15 September 2020 ~ 25 Comentarios

Daniel Ortega y Rosario Murillo tienen que irse antes del estallido


Suscríbase al canal AQUÍ

25 Responses to “Daniel Ortega y Rosario Murillo tienen que irse antes del estallido”

  1. Manuel 15 September 2020 at 5:01 pm Permalink

    Just like a woman shopping, she is most concerned about what good clothes she likes. Men who go shopping with women are often most concerned about which shop has a chair to sit down and rest. If the police go shopping, he may be most concerned about whether the escape exit is unblocked and where people are easy to hide.

    What does this example illustrate?

    Different concerns come from the identities of different people. Therefore, this explains why the western media will reject China.
    And at the same time, it explains a person’s history, and a person’s resume will have a very important impact on his future work style.
    So, that’s why I want to start with his resume. A resume is a person’s history. To put it simply, that is, when, where, and what he did.

    The question uses the word “terrifies”. Indeed, if you can truly understand his history in an all-round way, it is indeed “terrifies”.

    I can’t explain Xi Jinping thoroughly in this answer. I’ll talk briefly from the perspective of his history. I think a person’s living environment and experience will greatly determine his future character.

    First, let’s see Xi’s resume first:
    It is too long, so I use the picture to present.

    习近平同志简历-新华网

    This is not to do popular science for everyone, but to tell everyone that Xi Jinping has worked for 51 years now. He started as the smallest village official in China and became the president of China in 44 years. On the one hand, he served as an official at all levels in China, and on the other hand, he worked very long hours.

    Second, what is his history?
    There is a book about Xi Jinping named “Xi Jinping’s Seven Years of Educated Youth”. Let’s find something interesting things from this.

    Chairman Mao once pointed out in the 1950s and 1960s that “the countryside is a vast world, and there is much to be done there.” “It is necessary for educated youth to go to the countryside and receive re-education from poor and middle-class farmers.”

    We think this intention is good because there were not enough jobs available in China at that time, and the gap between urban and rural areas was very large. Let urban young people go to the countryside, on the one hand, can alleviate the employment pressure, on the other hand, can promote rural development and construction.

    During more than ten years when the educated youth went to the countryside, many uneducated farmers had the opportunity to receive an education. At the same time, the educated youth promoted the construction of rural township enterprises and township hospitals. Make the countryside no longer a burden, and make the countryside have more development potential.

    However, if the original intention was initiated by administrative order, there would be many problems in the implementation process. For example, many people can receive a better education but go to the countryside.

    But everything has two sides. We admit the problems, but we will also find the advantages.

    Xi Jinping is one of them.

    Xi Jinping has spent 7 years in the countryside. Xi Jinping left the city for the countryside when he was 15 years old. In seven years, he worked and lived with the villagers. Let’s see how he spent the past seven years.

    The first challenge, how a 15-year-old city child lives in the countryside.

    If you were born in the countryside, you wouldn’t think there’s anything wrong with living in the countryside. If you were born in a city, life in the countryside will definitely be different. China’s rural areas in 1969 are basically no different from those 100 years ago. Still living in primitive villages, using primitive tools and doing primitive work. Then he has to pass four levels: flea level, diet level, labor level, and ideology level. It should be said that these four levels are very difficult. That is to say, it was too difficult for Xi Jinping at that time. Can you accept fleas in your bed every day? Can you accept that what you eat every day is very bad? As an intellectual, can you accept working with farmers every day? As an intellectual, do you think this arrangement is reasonable, and are you willing to keep doing it? This kind of environment was the living environment of Chinese youth at that time, and the place where Xi Jinping went was one of the poorest rural areas, in other words, the living environment was very poor. If I go to that place, I will have strong dissatisfaction. Why should I come to this place? If I go to that place, I may lose my fighting spirit, because I have no idea how long this situation will last, which is similar to living in prison.

    But Xi Jinping did it, he would sweep away the fleas on the bed; He will eat simple meals with the farmers; He will also carry a hoe and go to the farm with the farmers every day; More importantly, he didn’t complain about such an encounter. I remembered a line in The Shawshank. The high wall of prison will make you institutionalized slowly. At first, you will hate it, slowly you will get used to it, and after enough time, you will be unable to leave it.

