Worldwide Nightmare Theatre, Empire of Chaos Enhanced and Expanded

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Again dealing with speculations rather than abundant available facts on other issues.

My post was not targeted at you per se, but anti-Trumpers in general. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but I will not accuse him of Russian collusion, treason, or obstruction without more proof than is presently available.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Again dealing with speculations rather than abundant available facts on other issues.

My post was not targeted at you per se, but anti-Trumpers in general. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but I will not accuse him of Russian collusion, treason, or obstruction without more proof than is presently available.

Can we at least agree that Trump's deference to Putin (and other dictators like Erdogan, Duterte, and Kim Jong Un) is more than a little strange, especially when contrasted with how he acts toward our allies? His obsequious behavior is more than a little off-putting, in my opinion.

And pre-emptively, this is not to say that he needs to be showing Putin his war face either, but there's a difference between working with a foreign power to solve common issues and buddying up to them.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Again dealing with speculations rather than abundant available facts on other issues.

My post was not targeted at you per se, but anti-Trumpers in general. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but I will not accuse him of Russian collusion, treason, or obstruction without more proof than is presently available.

For me, treason (as in "Treason against the United States") is off the table. It is the one crime actually defined in the Constitution, with a unique standard of proof also defined in the Constitution. The founders of this nation were well aware of the proclivity of tyrants to use bogus treason charges to get rid of political enemies.

The term is, of course, more loosely used to indicate betrayal or treachery.

The founders were also aware of the similar use of "bills of attainder," by which someone could be declared an "enemy of the state" by simple majority vote of Parliament, which would be a death sentence.

Il Duce, on the other hand, has referred to reporters as "enemies of the people," a classification whose earliest use AFAIK was by the Roman Senate against Nero (effectively a death sentence, though Nero cheated the executioner).

Il Duce has also called Edward Snowden, members of the WH staff, and God only knows who all else "traitors."

Also, as far as I'm concerned, anyone accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians to fix the 2016 election, and Il Duce of obstructing the investigation, is not guilty of anything worse than belaboring the obvious. But that's just my opinion.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by wombatman

Can we at least agree that Trump's deference to Putin (and other dictators like Erdogan, Duterte, and Kim Jong Un) is more than a little strange, especially when contrasted with how he acts toward our allies? His obsequious behavior is more than a little off-putting, in my opinion.

The rational explanation is he believes in driving a better deal with his allies while wooing enemies into starting a working relationship. But, IMO, it is far more likely he has no plan at all. I suspect erratic behavior has worked well for Trump all his adult life. And now you have me in the speculation business

And pre-emptively, this is not to say that he needs to be showing Putin his war face either, but there's a difference between working with a foreign power to solve common issues and buddying up to them.

100% agree.

[Dr Sardonicus]

So sez Rudy Giuliani. And if that's not a verifiable quote, I don't know what is.

Question is -- with Il Duce having steadfastly denied since the campaign there was any collusion with Russian interference in our election -- why is Il Duce's top legal representative WRT the Russia investigation now saying this?

Of course, Il Duce's lackeys have been claiming that nothing he, as king president does while in office can be illegal.

[kladner]

Written in 2016, but still pertinent.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...t-illegal.html

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Written in 2016, but still pertinent.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...t-illegal.html

Or "the sovereign," as the case may be. Nixon actually compared Vietnam war protests to the division of the nation during the Civil War.

One of the "not illegal if the president does it" things he approved was the "Huston Plan," which called for illegal wiretapping, burglary, kidnapping, and secret deportation of "radicals."

I don't know where they would have been deported to. Perhaps to a model community like Theresienstadt (AKA Terezín).

[kladner]

Isn't it funny how those "divisions" came about.

Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war
We're sending 50,000 more
To help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese.
-Tom Paxton

Nixon carried the war to new horrors, including bombing much of SE Asia. I'll only mention his treacherous sabotage of the peace talks.
EDIT: Of course, the real problems in Nixon's view were those damned hippies and black folks making trouble at home.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

EDIT: Of course, the real problems in Nixon's view were those damned hippies and black folks making trouble at home.

He had a solution for that -- the Controlled Substances Act, the War on Drugs, and the DEA.

The Wikipedia page on the Controlled Substances Act mentions that

Title II, Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study cannabis abuse in the United States. During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Sonnenreich and Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts, with Shafer stating,

[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance.

This was probably the basis for a political cartoon at the time by Bill Mauldin, showing a man with the Commission's report standing in front of the President's s desk, with an angry Nixon saying, "Don't confuse me with facts!"

[kladner]

[QUOTE]"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."[/QUOTE]
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/polit...pie/index.html
Demonize hippies with pot, and blacks with heroin.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/polit...pie/index.html
Demonize hippies with pot, and blacks with heroin.

I mentioned that quote here 'way back in June...