Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Adam Jensen]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/18/polit...owd/index.html

Trey Gowdy says to John Dowde: Act like your client is innocent.

This is what I've been saying since the beginning. If Trump and Co are so fucking innocent of this "nothing burger," why do they act so guilty?

[Deleted]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...emic-on-monday

Well, it seems Monday there will be a big push against the opioid epidemic with the possibility of the death penalty.

So are we going to go back to cutting off people's hands when they steal?

Pretty sure you already have the death penalty for dealers under current law, infact it was Bill Clinton who added them to it in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36020717

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

people seem to have amnesia at life before Trump.

[Breccia]

Pretty sure you already have the death penalty for dealers under current law, infact it was Bill Clinton who added them to it in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

As mentioned in Kennedy vs. Louisiana (2008), this has never been tested. To date, nobody in the USA has ever been sentenced to death, for drug activities, unless they also murdered someone.

The only logical response, therefore, is that -- since the VFC/LEA (1994) has never been put into practice, and because Trump wants to expand this -- that Trump is trying to make it easier to execute someone for drug crimes, than laws already on the books. Which have never been used.

Your indignation rings hollow. You're claiming we forgot about a law, that's never been used, when Trump is begging for an upgrade. Maybe you're telling the wrong person who forgot something? I'll accept "Trump doesn't know what he's talking about" as a valid defense.

[Adam Jensen]

As mentioned in Kennedy vs. Louisiana (2008), this has never been tested. To date, nobody in the USA has ever been sentenced to death, for drug activities, unless they also murdered someone.

The only logical response, therefore, is that -- since the VFC/LEA (1994) has never been put into practice, and because Trump wants to expand this -- that Trump is trying to make it easier to execute someone for drug crimes, than laws already on the books. Which have never been used.

Your indignation rings hollow. You're claiming we forgot about a law, that's never been used, when Trump is begging for an upgrade. Maybe you're telling the wrong person who forgot something? I'll accept "Trump doesn't know what he's talking about" as a valid defense.

And furthermore, it's a dumb idea whether it's Donald Trump or Bill Clinton coming up with it.

[Kiri]

Pretty sure you already have the death penalty for dealers under current law, infact it was Bill Clinton who added them to it in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36020717

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt

people seem to have amnesia at life before Trump.

Actually, people remember that bill pretty well. However, it specifically only allows for the death sentence to be handed out for large-scale drug trafficking, i.e. very large quantities and drug lord/kingpin like personas. This is explicitly not the same as having it as a possible sentence for small dealers and the like. There are many countries in the world, especially in the middle and far east, that dole out capital punishment for all drug related crimes, which is what Trump has consistently been referring to.

So no, this is not a case of amnesia, just one of people not reading the fine print or purposefully misinterpreting existing law in order to make their point seem more reasonable.
Case in point, over the last couple of years dozens of drug-dealing sentences and investigations had to be reversed due to police officers tampering with evidence, i.e. planting drugs. That is not an environment in which you want to have people sentenced to death.

[Breccia]

And furthermore, it's a dumb idea whether it's Donald Trump or Bill Clinton coming up with it.

Well, mostly, yes.

It's not that I oppose the death penalty for people who destroy communities with illegal, addictive, often lethal products. It's just that, almost everyone who does that, has either killed people, or is in a criminal conspiracy that has killed people. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as a pacifist large-scale drug trafficker. So the "drugs" part seems irrelevant in context, maybe just part of the legal code as a loophole like arresting Al Capone for taxes.

But the main point still remains: even if Clinton did pass such a law, the fact that Trump is asking for the death penalty for opioid dealers is either
A) proof that Trump forgot about it, which is the real problem -- we nameless posters can forget whatever we want, we're not in charge
B) or, more likely, proof that Trump wants to expand the death penalty situation into one that would actually be used.

Where it would immediately face SCOTUS scrutiny, as the aforementioned Kennedy vs. Louisiana stopped a state from executing a rapist.

[Ripster42]

Well, mostly, yes.

It's not that I oppose the death penalty for people who destroy communities with illegal, addictive, often lethal products. It's just that, almost everyone who does that, has either killed people, or is in a criminal conspiracy that has killed people. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as a pacifist large-scale drug trafficker. So the "drugs" part seems irrelevant in context, maybe just part of the legal code as a loophole like arresting Al Capone for taxes.

