Search Explore

  • josefritzishere · 2 days ago

    The administration seems to be pro-crime, which is very problematic.

    • vannevar · 2 days ago

      Given that the President is a convicted felon who maintains that what he did was fine, and that he has pardoned thousands of unrepentant criminals, and that the vast majority of his party enthusiastically endorsed all this, I would say "pro-crime" is an understatement.

      • Kapura · 2 days ago

        _strongly_ pro-crime

        • br0ceph · 2 days ago

          on a daily basis the current US president commits treason against the people of the united states, which im pretty sure even presidential immunity doesnt protect against. Just one of the shady dealings with foreign monarchies, laudering their bribes directly to the president thru billion dollar purchases of worthless crypto "assets" ala world liberty financial; should land the president and his entire family in capital punishment

          • ourmandave · 2 days ago

            When you view it through the lens of Graft First, everything makes sense. All the seeming stupidity, ineptitude, and hypocrisy is just to make a buck.

            Governing doesn't even appear to be an afterthought.

            I still haven't figured out how he's profiting from Trump Accounts yet. Kick backs I suppose.

            • kevin_thibedeau · 2 days ago

              The stupidity and ineptitude is still real. These are a gang of nepo-babies who have mastered the art of failing up.

              • bdavisx · 2 days ago

                >I still haven't figured out how he's profiting from Trump Accounts yet

                I would guess that he could have been paid in many various ways (TrumpCoins anyone) by financial institution(s) that were set to benefit from the accounts. Have the trump crypto companies followed all of the KYC laws?

                • br0ceph · 1 days ago

                  exactly, the trading kartels could kick back money, but also just funneling taxes into the market is a rising tide for the overall market

                • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                  I don't understand why people keep using things like this as their examples.

                  JFK met with Khrushchev. Bush Senior and Reagan had regular contact with Gorbachev. It's not weird for heads of state to talk to each other.

                  What's weird is for Trump to be paying tax dollars to cancel energy projects because he doesn't like windmills or using the FCC to investigate media outlets who criticize him.

                  There are plenty of good examples to use that it makes no sense to resort to evidence-free innuendo.

                  • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                    Because it's not quite the same; JFK et. al. weren't dumb enough to trust the Russians during those contacts. This administration, though…

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/russia-ukraine-war-trum...

                    > President Donald Trump’s special envoy broke with long-standing protocol by not employing his own interpreter during three high-level meetings with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, opting instead to rely on translators from the Kremlin, a U.S. official and two Western officials with knowledge of the talks told NBC News.

                    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/427505-trump-put...

                    > President Trump reportedly met late last year with Russian President Vladimir Putin without a translator or aide from his administration present.

                    • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                      This seems like the same class of complaining about something ridiculous. If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? What advantage would that have compared with lying to you in Russian and having it translated accurately?

                      • ZeroGravitas · 2 days ago

                        I think we're worried about the Trump administration lying about what they talked to the Russians about. A translator with loyalty to the USA might request what they heard.

                        • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                          Which is an even more fanciful conspiracy theory since the objection was Trump not bringing his own translator, a person he could otherwise personally select for their loyalty to him.

                          • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/trump-putin-i...

                            > Only Mr. Trump, who has alternately contradicted his own narrative of what was said and complained about a lack of fair coverage from a meeting only four people witnessed, could permit Ms. Gross to tell anyone about what she heard. The White House has not said whether Mr. Trump has asked her to do that.

                            • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                              So now we can deduce what this is really about.

                              Translators are civil servants with security clearances, not reporters. When the leaders of Germany and Brazil have a meeting, they may say things they don't intend for China and everyone else to know about, and it isn't the translator's job to report what was said to the media. Unless they've witnessed something on the scale of criminality that they need to act as a whistleblower (in which case they wouldn't need anyone's permission), they should never be telling anyone what happened in the room since their job is to keep those secrets.

                              The media are fully aware of that, but they're being disingenuous and pretending that allowing a diplomatic translator to act as a media witness is a request anyone is likely to grant. Then Trump predictably responds to that by removing the translator from the room, so now they're complaining about that instead.

                              • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                                > So now we can deduce what this is really about.

                                The fact that he can't keep his own story straight?

                                In either instance?

                                • AnthonyMouse · 1 days ago

                                  Which is the part that isn't news. Meanwhile we're being offered some kind of nonsense theory implying Russian collusion.

                                  • ceejayoz · 1 days ago

                                    Ah, there it is.

                                    • AnthonyMouse · 20 hours ago

                                      There what is? That Trump contradicts himself, a thing that was never in dispute?

