Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal BarbaraHudson's Journal: Trump tweets about pardoning himself - watch history repeat itself. 29

Journal by BarbaraHudson

Trump is now tweeting about how he can pardon anyone, including himself. Ignoring for the moment that only crooks need a pardon, watch this guy, who said "I have never profited from public service, I did not obstruct justice, and I am not a crook." Trump is channeling Nixon.

Will it prove that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump tweets about pardoning himself - watch history repeat itself. More

Trump tweets about pardoning himself - watch history repeat itself.

Comments Filter:
  • He may be the first person to fail by a thousand self-inflicted paper cuts. The problem though is that he does such a great job of shattering reality to the point where we accept this as normal, which makes it that much more difficult to get people to accept a line that he will not be allowed to cross.

    He's already successfully pulled off a con on the federal government that could well be worth tens of millions of dollars by making it this far. How much additional profit could he really stand to gain b

    • Yeah, funny he (and the Russians of course, right?) did all that shit (according to the rags), and still won! And of course that says nothing about the person who ran against him.

      • You could say the same thing about any criminal act - but short-term success doesn't guarantee long-term lack of accountability. Just ask Alexandre Casex / AlphaBay.

        So far Trump is doing exactly what I predicted when I said I wanted him to win - destroying the Republican party from the inside, and forcing the Democrats to shift to the left. Just look how Clinton's attempts to re-insert herself into public discourse have failed. Voters are really angry at the establishment on both sides because of the curre

        • Voters are really angry at the establishment on both sides because of the current mess.

          97% reelection rate in congress says differently. If the voters are angry, they have a weird way of showing it.

          • Your stats are inaccurate when taken over the last 50 years. More recently, in 2010 only 85% of congress was re-elected. and during the last 50 years the senate has never hit 97% - 2014 was 82%. Also, 2018 may very well be different.

            • Let me put it another way. 97% of the incumbents that ran won reelection. Your numbers include people who retired. But really, considering the democrat/republican party is one, the reelection rate was 100%. Replacing a democrat with a republican and vice versa is still reelection of an incumbent. To change any of that, both factions must be removed entirely, or the votes are wasted. This present back and forth with one side keeping the chair warm for the other doesn't count.

        • forcing the Democrats to shift to the left.

          It's been a painfully slow shift, and I would say Bernie Sanders did more for that than did Mr. Drumpf. For the past several decades we've seen both parties in the US shift constantly toward the right, with the democrats currently occupying roughly the same space of conservatism now that Reagan occupied back in in the 80s (and the GOP so much further out that they would chase him out of their party as an "UnAmerican Socialist"). The democrats are almost coming back towards the center of the spectrum now;

          • with the democrats currently occupying roughly the same space of conservatism now that Reagan occupied back in in the 80s

            Democrats want to deregulate industry, cut taxes on the rich, turbocharge the War on Drugs and invade Grenada?

            • with the democrats currently occupying roughly the same space of conservatism now that Reagan occupied back in in the 80s

              Democrats want to deregulate industry, cut taxes on the rich, turbocharge the War on Drugs and invade Grenada?

              Based on what they voted on while President Lawnchair was in office, that would be a pretty accurate description of the 2008-2016 platform of the democratic party. They're pretending to be moving back towards the left now but it is unclear how sincere that is.

              • Based on what they voted on

                Hmm, the ACA and Dodd-Frank were the exact opposite of what Reagan would have done. Reagan would not have let the Bush tax cuts sunset. Reagan would not have ended the Cuban embargo. There's no way Reagan wouldn't have continued the fight against gay marriage and the Fair Sentencing Act is a literal repudiation of Reagan-era drug laws. Other than that, exactly the same!

                • Reagan-era drug laws

                  Became much worse under Clinton.

                  Deregulation began under Carter. And then there's NAFTA, again, from you-know-who

                  And who invaded Libya and began the invasion of Syria? Wasn't Reagan or Bush, or even Trump...

                  The democrats are faux opposition. Both sides enjoy the windfall from all the above. Even if they aren't the same, they are a team.

            • You seem to forget that Bill Clinton signed legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall, and that democrats in the house had already voted exactly 2-1 (238 to 69) to repeal it. And Hillary Clinton's 6-figure Wall Street speeches that she refuses to release the text.
              • Your first argument would be more germane if the last eight years hadn't happened. Hell, even the Blue Dog coalition is long extinct.

                The second is irrelevant.

                • What about the last eight years? They were the same as the last 50.. a complete wash, stolen pensions, 4.5 trillion dollar handout to the banks, more war. What was so special about the last eight years?

