Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

[DrZoidberg]

So when did he go to jail for rape? If he was convicted then that's what would have happened, right?

Please stay on the topic. You seem to struggle with staying on the topic of rape

Once again, you misunderstand the USA.
Trump has piles of money and millions of supporters. People like him get away with all kinds of things.

Yes, I am aware of the shortcomings of the American legislature system. But all legislature system are flawed. The legal process we have in modern democracies is a compromise. Especially around sexual crimes. It's an inherently difficult crime to try in court.

But it's the best humanity has been able to come up with.

The price we pay is that if anyone has been tried and freed, we all agree to let them be free, and claiming that they're still guilty is slander. It's not a perfect system. It's essentially a game. A game we have agreed to put up with, because it creates social cohesion and stability. We're all better off respecting the law, even if it occasionally ends up protecing perpetrators.

A system where perpetrators are systematically protected and above the law, fascism.

He stole boxes of top secret documents. Most of us would have quickly been convicted of treason. He's never even been tried! Because his supporters got his pet judge assigned, Aileen Cannon. She just threw up her hands and said, "This is too hard!". And it all went away.
Tom

It's not a good look. But I suspect there's more too it. Judges are professional and judged by their peers. She can't do stuff to egregrious. But that's on her, not Trump.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not on trial. And neither is Trump.

A very revealing admission of your stake in all this.

Lol... it is?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Now you're changing the subject. He's a sexual predator. You'll have no argument from me on that. But calling him a rapist is hyperbole.

My problem is with the hyperbole. Everyone you don't like isn't Hitler. I don't like Trump either. But he's done plenty of actually questionable stuff. There's no need to exagerate or make stuff up.

I'm not changing the fucking subject. That is what the court concluded he had done. Say it in plain English. Do you or you not consider it a "serious crime" to jam your fingers or an object into a woman's vagina without her consent or not? Why is it hard for you come to a moral conclusion about this? It should be a very simple answer.

Rape apologists are scum.

Im not Dr.Zoidberg but to me he is absolutely correct on the hyperbole with the terms directed at Trump. And all this does is cause confusion and even more discourse than necessary. It certainly does not change hearts and minds on the other side in the least. Why the need to call Trump rapist when he has never even been indicted on that charge? And yes there is a serious difference between being called a sexual predator and a rapist.

Everyone calls Jan 6 "an insurrection" when that event obviously wasn't even remotely close to that. Everyone on the left calls it an insurrection yet no one had guns except for the police. If this was an insurrection how come no one was indicted or found guilty of insurrection? Yet another example of abrasive and caustic language the left chooses to use to further inflame people who should be on the same side of freedom and liberty.

The left shoots themselves in the foot more than Barney Fife with all their ridiculous hyperbole.

If it was insurection you can't just seize one building. You need to seize all centers of power at once, including the army. The capitol riot was political riot that got out of hand.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It was a brain-dead insurrection, but then again, this is MAGA. They wanted to stop the government from carrying out the certification of Biden's win. They broke in the windows and smashed in the doors of our Capitol. They assaulted police with boards, flag poles, and chemical sprays. They forced the legislators to flee. Yes, that is an insurrection. For fuck's sake -- even the GOP leaders condemned Trump (for a couple of days.)
Some of the mob went looking for "enemy" politicians to assault. They were allowed to hold the building for three goddamned hours while their leader watched their crimes on TV.
Now, of course, MAGA wipes away every bit of the events that happened. The leader is back, showing his true colors, and getting small amounts of pushback and lots of warm cuddles from SCOTUS.
We are a failed state. America has lost its way. Unimaginable events are happening that no one could have dreamed of ten years ago. Armed forces deployed into our cities -- foreign states making concentration camp-level prisons for us. The President has declared that negative reporting (by definition, negative about him) is illegal. He bleats out the names of people he wants indicted, and his "DOJ" goes after them. It has gotten this bad in the span of half a year, but it's obviously going to get darker, and more of the Constitution is going to get trashed.

Who got charged with insurrection? Less alone convicted with insurrection.

