We Are Now Living In Some Perverted Version Of Trumpistan

[tampa24]

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." ~ Maya Angelou

Well folks,

In what should be little surprise to anyone who's been paying attention, Donald trump is trying to turn the U.S. into a kind of former Soviet republic. With himself at the helm as a patriarchal, narcissistic oligarch/dictator whose omniscience and infallibility is never to be questioned. Or else....

He idolizes ruthless dictator and murderer Putin of Russia, has words of praise for Kim Jong Un of North Korea, admires Erdogan...the new dictator of Turkey, admires the newest dictator Duterte of the Philippines who extra-judiciously kills off anyone he doesn't like, (en masse) while all packaged as a patriotic "War on Drugs", "Tough on Crime" crusade.

He sides with and pardons convicted felon Joe Arpaio who used extra-judicial means to racially profile and arrest members of his community (even those who had committed no verifiable crime) in violation of every American's constitutional right of protection from unlawful search and seizure.

After trying to pander to the LGBT community after the Pulse Massacre, he takes steps to boot out trans people in the military and prevent any more from entering.

With his pardon of Arpaio he has put the country on notice that no matter what the U.S. courts determine as far as treason or high crimes against the state by Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Donnie Trump Junior, Jared Kushner and who knows how many others deeply involved in the Russia collusion scandal...that he will not hesitate to pardon all of them. Thereby setting himself and all those close to him as being above the law. All of which could bring us to a constitutional crisis.

So after he showed us his true colors in the election campaign, Charlottesville, the pardon of Arpaio, the move to discriminate against trans members serving in the military...is there any doubt of the type of person we are dealing with? He has put us on notice, more than once, that he is a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, and a wannabe dictator.

From the Phoenix New Times newspaper in Arizona which chronicled Arpaio's numerous crimes for decades as well as the Arizona Republic newspaper's editorial board:

***********************************************************************

"The Phoenix New Times is not the only paper to come out against Trump’s decision. In a*scathing editorial*Friday, the Republic said Trump’s pardon was insulting."

“The pardon was a slap to those who worked through the judicial system to make Arpaio accountable, too. It robbed the people hurt by his policies of justice – even before a judge could mete out a sentence. The pardon was a sign of pure contempt for every American who believes in justice, human dignity and the rule of law,” the editorial board wrote.

“By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal.”

**************************************************************************

For the article in full:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/phoenix-newspaper-rips-sheriff-joe-143100416.html

 

[juanjo]

Ruling for the majority in the 1915 case Burdick v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna ruled that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Once accepted, the pardoned person may not invoke the 5th Amendment and must testify under oath on the facts upon which he was convicted. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

 

[elyot1]

Thanks for this Tampa. As a people we need to take a stand against this man.

 

[tampa24]

Ruling for the majority in the 1915 case Burdick v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna ruled that a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." Once accepted, the pardoned person may not invoke the 5th Amendment and must testify under oath on the facts upon which he was convicted. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

That could work very much on the country's favor if (as I suspect) there are proven allegations of treason by Trump himself and/or people below him. Thanks for sharing that with us Juanjo.

Now my next question for you since I know you have expertise on the law. Can or will a president get away with trying to pardon himself? Or will it provoke a constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court having to weigh in?

 

[tampa24]

Thanks for this Tampa. As a people we need to take a stand against this man.

Thank You Elyot.

I've tried to talk politics and world events a little in here recently. But there hasn't seemed to be much interest in it. As I've said on another thread, when I've tried to bring up politics in the recent past, I usually got the sound of crickets.

 

[elyot1]

Now my next question for you since I know you have expertise on the law. Can or will a president get away with trying to pardon himself? Or will it provoke a constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court having to weigh in?

That's a very good question. If he can wouldn't that be the definition of a dictatorship.

 

[elyot1]

Can or will a president get away with trying to pardon himself? Or will it provoke a constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court having to weigh in?

That would have to be something for the Supreme Court if he tried.

 

[another1]

Can you bestow an act of grace upon yourself? Can you express the requisite degree of contrition?
The power to pardon has up till now been bound by the reasonable!

