(06-25-2018 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing. A real estate developer making money from real estate transactions. Break out the alarms for that.... [/end sarcasm]

Yes. I have bought and sold a lot of real estate in my life, sometimes for cash. The house I sold to the illegal I bought for cash and sold for cash (plus a note I carried as Enrique had no credit). I am hardly a money launderer. If Trump reported the sales accurately on his taxes, no problem.

Adam Schiff is Mr. Smarmy USA. Loves to raise the innuendo.

(06-25-2018 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing. A real estate developer making money from real estate transactions. Break out the alarms for that.... [/end sarcasm]

Yes. I have bought and sold a lot of real estate in my life, sometimes for cash. The house I sold to the illegal I bought for cash and sold for cash (plus a note I carried as Enrique had no credit). I am hardly a money launderer. If Trump reported the sales accurately on his taxes, no problem.

Adam Schiff is Mr. Smarmy USA. Loves to raise the innuendo.

I noticed. And if you sent the notice in that you engaged in a (literal) cash transaction, no sweat.

But the funny thing for me, is that oftentimes when the seller, I have no clue as to the source of funds except for the wire transfer that I got. So if I sell a house to Boris Badinoff, I have no clue who or what is in back of those funds that got sent. it might be good ol' Boris emptying his Maltese account, or it might be his uncle Vlad that sent nephew Boris an 'awesome job graduation college' check that just cleared.

In essence, unless I am both a seller and a lender on the same transaction, they are *all* cash transactions from the perspective of the seller. And, as a seller, reporting the proceeds and the profit to the IRS is always a good idea.

Quote:these cash purchases are deeply troubling as they can often signal money laundering activity

But leave it up to someone to make it sound evil. And leave it up to someone to post it elsewhere as absolute proof positive of a neer do well somewhere.

The quote is almost as good as that Greek professor dude on Ancient Alien Astronauts..... I mean, lines in Peruvian deserts can often signal ancient alien astronaut activity.....

(06-25-2018 06:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the funny thing for me, is that oftentimes when the seller, I have no clue as to the source of funds except for the wire transfer that I got. So if I sell a house to Boris Badinoff, I have no clue who or what is in back of those funds that got sent. it might be good ol' Boris emptying his Maltese account, or it might be his uncle Vlad that sent nephew Boris an 'awesome job graduation college' check that just cleared.

But if you are selling a $600,000 vacation home to Bernie Sanders right after he dropped out and endorsed Hillary, you can be pretty sure where it is coming from.

(06-25-2018 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2018 06:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the funny thing for me, is that oftentimes when the seller, I have no clue as to the source of funds except for the wire transfer that I got. So if I sell a house to Boris Badinoff, I have no clue who or what is in back of those funds that got sent. it might be good ol' Boris emptying his Maltese account, or it might be his uncle Vlad that sent nephew Boris an 'awesome job graduation college' check that just cleared.

But if you are selling a $600,000 vacation home to Bernie Sanders right after he dropped out and endorsed Hillary, you can be pretty sure where it is coming from.

From the local state Democratic Committee funds that got hoovered up and directed to only one candidate?

I guess I need a liberal to explain to me how this relates to collusion, or to money laundering by Trump. They are the only ones who can see the connections.

Changing the subject?

when my kids were that young, they cried when being dropped off at the day care center.

And her mother is in Virginia. Apparently things weren't so bad at home that she needed to bring her kids with her.

I'm beginning to suspect a drive-by whack a mole type here.

(06-22-2018 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Each statistics is presented for the specific program that the illegal immigrants entered - not for all that crossed the border.

And there was an action behind trump’s words - he directed his DOJ to put a zero tolerance policy in place that required jailing all first time offenders. Are you saying Trump had a brain fart like Obama when he used the term infested? It seems more in line with a Freudian slip based on his previous statements and actions that seemingly never paint any illegal immigrants in a good lights. If this was the first time Trump had said something that could have been misconstrued as being denigrating to illegal immigrants or people Fromm poor countries, I could see your point, but if you need me to list all of the other, similar comments, I can.

And I wasn’t chastising you for your preconceptions - I wasn’t pointing out an issue we all deal with. Please re-read my post, I used the term “we” for a reason. I was very intentionally trying to not chastise you because of how much sense your comment made if you hadn’t seen the information I had.

And also about your last point - are you suggesting that only actions can be used to judge a person’s character? That’s what it sounds like to me.

What I'm saying is that had he chosen a word like 'influx' as opposed to 'infestation' wouldn't make his policies any different. The only difference is that people who wouldn't vote for him anyway wouldn't be upset at his choice of words while some of those who did, would. I'm reminded of the rather famous youtube of the gun owner speaking to his city council about 'speaking up for the majority'. Stop treating law abiding gun owners as 'the problem' so that you don't offend criminals, based on the 'outrage' of someone who has no connection to the comment.... often because they ignore.

Legal immigrants are not illegal immigrants. If Trump is speaking of Illegals and we ignore or even downplay that distinction, then we're not being honest in the discussion.

I 'get' that 'infestation' is a rough and politically incorrect word and I don't like that this is where we've come.... I didn't vote for him...

but I don't like even more that US citizens are being called deplorable and likened to Nazi's and told that 'they're not welcome' in places... often on the back of the downplaying of such obvious distinctions.

Trump is absolutely anti-ILLEGAL immigrant, as are many of his supporters. Lots of liberals are as well. Their solution is more to make all immigration legal, but they're still AGAINST illegal immigrants.


As to these programs, best I can tell these people are hand-picked and not assigned at random... so while compliance is high, it is high by design... these people are given a positive reason to comply and have consequences for their extended families (as well as themselves) if they do not. These are not random cross-sections of the illegal immigrant population.... but often people whose families are already here at least somewhat legally. This was the result of selective enforcement.

Random cross-sections show the exact opposite... In fact, iirc it's been reported that more than 40% of illegal immigrants are those who overstayed their visas... meaning that they were specifically under a 'register and report' system like these purport to be, and yet they dropped out.... and this number is supposedly more per year who come legally and drop out than come across the border illegally (according to some reports) in total.

I can't vouch for the numbers/percentages... because determining how many illegal aliens there are is almost impossible, but those are significant numbers.

And now for something completely different...

Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement. That means Trump will get to nominate yet another Justice, and the left is in a frenzy over this It seems the fear is that RVW will be reversed. All sorts of dire consequences are foretold. Surely this is not fearmongering, just sober fearless pursuit of truth beauty rightousness.

The most likely result will be a confirmation of Trump's choice. The Dems have already sworn to oppose him/her, without even knowing the choice.

The 10 Democrats running for re-election in states Trump carried will be in a tough position. Vote against the nominee, and they will have to defend that choice to an angry electorate and likely lose the election. Vote for him/her, and they will lose their party's support.

The Dems only hope is to delay the nomination until after the 2018 election. They don't have the strength to keep it from coming up, so they will have to resort to Borking* the nominee - character assassination of the most vile sort. Lies and innuendo will be thick as autumn leaves. But all indications are that this is the way they will go, just as soon as Trump nominates somebody, they will start with the "He kills babies" an "she is racist" stuff.

Anybody see this working any differently?

* Definition of Bork(Merriam-Webster)
Borked or borked; Borking or borking; Borks or borks
US politics, slang
: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification

I think Trump would be smart to nominate a strong gun rights, strong borders, constructionist but pro equality person... especially if that person is a minority or woman... or both...

Would be closer to Kennedy than Scalia and might actually be opposed by a few republicans... but in sync with 'America'.... and if Democrats Bork him, I'd come back with Scalia's much younger and vastly more conservative nephew (not a real person, but an ideal)

The Democrats are saying they will give the nominee a fair hearing and then reject him.

Kind of like a jury saying "let's bring in the guilty bastard and start this fair trial".

(06-28-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And now for something completely different...

Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement. That means Trump will get to nominate yet another Justice, and the left is in a frenzy over this It seems the fear is that RVW will be reversed. All sorts of dire consequences are foretold. Surely this is not fearmongering, just sober fearless pursuit of truth beauty rightousness.

The most likely result will be a confirmation of Trump's choice. The Dems have already sworn to oppose him/her, without even knowing the choice.

The 10 Democrats running for re-election in states Trump carried will be in a tough position. Vote against the nominee, and they will have to defend that choice to an angry electorate and likely lose the election. Vote for him/her, and they will lose their party's support.

The Dems only hope is to delay the nomination until after the 2018 election. They don't have the strength to keep it from coming up, so they will have to resort to Borking* the nominee - character assassination of the most vile sort. Lies and innuendo will be thick as autumn leaves. But all indications are that this is the way they will go, just as soon as Trump nominates somebody, they will start with the "He kills babies" an "she is racist" stuff.

Anybody see this working any differently?

* Definition of Bork(Merriam-Webster)
Borked or borked; Borking or borking; Borks or borks
US politics, slang
: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification

The Democrats are going to do anything and everything they can to stop Trump from filling the vacancy, just as McConnell and the Republicans did after Scalia.

But they're going to fail, and Trump will have someone affirmed before the next Congress is sworn in.
Anybody see this working differently?

I could see Trump not properly vetting his candidate in an effort to get the nominee announced later this week. Any skeletons at all in that person's closet (hiring undocumented workers and illegal drug use would probably be the most obvious two possibilities but some unfortunate public comments on hotbed topics might be enough too) will delay the process. You can bet that the Democrats have already been going through Trump's list with a fine comb to look for chinks in the armor.