                  And you really believe that conservatives still don't run the party? This is part of their deceit, play both sides, in order to collect 'liberal' money also, but the "Blue Dogs" rule the party, always have. Bernie is a sheepdog, still out there doing his job [youtube.com]. Got you guys fished in with rhetoric.

                • How is the first argument irrelevant? Obama didn't reinstate the financial controls that Clinton removed. He could have done that when the dems had majorities in both houses, but he didn't.

                  And the second obviously IS relevant, or Hillary Clinton would have released the text. From observers, it was obvious that she was saying one thing to the public and another to the banks.

                  Both parties have been playing Joe and Jane Public for fools.

                  • How is the first argument irrelevant?

                    Didn't say it was.

                    Obama didn't reinstate the financial controls that Clinton removed.

                    Didn't say he did.

                    He could have done that when the dems had majorities in both houses, but he didn't.

                    Right. He chose to spend his political capital and his tiny window of supermajority on healthcare. After that, the GOP shut shit down, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.

                    or Hillary Clinton would have released the text.

                    That doesn't necessarily follow.

                    • He chose to spend his political capital and his tiny window of supermajority on healthcare.

                      Yeah, and fucked it up with compromise and deceit. That's why the democrats lost their majority. They made easy for the republicans. Neither side wants a super majority. They can't pass blame to the other under those conditions.

                    • You said it wasn't really germane, when in fact it was extremely relevant. It not only shows that the dems had a huge hand in the banking crisis, but also places everything subsequent into context. Neither Clinton is an ally of the people, never has been. Then again, both Bill and Donald are lying draft-dodgers, so why would anyone expect any different from a Trump or a Clinton (husband or wife)?
                    • It not only shows that the dems had a huge hand in the banking crisis,

                      Something we're not arguing about.

                      but also places everything subsequent into context.

                      Exactly my point. Dems might not be great on this issue (at least, as far as the left is concerned) but they're a lot better than they were 20 years ago. Saying nothing's changed is both wrong substantially and does nothing to advance the discussion.

                      Neither Clinton is an ally of the people, never has been.

                      Considering we're getting a
                    • Sorry, but if you think that Hillary and the dem leadership are better on this subject than they were 20 years ago, you're delusional. They just hide it better. And trump was NEVER a populist.
                    • if you think that Hillary

                      I don't think anything about Hillary. The only ones who do are sore winner conservatives and bitter leftists. You. Need. To. Move. On.

                      are better on this subject than they were 20 years ago, you're delusional. They just hide it better.

                      Which subject? The minimum wage? Demonstrably better. Consumer protection? Demonstrably better. Health care? Demonstrably better. Gutting the welfare state? Demonstrably better. Criminal justice reform? Demonstrably better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

      I said he was only in it for the money when he first entered the race. Money and the spotlight are all Trump cares about.

      • I suspect his gamble will show itself to be penny wise / pound foolish once he departs or is forced from office. His con will be complete, but his brand will be nearly worthless. His brand is arguably a lifestyle brand, similar to LL Bean or others, where people buy in because they aspire to live the lifestyle sold under his name. But who would want to aspire to live the lifestyle of a sociopathic liar who has had three failed marriages, been bankrupt multiple times, and is associated with being an arrog

  • At least Nixon had--if not the decency, at least the good sense--to resign and let his successor issue the pardon.

    A few things that have been pointed out elsewhere:

    • He can't pardon himself. SCOTUS would never let it stand, and even this largely RWNJ Congress would probably pass a bill to seal the deal.
    • A Presidential pardon extends only to Federal crimes. Trump could still be indicted for violations of state laws.
    • Anyone whom Trump pardons could be compelled to testify against him in court, and could not refu

    • Speaking of Amendments, let's not forget the 25th, which was almost invoked against St Ronnie Reagan.

      "I'm in charge here" --

      Nixon resigned out of pragmatism, not decency. He didn't want to risk his retirement benefits. Plus, they had actual tapes. And back in those days, people cared a tiny bit about the prestige of the office, not anymore [youtube.com].

  • Yes he's an idiot but whatever. He's still marginally better than the only other choice we realistically had.

    If you wanna blame something then please go to the root cause, not the symptom. The fact that Trump and Clinton, probably the two worst people in the entire US to be considered for president were both put up as serious candidates is just more proof that the system itself is clearly and fundamentally broken, by centuries of undermining through rampant corruption, of exactly the type that the activitie

    • People need to change themselves first before we can even think of successfully changing the system.

      Fact is, we are the system, but watch the denials fly.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time-sharing is the junk-mail part of the computer business. -- H.R.J. Grosch (attributed)

Close