 

[juanjo]

That could work very much on the country's favor if (as I suspect) there are proven allegations of treason by Trump himself and/or people below him. Thanks for sharing that with us Juanjo.

Now my next question for you since I know you have expertise on the law. Can or will a president get away with trying to pardon himself? Or will it provoke a constitutional crisis with the Supreme Court having to weigh in?

The general consensus is that he cannot pardon himself. But I am willing to bet he would fight that and it would go to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is not specific and it has never come up.

 

[tampa24]

The general consensus is that he cannot pardon himself. But I am willing to bet he would fight that and it would go to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is not specific and it has never come up.

Thanks Juanjo. That's pretty much what I suspected. I appreciate you confirming that.

IF it ever came to that, and the Supremes ruled against him, I predict that he would fight it. He would pander to his base and say he got a bad decision from a biased Liberal court. Because Sotomayor is Hispanic and a Democrat, she should have recused herself since he is building "The Wall." Of course this is all hypothetical conjecture at the moment.

 

[rafe59]

Thank You Elyot.

I've tried to talk politics and world events a little in here recently. But there hasn't seemed to be much interest in it. As I've said on another thread, when I've tried to bring up politics in the recent past, I usually got the sound of crickets.

Just a thought Tampa, and I state this with No malice towards anyone, even though I am a Conservative and my views differ greatly from yours on certain subjects. Maybe the reason you have only heard chirps on this site rather than a full blown political discussion is that members may want to keep this as a place to view and Discuss Hot Boys and the like, not world topics !!! Just a thought for what it's worth....There is a site that you frequent that discusses the issues you are referring to, at least they discussed them 2 months ago when I was still going there !!!!!!

 

[mikeyank]

Just a thought Tampa, and I state this with No malice towards anyone, even though I am a Conservative and my views differ greatly from yours on certain subjects. Maybe the reason you have only heard chirps on this site rather than a full blown political discussion is that members may want to keep this as a place to view and Discuss Hot Boys and the like, not world topics !!! Just a thought for what it's worth....There is a site that you frequent that discusses the issues you are referring to, at least they discussed them 2 months ago when I was still going there !!!!!!

Due to your participation on this forum Rafe and at least one other dear friend of mine whose political views differ from mine, I am going along with your thoughts to keep this site at least for me, one to discuss boys, dicks and asses, but once again to quote the great west coast philosopher, "That's just me". lolololol

 

[tampa24]

Just a thought Tampa, and I state this with No malice towards anyone, even though I am a Conservative and my views differ greatly from yours on certain subjects. Maybe the reason you have only heard chirps on this site rather than a full blown political discussion is that members may want to keep this as a place to view and Discuss Hot Boys and the like, not world topics !!! Just a thought for what it's worth....There is a site that you frequent that discusses the issues you are referring to, at least they discussed them 2 months ago when I was still going there !!!!!!

Hi Rafe,

I do understand your point about how maybe some members prefer the forum to just be along the subjects of sex and so on. And that may very well be so. In my mind though it can get monotonous in here with only discussions of the latest updates. Sometimes there may be only 3 threads at a time on any given day that are gaining any discussion or interest. Years ago it was nothing to have 10-12 active threads buzzing in here on a daily basis. Of course membership numbers were higher also. But as you allude to, any desire by a broader section of the membership to talk about something beyond sex will be decided by the interest and number of posts any particular non-site related subject gets.

I am mindful of your broader point that members who are more conservative politically or who support Trump may be turned off by political discussions of those who are more liberal. And it's not my goal to sow dissension and discord in here. I'm just trying to get more conversations going so we have more active threads on more varied topics to choose from.

 

[rafe59]

Hi Rafe,

I do understand your point about how maybe some members prefer the forum to just be along the subjects of sex and so on. And that may very well be so. In my mind though it can get monotonous in here with only discussions of the latest updates. Sometimes there may be only 3 threads at a time on any given day that are gaining any discussion or interest. Years ago it was nothing to have 10-12 active threads buzzing in here on a daily basis. Of course membership numbers were higher also. But as you allude to, any desire by a broader section of the membership to talk about something beyond sex will be decided by the interest and number of posts any particular non-site related subject gets.