    The screenshot comes from Shawshank

    Gradually, Xi Jinping no longer regarded himself as a “city man”, but as a “countryman”. He slowly learned about the countryside and fell in love with it. He hoped that the countryside would become better and better.

    The second challenge, how to deal with slack time?

    Where do you put most of your time every day and stick to it for a long time, then you will surely have outstanding achievements. Wheat will not be harvested the day after you plant it today. After a day’s farming, how to use a lot of time? Xi Jinping’s choice is to study. Other intellectuals came to the countryside with food, drink, or clothes, but Xi Jinping brought two boxes of books. Today, we have the Internet. When I was young, I also lived in the countryside. Not only did I not have the Internet, but I didn’t even have a TV set. If I didn’t have those books, I might really not know how to spend this time.

    His books include politics, history, literature, philosophy, military affairs, classic works of Marxism, and ancient Chinese books. That’s true. Even if he wants to read a book on mechanical manufacturing, he has nowhere to practice it. The above books, such as Chinese classic ancient books, are likely to be very acceptable, just like we are reading online novels now. It’s just that the novel will be finished one day. If you read ancient Chinese novels, you may unconsciously read Chinese history, and history will be related to philosophy and military affairs. It’s possible that you’ve really finished learning these books.

    Learning is a boring thing, but if your surroundings are more boring, you will find it a precious opportunity to learn.

    The screenshot comes from Shawshank

    Therefore, he made up his mind to start changing the countryside. Just like Andy in The Shawshank, he always needs to find something to do for himself, even polishing Stone.

    The third challenge, what can he do for the countryside?

    A 15-year-old child may only farm, but a 20-year-old can do more than the farm. What he wants to do is to change the countryside and make people live better. A man who has been in the countryside for five years has the greatest advantage of knowing the countryside. Will you let the accountant do the work as a priest? Will you let the doctor do the work as a cook? Therefore, Xi Jinping has a better understanding of what the countryside needs. So he started his work. On January 8, 1974, the People’s Daily introduced the report of promoting biogas in Sichuan, which aroused Xi Jinping’s attention and interest. He came up with the idea of learning to run biogas in Sichuan and solving the problem of lack of coal and firewood. Xi Jinping and the villagers went to learn how to handle biogas. Finally, it really solved the problem of the villagers’ electricity consumption.

    Just like Andy transformed the library in The Shawshank, many people will come to the prison library to study, and Andy will even tutor one of the inmates to take the exam.

    The screenshot comes from Shawshank

    The fourth challenge, what can he do for the countryside?

    There are many relatives in the countryside, so it is very difficult for everyone to affirm and support you. It is not easy for a city person to make rural people regard you as a friend. Just like it takes two or three generations for overseas Chinese to integrate into local society, Xi Jinping also faces the same problem. It is not difficult to build biogas digesters, but it is not easy to get people to accept and support them. When Xi Jinping was in the village, he tried his best to help the villagers. Whoever needs help will help; Whoever lives in difficulties will give his own money to help.

    Just like Andy in The Shawshank Redemption has to try to blend in with the people around him, he will help the prison guards to bring cold and fresh beer to everyone.

    The screenshot comes from Shawshank

    Third, what does his resume say? And what terrifies you about Xi Jinping?
    Everything that can’t destroy you will be your wealth. 15-22 years old is the most important stage to cultivate one’s character. This is everyone’s most precious time. During this period, Xi Jinping suffered hardships that ordinary people could not bear. Someone once interviewed him about his 7-year rural life, and he said it was the wealth of his life.

    This is easy to understand. When I trained with the soldiers in the US Marine Corps, the process was extremely painful and tormented, and our drill instructors would try every means to make us quit and hate him. But everyone who persists will be extremely grateful for the training. Because that training made you a super-powerful warrior. Xi Jinping is like this.

    At first, I would hate them very much. I think they are just a group of beasts, trying to turn every recruit into a Jarhead that eats crayons. But after the training, I am very grateful to them. They let me know how great my potential is.

    Chinese people think that he is excellent, and his excellence comes from the sufferings of his youth. Is he terrifying? Yes, those who can persist in this way are definitely not ordinary people. Compared with the leaders of some countries, leaders like Xi Jinping are very terrified. He will be more determined, more resilient, and know how to do things than the average person.

    He started as the smallest village official in China and became the president of China in 44 years. He served as an official at all levels in China.

    Do you think he doesn’t understand Chinese politics?

    Do you think he doesn’t know Chinese officialdom?

    Do you think he doesn’t know the Chinese people?

    I believe that if you can persist in one thing for 44 years, your achievements will definitely be excellent. Therefore, he was really horrible. He dared to send thousands of corrupt officials to prison directly, he dared to destroy all the Chinese military interest groups and reorganize the Chinese military directly, he dared to rectify the Communist Party directly, and he dared to face and solve all kinds of crises directly.

    At the same time, he knows how to help the people. He put forward the plan to eradicate poverty by 2020 put forward by the Chinese government. Under his guidance, everyone in China has devoted himself to this huge project. Because he grew up in the countryside, he will know very clearly what rural people need.

    You can see that he is the leader of the Communist Party, the largest party in the world, the President of China, and the Supreme Commander of the People’s Liberation Army. But who have you really known about his history along the way? Chairman Mao taught us that there is no right to speak without investigation. Have you investigated it now? We can’t fully understand his history, but we can know that he can’t know that he will become the president of China until he is at least 22 years old. In other words, no matter whether he is the president or not, he will continue to do what he did before. Then I’ll tell you a one more horrible thing. Communist Party members are regarded as brainwashed people by the West. Such people work silently in various places where China needs them. There are at least tens of millions of Communist Party members like Xi Jinping in China.

    Finally, I send you an old Chinese saying, “天将降大任于斯人也,必先苦其心志,劳其筋骨,饿其体肤、空乏其身,行拂乱其所为,所以动心忍性,曾益其所不能。”

    Translate it in English is: therefore if God wants to put the heavy responsibility on someone, he must first upset his mind, tire his bones and muscles, starve him, make his body empty and weak, and make his every action unsatisfactory, so as to stimulate his mind, make him stoic and increase his abilities that he does not have.

    In the end, yes, indeed, Xi Jinping is a terrifying guy, a terrifying leader.
    75K views

  2. Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 9:26 am Permalink

    Ensayo de mi amigo Mandy sobre los comenierdas

    https://robotsfidelcastro.wordpress.com/2020/09/16/un-concepto-profundo/

    • Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 9:51 am Permalink

      Estuve repasando el blog de Mandy y me encontré esto, que había leído, pero no recordaba, y a lo cual solamente puedo decirle amen:

      >>El socialismo es el límite al que tiende todo gobierno que crece. Toda búsqueda de una justicia social a través de regulaciones de gobierno termina con una caída en barrena socialista. La opinión pública en los países que aun gozan de libertad, incluyendo la de Estados Unidos, es propensa a creer en promesas de justicia social por parte de partidos políticos de izquierda. No consideran que con esto estén contribuyendo a llevar a sus países hacia los conocidos desastres socialistas. Incluso, aun en contra de toda la evidencia existente, hay quien todavía cree que el socialismo puede” hacerse bien”.

      >>Cada libertad, cada derecho que el individuo ceda al gobierno, es un fenómeno en buena medida irreversible. A medida que un gobierno crece, aumenta su capacidad de crecer aun más y el final será la dictadura y el socialismo absoluto que terminará hasta censurando la canción de marras, porque bajo ese tipo de régimen, hasta lamentarse quedará prohibido.

      https://robotsfidelcastro.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/aqui-habia-un/

      • Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 10:00 am Permalink

        Aunque temo que Mondejar no va a estar muy de acuerdo con el artículo por este párrafo:

        >>Y así, los cubanos que nos toco vivir el socialismo, hemos repetido el lamento de esa canción muchas veces y para muchas cosas. Cuando uno mira hacia atrás y hace recuento mental de todo lo perdido, se pregunta y ¿cómo se llego a esto? El desastre fue sucediendo tan de a poco que resulta difícil, no ya diferenciar causa de efecto sino que ni siquiera es fácil precisar cuándo fue que éste empezó.

        >>La respuesta más frecuente a esta última pregunta es que todo comenzó con la caída de Batista; otra pone ese comienzo en el rompimiento de relaciones con EU o cuando la revolución cubana torció el rumbo hacia el socialismo y en casi todas, Fidel Castro resulta el absoluto culpable de la destrucción del país. En mi opinión, todo empezó mucho antes. Los gobiernos de Cuba fueron creciendo, absorbiendo cada vez más funciones; los partidos políticos prometían cada vez más beneficios, más protecciones, más seguridad; se fortalecían los sindicatos y el proselitismo comunista estaba presente desde mucho antes de Fidel Castro. La propia Constitución de 1940, de la que los cubanos del exilio se enorgullecen por haber sido la más avanzada de su tiempo, le daba muchísimas funciones al gobierno y apuntaba en la dirección de su crecimiento. La Revolución fue sólo el momento en que todo se precipitó hacía el hueco negro del socialismo alrededor del cual hace rato orbitaba.

      • razón vs instinto 16 September 2020 at 12:38 pm Permalink

        Este punto es crucial amigo Julián “>>Cada libertad, cada derecho que el individuo ceda al gobierno, es un fenómeno en buena medida irreversible.”
        Agregaría que no solamente es en buena medida irreversible, sino que también, si el fin deseado lleva a desquilibrios presupuestarios o competitivos de las empresas por la carga tributaria y dada la enorme dificultad que implica revertir los derechos cedidos (por ejemplo derechos educativos y de salud universal garantizados por el Estado), los gobiernos se ven obligados a aumentar la intromisión del Estado en la actividad económica con el fin de reorganizar la situación económica presupuestaria o de competitividad económica. Éstas nuevas intromisiones, al venir de políticas viciadas y fracasadas, solamente conducen a nuevos fracasos y estos nuevos fracasos, de nuevo por las dificultades de revertir el camino tomado, lleva a buscar nuevas maniobras intrusivas que nuevamente fracasarán inevitablemente. Y así hasta llegar justamente a la situación desastrosa en que se encuentra, por ejemplo, la Argentina actualmente por seguir exactamente esta secuencia de hechos durante los últimos 15 años.
        ¡Es de manual!
        Se requiere de sociedades con un elevadisimo capital social y una cultura cívica envidiable para evitar caer en esta macabra trampa. Los latinoamericanos conocemos a la perfección a esta siniestra trampa.
        Y lo más llamativo de todo es que aún teniendo experiencias recontra sobradas de los inevitables fracasos a los que llevan estas políticas, seguimos insistiendo una y otra y otra y otra vez en lo mismo.
        La explicación a semejante locura solamente puede venir desde primitivos rincones de nuestra naturaleza humana. No hay otra. Ella, nuestra naturaleza humana, es implacable cuando se la ignora o desconoce a la hora de emprender rumbos políticos económicos. Implacable y destructiva.
        https://razonvsinstinto.blogspot.com/2020/07/argentina-y-un-destino-ya-inevitable.html

      • razón vs instinto 16 September 2020 at 12:57 pm Permalink

        Si por esas casualidades ganara Biden y se deja influenciar por el ala izquierda del partido demócrata, a los ciudadanos estadounidenses les va a resultar de muchísima utilidad conocer la historia Argentina para saber lo que les esperará si su Capital Social y su cultura cívica no se encuentran a la altura de las circunstancias para sortear los conflictos y dificultades que deberán enfrentar para aspirar a nueva sociedad de Bienestar.
        https://razonvsinstinto.blogspot.com/2020/09/un-nuevo-2002-2007-o-una-nueva-venezuela.html

        • Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 2:22 pm Permalink

          >>Si por esas casualidades ganara Biden y se deja influenciar por el ala izquierda del partido demócrata

          Amigo Ramiro

          No es que “se deje influenciar”, es que no va a tener peso ninguno. Aunque sea presidente, no será él quien mande. Ya Kamala tuvo el ¨lapsus¨ de hablar de la ¨administración Harris¨ y hasta al mismo Biden se le fue la ¨administración Harris-Biden¨. Hay que estar absolutamente ciego o no querer ver para no darse cuenta de que poner a ese señor, evidentamente incapacitado, al frente de la boleta, es lo más absurdo que se ha visto en la historia de este país (casi tan absurdo como lo de ¨defund the police¨) Que no va a ser él quien gobierne, sino los que ¨están detrás¨, que son MUY preocupantes. No han tenido pudor para llamar a su plan ¨Biden-Sanders¨. Sanders metió la pata hasta lo último al hablar bien de Fidel Castro, así que lo quitaron para no dar a Florida por perdida. Ahora están vendiendo a un Sanders con máscara de ¨centro¨. Y hay quienes se lo creen,

          • razón vs instinto 16 September 2020 at 2:52 pm Permalink

            Si alguna vez el plan Biden-Sanders se hace realidad, créame que le será de gran utilidad conocer la historia Argentina amigo Julián. Puede que una versión yanqui de Argentina sea con la que les toque lidiar.
            Y no menciono a Argentina por azar o porque allí vivo, sino porque creo que EEUU tiene una composición de cultura general (impuesta por los pobladores que forjaron ese país provenientes fundamentalmente de Gran Bretaña) y de Subculturas (la afro e hispana fundamentalmente como actores importantes) que puede llegar a asimilarse a la de mi país (en el caso argentino, una Cultura general proveniente de la cultura hispano italiana con las transformaciones propias producto del derrotero y adaptación histórica junto a Subculturas producto de las improntas surgidas de la interacción con los pueblos originarios).
            Tendrán seguramente inercias provenientes de la cultura afro e hispano latinoamericana junto a inercias de la cultura anglosajona. Es complejo explicarlo pero créame que se producen pujas y fuerzas socio políticas que generan desequilibrios políticos que se traducen en consecuencias económicas organizativas que hacen muy difícil una orden político y económico mínimo para mantener la dinámica económica en caso de que se adopte este nuevo rumbo “sanderistico”.
            Será un proceso largo y lento sin dudas y que es impredecible lo que resultará de ello, pero sí hay algo seguro, se iniciará un nuevo período de la historia de EEUU. Un período de nuevos paradigmas. Dejando atrás aquel limitado exclusivamente a los derechos a la vida, la libertad y la felicidad con todas las circunstancias que se derivan de este paradigma y exclusivos a este paradigma (que hicieron a EEUU lo que hasta hoy al menos es) por otro en el que cambian y se suman otros derechos y definiciones centrales que constituirán y darán forma a una nueva etapa.

          • razón vs instinto 16 September 2020 at 2:56 pm Permalink

            Como lo mencioné más de una vez, del grado de aculturacion afro e hispana los EEUU se parecerán más a Canadá o a Argentina.
            Apostaría por un intermedio. Intermedio que será siempre inferior al EEUU actual.

          • Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 4:05 pm Permalink

            >>Si alguna vez el plan Biden-Sanders se hace realidad, créame que le será de gran utilidad conocer la historia Argentina amigo Julián.

            No lo dudo, amigo Ramiro. Si eso ocurre, sin embargo, hay una diferencia entre el caso Argentina y el caso USA: las protecciones de la Constitución, los checks and balances. Para modificar la Constitución se necesita una enmienda, pero los fundadores pusieron bien difícil la aprobación de las enmiendas. Nunca dejo de asombrarme de la visión de futuro que tuvieron los fundadores. Pero no hay que asombrarse tanto: se basaba de su profundo conocimiento de la naturaleza humana. No confiaban.

            No voy a negar que la culminación del proceso izquierdizante no es imposible, solamente difícil. Cada vez se hace más difícil la recuperación. Si triunfa el boleto Biden-Harris no tiene por qué ser el fin del mundo (uno no siempre se muere de un infarto) pero es peligroso. Al fin y al cabo, sobrevivimos a 8 años de Obama. Es posible sobrevivir a esto también, pero es preferible no tentar al diablo ni jugar con fuego.

          • Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 4:13 pm Permalink

            Se me olvidó añadir que, a mi juicio, a lo único que los fundadores no le pusieron suficientes checks and balances fue al tribunal supremo. Probablemente porque consideraban al judicial, actuando solo, como el menos peligroso de los tres poderes. Creo que en eso se equivocaron: cualquiera de los tres poderes puede ser muy peligroso.

            Por eso es IMPORTANTISIMA la composición del SCOTUS. Posiblemente los dos factores aislados que hacen más super-deseable la reelección del presidente Trump son el sin precedentes proceso de paz en el Oriente Medio, pues afecta al mundo entero y Biden puede joderlo en un santiamén y las muy probables nominaciones de uno o quizás dos jueces en los próximos cuatro años.

  3. Manuel 16 September 2020 at 11:09 am Permalink

    Rule of law

    three investigations. Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., New York State attorney general Letitia James, and Southern District of New York acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss are all probing reported crimes by the Trump administration, ranging from tax fraud to embezzling funds at his suspiciously expensive inauguration, a large proportion of which was spent at his own properties. (Strauss took over after William Barr clumsily attempted to remove her boss, who had clashed with Barr over his investigations into Trump’s misconduct, but is reputed to be independent.) Even beyond these ongoing probes, the potential for criminal liability is vast. Trump was impeached for leveraging support from Ukraine for an announcement of an investigation of Joe Biden. But the plot reportedly involved Rudy Giuliani and his clients hitting up Ukrainians for business deals, even as Giuliani was representing Trump’s agenda—which is to say, they were apparently seeking a personal payoff in addition to a political one. The Washington Post has pried loose from the Secret Service just a portion of the records of its spending at Trump properties, giving evidence of, at minimum, severe conflicts of interest.
    Trump has fired and intimidated the inspectors general who monitor the executive branch for misconduct and has virtually halted all cooperation with congressional oversight. It stands to reason that turning over more rocks will reveal even more crimes. Upholding the rule of law is going to lead straight to the kind of grisly spectacle Americans associate with banana republics: the former president leaving office and going on trial.
    “Usually, these kleptocracies are the ones that hang on to power most bitterly,” says Daniel Ziblatt, a professor of government at Harvard and the co-author of How Democracies Die. Trump is particularly dependent on his incumbency. His various legal appeals to keep his financial information from prosecutors have relied on his status as president, and he has used campaign funds to finance his legal defenses. Most important, he has bluntly wielded his power either to pardon his allies or to get the Justice Department to withdraw its charges as a signal of the benefit of remaining loyal.
    The political climate will not easily permit a peaceful, straightforward prosecution. The maniacal Republican response to the past two Democratic administrations shows that the prospect of any real Republican cooperation is a fantasy. The fever is not going to break. So what is a post-Trump administration to do?
    Biden’s position on this problem is easy enough: He will leave it up to the prosecutors. But what will the prosecutors do? The prospect of fitting the orange man for an orange jumpsuit, delicious as it may seem for MSNBC viewers (or readers of this magazine), would create new problems of its own. To begin with, it would be essential that any prosecution of Trump not only be fair and free of any political interference but be seen as fair. A prosecution that appears vindictive would serve only to confirm the politicization of the law that Trump has done so much to advance. Prosecutors in New York and the Justice Department can make every effort to apply the law neutrally, not singling out Trump for punishment, but it will be difficult to avoid the impression of banana-republicanism formed by the sequence of a Trump criminal trial following an election defeat—especially when his supporters have been primed to fight “witch hunts” for years. Want to lock up the “Lock her up!” guy?
    Good luck avoiding the appearance of turnabout, however legally legitimate the process.
    An incoming Biden administration is going to need a peaceful transition—not least because the federal government will probably be either distributing or in the final stages of approving vaccines and treatments for a pandemic that has killed nearly 200,000 Americans and is crippling the economy. Biden will require months of some form of broad social cooperation with measures like mask wearing and vaccine uptake, all of which could easily and legally be sabotaged by a cornered Trump.
    Biden has emphasized some measure of social peace as a campaign message and will be tempted to offer a pardon as a gesture of magnanimity—why not use all his partisan chits on substantive policy goals?
