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/any-rich-person-could-pay-off-donald-trump/ar-BB19w138?ocid=msedgdhp

• Donald Trump leads an expensive lifestyle and, at least on paper, his businesses aren't keeping up. 
• The New York Times obtained Trump's tax returns, and they show that he has hundreds of millions in liabilities coming due that make him a liability to the United States of America.
• That's because when Trump leaves office — next year or after — he will leave with US secrets in his brain. His history suggests that for the right amount of money, anyone could dislodge them.

[Hayduke1]

[UNDlaw80]

[JohnboyND7]

5 hours ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/any-rich-person-could-pay-off-donald-trump/ar-BB19w138?ocid=msedgdhp

• Donald Trump leads an expensive lifestyle and, at least on paper, his businesses aren't keeping up. 
• The New York Times obtained Trump's tax returns, and they show that he has hundreds of millions in liabilities coming due that make him a liability to the United States of America.
• That's because when Trump leaves office — next year or after — he will leave with US secrets in his brain. His history suggests that for the right amount of money, anyone could dislodge them.

Sounds like it's in the nation's best interest to keep Donald in office until he dies then... for national security. 

Thanks Barn!

[Hayduke1]

So, who has Dear Leader's debt and would they exploit it at the risk of our national security.   Note the lack of a question mark, cultists.

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-taxes-show-hes-national-093724888.html

Trump's Taxes Show He's a National Security Threat

Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat – a threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal supporters.

 

[UND1983]

5 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

Has he ever declared bankruptcy?

[Nodak78]

14 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:

One could make an argument that a generic establishment GOP president would have backed down on Kavanaugh. 

But yes Mitch McConnell is a GOAT and will go down in history as being the American judiciary's Bismarck.

This.   Bush would have pulled Kavanaugh in a NY minute.

 

[Hayduke1]

23 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Has he ever declared bankruptcy?

Have you?

[UND1983]

3 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Have you?

No.  Has President Trump?

[TheFlop]

Good for them.  

https://www.inforum.com/news/education/6681877-Fargo-students-parents-rally-against-distance-learning-We-should-be-in-school

[Walsh Hall]

8 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said:

 

Impossible to say without knowing more specifics.  That aside, almost all companies have an internal conflict of interest policy that prohibits such a scenario.  Shareholders are keen on this.  Keep in mind, decisions typically need to be approval by the board of directors. This prevents any single individual from personally benefitting from a transaction.  This is business ethics 101.  Plus, your scenario is entirely illegal for a public company, or a private company who uses government funds or contracts.  (Was the Trump Co. also using government money to fund the Vancouver and Hawaii projects?  I don't know).  Then there's state laws, laws governing certain types of businesses, etc.                   

As it pertains to taxes, according to the IRS, the fee arrangement must be an ordinary and necessary part of operating the company.   The Trump co. funneling an extravagant amount of money to Ivanka (who also happened to be a Trump co executive) for 'consulting fees' in a construction project is anything but ordinary and necessary.  Good lord, that's just blatant shenanigans.     If someone owning a small business did the equivalent the IRS would come down like a hammer.  But letting illegality slide for the upper 1% is what the IRS does best.  

Long story short, without a ton more information it is not possible to say that the transaction was inappropriate.  The transaction was reported by both parties, and reported as income to Ivanka.

[Hayduke1]

24 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

No.  Has President Trump?

Has gooneytunes?