The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

Probably some people should be fired and/or demoted. The person who was running the IRS left in 2012 at the end of his term already.

[EvilMonkey]

ProPublica isn't a "liberal blog," they're a full-fledged investigative journalism operation that frequently works with NPR and shows like Frontline to produce in-depth and detailed reporting.

 

What happened here was ProPublica asked for 67 applications. The IRS sent them 31. 9 of those were not yet approved and should not have been sent, but could have been sent as soon as they were completed. Not exactly a gigantic scandal there, sounds like a bureaucratic mistake. ProPublica points out that the names associated with the releases are lifelong IRS employees, not political appointments.

 

 

 

I've already said a full investigation is appropriate here, but I'm not seeing an "abuse of power" yet, more of a "poor administrative decisions within the IRS." The IRS has a legitimate interest and duty to ensure that groups filing for 501©4 status meet the legal requirements and are not engaged in electioneering. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine that groups self-describing themselves as tea party groups might be skirting that line or going over it (edit: not that they're a bunch of lawbreakers, just that it seems likely they would be engaging in a bit of political advocacy). For example, there's no reasonable way to argue that CrossroadsGPS and Priorities USA are "educational" or "social welfare" entities and not campaign groups, yet they applied for 501©4 status.

Bay Area billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler gave $10 million to them, and promise to add that same amount every year. In 2004, Herbert Sandler gave the MoveOn.org Voter Fund $2.5 million, according to the FEC database. The Center for Responsive Politics Web site reports donations of $8.5 million from Herbert and Marion to the 527 group Citizens for a Strong Senate, in the 2004 cycle. CSS was formed by a group of strategists with close ties to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. American Banker reported in 2005 that Herbert also gave $1 million to the California stem cell initiative and that the pair have also funded the progressive Center for American Progress. Herbert iwas also the chairman of them. While it may not be the DailyKoz, seems like some very strong liberal leanings.

[StrangeSox]

I took greater issue with your dismissively calling it a blog more than calling it liberal because that was just straight-up ignorance. They're not a "liberal blog" but a legitimate investigative journalism organization. As I said, they've partnered with Frontline and NPR for numerous investigations (and, apparently, over 90 other media outlets including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader's Digest, Salon.com, Slate, and This American Life). Their President and Founder is a former editor for the WSJ. The organization has won two Pulitzer prizes along with dozens of other awards.

 

David Koch funds all sorts of libertarian groups but also gives money to Nature and NOVA; that doesn't make Nature and NOVA libertarian-leaning, does it?

 

edit: and you do realize that ProPublica had requested these 67 applications as part of an investigation into the 501©4's right, that they weren't just sent these things unsolicited?

Edited May 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

I took greater issue with your dismissively calling it a blog more than calling it liberal because that was just straight-up ignorance. They're not a "liberal blog" but a legitimate investigative journalism organization. As I said, they've partnered with Frontline and NPR for numerous investigations (and, apparently, over 90 other media outlets including 60 Minutes, ABC World News, Business Week, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, The Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSN Money, MSNBC.com, Politico, Reader's Digest, Salon.com, Slate, and This American Life). Their President and Founder is a former editor for the WSJ. The organization has won two Pulitzer prizes along with dozens of other awards.

 

David Koch funds all sorts of libertarian groups but also gives money to Nature and NOVA; that doesn't make Nature and NOVA libertarian-leaning, does it?

 

edit: and you do realize that ProPublica had requested these 67 applications as part of an investigation into the 501©4's right, that they weren't just sent these things unsolicited?

And which 6 did they choose to release date from? (hint: conservative ones)

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The applications other than the 9 they were mistakenly given could be obtained by anyone. The 6 they published with scrubbed info were more news-worthy than the rest. They also said that they asked for a range of applications, not just conservative ones.

 

Like I said, I'm all for an investigation into what happened here, but ProPublica is awesome and you should watch their stuff with Frontline.

[southsider2k5]

Albert Brooks ‏@AlbertBrooks 10m

 

I.R.S. targeting people. Phones being hacked. I miss Nixon.

[StrangeSox]

Phones weren't hacked, phone records were subpoenaed. I miss people knowing things.

[southsider2k5]

I think it is funny you are getting defensive of this stuff.

[Balta1701]

I think it's hilarious that the Republicans suddenly think that warrantless surveillance using the "Terror!" excuse is bad.