You are going to tell us with a straight face that the heavily biased and politically motivated Biden DOJ (who wanted to put everyone they could away forever).....didn't have enough evidence to even charge someone with insurrection???

This was only an insurrection because it played well on tv. And you have been sucking this lie so long your mind has begun to believe it.

Under Biden, as under all previous presidents, DOJ was an independent body, unlike under Trump where it is his personal goon squad.
You say (and I agree) that an insurrection was shown on TV. That's right, it was, and much of the world's population (including you, at the time or later) witnessed it. You are denying the witness of your own eyes of an insurrection happening.

If under Biden DOJ was like it is under Trump, then if Biden "wanted to put everyone he could away forever' then it would have happened, but nothing like that happened. Over 1,000 people were found guilty of crimes related to the incident by courts, but due to Biden not being as powerful as you claim they only got light sentences (which Trump pardoned them for when he became POTUS for second time).

 

[bilby]

Who got charged with insurrection? Less alone convicted with insurrection.

Who got charged with insurrection in the 1770s, when the founders of the USA engaged in insurrection (and treason, which nobody was charged with either) against King George III?

Charges, indictments and convictions are not a necessary outcome of crimes; Many of the most successful crimes never result in these things.

Nobody was ever charged with the Whitechapel murders, much less convicted of them; But the victims were murdered nonetheless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who got charged with insurrection? Less alone convicted with insurrection.

Who got charged with insurrection in the 1770s, when the founders of the USA engaged in insurrection (and treason, which nobody was charged with either) against King George III?

Charges, indictments and convictions are not a necessary outcome of crimes; Many of the most successful crimes never result in these things.

It's because of British legal tradition at the time. Trials in absentia weren’t done in 18th-century English common law. All the founding fathers were wanted for high treason. So if they would have been caught and brought to justice, then the would have been charged, and found guilty. There's no way they could have wiggled out of that. Especially since UK was a monarchy and courts were stacked with the kings men. So we don't have to speculate how that would have played out.

English common law works on precedents. There's a precedent in Cromwell. The same thing would have happened to the founding fathers as happened to Cromwell. Their heads would have been displayed on spikes atop Westminster Hall.

Nobody was ever charged with the Whitechapel murders, much less convicted of them; But the victims were murdered nonetheless.

Is the argument that there was a coup in USA and that Biden became the president following that, and that's evidence of what exactly?

As I recall the rioters were convicted of rioting. But not insurection. That capitol rioters had an explicit goal. They thought the democrats had violated the democratic process and cheated their way to power. They were there in defence of democracy. Not there to stop it.

Or to put it another way, they were charged with studpidity, not maliciousness. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Now you're changing the subject. He's a sexual predator. You'll have no argument from me on that. But calling him a rapist is hyperbole.

My problem is with the hyperbole. Everyone you don't like isn't Hitler. I don't like Trump either. But he's done plenty of actually questionable stuff. There's no need to exagerate or make stuff up.

I'm not changing the fucking subject. That is what the court concluded he had done. Say it in plain English. Do you or you not consider it a "serious crime" to jam your fingers or an object into a woman's vagina without her consent or not? Why is it hard for you come to a moral conclusion about this? It should be a very simple answer.

Rape apologists are scum.

Im not Dr.Zoidberg but to me he is absolutely correct on the hyperbole with the terms directed at Trump. And all this does is cause confusion and even more discourse than necessary. It certainly does not change hearts and minds on the other side in the least. Why the need to call Trump rapist when he has never even been indicted on that charge? And yes there is a serious difference between being called a sexual predator and a rapist.

Everyone calls Jan 6 "an insurrection" when that event obviously wasn't even remotely close to that. Everyone on the left calls it an insurrection yet no one had guns except for the police. If this was an insurrection how come no one was indicted or found guilty of insurrection? Yet another example of abrasive and caustic language the left chooses to use to further inflame people who should be on the same side of freedom and liberty.

The left shoots themselves in the foot more than Barney Fife with all their ridiculous hyperbole.

If it was insurection you can't just seize one building.