But the main point still remains: even if Clinton did pass such a law, the fact that Trump is asking for the death penalty for opioid dealers is either
A) proof that Trump forgot about it, which is the real problem -- we nameless posters can forget whatever we want, we're not in charge
B) or, more likely, proof that Trump wants to expand the death penalty situation into one that would actually be used.

Where it would immediately face SCOTUS scrutiny, as the aforementioned Kennedy vs. Louisiana stopped a state from executing a rapist.

I do. The punishment is irrevocable. If a mistake was made in the prosecution, and the convicted is executed but innocent, it means the state, which is "we the people," has now participated in an unjustified killing. I don't see the death penalty as anything other than making me, and everyone else, complicit in state sanctioned murder.

[Poopymonster]

I do. The punishment is irrevocable. If a mistake was made in the prosecution, and the convicted is executed but innocent, it means the state, which is "we the people," has now participated in an unjustified killing. I don't see the death penalty as anything other than making me, and everyone else, complicit in state sanctioned murder.

Unrealistic, but there is a way to help reduce wrongful convictions.

Death penalty, you have 14 days to appeal. That's it. No change, you are gone.
If at a later date, anytime later, there is shown to have been intentional wrongdoing by the prosecutor, officer in charge of the investigation, the people in charge of it, they have a large problem. They now have 14 days to appeal their execution in the same way they executed the innocent person. What? Courts are jammed up and appeals take longer than that? Seems you have a problem now, and 14 days to figure it out. Should have done your homework before hand.

If they have skin in the game, they are a ton less likely to cut corners, they WILL make sure they cross their Ts and dot their Is perfectly.

Barbaric? Yes. Seems par for the course here in the States.
Fair? Yes, at least to me. If you intentionally cause someone to be killed, your life is now forfeit.
Will it reduce the Death Penalty as a punishment? Yes, which is how it should be if we're going to legally murder our own citizens.
For the record, I'm against the Death Penalty unless it is 100% certain they did what they did. But if you are for it, and you aren't willing to go to the wall for it, you shouldn't ask for it as a punishment.

[Ripster42]

Still mistakenly killing innocent people

The whole problem is that the bar isn't "100% sure." It's "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's no way you can implement a failure proof system within our constitutional restraints. As long as our adversarial justice system exists and the death penalty is used, the death penalty will kill innocent people.

[Breccia]

I don't see the death penalty as anything other than making me, and everyone else, complicit in state sanctioned murder.

That's a very common, and completely appropriate, argument.

The fact is, the death penalty is -- considering the unholy number of people we have in US prisons -- actually not used very often at all. And while it is applicable to crimes other than first-degree murder, it almost never is (see also, Kennedy vs. Louisiana). I'm guessing you oppose expanding the death penalty to cover opioid dealers for a different reason than I oppose it, but for the record, I do oppose its expansion, since as @ctd123 was kind enough to point out, we already could use it...but we don't. Expanding it would, therefore, move towards executing drug dealers who don't murder. I'm not buying that drug dealers, who don't murder people, are big enough fish to fry.

[PACOX]

Im starting to believe the GOP wont actually do anything do anything if Mueller is fired. They might all some out abd "Im against it" but they wonr past a resolution to protwct Mueller from being saying "wish there was a law or something in place .

[Odinfrost]

I honestly don't care about Trump playing golf so much. Him doing at his resorts and making money off it is another thing altogether. Also the hypocrisy is palpable.



The video seems to have Germanic subtitles, I chose it because the commentary was all text, but still gets the point across in the hypocrisy.

Yeah, I remember then this story first broke. It was hillarious. Also, that would be Norwegian subtitles if you want to be precise

[Grapemask]

Im starting to believe the GOP wont actually do anything do anything if Mueller is fired. They might all some out abd "Im against it" but they wonr past a resolution to protwct Mueller from being saying "wish there was a law or something in place .

This is my stance on pretty much everything about the pure shitshow going on with this administration and the current party in power. We're seeing missteps, abuses, and laws broken that we haven't seen happen literally ever in the history of American politics - and nothing is happening about any of it. And the reason is simple: we're finally starting to realize that our system doesn't actually have real punishments or consequences.

We think that it does because some things are ruled unconstitutional, some actions trigger investigations, others have committee watchdog groups. But not a single thing in there actually has a consequence directly built into it: just an order to shuffle it to the authorized layer of government to determine a proper course of action. But those layers aren't required to do anything, so if they're all part of the same alliance, it is up to the individual members to hold the others accountable.

