4 ms·

You are absolute correct, no laws have been broken. (yet) There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives that have a larger re-election campaign fund now

You are absolute correct, no laws have been broken. (yet) There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives that have a larger re-election campaign fund now as well. But that's not illegal either. There are probably elected officials on the IRS committee. They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal. Verbs or adjective, your grammar doesn't matter. All you have to do is follow the money.

mulmen 3y ago
> You are absolute correct, no laws have been broken Ok so why did you say Intuit broke lobbying laws? > (yet) When does Intuit plan on breaking lobbying laws? Which laws? And how do you know this? > There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives Which ones? How many? > that have a larger re-election campaign fund now as well. Who contributed? How much did they contribute? Was it illegal? > There are probably elected officials on the IRS committee. Do you mean the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation? Because by definition yes, only members of congress would be on a congressional committee. But the Joint Committee on Taxation isn’t the IRS, whose employees are not elected, because it’s a government agency, not part of congress. > They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal. Right but acting on inside information would be illegal. > Verbs or adjective, your grammar doesn't matter. In this case your grammar matters a lot. If Intuit broke lobbying laws that would be a big deal. > All you have to do is follow the money. I don’t have to do anything. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. If congress is really in Intuit’s pocket then that should be easy to demonstrate. Otherwise you are needlessly undermining faith in our institutions with tired apathetic cliches. “Follow the money” is lame because profit alone is no evidence of wrongdoing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without that you are just perpetuating toxic rhetoric. I’m no fan of Intuit but so far your comments have contributed nothing but cliche unfounded anti-government negativity.
- chad_strategic 3y ago
  Your comments suggest you have significantly more time to spare than I do. (However, I understand this is just my interpretation.) I'm entitled to my opinion on INTU and the government, regardless of whether it's factual or not. You're interpreting my views as anti-government negativity, which I don't agree with. Additionally, I wasn't aware that writing a research paper with proper citations was part of the conversation. To conclude, it seems your primary interest lies in debate. > They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal. Right but acting on inside information would be illegal. You're 100% incorrect on that last point. Although not a formal legal document this article makes it pretty clear Senators and Representatives have a loophole in regards to trading on stocks. https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459 https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459 I will no longer respond to this thread as it's now reached the point of no return. In the meantime have a great day!

mulmen 3y ago

> You are absolute correct, no laws have been broken Ok so why did you say Intuit broke lobbying laws? > (yet) When does Intuit plan on breaking lobbying laws? Which laws? And how do you know this? > There are also a lot of Senators and Representatives Which ones? How many? > that have a larger re-election campaign fund now as well. Who contributed? How much did they contribute? Was it illegal? > There are probably elected officials on the IRS committee. Do you mean the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation? Because by definition yes, only members of congress would be on a congressional committee. But the Joint Committee on Taxation isn’t the IRS, whose employees are not elected, because it’s a government agency, not part of congress. > They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal. Right but acting on inside information would be illegal. > Verbs or adjective, your grammar doesn't matter. In this case your grammar matters a lot. If Intuit broke lobbying laws that would be a big deal. > All you have to do is follow the money. I don’t have to do anything. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. If congress is really in Intuit’s pocket then that should be easy to demonstrate. Otherwise you are needlessly undermining faith in our institutions with tired apathetic cliches. “Follow the money” is lame because profit alone is no evidence of wrongdoing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without that you are just perpetuating toxic rhetoric. I’m no fan of Intuit but so far your comments have contributed nothing but cliche unfounded anti-government negativity.

chad_strategic 3y ago
Your comments suggest you have significantly more time to spare than I do. (However, I understand this is just my interpretation.) I'm entitled to my opinion on INTU and the government, regardless of whether it's factual or not. You're interpreting my views as anti-government negativity, which I don't agree with. Additionally, I wasn't aware that writing a research paper with proper citations was part of the conversation. To conclude, it seems your primary interest lies in debate. > They also might own shares of INTU... Even that is not criminal. Right but acting on inside information would be illegal. You're 100% incorrect on that last point. Although not a formal legal document this article makes it pretty clear Senators and Representatives have a loophole in regards to trading on stocks. https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459 https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459 I will no longer respond to this thread as it's now reached the point of no return. In the meantime have a great day!