[southsider2k5]

I think it's hilarious that the Republicans suddenly think that warrantless surveillance using the "Terror!" excuse is bad.

 

Only slightly less funny then Dems now making excuses for it.

[Balta1701]

Only slightly less funny then Dems now making excuses for it.

I got none. Shouldn't be done. Should have been made illegal a long time ago. Welcome to the club, didn't realize that warrantless wiretapping became so much worse back in 2009.

[StrangeSox]

I'm missing where this is actually warrantless surveillance. They subpoenaed the phone records, not actual phone call transcripts. They may or may not have done so with a typical warrant, we don't know at this point.

 

If they did it with the warrantless process, that's bulls***, that entire practice shouldn't exist. If they did it with a warrant in a typical process for a criminal investigation (determining the source of a leak, so not even actually going after one of the 20 people in the AP they got the records for), then I really don't see anything wrong at all. Phone records are frequently subpoenaed in criminal investigations.

 

edit: liberal legal blogger Scott Lemuix with some thoughts:

 

The subpoena of phone records is probably legal. I wouldn’t say anything definitive until we know all the details, but under existing law the First Amendment doesn’t provide a shield for journalists and Congress hasn’t created a statutory shield. A subpoena, unlike a search warrant, doesn’t require judicial approval.

 

And, yes, the attacks from Republicans in Congress who supported the Bush administration’s actually illegal warrantless wiretapping and are a major part of an institution that can only be bothered to counter presidential powers when presidents make the political mistake of trying to advance the ball in a pro-civil liberties direction, are staggeringly disingenuous.

 

Having said both of these things, this doesn’t mean that I agree with Orin Kerr that this is therefore a “non-story.” The First Amendment is a floor, not a ceiling — even assuming arguendo that the subpoena was legal, this doesn’t make it an appropriate exercise of executive power. There are good reasons to spy on the activities of journalists only in cases where the public interest in the investigation is very compelling, and in such cases the investigation should be conducted on the narrowest possible grounds. Going after whistleblowers who have provided valuable information to the press (and hence the public) does not strike me as a particularly compelling public purpose, and on its face the investigation in this case strikes me as, at a minimum, overbroad. This is an important story, and a probable abuse of executive power, even if the administration did nothing illegal.

Edited May 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I've been saying this for years, glad science finally backs me up:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-...ical-views.html

 

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

 

[StrangeSox]

Assuming the study 1) says what the Daily Mail says it says and 2) is worth a s***, the conclusion I choose to draw is that big, dumb brutes who only know how to express themselves through violence and physical intimidation take right-wing reactionary political stances.

 

See, that could easily be spun against you!

[Jenksismyhero]

Assuming the study 1) says what the Daily Mail says it says and 2) is worth a s***, the conclusion I choose to draw is that big, dumb brutes who only know how to express themselves through violence and physical intimidation take right-wing reactionary political stances.

 

See, that could easily be spun against you!

 

You just don't get it.

 

Edit: Here's the study:

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs...fer_share=e3039

 

Abstract:

Over human evolutionary history, upper body strength has been a major component of fighting ability. Evolutionary models of animal conflict predict that actors with greater fighting ability will more actively attempt to acquire or defend resources than less formidable contestants. Here, we apply these models to political decision-making about redistribution of income and wealth among modern humans. In studies conducted in Argentina, Denmark and the U.S., men with greater upper body strength more strongly endorsed the self-beneficial position: Among men of lower socioeconomic status (SES), strength predicted increased support for redistribution; among men of higher SES, strength predicted increased opposition to redistribution. As personal upper body strength is irrelevant to payoffs from economic policies in modern mass democracies, the continuing role of strength suggests that modern political decision-making is shaped by an evolved psychology designed for small-scale groups.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Right, big, dumb brutes turn into self-interested assholes because they can physically dominate others and get their way. Smart-but-slender men don't need to rely on brawn and physical intimidation and actually have empathy for other humans and are more egalitarian. Women don't show any correlation because they're not a bunch of aggressive, violent, self-destructive idiots.

 

(It's an interesting study and I'm spinning as slanted of an interpretation as possible as a joke)

 

More seriously: so it's just a correlation on bicep size and whether or not they support redistributionist policies. I don't know what that's supposed to tell me--it's not like bicep size has been a particularly important factor in physical ability. It's part of the glamour or mirror muscles that some guys like to bulk up while ignoring useful strength and conditioning, and the remaining hunter-gatherer tribesmen don't have 21" guns and 60 inch chests. Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. Sounds like this study's argument proves far too much; as far as I know, evolutionary psychology is regarded pretty skeptically by the rest of the biology field anyway.

 

I don't say that because I have a problem with the study's results, if true. I don't and think it's an interesting idea they've tried to examine.

Edited May 16, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Cknolls]

Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) pointed to President Obama’s “pigmentation” as the driving force behind Republicans’ outcry over the scandals plaguing the administration. ”These people are obsessed with the president, he has taken control of their soul,” Cleaver said.

 

“It’s going to be very very difficult for us to erase some of the things they’ve embraced,” he added. “They simply want this to be a figment of his pigmentation.”

 

 

Quick put out an APB for this loons brain. How does anyone even give him the airtime to espouse the same old rhetoric.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, big, dumb brutes turn into self-interested assholes because they can physically dominate others and get their way. Smart-but-slender men don't need to rely on brawn and physical intimidation and actually have empathy for other humans and are more egalitarian. Women don't show any correlation because they're not a bunch of aggressive, violent, self-destructive idiots.

 

(It's an interesting study and I'm spinning as slanted of an interpretation as possible as a joke)

 

More seriously: so it's just a correlation on bicep size and whether or not they support redistributionist policies. I don't know what that's supposed to tell me--it's not like bicep size has been a particularly important factor in physical ability. It's part of the glamour or mirror muscles that some guys like to bulk up while ignoring useful strength and conditioning, and the remaining hunter-gatherer tribesmen don't have 21" guns and 60 inch chests. Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. Sounds like this study's argument proves far too much; as far as I know, evolutionary psychology is regarded pretty skeptically by the rest of the biology field anyway.

 

I don't say that because I have a problem with the study's results, if true. I don't and think it's an interesting idea they've tried to examine.

 

I think it's interesting that those that were able to protect X because of their physical strength have evolved politically to want to "protect" their money/property from others/the government. Those that went generations without X because of their physical stature evolved to want the world to be more fair and for people to share what they have. The theory doesn't work for everyone, but on a basic level I can see that being a common view of the respective parties.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

. Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. S

Um, they were against it................once they got their land from the masses. Until then they had no problem with redistribution, as long as it was slanted in their favor.

[StrangeSox]

I think it's interesting that those that were able to protect X because of their physical strength have evolved politically to want to "protect" their money/property from others/the government. Those that went generations without X because of their physical stature evolved to want the world to be more fair and for people to share what they have. The theory doesn't work for everyone, but on a basic level I can see that being a common view of the respective parties.

 

See, that's where I think it proves far too much. It's an interesting just-so story, but the political alignment of people with large biceps in a handful of developed Western countries in 2012 really can't justify such a wide-reaching explanation. The size of your biceps isn't the determining factor of your physical ability to protect yourself. If we are going to run that far with it, it could also be interpreted (based on the summary) through a different lens, that those who are physically stronger want to protect their dominant status regardless of legitimately and can do so without a more-powerful force to challenge them. The warlord who's raped and pillaged isn't going to be in favor of redistribution and he's probably going to be physically capable, but that doesn't mean his position is moral or justified.

 

Like I said, interesting, but like much of evo. psych., take the claims with a huge grain of salt.

[StrangeSox]

Um, they were against it................once they got their land from the masses. Until then they had no problem with redistribution, as long as it was slanted in their favor.

So what does it mean by "redistribution" and what's the starting point? Everything was the commons at one point until people started making claims to land (and not all societies did this; our modern version of property rights is not universal). How did these soft-bodied elites get this power if the size of your biceps was a controlling factor in more physical times?

Edited May 16, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

So what does it mean by "redistribution" and what's the starting point? Everything was the commons at one point until people started making claims to land. How did these soft-bodied elites get this power if the size of your biceps was a controlling factor in more physical times?

We nerds invent arrow.

[StrangeSox]

The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!

[StrangeSox]

We nerds invent arrow.

 

Yeah once we're into tool-making hominids, intelligence is going to be an important factor in addition to physical capabilities (and not just pure brawn). Neanderthals were bigger and stronger but we were smarter and we won out.

[mr_genius]

I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but the Obama regime has been caught using the IRS to attack political opponents. This is the kind of stuff you see in third world dictatorships. Very disturbing.