                                      This is kind of the point. Trump is such a polarizing jackass that people default to attacking him even in cases when there is nothing there, and then end up eroding their own credibility by making too many accusations they can't actually substantiate instead of sticking to the ones they can.

                                      You don't have to reflexively defend claims so silly that you can only try to escape by moving the goalposts.

                        • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                          > If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else?

                          Why not? The only other person in the room doesn't speak Russian.

                          • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                            You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device or the ability to remember the words he used and have them translated by someone else later? And if he did think that, wouldn't that be an advantage to the US of doing it that way, to capitalize on the chance he lets his guard down? And if he did let his guard down and Trump failed to capitalize on it, what disadvantage would the US suffer from that compared with the situation where he knows there is a US translator in the room and doesn't say it to begin with?

                            • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                              > You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device…

                              Yes, I absolutely expect that sort of security at such a meeting.

                              • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                                You expect the Russians to strip search the President of the United States to check for a listening device when they know that person will be in the room to hear whatever is said anyway, and the US to agree to that?

                                • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                                  I would expect the Russians to monitor for active electronic devices.

                                  • AnthonyMouse · 1 days ago

                                    At which point they can tell that he wears a watch but not whether the watch is a recording device, and can't detect shielded devices that can record audio onto internal storage with no RF emissions, and still can't do anything if he remembers a phrase and asks for it to be translated later.

                          • sbayg · 2 days ago

                            Just because most of critics are brain dead morons doesn’t mean Trump is a great guy or above the same level of scrutiny shown to previous presidents.

                            • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                              That was literally the point. People should stop making farcical complaints that discredit the critics. When you cry wolf every day, eventually the wolf comes.

                              • sbayg · 1 days ago

                                False flag farcical comments will always be a thing.

                                • AnthonyMouse · 20 hours ago

                                  When the farcical comments are from major institutions writing under their own name, that's not a false flag, that's just what their own flag stands for now.

                                  • sbayg · 11 hours ago

                                    Wait, are you saying leadership at those institutions (say the Washington post) secretly want to help Trump while appearing to be aligned against him, because of say the Zionism angle or like maybe Bezos wants a president that will lower his taxes? If so, that’s not a thing many ears would be able to hear here. More parsimoniously, perhaps the journos and pundits crying wolf (to discredit Trump’s critics) are acting alone. It only takes a few, because real idiots on the internet will latch on to the farcical nonsense and amplify it further. It doesn’t mean NYT/WAPO stand for false flags, it just means they have some political actors within them using plausibly deniable attacks on Trump to help him because they are for lower taxes/zionism/etc…

                          • snypher · 2 days ago

                            >Trump ... Putin without a translator

                            House of Cards used this same setup just to highlight how untrustworthy the president was acting.

                      • SomeHacker44 · 1 days ago

                        I believe treason is literally defined in the constitution itself as taking up arms against the country. By that definition, I think there have been few to almost no treasonous people in recent decades.

                        • vannevar · 12 hours ago

                          From Article III: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

                          For example, if Russia met the definition of an enemy, and if the President compromised the interests on the country in favor of Russian interests (presumably for his own personal benefit), that would probably count. The compromise would have to be knowing, though, mere incompetence is not enough. So if the issue ever arose, Trump has a pretty good defense.

                      • toyg · 2 days ago

                        Strong for crime, strong for the causes of crime.

                        • financetechbro · 1 days ago

                          Crime maxxxing

                      • sandworm101 · 2 days ago

                        Pro rich people crimes. They remain very much against poor people who break the law.

                          • burnt-resistor · 1 days ago

                            It's even more nuanced than that. Vaguely, there are 3 caste buckets:

                            - A privileged state - for the rich and powerful to get away with crimes

                            - A normative state - for ordinary people whom experience more prosecutions

                            - A prerogative state - for poor and enemies whom experience arbitrary injustice and persecution for infractions or made-up crimes

                            • mindslight · 1 days ago

                              I'd say you're making a different framework. In the dual state framework, your privileged state/caste is just an aspect of the prerogative state. The dual state framework doesn't declare "which way" the illegality goes. I'd say that trying to define that directionality is already trying to impart normative state concepts (of illegality) onto the prerogative state.

                              Was Alex Pretti a victim of your prerogative state, and his executioners were merely government agents executing a state imperative? Or was he a victim of gang violence and his executioners were part of the privileged state? In the dual state framework, the answer is wu.

                              But don't let me discourage you from expanding upon your framework! It may be more effective at explaining some things. It just needs to be more substantial than trying to do a simple tweak in an HN comment.

                          • jackb4040 · 2 days ago

                            Let's be honest, poor people in general.

                            • skeledrew · 2 days ago

                              To be poor is a crime.

