Is Trump's cry for 'total immunity' the dead canary in the fascist cave?

I mistakenly inserted the word old before English. You got me.

Every dog has its day eh?

 

A dictator cannot control a nation by himself. He needs people in key positions to maintain power.

In this case a friendly US Senate that would refuse to try or convict him if impeached by the House.

 

How do YOU define dictator?...and why would requiring an impeachment prior to being prosecuted for a crime lead to a dictatorship in your mind?

For sake of argument lets stipulate that a friendly Senate would not convict ( which is a silly assumption). Without any hyperbole, how does that lead to a dictatorship?

 

No, what you have to do, FAW, is climb out of your right wing echo bubble and realize, grasp, grok, understand the following inescapable, incontrovertible, unassailable and immutable fact:

The law has NOTHING to do with 'popularity'. He has been convicted of conspiring to subvert the 2020 election (or some semblance thereof). And, until Trump can get his indictments tossed out, like it or not, he will be tried at the state and federal level for an assortment of some 45 crimes.

No, that is wrong as wrong can be, so, once again, what you have to do, FAW, is climb out of your right wing echo chamber and realize, grasp, grok, understand the following inescapable, incontrovertible, unassailable and immutable fact:

THE salient reason Senate republicans did not convict Trump was that they are afraid of Trump, his base, and what Trump can do to them (primary, humiliate, disparage, mean tweet) and what his base will do to them once he embarks on a hate campaign. We have seen what his base does to Engoron, Chutkan, Kaplan, their clerks, Bowers, Ruby & Shay, Raffensperger, Cheney, Flake, Kinzinger, and any one who counters Trump, we have seen the barrage of threats to them which Trump deliberately encourages via dog whistling verbiage.



THAT is why they don't convict him.

Wrong again. The public has nothing to do with it. Democrats, at that time, felt that Republicans had no business investigating Clinton's private life. His offenses to congress arose out of it, and but for the investigation to his private life, there would be no 'obstruction' or 'lying to congress'. These were process crimes for something that was nobody's business, in their view. His sexual peccadilloes were tawdry, no doubt, but they had no bearing on foreign nor domestic policy. Perhaps a censure or reprimand of some kind was in order,. but the ONLY person's whose opinions mattered were those of the Senate.

Ridiculous. My assessment is accurate. Your argument is not compelling, see above.

Immunity from prosecution would be a major step on the path to total authority. Trump envies dictators, and he is a malignant narcissist, is this what you want to give to a guy like that, let alone, anyone else? You are not thinking straight.

 

No, but impeachment does. If the American public does not support removing a President, its probably not a good idea to go forth with trying to convict someone criminally. They could have went forward and convicted Clinton criminally if they so chose. Since there was not an appetite for such, leaving it alone from a criminal perspective was probably the best course of action.

 

The senate are supposed to weigh the evidence and decide whether or not the President committed high crimes.

The public has nothing to do with it. If the senate is influenced by their constituents opinions, they are not doing their job.

But this senate is afraid of Donald Trump and the evidence for that fact is overwhelming.

 

What is it that Trump would do to the senate?

 

Under President Trump I bought properties with 1.5% financing.
Anyone you know getting that kind of deal today?

 

I have been defending President Trump on the whole “well under trump we now have the biggest deficit ever”, since he left office.

However, for some reason, some in this discussion forum can’t help but blame him for this.

 

“Biden plans to fund these investments in large part through tax increases. The plan proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%, effectively repealing the changes to the corporate tax made under the Trump administration’s sweeping tax cuts in 2017.”

Very interesting point when you consider small businesses (the middle class) were the target for bidens handlers all along.

No big mystery why our country is hurting today, and why we will continue to hurt as long as politics-as-usual prevails.

The ultra-wealthy and big tech DO NOT pay those taxes, they can afford the tax experts that small businesses couldn’t even dream of affording.

It’s the SMALL businesses that pay those high taxes, thus the high prices you are currently experiencing.

…. and because of folks that truly believe our politicians are actually trying to help us, it will in fact get worse.

Politicians wreck everything they touch. A simple look at their history tells you everything you need to know.

I bet you believe that all business owners are rich too, right?

Thank you Patricio Da Silva and special thanks to CNN for proving my point.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/06/poli...an-republican-criticism-fact-check/index.html

 

Nixon could have been prosecuted after leaving office but was pardoned by Ford. Reagan had the most criminally corrupt presidency of any prez in recent history. Bush was liable for war crimes but Obama thought it best to leave matters alone. Trump, 91 indictments, need I say more? His immunity claim is a hail Mary get out of jail free card. Not only for the crimes he committed but ones he will commit if he is re-elected.

 

When you say public has nothing to do with it, if you mean do they directly vote on it, of course they dont. But do they influence it? Of course they do.

That is like trying to claim that the public has nothing to do with legislation being passed. Their relevance is OBVIOUSLY the ballot box. There is nothing there to legitimately argue, other than picking nits with technicalities that avoid the practicalities.

 

They do as they are fallible sycophantic politicians. But, when it comes to weighing evidence, they shouldn't, which is why I said if they are influenced by constituents, they are not doing their job on that particular function.

Legislation and evaluating impeachment evidence are separate functions, apples and oranges. You are just trying to support your above argument which explains that they do and why they do it, but it does not prove that they should, and, as I explained, they are not the same.

 

Well, your argument certainly is a good argument to raise the corporate tax to it's original structure.

thank you for proving my point, noting that the article debunks the Republican argument that only a small portion of the IB goes to infrastructure.

 

This conversation is beyond stale.

I am going to check out.