I am mindful of your broader point that members who are more conservative politically or who support Trump may be turned off by political discussions of those who are more liberal. And it's not my goal to sow dissension and discord in here. I'm just trying to get more conversations going so we have more active threads on more varied topics to choose from.

Mike I appreciate your thoughts, and I know you state them because you are a caring person and a friend, but please don't let my views on any subject stop you from expressing yours. If that happens then I am stepping on your free speech rights. And as a person who believes in our constitution, everyone has the right to express an opinion, whether I or you agree or not. keeping free speech alive is paramount to having a free country, If you look around at different country's in this world you can quickly see the one's that suppress speech....China, Russia, Most of the Middle East, Venezuela, etc....I don't want to be like them !!!!.....The down side of free speech is idiots are allowed to speak also........even if he is President ........lololololololololol........did I just say that.....

 

[rafe59]

Sorry Tamps and Mike....I replied to Tamps Quote when I meant to reply to MikeY's......

 

[mikeyank]

Mike I appreciate your thoughts, and I know you state them because you are a caring person and a friend, but please don't let my views on any subject stop you from expressing yours. If that happens then I am stepping on your free speech rights. And as a person who believes in our constitution, everyone has the right to express an opinion, whether I or you agree or not. keeping free speech alive is paramount to having a free country, If you look around at different country's in this world you can quickly see the one's that suppress speech....China, Russia, Most of the Middle East, Venezuela, etc....I don't want to be like them !!!!.....The down side of free speech is idiots are allowed to speak also........even if he is President ........lololololololololol........did I just say that.....

Thanks Rafe but I have enough places to vent outside of this forum, and as I said it is not just you that disagrees with my politics, so I will leave it to others to "vent" about the president here, and I will stick to topics like "believably straight" guys, to me like Jimmy Johnson, Damien Nichols and Ashton Taylor here!!!

 

[tampa24]

Sorry Tamps and Mike....I replied to Tamps Quote when I meant to reply to MikeY's......

No offense taken by either of us, I'm sure. lol

 

[tampa24]

Here's that infamous Steele Dossier.

It first came out (or got leaked) on hard-hitting journalistic giant Buzzfeed. *Sarcasm alert* haha CNN briefly made mention of this controversial document on the air and got hammered for it. It was one of the first times that Trump started calling CNN, "Fake news." The 35 page document is a very difficult read. At first glance it can understandably be treated with skepticism. Not only are the allegations against Trump, his campaign aides, and business associates outrageous, lurid, dramatic and hard to believe...but the writing style of the document itself is also clunky, amateurish and clumsy. It appears (to me at least) that more than one person had a hand in writing this document. And they did not win or earn any college degrees in English writing and composition. haha It doesn't flow well together from one page to the next.

For a document that was supposedly written by British subjects, it lacks any flowery British prose, nor is it very advanced in the level of its vocabulary. Parts of it are written concisely and in a decent vocabulary one would expect from international policy experts. Then on the next page it devolves into common colloquialisms with a 6th or 7th grade vocabulary level. At times it appears to North American readers to have misspelled words. But that's actually a difference of American English and British English with some of the words used. The American English word "Skeptical" is spelled thus. The British spelling of "Sceptical" is acceptable spelling across the pond.

Well... Long story short this document that was originally dismissed as a fake character assassination of those mentioned within it, is gaining much more credibility and interest now. More reputable major news organizations (beyond Buzzfeed) took over investigating the many claims. Could they prove that this or that Trump associate was in Europe, in a particular city, on a particular day, or within a particular week mentioned in the dossier? Could they document or prove that certain Russian citizens or Russian government representatives were travelling abroad to this or that same European city at the same time? Could they prove by documentation whether Trump or other family members were travelling abroad, or even within the U.S., on the dates or time periods mentioned in the document? It would appear that the document has been found to have far more hits than misses.

Of course that doesn't prove that secret private meetings between individuals (if any) unfolded exactly as described. The investigations so far are still trying to sort that out.

One of the lead investigators who helped compile the allegations within the document was asked to come to the U.S. last week where he testified before a closed Congressional committee for 10 hours.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html