                              • ButlerianJihad · 1 days ago

                                You know, I wasn't raised poor but I was mentally ill from the very beginning, and somehow I always identified/sympathized with the poor more than anyone else; perhaps I aspired or expected to be poor, and poor is what I became.

                                When you're poor, you can't help but be immersed in rebellion and discontent. Every song on the radio, every free TV show, every buddy at the dive bar is talking trash about your leadership and the powers that be. There was never any way for me to avoid the voices that hated everything I stood for, from the beginning, and basically being immersed in rebellion led me to intense self-hatred and a losing/denial of my own identity, as if I ever had it.

                                And that's really problematic for the poor of today, who can get really immersed in global geopolitics, and exposed to all sorts of social media glurge, and being poor, they cannot really find escape from the "free to consume" media at every turn, and so the poor tend to be couch-potatoes who are fed by the television sets and YouTube and Facebook feeds, and eventually most of us drown in lies, and fake news, and bitter rebellion against every authority.

                              • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                                > They remain very much against poor people who break the law.

                                Plenty of those pardoned for their acts on Jan 6.

                                • sandworm101 · 2 days ago

                                  People with the time/money/energy to travel to DC for such things are not poor. They may claim poverty but the fact they made the trip, more often than not, evidences substantial disposable time/income.

                                  • ceejayoz · 2 days ago

                                    Quite a few got public defenders, so nah.

                                    Some presumably lived near and didn’t have jobs.

                              • hightrix · 2 days ago

                                This admin is pro-money. Anything and everything can be bought. Pardons, contracts, legal outcomes, you name it. Bribe trump and he'll do whatever you ask.

                                • ck2 · 2 days ago

                                  Trump Inc is a white-collar crime family which is why he pardons every white-collar crime they can find

                                  BTW you know those classified records he took to Mar-a-lago that almost put him in prison?

                                  They were all the records about his family businesses, it's documented, they were unique investigation records and he was trying to end all investigations

                                  • sharts · 2 days ago

                                    Every administration caters to its donors.

                                    • Kapura · 2 days ago

                                      damn, maybe we should limit how much people can donate? oh, that already exists, just not for corporations? cool. cool cool cool.

                                      • dabraham1248 · 2 days ago

                                        I mean, _kinda_? This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.

                                        Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.

                                        McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.

                                        For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.

                                      • cyanydeez · 2 days ago

                                        being pro-crime is being pro-american, now.

                                        • expedition32 · 2 days ago

                                          Only if you support Trump. Americans seem to have no spine or ego so bow down to your god emperor I suppose.

                                          • burnt-resistor · 1 days ago

                                            Many average Russians and Americans share the features of indoctrinated learned helplessness. They live on their knees and are unwilling to face reality because their lifestyle and/or salary may depend on it.

                                        • eunos · 2 days ago

                                          > criminal case against Abbott Laboratories over contaminated baby formula

                                          In Communist China they would be shot

                                          • pavel_lishin · 2 days ago

                                            Hey, here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well.

                                            • Kapura · 2 days ago

                                              not by the state, however. important distinction.

                                              • morkalork · 2 days ago

                                                Now that justice by official channels is closed, one wonders if a grieving parent will seek it out by unofficial means

                                                • garyfirestorm · 2 days ago

                                                  Parents could file a class action? RICO? How is this any different from organized crime?

                                                  • jyounker · 2 days ago

                                                    It will take a bit more in general. I don't think we're at the point of Blair Mountain yet, but if things don't change, then it's coming.

                                                • JumpCrisscross · 2 days ago

                                                  > here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well

                                                  No, they don't. The UnitedHealth dude who got shot had a CEO title, but Thompson was ultimately a middle manager.

                                                  The actual CEO of UnitedHealth Group–the one who signs off on its financial statements and fields quarterly calls–and the billionaire owners were fine. Which explains, in part, why nothing changed after the shooting.

                                                  • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                                                    You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that. The individual players have the incentives created for them by the system. To change it you need to change the game, not the players.

                                                    • JumpCrisscross · 2 days ago

                                                      > You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that

                                                      It would have sent the message its sender (and his supporters) intended to send. Instead, both sides got a convenient totem. Luigi's supporters get to pretend he was effective. The billionaire class got to consolidate power here and there by pretending he was more than a one off, and by pretending he was competent.

                                                      • AnthonyMouse · 2 days ago

                                                        You're still implying that it could have accomplished something if the target was someone else. Nobody involved with that company is the central pillar of The System the crumbling of which would allow the true revolution to finally come.

                                                      • pavel_lishin · 1 days ago

                                                        It would have changed if healthcare CEOs kept getting shot.

                                                        One getting shot is an anomaly; if one were being shot every week, then the system they operate under would be different.

                                                        (To be clear: I am not advocating for changing the system in this way. A world ruled by vigilante justice is not a good world to live in.)

                                                        • AnthonyMouse · 1 days ago

                                                          If by "it" you mean the company would hire more security to prevent that from happening.

                                                          Health insurance companies don't have absurdly high margins. They offer more expensive plans and less expensive plans. The less expensive plans will cause more claims to be denied (not covered by the cheaper policy), the more expensive plans cost more.

                                                          People both can't afford the more expensive plan and can't afford to have a claim denied and then get upset, but the company can't actually fix that because it's caused by the regulatory environment. The only way for them to deny non-trivially fewer claims is to charge higher premiums. To actually fix it you have to solve the scarcity problems -- get rid of certificate of need laws, open more medical residency slots, require price transparency, etc., so that people can afford the plan that denies fewer claims. But those are all things the government would have to do rather than the company.

                                                    • red-iron-pine · 2 days ago

                                                      rarely

                                                      • briffle · 2 days ago

                                                        Here in America, if you or I get shot, a detective gets assigned the case along with 30 other cases on their desk. When a CEO gets shot, the largest city assigns an unlimited number of police to the case to find the person...

                                                      • ButlerianJihad · 1 days ago

                                                        That depends on whether the baby formula was destined for the domestic market to nourish good Chinese babies, or whether it was destined for export to the foreigners, right?

                                                      • tracker1 · 2 days ago

                                                        This is just more than a little fucked up... I think we've "limited" liability way too much in terms of corporations... it's the investors that are meant to be protected, executives and board members are not meant to be immune. And I do think in the worst cases, the death penalty should be on the table.

                                                        edit: to be clear, IMO, corporate power is an expression of govt power, which should be minimized.

                                                        • dd8601fn · 2 days ago

                                                          At some point the broad strokes of libertarianism became exactly what we expected.

                                                          Naked corruption and public harm, without consequences.

                                                          • tracker1 · 2 days ago

                                                            I'm literally talking about libertarian values and that we aren't getting consequences because they aren't followed.

                                                            Libertarians aren't generally in favor of limited liability. Read it again, slower.

                                                        • mmooss · 2 days ago

                                                          Ironically, it's not just the ineffectuallity of the DOJ (intentional, in that case), it's the ineffectuality of the political competition, the Democratic Party, to hold the GOP accountable.

                                                          The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula. That should be repeated by the Dems from now until the end of time. Everyone should associate Trump and the GOP with it.

                                                          But as always, the Dems will not make Trump and the GOP pay any price, no matter how awful events are (and this one is hardly the worst), and so why would they stop doing these things?

                                                          Part of the duty of the political competition is to hold the other party responsible. It is also very obvious and basic self-interest.

                                                          • ChrisLTD · 2 days ago

                                                            The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity, stymieing Democratic attempts at holding him accountable for crimes he was accused of in his first presidency. Holding him accountable this time would require some workaround for the Supreme Court.

                                                            • lux-lux-lux · 2 days ago

                                                              Why not just ship him to CECOT? Official acts bro

                                                              • mmooss · 2 days ago

                                                                That is legal accountability. I am talking about political accountability: When Trump or the GOP do something awful, the Democrats are unable to score points on it. In the reverse situation, the GOP is very good at it.

                                                                When the GOP screws up, they should be losing votes and reputation. The Dems have failed to do that.

                                                              • getcrunk · 2 days ago

                                                                Yea things like this make more sense when you model the Democratic Party mostly as controlled opposition for the actual uniparty outside of a handful of instances

                                                                • lubujackson · 2 days ago

                                                                  Yup. Once you realize neither party actually cares about any of the top debated political issues (individuals do, but the party doesn't) but they thrust them in everyone's face day in and day out BEACUSE the country is divided neatly in half and they are emotionally charged: abortions, LGBT rights, gun control.

                                                                  Let the plebs wear themselves out so money can be extracted and power can be used without any fuss.

                                                                • throwawaypath · 2 days ago

                                                                  >The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it

                                                                  All the Dems have to do is kick the DEI/woke, open borders, etc. contingent out of their party and "cashing in" will commence.

                                                                  • mmooss · 2 days ago

                                                                    All Dems have to do is abandon their principles and priorities, and conservatives will like them. I don't think that will work.

                                                                    > open borders

                                                                    You tip yourself off as someone consuming political propaganda. Nobody of any prominence or influence in the Democratic Party advocates or has advocated for 'open borders'. The only place I hear that is from people who watch Fox News, etc.

                                                                • LocalH · 2 days ago

                                                                  "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."