• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA

Nickyjo said:
Four people are charged, as well as the NRA was a whole. I worked for a couple of non-profits and remember that questions could be raised about the organization itself, about what percentage of income was used for its stated purposes, how much used for administration, etc. But if the four were criminally charged you would have no problem with that? If the NRA wants to function as a for profit company, fine, they can be bound by different rules.
Click to expand...

They should be going after the Clinton Foundation. That was the Clinton's selling influence to American and foreign corporations and leaders.
 
I don't mind when a poster asks a legitimate question, but when a poster goes on and on and on, restating easily refutable claims in a subject they OBVIOUSLY have not a clue about, it gets a little irritating. This has been asked and answered at least half a dozen times IN THIS THREAD: 1) A non-profit organization is supervised by a State (or District) in which it is chartered. Its very existence is by operation of law. 2) When it is chartered the organization agrees to abide by certain restrictions on its operations. They are relatively limited. In exchange, they get favored fundraising and tax status. 3) All foundations/charities, etc., operate with a board. That board has a fiduciary obligation - a position of trust on behalf of the charity or foundation - to operate it in accordance with its charter and these restrictions. The board - as the foundation - failed to do so. Not all of these failures are criminal in nature. That argument is absurd and irrelevant on its face. 4) That violations by individuals may also be criminal may be determined later (especially as additional evidence is adduced in the civil trial), but is irrelevant to the behavior of the organization. It's akin to a contract violation. When one violates the contract, the contract terms can be voided.

Arguing that any of these actions are circumscribed by politics is just stupid. It is beyond stupid, it is deceptive. It's a lie. Period. That there may be political implications is true enough, but arguments about it being "criminal" or "civil" because of this are just flat idiotic, and deliberately deception.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
At the moment.


The NY AG has said that criminal charges may follow as the investigation unfolds.
Click to expand...

If that were true, there would be a criminal investigation already.
 
ObamacareFail said:
They should be going after the Clinton Foundation. That was the Clinton's selling influence to American and foreign corporations and leaders.
Click to expand...

Ok, if they violated the rules, fine with me.
 
Nickyjo said:
Ok, if they violated the rules, fine with me.
Click to expand...

They did. it was government policy for sale. That's why the donations to the foundation largely dried up after she lost the election.
 
apdst said:
If that were true, there would be a criminal investigation already.
Click to expand...

The beautiful aspect of this political stunt is that the greatest harm will be done to the democrats in the November elections. Even Obama was smart enough to hold back on going after the NRA or pushing gun bans until after his re-election in 2012.
 
apdst said:
If that were true, there would be a criminal investigation already.
Click to expand...

What experience do you base that on ?

The New York AG has publicly stated that criminal charges may follow:


"It’s an ongoing investigation,” she said. “If we uncover any criminal activity, we will refer it to the Manhattan district attorney. At this point in time we’re moving forward, again, with civil enforcement.”


New York Attorney General Sues N.R.A. and Seeks Its Closure - The New York Times
 
Rich2018 said:
What experience do you base that on ?

The New York AG has publicly stated that criminal charges may follow:


"It’s an ongoing investigation,” she said. “If we uncover any criminal activity, we will refer it to the Manhattan district attorney. At this point in time we’re moving forward, again, with civil enforcement.”


New York Attorney General Sues N.R.A. and Seeks Its Closure - The New York Times
Click to expand...

The New York AG is talking out of her ass, too. If she had credible evidence of criminal activity, she would be persuing it.
 
BlueTex said:
So, just making it up... got it
Click to expand...

Which part of "Nobody's been charged" do you not grasp? If the AG had any goods on the NRA, they would be charging and indicting them. not running to a civil court.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Which part of "Nobody's been charged" do you not grasp? If the AG had any goods on the NRA, they would be charging and indicting them. not running to a civil court.
Click to expand...

Why won't you be patient, the investigation is still ongoing ?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Which part of "Nobody's been charged" do you not grasp? If the AG had any goods on the NRA, they would be charging and indicting them. not running to a civil court.
Click to expand...

I get all of it... I also get that you have no idea if there are investigation for criminal charges already under way... I also get that the AG doesn't care what you think the motivations are and will proceed to prosecute this case. I wish the NRA good luck defending themselves in court. They are being a meanie is rarely persuasive to a judge...
 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
I get all of it... I also get that you have no idea if there are investigation for criminal already under way... I also get that the AG doesn't care what you think the motivations are and will proceed to prosecute this case. I wish the NRA good luck defending themselves in court. They are being a meanie is rarely persuasive to a judge...
Click to expand...

I with the NY AG good luck

She can really do some significant good here.
 
Rich2018 said:
I with the NY AG good luck

She can really do some significant good here.
Click to expand...

what is the good you want?

protecting NRA membership from perhaps big spending fat cat leaders

or getting rid of an organization that defends a right that you utterly despise and are terrified of?
 
TurtleDude said:
what is the good you want?

protecting NRA membership from perhaps big spending fat cat leaders

or getting rid of an organization that defends a right that you utterly despise and are terrified of?
Click to expand...

The NRA is far from being the noble cause you portrayed in that last line. But, I'm kind of happy to see them rip off rubes like they have been doing all these years...especially since said rubes now defend them against allegations of ripping them off, proving once again that you just cannot fix stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom