Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

Since then, tax authorities have made a concerted effort to work with banks and corporations to stop ID thieves before they purloin refunds. Still, the attempts persist. During the first nine months of 2016, the IRS flagged roughly 787,000 fake returns, claiming $4 billion in refunds, and 237,750 taxpayers filed affidavits saying they, too, were victims of tax identity theft. More current data isn’t yet available but 21 billion worth of fraudenlent tax returns expected this year

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-case-you-think-tax-frauds-are-going-away/

granted there is monetary gain when your talking about over a million fraudulent claims to be somebody

but I bet the figure is a lot closer to 800000 then 5/19000 based on 2008 election

identity theft is rampant a lot more then it was in 2008. your delusional to think it hasn't found its way to the voting booth

[Dr. Strangelove]

Froot's boy K-Dub from a few years ago on legalized pot as it relates to Colorado-Nebraska issues (I found it pretty interesting--K-Dub is a libertarian, so...): https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/a...19304/high-way

This isn't in there, but what I forgot about the Federal laws re pot is that the Supreme Court upheld Congressional authority to enact those laws as "affecting interstate commerce" -- applying the same contorted Williard logic to authorize Federal action into nearly everything. So, some dude with a few ounces of pot in his own home with no history or likelihood of interstate drug trafficking is subject to Federal law. Pretty fucking bullshit, but that infinite authority of the interstate commerce clause has been enshrined.

Obama opted to ignore federal law. This isn't a question of interpretation or otherwise -- it's usurping Congressional authority. Sessions is now enforcing it. I don't particularly agree with Sessions, but the law is the law. I find it hard to fault him too much for enforcing Federal law.

I'd encourage Congress to reconsider its drug laws -- or at least marijuana laws -- to account for recent developments. You know, follow the fucking legislative process.

You probably have a very different view of it but is prosecutorial discretion the same as ignoring the law? It's similar to whether you think the 'Dreamers' and repeat violent illegals should be treated equally under the law because 'the law is the law'. Obama didn't effectively make the trafficking of marijuana legal or tell his people to leave alone growers in states where it was illegal. Sessions is now (apparently) telling the FBI and ATF to treat the smallest user the same as a Mexican drug lord.

Sessions is also a very big fan of private prisons. Gee, I wonder if re-criminalizing marijuana & increasing drug sentences has any connection?

[Wild Hoss]

No offense crash, but based off recent events it appears that your belief is what's delusional in this instance. I mean, when Donald Trump gives up a conspiracy...its probably time to call it a day.

[iam416]

Sessions is now (apparently) telling the FBI and ATF to treat the smallest user the same as a Mexican drug lord

If you want me to take your point seriously you should try to avoid preposterous hyperbole. Just returning the favor to help make you a better poster.

If your position is that the Executive has full discretion to ignore Congressional acts, then we're at an immediate impasse. "Yeah, I'm sorry, but our EPA is going to ignore the Clean Water Act because we don't have sufficient resources."

That is a facially ludicrous position. LUDICROUS.

Sessions is also a very big fan of private prisons. Gee, I wonder if re-criminalizing marijuana & increasing drug sentences has any connection?

See my point above as to how to improve your persuasive skills. You're welcome in advance.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Since then, tax authorities have made a concerted effort to work with banks and corporations to stop ID thieves before they purloin refunds. Still, the attempts persist. During the first nine months of 2016, the IRS flagged roughly 787,000 fake returns, claiming $4 billion in refunds, and 237,750 taxpayers filed affidavits saying they, too, were victims of tax identity theft. More current data isn?t yet available but 21 billion worth of fraudenlent tax returns expected this year

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-case-you-think-tax-frauds-are-going-away/

granted there is monetary gain when your talking about over a million fraudulent claims to be somebody

but I bet the figure is a lot closer to 800000 then 5/19000 based on 2008 election

identity theft is rampant a lot more then it was in 2008. your delusional to think it hasn't found its way to the voting booth

Where's the proof? You don't have it. You just throw shit on the wall and say I should trust your gut.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If you want me to take your point seriously you should try to avoid preposterous hyperbole. Just returning the favor to help make you a better poster.

If your position is that the Executive has full discretion to ignore Congressional acts, then we're at an immediate impasse. "Yeah, I'm sorry, but our EPA is going to ignore the Clean Water Act because we don't have sufficient resources."

That is a facially ludicrous position. LUDICROUS.



See my point above as to how to improve your persuasive skills. You're welcome in advance.

Does the FBI have prosecutorial discretion or not?

[Wild Hoss]

The "usurping on congressional authority" is however, not hyperbole. LOL.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/FoxNewsResearch/status/949277919779663873[/ame]

[Wild Hoss]

Does the FBI have prosecutorial discretion or not?

Well, investigative discretion, yes. For instance, they tend to not spend alot of time investigating people who use hairspray bottles as flamethrowers in violation of federal law. The AG and its sub-components at the District level pass on prosecuting plenty of potentially actionable offenses though.

[iam416]

Does the FBI have prosecutorial discretion or not?

