Trump as tragicomedy

[Mountaineer]

In context |legal| the difference between pardon and commutation is that pardon is (legal) an order that releases a convicted criminal without further punishment, prevents future punishment, or (in some jurisdictions) removes an offense from a person's criminal record, as if it had never been committed while commutation is (legal) the change to a lesser penalty or punishment by the state.

Perhaps Trump believes that people can repent not only in the religious sense, but also in the civil sense.

[Mountaineer]

In context |legal| the difference between pardon and commutation is that pardon is (legal) an order that releases a convicted criminal without further punishment, prevents future punishment, or (in some jurisdictions) removes an offense from a person's criminal record, as if it had never been committed while commutation is (legal) the change to a lesser penalty or punishment by the state.

Perhaps Trump believes that people can repent not only in the religious sense, but also in the civil sense.

I suppose that's possible, but I see no evidence of any religious belief on the part of Trump. I think in this case he's merely pandering to the neocon wing of the GOP. Remember, Trump himself stated that he's never needed to repent of anything.

Trump does not have to have any religious belief in order to pardon Scooter, nor does Trump need to believe that he, Trump, needs to repent - he needed to believe that Scooter had repented of his crimes in order for the pardon. None of this is necessarily true, just a possible reason for his action, just as pandering to the neocons is a possible reason.

However, I do believe that everyone, including Trump has a religion - Trump's is likely a religion with the gods of self, power and wealth at center stage. My hope is that Trump's actions align with the actions that are best for the United States - I could care less whether he believes in the stated gods or the real God (from his vocation as president perspective, not because he is a fellow child of God due all the care and respect all of us should give each other). From my perspective one cannot analyze the heart or motivation of another (that's God's role), only the actions taken, and I'll give Trump a pass on the petty stuff, it's the really important country preservation and growing stuff that I hope he acts appropriately upon. Also, I keep wondering whether Congress' obstruction of Trump, his nominees, and his agenda is a good thing or not; I tend to think Congress as a whole are lap dogs of the powerful far more so than Trump, but perhaps in this case obstruction and inaction could be the better course.

Further, as Mountaineer says while perched on his soapbox, I think the most important issue with long term very bad consequences that is facing our country is the divisiveness that has plagued us for the past couple of decades - in my mind it began with Clinton, gathered steam with GW, really got going with Obama, and is now even worse. I'm now climbing down from my soapbox and getting on with a cup of coffee knowing where my real hope comes from and what sustains me in times of gloom; current events are merely a bump in the road on the path to everlasting joy.

[Mountaineer]

In context |legal| the difference between pardon and commutation is that pardon is (legal) an order that releases a convicted criminal without further punishment, prevents future punishment, or (in some jurisdictions) removes an offense from a person's criminal record, as if it had never been committed while commutation is (legal) the change to a lesser penalty or punishment by the state.

Perhaps Trump believes that people can repent not only in the religious sense, but also in the civil sense.

I suppose that's possible, but I see no evidence of any religious belief on the part of Trump. I think in this case he's merely pandering to the neocon wing of the GOP. Remember, Trump himself stated that he's never needed to repent of anything.

Trump does not have to have any religious belief in order to pardon Scooter, nor does Trump need to believe that he, Trump, needs to repent - he needed to believe that Scooter had repented of his crimes in order for the pardon. None of this is necessarily true, just a possible reason for his action, just as pandering to the neocons is a possible reason.

However, I do believe that everyone, including Trump has a religion - Trump's is likely a religion with the gods of self, power and wealth at center stage. My hope is that Trump's actions align with the actions that are best for the United States - I could care less whether he believes in the stated gods or the real God (from his vocation as president perspective, not because he is a fellow child of God due all the care and respect all of us should give each other). From my perspective one cannot analyze the heart or motivation of another (that's God's role), only the actions taken, and I'll give Trump a pass on the petty stuff, it's the really important country preservation and growing stuff that I hope he acts appropriately upon. Also, I keep wondering whether Congress' obstruction of Trump, his nominees, and his agenda is a good thing or not; I tend to think Congress as a whole are lap dogs of the powerful far more so than Trump, but perhaps in this case obstruction and inaction could be the better course.

Further, as Mountaineer says while perched on his soapbox, I think the most important issue with long term very bad consequences that is facing our country is the divisiveness that has plagued us for the past couple of decades - in my mind it began with Clinton, gathered steam with GW, really got going with Obama, and is now even worse. I'm now climbing down from my soapbox and getting on with a cup of coffee knowing where my real hope comes from and what sustains me in times of gloom; current events are merely another bump in the road among others of history on the path to everlasting joy.

Edit: Upon further reflection, the current divisiveness probably started with LBJ and Nixon and the Vietnam war and the protest movement. That time period was worse than it has been with Clinton forward.

[clacy]

Trump freed North Korea and defeated Isis in his first 18 month. I’m excited to see what the next two years bring.

[ochotona]

Trump freed North Korea and defeated Isis in his first 18 month. I’m excited to see what the next two years bring.