And for a time, that's what they did. It's broken down over the last few decades - as we see with the growing congressional dysfunction in all of their passing of bills - but it's really come to a head now. Trump has helped everyone realize that they don't need to do anything at all, because really, the only thing keeping anyone in check is a sense of shame. And if the guy in the highest office doesn't have any, no one else has to worry about having any shame either.

I don't think this presidency will be the worst thing that'll happen to America. Trump's too stupid to really ruin the country. The real damage will be by the smarter presidents that follow now that they've been given this new world where nothing matters.

[Stormspark]

This is my stance on pretty much everything about the pure shitshow going on with this administration and the current party in power. We're seeing missteps, abuses, and laws broken that we haven't seen happen literally ever in the history of American politics - and nothing is happening about any of it. And the reason is simple: we're finally starting to realize that our system doesn't actually have real punishments or consequences.

We think that it does because some things are ruled unconstitutional, some actions trigger investigations, others have committee watchdog groups. But not a single thing in there actually has a consequence directly built into it: just an order to shuffle it to the authorized layer of government to determine a proper course of action. But those layers aren't required to do anything, so if they're all part of the same alliance, it is up to the individual members to hold the others accountable.

And for a time, that's what they did. It's broken down over the last few decades - as we see with the growing congressional dysfunction in all of their passing of bills - but it's really come to a head now. Trump has helped everyone realize that they don't need to do anything at all, because really, the only thing keeping anyone in check is a sense of shame. And if the guy in the highest office doesn't have any, no one else has to worry about having any shame either.

I don't think this presidency will be the worst thing that'll happen to America. Trump's too stupid to really ruin the country. The real damage will be by the smarter presidents that follow now that they've been given this new world where nothing matters.

Yep, we need SERIOUS constitutional reform or this country will be the next Nazi Germany within 20 years at most. If it's not Trump that does it it'll be the first smart dictator after him. Right now, the judicial branch is the only one that hasn't seemingly been taken over by the Russians or the Nazis.

[Bullettime]

Yep, we need SERIOUS constitutional reform or this country will be the next Nazi Germany within 20 years at most. If it's not Trump that does it it'll be the first smart dictator after him.

Whoever comes behind Trump is going to have one hell of a mess. Trump is basically highlighting and exploiting all of the legal and constitutional loopholes to get his way and, while already proving disastrous, is a frightening concept when you consider what a smart administration could have done. Imagine if Bush's cabinet of evil could have done if they had the balls to try what Trump's administration is doing. We're one smart administration from having the framework for starting a dictatorship.

Our entire system basically depended on good faith and the best interest of the country at the heart of our presidential candidates. No more. We have to make those "guidelines" and ethical rules into outright laws. Even our electoral system was proven to be a farce given if Trump is proven to have colluded with Russia, allowed a man to take the highest office who our electoral system was supposed to prevent (a populist demagogue with foreign interests,) along with putting him into office on a technicality to begin with.

[Breccia]

So Trump made a speech today, and in that was yet another claim that we need The Wall to stop drugs from pouring -- yes, he used that exact word again -- into the country.

Here's the problem: the claim is bullshit.

The vast majority of drugs don't enter this country carried by hand over what Trump insists is an open border. They come from legal ports of entry, hidden inside vehicles.

Just ask the Brookings Institute.

Or, you could ask the DEA.

Here’s what we know about drug seizures, based on CBP data over the last six years, and the most common way the drugs cross the border, based on the 2015 DEA report:

Methamphetamine, up 347 percent: In fiscal 2016, border patrol agents seized 8,215 pounds of methamphetamine — up from 1,838 pounds in fiscal 2011. The DEA says, “Traffickers most commonly transport methamphetamine in tractor trailers and passenger vehicles with hidden compartments. In addition, traffickers send methamphetamine through various mail services or by couriers traveling via bus or commercial airline.”

Heroin, up 45 percent: The amount of heroin seized at the border has increased from 6,191 pounds in fiscal 2011 to 8,961 pounds in fiscal 2016. The DEA says, “Most heroin smuggled across the border is transported in privately-owned vehicles, usually through California, as well as through south Texas.”