Prosecutorial discretion is the act of looking at each defendant, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant's background. That's prosecutorial discretion. "Ignoring, entirely, the law" is not "prosecutorial discretion. The DOJ/FBI/etc ought not have the authority to ignore entire laws. "Yeah, about that RICO thing -- we think it's bullshit, we're not going to enforce it." LU-DI-CROUS. BTW, I got hundreds more examples. There's absolutely no shortage of Federal laws that the Executive can unilaterally invalidate by refusal to enforce.

You have, so far, responded with preposterous unserious hyperbole and then wholly ignored my direct, unambiguous point that the Executive does not have discretion to pick and choose which laws it follows. You seem to think that the Executive can do exactly that in the name of "prosecutorial discretion."

I get it --- you're unprincipled. You love it when laws you don't like aren't enforced and would scream like a banshee if laws you loved weren't enforced. You're an "ends" guys that loathes the process. Fair enough. I'm not. Which is why I said -- we're at an immediate impasse.

[Ghengis Jon]

...For someone missing this, you are missing one hell of a show. Sad!

You recite the Trump narrative. Many observers see the Korean communications to be the starting point for a NoKo attempt to create a wedge between SoKo and the US. Re-establishing the hot line (no US involvement), discussions about NoKo participation in the Olympics (no US involvement), open talks scheduled (no US involvement). That's more movement in 2 weeks than the last 20 years, all without US involvement or influence.

To say that Trump has had any influence is akin to saying the sun rises because the rooster crows before dawn. All he's done is get into a schoolyard taunting match. China is playing Trump like a fiddle, saying one thing and doing another. Trump can't do anything economic to China without seriously damaging US business, all he's got is window dressing actions. And bluster. Lots of impotent bluster.

[iam416]

The "usurping on congressional authority" is however, not hyperbole. LOL.

What would you call it, Hoss, if the Executive invalidates a validly enacted law by simply refusing to enforce it?

First, we have are dealing with "congressional authority" so the word choice -- the hyperbolic world choice -- in question must be "usurp" -- the "illegal" use of power.

The Constitution enshrines a number of various powers for our three branches of government. Amongst those is the power to legislate. That power is granted to Congress (a body made up of the Senate and House). The Executive has the power to sign or "veto" proposed legislation. If the Executive signs the proposed legislation it becomes a "law." Laws can only be overturned by subsequent legislative action or, if they don't comply with the Constitution, the Judicial branch. For the latter, this is what is meant by "unconstitutional" if you've ever heard that term. No where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive branch can enact its own laws or overturn Laws by refusing to do its job. In fact, Article II, Section 5 actually requires the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- crazy, right? It seems to me that an Executive that does just the opposite is doing something illegal as measured by the Constitution.

No need to thank me for the much needed civics lesson.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Prosecutorial discretion is the act of looking at each defendant, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the defendant's background. That's prosecutorial discretion. "Ignoring, entirely, the law" is not "prosecutorial discretion. The DOJ/FBI/etc ought not have the authority to ignore entire laws. "Yeah, about that RICO thing -- we think it's bullshit, we're not going to enforce it." LU-DI-CROUS. BTW, I got hundreds more examples. There's absolutely no shortage of Federal laws that the Executive can unilaterally invalidate by refusal to enforce.

You have, so far, responded with preposterous unserious hyperbole and then wholly ignored my direct, unambiguous point that the Executive does not have discretion to pick and choose which laws it follows. You seem to think that the Executive can do exactly that in the name of "prosecutorial discretion."

I get it --- you're unprincipled. You love it when laws you don't like aren't enforced and would scream like a banshee if laws you loved weren't enforced. You're an "ends" guys that loathes the process. Fair enough. I'm not. Which is why I said -- we're at an immediate impasse.

I don't believe Obama ordered the DOJ to fully ignore the law, just prioritize violations, and not pursue action against states that had legalized it. But I'd like to see the actual guidelines. Or do you view prioritization itself as a gross violation of the Constitution and abuse of executive power?

[Wild Hoss]

What would you call it, Hoss, if the Executive invalidates a validly enacted law by simply refusing to enforce it?

First, we have are dealing with "congressional authority" so the word choice -- the hyperbolic world choice -- in question must be "usurp" -- the "illegal" use of power.

The Constitution enshrines a number of various powers for our three branches of government. Amongst those is the power to legislate. That power is granted to Congress (a body made up of the Senate and House). The Executive has the power to sign or "veto" proposed legislation. If the Executive signs the proposed legislation it becomes a "law." Laws can only be overturned by subsequent legislative action or, if they don't comply with the Constitution, the Judicial branch. For the latter, this is what is meant by "unconstitutional" if you've ever heard that term. No where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive branch can enact its own laws or overturn Laws by refusing to do its job. In fact, Article II, Section 5 actually requires the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". It seems to me that an Executive that does just the opposite is doing something illegal as measured by the Constitution.

No need to thank me for the much needed civics lesson.

I don't think its nearly as cut-and-dried as you would purport, first off. There was, in fact, a legislative process in Colorado on the issue. It happens to be at odds with federal law, and in your specific case noted above, the commerce clause. Which I might add, you bitched about before contorting yourself to land in Session's lap.

Secondly, and really more to the point, its self-defeating to criticize others about the use of hyperbole when liberally dipping heavily into it yourself.

Now, GLFO.

[AlabamAlum]

I think marijuana should be left to the states to either allow and regulare or criminlize.