Collins and Murkowski have already called for a moderate and/or possibly a woman. Collins in particular has already said she won't support a nominee who would likely vote for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. The only way I see a justice being confirmed before November is a guarantee behind the scenes that nothing will happen to Roe/Wade before 2020 as an absolute minimum.

Technically speaking, and sorry about being a nitpicker, but Roe v Wade was *already* overturned with Casey in 1992.

(07-01-2018 06:47 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And now for something completely different...

Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement. That means Trump will get to nominate yet another Justice, and the left is in a frenzy over this It seems the fear is that RVW will be reversed. All sorts of dire consequences are foretold. Surely this is not fearmongering, just sober fearless pursuit of truth beauty rightousness.

The most likely result will be a confirmation of Trump's choice. The Dems have already sworn to oppose him/her, without even knowing the choice.

The 10 Democrats running for re-election in states Trump carried will be in a tough position. Vote against the nominee, and they will have to defend that choice to an angry electorate and likely lose the election. Vote for him/her, and they will lose their party's support.

The Dems only hope is to delay the nomination until after the 2018 election. They don't have the strength to keep it from coming up, so they will have to resort to Borking* the nominee - character assassination of the most vile sort. Lies and innuendo will be thick as autumn leaves. But all indications are that this is the way they will go, just as soon as Trump nominates somebody, they will start with the "He kills babies" an "she is racist" stuff.

Anybody see this working any differently?

* Definition of Bork(Merriam-Webster)
Borked or borked; Borking or borking; Borks or borks
US politics, slang
: to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification

The Democrats are going to do anything and everything they can to stop Trump from filling the vacancy, just as McConnell and the Republicans did after Scalia.

But they're going to fail, and Trump will have someone affirmed before the next Congress is sworn in.
Anybody see this working differently?

That's the way I see it.

They have already prepared their objections. They just need the name to fill in the blank.

(07-01-2018 07:12 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could see Trump not properly vetting his candidate in an effort to get the nominee announced later this week. Any skeletons at all in that person's closet (hiring undocumented workers and illegal drug use would probably be the most obvious two possibilities but some unfortunate public comments on hotbed topics might be enough too) will delay the process. You can bet that the Democrats have already been going through Trump's list with a fine comb to look for chinks in the armor.

Collins and Murkowski have already called for a moderate and/or possibly a woman. Collins in particular has already said she won't support a nominee who would likely vote for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. The only way I see a justice being confirmed before November is a guarantee behind the scenes that nothing will happen to Roe/Wade before 2020 as an absolute minimum.

Since the list has been public a long time, is there any reason either side would not have fully vetted all of them?

I find it humorous that hiring illegal aliens would be something the Democrats would object to. Maybe if the payroll taxes were not paid...

I agree with your second paragraph. I hope that nominating a woman might help with those two. However there are a lot of Dem Senators in red states who might cross party lines, also.

Even if RVW was overturned, all that would happen is the issue would be returned to the states, and we would end up with about 30-35 states where it would be legalized. I know that would not satisfy the Dems, who howl if a woman has to change buses to reach a clinic.

FTR, I find lots of compelling arguments on both sides, and so remain neutral on this issue. OK with me me if it stands, OK with me if it is overturned. I could live with a public promise to recuse himself/herself on RVW if the nominee were otherwise conservative. I may be alone in that stance.

Question for the Constitutional scholars among us.

It has occurred to me that a lot of the Dem Senators in Trump states who are up for election might not vote either way, but instead find compelling reasons to not be there.

Is 51 a requirement, or just a majority of those voting? Could a Justice be confirmed 48-46?

I was just listening to Senator Klobuchar on This Week (ABC).

Apparently the democrats are going to attempt to divine how a nominee might vote on RVW by asking them how they feel about upholding precedent. The theme seems to be that since RVW has been law for 45 years, it should not be be subject to reversal.

But the SCOTUS reverses its own decisions all the time. It is part of its job. Plessy v. Fergusson was established law for 58 years before it was overturned, and I am sure they would not want to argue that it should not be overturned. I wonder how long the Dred Scott decision was on the books. Maybe it is still on the books, though of no effect.

(07-01-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question for the Constitutional scholars among us.

It has occurred to me that a lot of the Dem Senators in Trump states who are up for election might not vote either way, but instead find compelling reasons to not be there.

Is 51 a requirement, or just a majority of those voting? Could a Justice be confirmed 48-46?

Not an expert on the subject, but I think it could be 26-25. I think you'd have to have a quorum, which I believe is 51, but once you have that then I believe it's just a majority.