America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,707 comments
  • 1,595,164 views
Id hate to fall into godwins law... I am curious how 2020 is going to go though, especially if Trump is being beat by a landslide.
 
Imari
That's sort of the thing though, right? If you're still "successful" despite all the above what is "success" actually measuring?

And in terms of people who you would want to be president of your country and publically embody your country's ideals, someone who is "successful" in that particular way seems a poor choice.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not saying that Trump is a successful humanitarian - I wouldn't even say he's particularly successful as a human being. However, if you evaluate his career in terms of what his goals were, I would say he's been extremely successful. Unlike some other prominent billionaires, like Gates, Jobs, Branson, Musk, for instance, he never really had a any lofty ambition to create something new & original. I think the young Trump was simply determined to become rich, famous & **** attractive women ... & he has been unscrupulous in using every means at his disposal to achieve his goals, skillfully manoeuvring his way past any set-backs that he encountered.

There doesn't seem to be any moral core to Trump, just as there doesn't seem to be any intellectual core. The characteristics he presents are: lack of empathy, lack of guilt or remorse, narcissism, superficial charm, dishonesty, manipulativeness, risk-taking - the qualities of a high-functioning sociopath. What is amazing to me is that enough Americans bought into his BS to elect him President. THAT'S what's disturbing.
 
Imari
It's interesting in some ways just how far the US has come from some of it's "core" founding principles.
Click to expand...
Well, they're only important when they serve the wants of those who stress their importance.
 
Scaff
"President Trump's lawyers sent a confidential letter to special counsel Robert Mueller in January, arguing that the president could not have possibly obstructed justice because he has constitutional authority over all federal investigations.

The letter, which was obtained by The New York Times, argues that the Constitution gives Trump the broad authority to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.""

All of which sounds rather autocratic.
Click to expand...

That's really sounding like the office of President is above the constitution and the law.

Although with Nixon tripping himself up on Frost by saying, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal", I suppose we've been here before.
 
Liquid
Although with Nixon tripping himself up on Frost by saying, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal", I suppose we've been here before.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming his feeling that way was the reason for the Justice Department to issue their opinion in @JoeyD's post above.

In the end Nixon received his pardon from his successor Gerald Ford for whom it damaged Ford's own reputation so badly that it resulted in his deselection at the next election.
 
Last edited:
Imari
It will depend who his opposition is. I'm sure the democrats can still manage to find someone even more objectionable than Trump if they try.
Click to expand...

They should see if Hollywood has anyone to offer.

#metoo.
 
Scaff
Doesn't the US have a separation of power between the various branches?
Click to expand...


Yes we do. The Department of Justice (DoJ or Justice Department) is part of the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch is the Supreme Court and they have a different purpose.

It's all nicely laid out in our Constitution.

Northstar
Weiner should be out by that point, they could run a redemption angle. :lol:
Click to expand...
Which one, the Weiner in CA that reduced the crime from a felony to a minor misdemeanor to knowingly infect an unsuspecting person with HIV?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AbeFroman75
the Weiner in CA
Click to expand...
That would be Scott Wiener, who wasn't convicted of any crimes that I'm aware of, let alone any for which he'd have served time by the next presidential cycle.

Anthony Weiner, however, was convicted as a sex offender, a much publicized matter, and is currently serving a 21-month sentence in Massachusetts.
 
Liquid
LMFTFY
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I think both of them are terrible people that shouldn't be allowed to run a bookstore, let alone a country.

However, Trump is the incumbent so realistically that's who the democratic nominee is going to be running against. The democrats can put up another Clinton-type if they want, but it didn't work last time. The people don't want an elite with political experience in being more corrupt than a month old dead horse. They apparently want a celebrity who makes the noises that they want to hear and provides good TV and Twitter entertainment.

I'd suggest Kanye if he wasn't already attached to the Republicans. I'd suggest George Clooney, but he seems too sensible and Presidential. How about Oprah? Or Mark Cuban, if you wanna stick with the rich white guy angle?
 
AbeFroman75
reduced the crime from a felony to a minor misdemeanor to knowingly infect an unsuspecting person with HIV
Click to expand...
https://www.eqca.org/chcr/sb-239/

SB 239
SB 239


Modernizing California HIV Criminalization Laws – SB 239 (Sen. Scott Wiener, Asm. Todd Gloria)

Summary
Several California criminal laws specifically target people living with HIV. SB 239 (Wiener & Gloria) eliminates this form of HIV exceptionalism by incorporating the current scientific understanding of HIV, addressing exposure to HIV in the same manner as exposure to other serious communicable diseases, and eliminating extra punishment for people living with HIV who engage in consensual sexual activity.