It wasn't the building, it was who was in the building and the legal process they were undergoing. They were seeking Trump being kept as President by scaring Congress. Effectively only two people that day kept our Democracy alive, the Vice President Mike Pence who didn't finish reading the edited script and Sen. Mitch McConnell who told the Senate chamber to sit down and shut up. Either one of these two could have ultimately sent the election to Congress for a vote, instead of using the Electoral College.

The people breaking into the building were calling to hang one of them. That isn't a political riot, it was a disarmed insurrection.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ICE arrests US citizen in Oregon. Attorney decries ‘illegal abduction’

Francisco Miranda, who was born in California, was detained by masked agents, taken away in an unmarked van and held for several hours at the ICE office in Portland.

www.oregonlive.com

...

“Don’t lie to me. Where were you born?” the agent asked Miranda again.

“California,” Miranda repeated.

Miranda is Latino and lives in Milwaukie.

Last month, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for ICE to use race as a factor when deciding who to stop.

...

During Miranda’s arrest, the same ICE agent told him that authorities were going to take him in to verify his information after he repeatedly told them he was born in California.

“No, you are not, dude,” Miranda told him.

A few seconds later, a second ICE agent threatened Miranda with his police dog: “Turn around or you are going to get the dog. Turn around.”

...

According to the letter, ICE agents struck Miranda “forcefully from behind, causing him to collapse,” before putting him in an unmarked van.

Miranda was released, without explanation, after spending several hours at the ICE office in South Portland and “was driven back to his place of employment without being given any legitimate reason for his abduction,” the letter says.

Miranda had also shown his Oregon driver’s license to the agents before he was detained, according to the letter.

 

[ZiprHead]

If it was insurection you can't just seize one building. You need to seize all centers of power at once, including the army. The capitol riot was political riot that got out of hand.

There was a lot more going on than the rioting. This was done in conjuction with the "alternate" (read fake) electors scheme to steal the election. The plan was the rioters would disrupt the counting of the real electors and the fake electors would then be counted. Doing the second part was dependent on the first part being successful.

 

[Elixir]

There was a lot more going on than the rioting. This was done in conjuction with the "alternate" (read fake) electors scheme to steal the election. The plan was the rioters would disrupt the counting of the real electors and the fake electors would then be counted. Doing the second part was dependent on the first part being successful.

I’m afraid that Zoid is voicing a popular, simplified perception of American politics and the systems within which it operates.
People with flags, tear gas canisters, some broken windows - just a typical protest, and Trump was right to let them all out of jail.
The attempt to destroy democratic process, to overturn the will of voters, to prevent the certification of electoral results - NONE of that seems to register with most foreign observers, or with the average American FOXwashed Republican. It’s not even as bad as some hippie in Portland setting a garbage can on fire.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The process is, “I’m in the USA legally, here is my visa/green card etc” otherwise deportation is initiated.

That is not the legal process prescribed by the actual law.

What are you talking about ?

The law. You keep referencing it.

You just blurt out "the law!!!111!!!!", you haven't got a clue.

But the law isn't an abstract concept based on feelings. It's an actual set of documents, that you as a citizen have a right to help shape and modify, through the mechanism of elected representatives in the legislative branch.

Yeah, because I'm a US citizen. Non US citizens don't have the same rights as a US citizen.

And it describes in some detail when and under what circumstances a federal officer is supposed to arrest someone, and what is supposed to happen next.

You don't know shit about immigration law.

It's more complicated than most people think due to procedural issues. The border issue did/does need addressing and deportation is a key aspect of that. However, the way it's being done is way too heavy handed, and even worse is that Trump has his paramilitary force (ICE) and is recruiting more every single day.

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense. In the long run it would've been better for the entire country and certainly more humane than what's happening now. At the same time, we wouldn't be threatened by what appears to be an inevitable loss of many civil liberties.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If it was insurection you can't just seize one building. You need to seize all centers of power at once, including the army. The capitol riot was political riot that got out of hand.

