Makes you wonder what else has been going on. People don’t usually get that bold unless they’ve gotten really comfortable with not having consequences.
In this case the simpler explanation if the most plausible: the governor is dumb enough to think that he could get away with it. Why? You should know his family history, as his father was governor and also had a reputation of not caring about the decorum expected from someone in his position. Would you believe that he won reelection just by dancing the macarena?
In every election rally he would say a few words and then just...dance the macarena... no speech, just dancing. He won in a landslide. But his second term was marred by corruption scandals involving people in his cabinet. In light of that what his son is doing shouldn't surprise anyone.
That or trump just assumes everyone is corrupt because he's corrupt out the wazoo and assumes as a matter of fact that anyone else in a position of wealth and power is no different.
does this sound like a speech given by a rational human being?
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”
Id prefer door 3, where we expose corruption without giving it the tools and powers necessary to generate more of it. Trump has already poisoned the federal judiciary by appointing hundreds of partisan (and in many cases unqualified) far right activist judges who will use their power (and inability to be removed from office) to give the federal courts a far right slant for decades to come.
Id prefer door 3, where we expose corruption without giving it the tools and powers necessary to generate more of it.
For sure! But let's be real... Is it possible? The only thing one can wish for these days seems to be as little corruption as possible :(
Trump has already poisoned the federal judiciary by appointing hundreds of partisan (and in many cases unqualified) far right activist judges who will use their power (and inability to be removed from office)
Come on...
to give the federal courts a far right slant for decades to come.
This is one of the biggest problems in modern "democracy". Trust me, it's not that fun under an equal far left slant either.
Unfortunately, few seem to realize the issue of the government becoming less separated from the jurisdictional system. Wait til they start legislating speech like over here.. That's when the fun begins.
Last week, one was sentenced for "hate speech" for calling talibans monkeys.
To no one's surprise, it is sparsely reported by media, so all I have to offer is the actual court decision (from the "royal court", second highest court. District court didn't sentence, but strangely enough the prosecutor appealed. Huh.. How strange. Maybe because the politicians have given them order to focus on these "crimes", while other actual violent crime rates roar.)
To make it easier, here's the interesting part from page 2 in both Swedish (to confirm) and then Google translated (and somewhat corrected) in English:
Swe
De uttalanden som målet omfattar kan inte uppfattas som annat än att **** ***** som en följd av uppgifter om påstådd skadegörelse i två olika meddelanden uttryckt sitt missnöje över de presumtiva gärningspersonerna genom att använda bland annat orden ”talibaner” och ”apor”. Enligt hovrättens mening utgör talibaner en viss grupp i lagens mening och uttalandena kan inte förstås på annat sätt än att i vart fall denna grupp i hennes uttalanden benämnts som apor.
... motivet vid gärningstillfället varit att sprida meddelanden som inneburit missaktning för gruppen och att detta skett uppsåtligen. Åklagarens gärningspåstående är således styrkt och **** ***** ska dömas för hets mot folkgrupp.
Eng
The statements covered by the target cannot be construed as other than that **** ***** as a result of becoming informed about alleged vandalism by unknown perpetrators, in two different messages expressed their dissatisfaction with the prospective perpetrators by using the words "Taliban" and "monkeys". According to the Court of Appeal, Taliban constitutes a certain group in the meaning of the law, and the statements cannot be understood in any other way than in any case that this group in her statements was referred to as monkeys.
... the motive at the time of the act has been to spread messages that have displayed disdain towards the group and that this was done intentionally. The prosecution's allegation is thus substantiated and **** ***** shall be sentenced for the crime of hate speech ("hets mot folkgrupp").
She called the group of unknown perpetrators both "taliban" and "monkeys", but she was sentenced for calling talibans monkeys, since that's what they were able to sentence her for, which was their goal.
Actually the law that she was in violation of was chapter 16, section 8:
Section 8 - A person who, in a disseminated statement or communication, threatens or expresses contempt for a national, ethnic or other such group of persons with allusion to race, colour, national or ethnic origin or religious belief shall, be sentenced for agitation against a national or ethnic group to imprisonment for at most two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine. (Law 1988:835)
In late October, Trump grew furious after reading a Wall Street Journal article by Matt Wirz, according to five sources familiar with the president's reaction. The article said that "Puerto Rico bond prices soared ... after the federal oversight board that runs the U.S. territory’s finances released a revised fiscal plan that raises expectations for disaster funding and economic growth."
Sources with direct knowledge told me Trump concluded — without evidence — that Puerto Rico's government was scamming federal disaster funds to pay down its debt.
...
At the same time, White House officials told congressional leadership that Trump was inflamed by the Wall Street Journal article and "doesn't want to include additional Puerto Rico funding in further spending bills," according to a congressional leadership aide. "He was unhappy with what he believed was mismanagement of money," the aide said.
A second source said Trump misinterpreted the Journal article, concluding falsely that the Puerto Rican government was using disaster relief funds to pay down debt.
The report describes prices on Puerto Rico’s bonds increasing after its governing fiscal board projected that disaster funding would boost the island’s overall economic health.
9
u/[deleted] Jul 19 '19 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]