Background
Modernization of outdated laws is necessary. Most California HIV criminalization laws were passed in 1988, with limited medical understanding of HIV and tremendous fear surrounding the disease. Little was known about the virus, there were no effective treatments, and stigmatizing people living with HIV was politically expedient.

In the years since, societal and medical understanding of HIV/AIDS has greatly improved. There are now effective medications that greatly lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV—treatment that also nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission. In addition, HIV-negative individuals can take similar medications to prevent acquisition of HIV. California law should reflect the current landscape of HIV prevention, care and treatment.

Current law hurts more than it helps. Research indicates that HIV-specific laws do not influence people’s behaviors or reduce the number of new infections. Criminalization serves only to fuel continued stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV.

These laws work against public health. They provide an incentive not to know your HIV status because you can only be prosecuted if you know you are HIV-positive. They create mistrust of public health professionals, making people who have tested HIV-positive less likely to cooperate with partner notification, treatment adherence and prevention programs. And they place HIV-negative people in harm’s way by making them believe they can engage in risky behaviors without the risk.

Addressing HIV the same as other communicable diseases benefits public health because it reduces the stigma associated with this particular disease, thereby addressing barriers to testing and treatment. The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), HIV Medicine Association, American Psychological Association, AIDS United, and others agree that outdated HIV criminalization laws must be replaced with laws promoting public health.

HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. Ninety percent of HIV-related prosecutions in California take place under the statute that transforms misdemeanor solicitation into a felony. Though only 13% of the people living with HIV in California are women, 43% of the people criminalized under HIV specific laws are women. Transgender women, who are subject to police profiling as sex workers (i.e., “walking while trans”), are even more disproportionately affected by these laws. Furthermore, 51% of people living with HIV in California are Black or Latino/a, but 67% of people criminalized under HIV specific laws are Black or Latino/a. And though foreign-born individuals are underrepresented among those criminalized based on their HIV status, felony charges can result in dire consequences, including deportation proceedings for those who are undocumented.

Solution
  • Place HIV on par with other serious communicable diseases.
  • Promote public health by reducing stigma, acknowledging shared responsibility for health, and eliminating barriers to testing and care.
  • Maintain criminal penalties for people who intentionally harm others.
Click to expand...

At this point, the CDC maintains that those receiving treatment for HIV aren't capable of transmitting the disease.
 
Yes, I'm well aware of the law and how ridiculous it is. What exactly is your point? Or do you just want to flex your Google abilities?

Imari
I don't disagree. I think both of them are terrible people that shouldn't be allowed to run a bookstore, let alone a country.
Click to expand...


Have you seen our numbers pertaining to the economy? He's doing a pretty damn good job. He can tweet dumb **** all he wants so long as he keeps up the great work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AbeFroman75
Yes we do. The Department of Justice (DoJ or Justice Department) is part of the Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch is the Supreme Court and they have a different purpose.

It's all nicely laid out in our Constitution.
Click to expand...
And bring nicely ignored by the President and his legal team.

AbeFroman75
Yes, I'm well aware of the law and how ridiculous it is. What exactly is your point? Or do you just want to flex your Google abilities?
Click to expand...
While I'm a retired member of staff I would politely remind you the reread the AUP.

AbeFroman75
Have you seen our numbers pertaining to the economy? He's doing a pretty damn good job. He can tweet dumb **** all he wants so long as he keeps up the great work.
Click to expand...
As has already been discussed it's highly debatable how much that's down to Trump. The economy doesn't reset every term, and as such it takes almost a term to wash over.

Of his policies put in place so far the tax cuts rallied already good stock values, while creating a massive deficit that will have to be accounted for at some point. Showing all the characteristics of a hand overplayed and at the wrong time, while being a GOP gift for every future democratic administration, who will have an immediate rebuttal to any deficit attacks.

Then the tariffs, which are hurting parts of the US economy (soyabean and pork exports right now, both worth big money), and attacking long term allies.

The only way anyone could see these as good would be if they desire an isolationists policy for the US, and that's never worked out well for any country that's given it a go.

Oddly the policies do however play well for one other country, but that couldn't possibly be a factor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AbeFroman75
Have you seen our numbers pertaining to the economy? He's doing a pretty damn good job. He can tweet dumb **** all he wants so long as he keeps up the great work.
Click to expand...

Of course. When he took office anything the economy did was immediately down to his involvement.

Frankly, I think you're lucky the economy is doing so well given the threats of tariffs and retaliation from major trade partners. I think he's riding the wave of a strong economy when he took office and doing his best to smash it into the ground. Unless you think that the US can be totally self-sufficient economically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scaff
I'm really not sure if he's just turned that daft or if Rudi is actually a full on Poe?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...f-trump-shot-comey-he-still-couldnt-have-been
Click to expand...