That’s not quite accurate. Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 also began as a localized attempt — taking Bavarian officials hostage — rather than seizing all centers of power at once. By your definition, that wouldn’t count as an insurrection either, yet it clearly was an attempt to overthrow the government.

Likewise, Trump’s coup attempt wasn’t about physically taking every branch of government. His goal was to use the chaos and intimidation of a violent mob to pressure Congress into halting the certification of the election. Let’s be clear and use evidence here: White House aide (and Republican) Cassidy Hutchinson testified, "I overheard the President say something to the effect of, 'I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the mags away; let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.'" And when Trump was told the crowd was chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" he reportedly said, "He deserves it."

All of the violence was acceptable to Trump — which is why he later praised the rioters and referred to it as a "Day of Love." Trump even pardoned members of his paramilitary wing who were convicted of seditious conspiracy:

Far-right Oath Keepers, ex-Proud Boys leaders released after Trump pardons

Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio, who received some of longest sentences for the US Capitol attack, freed from prison.

www.aljazeera.com

Unlike Hitler, Trump didn’t need to seize the army — he was already Commander-in-Chief. All he needed was a pretext to remain in power beyond the lawful end of his term two weeks later.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem with calling Trump a fascist is that it relatvises actual fascism. It's the "cry wolf" problem. It's the same thing with calling his policies racist. It relativises actual racism. Has he put in place any laws that limits people based on race? If not, then his policies aren't racist. He can be a racist while his policies aren't racist. To the rape accusation. He hasn't been convicted of rape. So calling him a rapist relativises rape.

The problem with all of this is that it will make us blind to being taken over by actual racist rapist fascist.

You don't need to like Trump to insist that we call him what he actually is, a lying orange clown

Huh?

How is he not a fascist? He's rapidly turning our government into fascism.

This is like calling someone who was rude to you once for a narcisist.

Fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's just hyperbole. Yes, there's fascist traits. But he's right at the top of a slippery slope, that's not particularly slippery.

Not a racist? You realize some of his crowd have admitted they intend to purge the country of non-whites?

Where are the racist laws that he's passed?

Not a rapist? He's admitted to rape.

No, he hasn't. Don't relativise rape. It's a serious crime. Not cool.

Whereas sexual assault is not? What the fuck is your problem?

Answer the question: Do you think it is acceptable to sexually violate someone with your fingers or an object? And before this specific opportunity to defend the president came up, would you or would you not have considered it rape to do so?

Now you're changing the subject. He's a sexual predator. You'll have no argument from me on that. But calling him a rapist is hyperbole.

My problem is with the hyperbole. Everyone you don't like isn't Hitler. I don't like Trump either. But he's done plenty of actually questionable stuff. There's no need to exagerate or make stuff up.

I'm not changing the fucking subject. That is what the court concluded he had done. Say it in plain English. Do you or you not consider it a "serious crime" to jam your fingers or an object into a woman's vagina without her consent or not? Why is it hard for you come to a moral conclusion about this? It should be a very simple answer.

Rape apologists are scum.

I'm not on trial. And neither is Trump. If the court concluded he'd done it, then why wasn't he convicted?

He was found guilty in the E.Jean Carroll lawsuit.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not on trial. And neither is Trump. If the court concluded he'd done it, then why wasn't he convicted?

He was convicted. It was a civil trial, not a criminal trial.

Dismissing the counterclaim, a judge in New York, Lewis A Kaplan, said that when Carroll repeated her allegation that Trump raped her, her words were “substantially true”. Kaplan also set out in detail why it may be said that Trump raped Carroll.

Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

Ex-president claimed that writer defamed him when saying he raped her, but judge said term is commonly ‘used and understood’ in context

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not on trial. And neither is Trump. If the court concluded he'd done it, then why wasn't he convicted?

He was found guilty in the E.Jean Carroll lawsuit.

Civil suit and this is a damn red herring. Why are we wasting any energy over whether to call Trump a "rapist"? He is violating the Constitution with the blessing of the GOP right now. We aren't currently certain where this ends. Fighting over what words we are going to call him is nothing but needless noise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody was ever charged with the Whitechapel murders, much less convicted of them; But the victims were murdered nonetheless.