Hopefully better spelling.

[clacy]

Trump freed North Korea and defeated Isis in his first 18 month. I’m excited to see what the next two years bring.

Hopefully better spelling.

Is this what the anti-Trump argument has come to?

[ochotona]

Trump freed North Korea and defeated Isis in his first 18 month. I’m excited to see what the next two years bring.

Hopefully better spelling.

Is this what the anti-Trump argument has come to?

In a way, this is what the anti-Trump argument has been about all along. As you know, the election represented a clash between, on the one hand, those Whites and Asians who have tended to go to college (allied with Blacks, Native Americans, and most Hispanics, many of whom did not go to college), and on the other hand a cohort of less well educated Whites.

Those of us who consider ourselves better educated are appalled at how knowledge and learning have been thrown under the bus by this Administration across a broad range of fields, and since this is an investment board, I'll stick to finance topics. This Administration has been willfully ignorant or is just plain ignorant about the National Debt, and what the new Tax Law will do to our future, and most members of the so-called Party of Fiscal Responsibility have ripped off their clothes and have gleefully lept into the oily orgy with His Orangeness.

So yes, I do hope for a government which is not so ignorant, supported by an electorate which cares more about knowledge, learning and even spelling. Sorry if your typo was innocent. I've actually seen a lot of atrocious spelling emerging from Trump supporters on Twitter, and your error just set me off. There seem to be problems using the apostrophe. I see a lot of confusions between yours and your's, and your and you're.

By the way, before the 2016 election cycle, I was a consistently Republican voter, but I did not vote for Trump.

[ochotona]

Trump has not freed N. Korea. The facts on the ground have not changed there yet. Many thousands of people from different nations have been fighting ISIS for years, why does Trump get all the credit? To my point, these are poorly supported slogans which get uttered by people who ignore facts. Poor spelling pours gasoline on that fire of ignorance.

[boglerdude]

Agreed w/ochotona but Trump pushing back against China may cause them to ask their attack dog, N Korea, to stop barking

Maybe the elites/MSM knew the NK threat was never serious, but to hoi polloi like myself ICBMs are unnerving

[clacy]

Hopefully better spelling.

Is this what the anti-Trump argument has come to?

In a way, this is what the anti-Trump argument has been about all along. As you know, the election represented a clash between, on the one hand, those Whites and Asians who have tended to go to college (allied with Blacks, Native Americans, and most Hispanics, many of whom did not go to college), and on the other hand a cohort of less well educated Whites.

Those of us who consider ourselves better educated are appalled at how knowledge and learning have been thrown under the bus by this Administration across a broad range of fields, and since this is an investment board, I'll stick to finance topics. This Administration has been willfully ignorant or is just plain ignorant about the National Debt, and what the new Tax Law will do to our future, and most members of the so-called Party of Fiscal Responsibility have ripped off their clothes and have gleefully lept into the oily orgy with His Orangeness.

So yes, I do hope for a government which is not so ignorant, supported by an electorate which cares more about knowledge, learning and even spelling. Sorry if your typo was innocent. I've actually seen a lot of atrocious spelling emerging from Trump supporters on Twitter, and your error just set me off. There seem to be problems using the apostrophe. I see a lot of confusions between yours and your's, and your and you're.

By the way, before the 2016 election cycle, I was a consistently Republican voter, but I did not vote for Trump.

So it sounds like you were, at best, a Neo-Con.

As a business owner with over 500 employees, I can say that spelling is one of the lowest priorities of my customers and employees.

If it’s your big thing, that’s ok, but I would say you’re in for a long, losing battle with the trends in social media.

And I certainly do not see much fiscal responsibility out of the Neo-Cons like Bush, etc so I’m not sure that’s the greatest argument for a never Trump Republican.

[ochotona]

Neo-con? Me? Omg no. Much more of a Ron Paul guy.

[Don]

Just seeing President Trump accomplish so much while the whole Deep State tries to bring him down and watching the snowflakes melt is making me smile.

[clacy]

Neo-con? Me? Omg no. Much more of a Ron Paul guy.

If it was Ron Paul vs Hillary (or fill in the blank Democratic Socialist), I would vote for him in a second. At the moment, the Libertarian movement is on life support and not politically viable.

I'm about 90% convinced that in the last election, Gary "Aleppo" Johnson was a Dem funded plant to syphon off votes from Trump.

[dualstow]

Gary "Aleppo" Johnson

Everybody's a conspiracy theorist. If anything, he damaged Hilary's total.
I like the nickname, though.

[clacy]

Gary "Aleppo" Johnson

Everybody's a conspiracy theorist. If anything, he damaged Hilary's total.
I like the nickname, though.

Regardless, he ended up a non factor, because let’s face it, he is a clown.

[dualstow]

He really is. And I don't understand how they couldn't have come up with a better independent candidate, someone we could take seriously.

[moda0306]

Gary "Aleppo" Johnson

Everybody's a conspiracy theorist. If anything, he damaged Hilary's total.
I like the nickname, though.