When your argument is "even if he was guilty, you can't touch him" you sound like a crime boss with a canal of cement shod corpses behind your house. You're basically asserting guilt, because only guilty people go anywhere near the "even if I did it..." line of excuses.

Seriously, Rudi. Just tell us that we can't touch him even though he's been in cahoots with Putin for the last five years. You know you want to. Nothing bad will happen. It's not like Republicans are strongly patriotic or anything. I'm sure they'd be happy to accept a leader undermining their country and freedoms.
 
AbeFroman75
Yes, I'm well aware of the law and how ridiculous it is. What exactly is your point? Or do you just want to flex your Google abilities?
Click to expand...
No point. The intent was to provide context unscrupulously omitted. While the statement itself was not false, the lack of context was misleading (probably intentionally so, as this is a common tactic among those who oppose legislative measures) and I was compelled to address it.

Edit: Why should the law be so much harder on intentional transmission of a single disease than it is on the majority? I [among countless others] suspect it's because HIV is so linked with homosexuality, and anything to prolong negative connotations and social stigma is to the benefit of certain groups.

Scaff
And Trump has just doubled down with Rudi.

He can pardon himself, well that's what he says in his latest tweet.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/390516-trump-i-have-the-right-to-pardon-myself
Click to expand...
"Why would I do that?"

(Why would you suggest it?)
 
I remember reading something a decade or so ago that theorized that the President probably technically had the ability to do so; but then postulated that no one (not even Nixon/Ford) had ever dared do anything approaching it because it would be essentially be admitting guilt to try a defense that probably wouldn't clear the Constitutional scrutiny of the inevitable months-long Supreme Court case (and even if it ultimately did, Congress would start impeachment proceedings purely for spite at that point), and that no administration had ever been so openly corrupt as to actually need to seriously consider it an option. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump didn't recognize either of these things.



Comes off like the term limit hole in the Constitution, where the rules were "understood" by most involved and not seriously tested right up until someone was elected president four times in a row.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
That's treading pretty close to admitting guilt. I mean if you were innocent, why would you need to even come out and say "I can pardon myself" instead of continuing to deny you did anything wrong or just ignoring it completely?
Click to expand...

The question is: guilty of what exactly? It seems to me that there are four basic possible scenarios:

1) Members of the Trump campaign clumsily "colluded" with the Russians to the extent that they had inappropriate contacts with Russian players regarding discrediting HRC. This seems to me indisputable.

2) Members of the Trump campaign, like Manafort & Flynn, had inappropriate business/political dealings with the Russians around political issues in Ukraine & sanctions. This seems fairly certain.

3) Trump is deeply beholden to Russian interests due to financial dependencies he incurred linked to his numerous international business dealings. No concrete evidence presented thus far.

4) Pee pee tapes. Pure speculation.

The third scenario is obviously the most serious one. Mueller, unlike Trump, is not throwing stuff out into the public arena, so it is impossible to know what evidence he has gathered so far.
 
Biggles
1) Members of the Trump campaign clumsily "colluded" with the Russians to the extent that they had inappropriate contacts with Russian players regarding discrediting HRC. This seems to me indisputable.
Click to expand...
"Witch hunt."

Biggles
2) Members of the Trump campaign, like Manafort & Flynn, had inappropriate business/political dealings with the Russians around political issues in Ukraine & sanctions. This seems fairly certain.
Click to expand...
"Witch hunt."

Biggles
3) Trump is deeply beholden to Russian interests due to financial dependencies he incurred linked to his numerous international business dealings. No concrete evidence presented thus far.
Click to expand...
"Witch hunt."

Biggles
4) Pee pee tapes. Pure speculation.
Click to expand...
"Witch hunt."
 
Biggles
The question is: guilty of what exactly? It seems to me that there are four basic possible scenarios:

1) Members of the Trump campaign clumsily "colluded" with the Russians to the extent that they had inappropriate contacts with Russian players regarding discrediting HRC. This seems to me indisputable.

2) Members of the Trump campaign, like Manafort & Flynn, had inappropriate business/political dealings with the Russians around political issues in Ukraine & sanctions. This seems fairly certain.

3) Trump is deeply beholden to Russian interests due to financial dependencies he incurred linked to his numerous international business dealings. No concrete evidence presented thus far.

4) Pee pee tapes. Pure speculation.

The third scenario is obviously the most serious one. Mueller, unlike Trump, is not throwing stuff out into the public arena, so it is impossible to know what evidence he has gathered so far.
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm not actually sure. So much has been thrown around about Trump and what he's done, it's hard to keep track. I agree though, the first two scenarios seem very plausible.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
435 436 437
Replies
13K
Views
548K
Dave A
Dave A
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
431 432 433
Replies
13K
Views
649K
Eggstor
Eggstor
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
17K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
625
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
6K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back