Is the argument that there was a coup in USA and that Biden became the president following that, and that's evidence of what exactly?

When did obfuscation become an Olympic Sport?

 

[TSwizzle]

(immigration law) It's more complicated than most people think due to procedural issues.

It can be a bureaucratic nightmare in a lot of cases requiring expensive legal assistance.

The border issue did/does need addressing and deportation is a key aspect of that.

Hmmm, I am not so sure about the border issue needing addressing. The recent "border crisis" was manufactured during Brandon's tenure and since Trump took over, illegal border crossings are way down. You only need to deport people if you allow them entry. If you don't allow them entry in the first place, then there is no requirement for deportation.

However, the way it's being done is way too heavy handed,

Is it though? Sometimes these operations are targeting violent criminals and a bit of heavy handedness is required.

and even worse is that Trump has his paramilitary force (ICE) and is recruiting more every single day.

"paramilitary force"? Hardly.

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense.

The first part appears to have been taken care of but then you have the so called "sanctuary cities" actively working against that.

In the long run it would've been better for the entire country and certainly more humane than what's happening now. At the same time, we wouldn't be threatened by what appears to be an inevitable loss of many civil liberties.

What loss of civil liberties are you talking about?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A more simple way would've been to more tightly seal the borders and deport those who are arrested or stopped for another potential offense.

The first part appears to have been taken care of but then you have the so called "sanctuary cities" actively working against that.

When I need to use a police officer to manage a work site, I have to get out the company checkbook and pay for their hours.

ICE wants city police services and resources for free. Jail housing and officer resources are quite finite for PDs. All the while ICE is targeting people for removal in cities that won't help reduce the crime level. So the local PD needs to provide services and resources for free, reducing their capacity to manage actual crime, with no net positive gain in city crime rate. In fact, ICE is being so heavy handed now, it could be making the local PD's job harder and more dangerous.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Who got charged with insurrection? Less alone convicted with insurrection.

Who got charged with insurrection in the 1770s, when the founders of the USA engaged in insurrection (and treason, which nobody was charged with either) against King George III?

Charges, indictments and convictions are not a necessary outcome of crimes; Many of the most successful crimes never result in these things.

It's because of British legal tradition at the time. Trials in absentia weren’t done in 18th-century English common law. All the founding fathers were wanted for high treason. So if they would have been caught and brought to justice, then the would have been charged, and found guilty. There's no way they could have wiggled out of that. Especially since UK was a monarchy and courts were stacked with the kings men. So we don't have to speculate how that would have played out.

English common law works on precedents. There's a precedent in Cromwell. The same thing would have happened to the founding fathers as happened to Cromwell. Their heads would have been displayed on spikes atop Westminster Hall.

Nobody was ever charged with the Whitechapel murders, much less convicted of them; But the victims were murdered nonetheless.

Is the argument that there was a coup in USA and that Biden became the president following that, and that's evidence of what exactly?

As I recall the rioters were convicted of rioting. But not insurection. That capitol rioters had an explicit goal. They thought the democrats had violated the democratic process and cheated their way to power. They were there in defence of democracy. Not there to stop it.

Or to put it another way, they were charged with studpidity, not maliciousness. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

RE: "Especially since UK was a monarchy", over a hundred years before George III became king, King Charles I was executed to show the supremacy of parliament over the king. This means any actions Britain would take would not be simply because of the monarch, but as parliament would decide.
RE: "They were there in defence of democracy", no they weren't. Even if they believed that was so, it was not the actual actions. Anyway, they weren't so idealistic, they were there because they wanted their man to be POTUS. It is like if fans of a sports team didn't like the umpire's decision, and decided to invade the field (although of course much more serious than this analogy).

 

[Swammerdami]

So we're debating the definition of insurrection?
Here is the opinion of a top Fox News host. I've set the start time and you'll only need to listen for 20 seconds to hear a right-wing take on "insurrection." Is he just joking? I dunno, the whole Trump/Fox/MAGA kakistocracy resembles a 3rd-grade farce.