Regardless, he ended up a non factor, because let’s face it, he is a clown.

Gary Johnson is a weak candidate, but a clown? Nah.

Trump on the other hand... there you have a clown.

[Xan]

Gary has some "interesting" libertarian positions. Like that the baker should be forced to bake the homosexual cake. Audible gasps from the audience during the LP debate when he dropped that bombshell. Don't know how he still got the nomination. Says something about how crazy the other candidates were, I suppose. John McAfee was one.

[clacy]

Good point ... the list of candidates was spectacularly horrible. I knew when I found myself rooting for Ted Cruz, something was terribly wrong. What a shit show. We had a Bush, a Clinton, a Trump and a McAfee, all in one rotten campaign cycle. I hope to never hear any of those names again, in the next round. Maybe we can have a Sasse, a Booker, and some other new blood in the next election. Time to drain the swamp of the crazy oldsters.

Sasse and Booker are swamp creatures of the first order.

Cotton and Tulsi Gabbard would be much better IMO.

[moda0306]

Gary has some "interesting" libertarian positions. Like that the baker should be forced to bake the homosexual cake. Audible gasps from the audience during the LP debate when he dropped that bombshell. Don't know how he still got the nomination. Says something about how crazy the other candidates were, I suppose. John McAfee was one.

Hardly a bombshell... every "libertarian" has edges to their beliefs/principles. They just like to use fancy language to explain those away or are just simply honest and say "liberty isn't the most important thing all of the time," or something like that.

The idea that I should be forced at gunpoint to recognize AND pay for a defense mechanism for other people's vision of what is a legitimate property claim could be called equally "interesting," if not far-more so, but you hear all-but the most anarchist-leaning libertarians advocating for just that.

Yes, Gary Johnson tends to be more left-leaning in his libertarianism. There are some inherantly hairy contradictions that reveal themselves when you stake out those positions, but those exist almost everywhere on the political spectrum.

[moda0306]

Good point ... the list of candidates was spectacularly horrible. I knew when I found myself rooting for Ted Cruz, something was terribly wrong. What a shit show. We had a Bush, a Clinton, a Trump and a McAfee, all in one rotten campaign cycle. I hope to never hear any of those names again, in the next round. Maybe we can have a Sasse, a Booker, and some other new blood in the next election. Time to drain the swamp of the crazy oldsters.

Sasse and Booker are swamp creatures of the first order.

Cotton and Tulsi Gabbard would be much better IMO.

I love Gabbard but Cotton? Look at this pile of slime...

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tom_Cotton.htm

Hard on Drugs
Anti-environmentalist
Iraq & Afghanistan were just & necessary
Huge proponent of the perma-war surveillance state

I'm not saying anyone has to share my priorities on these issues, but from what I can tell, he is just a standard modern right-wing conservative on all issues. No nuance. Just a puke Arkansas conservative war-monger. If that's your thing, that is fine, but then Cotton should NOT be on a list with Gabbard. Is he a "maverick" on anything?

Tulsi on the other hand is awesome on civil liberties and perma-war issues, which IMO, similar to Rand Paul, earns her a ton of street cred as she battles her own party.

[MWKXJ]

Good point ... the list of candidates was spectacularly horrible. I knew when I found myself rooting for Ted Cruz, something was terribly wrong. What a shit show. We had a Bush, a Clinton, a Trump and a McAfee, all in one rotten campaign cycle. I hope to never hear any of those names again, in the next round. Maybe we can have a Sasse, a Booker, and some other new blood in the next election. Time to drain the swamp of the crazy oldsters.

Jim Webb was the best option from either party running during the last cycle, IMHO. He would have been a wonderful reboot for the Democratic party in particular.

[Libertarian666]

He really is. And I don't understand how they couldn't have come up with a better independent candidate, someone we could take seriously.

It is very difficult to find a good candidate for a position where the candidate knows in advance that:
1. He will not win, and
2. He will be subjected to scorn and other very unpleasant public treatment.

This is even aside from the effort and expense of being a candidate.

Would you want to do it? I wouldn't.

Thus, what you get is mostly weirdos with a very few patriots (like Ron Paul) mixed in.

[clacy]

Chalk another one up for Trump.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-ko ... ers-2018-5

[stuper1]

And yet the talk of impeachment continues unabated. The nation's so-called elite just can't get over the fact that somebody like Trump won the election. Frankly, I can't believe it either. It seems utterly surreal. And I'm one to believe he's not a monster, just another run-of-the-mill egomaniac, as I'm convinced anyone who would want to be president must be.

I was looking at an acquaintance's Facebook feed the other day. He's a very successful local businessman and apparently not a Trump hater. He has a big family and is not at all deranged. Back around the election time in 2016, he posted something which I found very interesting and read along these lines:

"To all the people out there who supported Obama and hate Trump, I have one question: what it is in Obama's life experience compared to Trump's life experience that makes you think that Obama was so much better qualified to be president than Trump?"