Quote (Skinned @ Aug 19 2015 06:46pm)
That seems like an editorial though. The article says something that happened, and then it says some interpretation.
Also, the entire way elections are funded is corrupt. We moved away from fair and free elections with Citizens United. Conservatives by and large are winning the war over election law; in a decade or two brown people may even not be able to vote again.
But the article states a fact, a letter went out to donors informing them of changes in donation law and whatnot, something I agree happened, and then the author declares his opinion that conservative donors won't donate to conservative organizations if a) the process is completely transparent and b) the donation may be taxed if it is done incorrectly or outside of the limits of contribution. Everybody as an opinion. My opinion is that conservative donors will donate their money one way or another, and even if some behavior is altered, it is just going into a different pair of pockets on the same pair of pants. Should the IRS be responsive to the legislature? Probably, because they don't care if you have an R or a D, all they care about is that green. They shouldn't ignore the legislature.
Saying they're being used as a political weapon is a bit dramatic. The conservative political response is just so decentralized that there are many more organizations by nature. If you're mad about that it isn't the IRS's fault. Even if they selected groups at complete random, it is going to be mostly conservative, because those groups are a dime a dozen now days.
Dramatic? Watching prominent, important people like Senators howl and agitate for something that just managed to "happen all by itself" shatters credulity. Conservative groups unreasonably held up for years, many to the point that they gave up trying. Conservative groups exclusively being audited, but hey, nothing to see here - move along - thanks Officer Barbrady.
Quote (Pollster @ Aug 19 2015 07:16pm)
See:
You're clinging to delusions. It's probably not a good idea, unless you're attempting to be unintentionally hilarious, to try to project a refusal to acknowledge evidence onto other people. That's a courageous choice.
I've read your complaint. You don't need to keep posting the same howler over and over again. You're (still) alleging that something happened that did not, in reality, happen. You're getting there because, as usual, you're starting with a conclusion that's ideologically satisfying and then awkwardly working you way backwards. Senators can't direct the IRS to do something. No one used it as a weapon; it's ridiculous that you even need to be reminded of that at this point given all the information that's come out. There's absolutely nothing wrong with raising what is admittedly a very serious issue: groups that are brazenly political trying to gain benefits reserved for apolitical groups. Trying to lurch from that to "targeting of conservative groups!!!111111oneone" would completely remove all credibility, if you actually possessed any in the first place, given what we know about what happened and didn't happen.
Like I said, you just tell me what I need to pretend happened and I'll play along.
They can't direct them, just pressure them, but it happens anyways. It's fucking MAGIC!