Cocaine, down 52 percent: About 4,183 pounds of cocaine was seized at the border in fiscal 2016 — down from 8,763 pounds in fiscal 2011. “Tractor trailers and passenger vehicles are frequently used to transport multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine,” the DEA says. “Cocaine is hidden amongst legitimate cargo or secreted inside of intricate hidden compartments built within passenger vehicles.”

Marijuana, down 49 percent: The amount of marijuana seized has dropped 49 percent since fiscal 2011. The DEA says “large quantities of marijuana” are smuggled “through subterranean tunnels.”

About that last one: Since 2011, we've grown more and more of our own. Prices are down, too. I'll fully admit, a tunnel system could easily get blocked by new wall construction, but, erm, pot's not an opioid. Not really relevant.

Also, a former DHS Secretary had something to say on the matter.

The former Department of Homeland Security secretary acknowledged at a congressional hearing in April that illegal drugs from Mexico “mostly come through the ports of entry.”

At the hearing, the former Secretary talked about U.S. efforts to eradicate poppy fields in Mexico. But he then said: “That’s what we’re doing but the big issue really right now in drugs coming into the United States is the ports of entry.”

He talked about the need to improve technology – such as density meters – that can “look” into vehicles for signs of drugs packed into tight areas.

“Technology that looks into trucks, tractor-trailers is pretty good but I know there’s better stuff out there and we’ll just — we’ll just get after it,” he said. “But mostly the drugs come in, we believe, we know comes in, in relatively small amounts, 10, 15 kilos at a time in — in automobiles and those kind of conveyances.”

That man, was current Chief of Staff John Kelly. He made the statements last year. Wanna see the video?

Basically, there is no relevant expert or research that suggests The Wall will help the problem in any useful way.

[Stormspark]

So Trump made a speech today, and in that was yet another claim that we need The Wall to stop drugs from pouring -- yes, he used that exact word again -- into the country.

Here's the problem: the claim is bullshit.

The vast majority of drugs don't enter this country carried by hand over what Trump insists is an open border. They come from legal ports of entry, hidden inside vehicles.

Just ask the Brookings Institute.

Or, you could ask the DEA.



About that last one: Since 2011, we've grown more and more of our own. Prices are down, too. I'll fully admit, a tunnel system could easily get blocked by new wall construction, but, erm, pot's not an opioid. Not really relevant.

Also, a former DHS Secretary had something to say on the matter.



That man, was current Chief of Staff John Kelly. He made the statements last year. Wanna see the video?

Basically, there is no relevant expert or research that suggests The Wall will help the problem in any useful way.

I can't help but think of this. It's surprisingly relevant.

[Breccia]

I can't help but think of this. It's surprisingly relevant.

Yeah, one of the first two albums I owned. The other one's the White Album.

As someone who's personally smuggled drugs from Canada I can *cough* as someone know knows a guy I can attest via hearsay that getting small amounts of illegal drugs over the border, through a standard checkpoint crossing, even with dogs involved, is not particularly difficult. I've had more trouble getting pastries and cheese over the border than that guy I know who's totally not me has had getting drugs over.

[Somewhatconcerned]

This is my stance on pretty much everything about the pure shitshow going on with this administration and the current party in power. We're seeing missteps, abuses, and laws broken that we haven't seen happen literally ever in the history of American politics - and nothing is happening about any of it. And the reason is simple: we're finally starting to realize that our system doesn't actually have real punishments or consequences.

We think that it does because some things are ruled unconstitutional, some actions trigger investigations, others have committee watchdog groups. But not a single thing in there actually has a consequence directly built into it: just an order to shuffle it to the authorized layer of government to determine a proper course of action. But those layers aren't required to do anything, so if they're all part of the same alliance, it is up to the individual members to hold the others accountable.

And for a time, that's what they did. It's broken down over the last few decades - as we see with the growing congressional dysfunction in all of their passing of bills - but it's really come to a head now. Trump has helped everyone realize that they don't need to do anything at all, because really, the only thing keeping anyone in check is a sense of shame. And if the guy in the highest office doesn't have any, no one else has to worry about having any shame either.

I don't think this presidency will be the worst thing that'll happen to America. Trump's too stupid to really ruin the country. The real damage will be by the smarter presidents that follow now that they've been given this new world where nothing matters.

Imagine if Bannon or Stephen Miller was president.

[Kujako]

Imagine if Bannon or Stephen Miller was president.

You mean they weren't?