    Perhaps the closest American analogue is Richard Nixon, whose fate was sealed by Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon. After an immediate backlash, Ford came to be seen in later decades as a statesman and was given the Profile in Courage Award by the John F. Kennedy Library a quarter-century later in recognition of what became a bipartisan consensus about the greater need for mutual toleration than the rule of law.
    From the standpoint of 2020, that decision has a different cast.
    The president has emulated Nixon, borrowing everything from his slogan (even Nixon and his vice-president Spiro Agnew resigning in disgrace somehow did not prevent their “Law and Order” slogan from surviving them in unironic form) to his position that if the president does something, it’s not illegal. The reforms put in place after Nixon, such as establishing the offices of inspector general and walling off the attorney general from political prosecutions, are in ruins. Trump adviser Roger Stone has a massive tattoo with Nixon’s likeness on his back and revels in crookedness. Stone gave Trump a campaign back channel to the stolen Clinton emails, then openly promised not to “roll” on the boss and was duly pardoned.
    Had Nixon faced prison, rather than walking away a statesman, would Stone have set out to help elect a crook to the highest office in the land? And would that president have gleefully mimicked so many of his crimes? If Trump isn’t prosecuted, what will his successors do?
    The prospect of fitting the orange man for an orange jumpsuit would create new problems of its own.
    To think about a society in which Trump’s gangster-state logic prevails, consider Russia. Putin is one of the richest people in the world, having amassed a net worth believed to range up to $200 billion. Obviously, one doesn’t make that kind of money honestly while spending decades in public service. Putin’s political network is honeycombed with criminals, whose impunity is a direct function of their ties to him. The way you can tell whether wealthy Russians have fallen out of favor with the regime is that they’re charged with crimes. While Americans tend to think of Putin as an autocrat, it’s more accurate to see him as the boss of a criminal syndicate that gained control of a failing state. Even in a second Trump term, America would be many steps removed from an oligarchy like Russia’s but still several steps closer than it had been a short while before.
    Trump deeply admires Putin. (This is, in fact, the most innocuous explanation for the submissive devotion he gives the Russian president.) Using the tools available to him, Trump has tried to replicate a version of the Putin approach to criminal justice. He has lavishly used the pardon power to exonerate a wide array of criminals loyal to him or his party: Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby, Dinesh D’Souza, Rod Blagojevich (who, not coincidentally, is the highest-ranking Democrat to endorse the president), and Stone. Trump promised pardons to officials who would violate the law on his behalf.
    Legal scholar and Social Democrat Ernst Fraenkel fled Germany in 1938 and three years later published The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship. The “dual state” describes the way in which Nazi Germany continued to operate under the formal, democratic legal apparatus that had predated Hitler, while running a parallel state that violated its own laws. Legal impunity for the ruling party is the key pillar in a system that can destroy the rule of law even while retaining laws, judges, and other formal trappings of a working system.
    Trump hasn’t created a dual state, but he has laid the groundwork for it, not only in his rhetorical provocations but also as a kind of legal manifesto. In a series of letters, Trump’s lawyers have argued that he enjoys almost complete immunity from investigation by law enforcement or Congress. “The President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director, he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction,” they wrote in 2017. Last year, the president and his lawyers described impeachment as “illegal,” “unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process,” and “no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.” One of his lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, wrote that Trump could not be impeached even if he handed over Alaska to Russia.
    Trump’s incredible claim to be both the sole arbiter of the law and beyond its reach was on vivid display at his nominating convention, a festival of televised lawbreaking. The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, prohibits using government property to promote any candidate for office. It has been observed continuously, often in exacting detail. Political scientist Matt Glassman recalled working as a staffer at the lowly Congressional Research Service, where he had to remove old political memorabilia, like a 1960 Kennedy poster and an 1884 Blaine-Logan handkerchief, lest those items be mistaken by passersby as endorsements for a living candidate.
    Trump has smashed the Hatch Act to bits, to the point where he turned the White House into a stage for his party convention. It isn’t that he was simply willing to pay the price of breaking the law in order to get the best backdrop. Trump’s aides told the New York Times he “enjoyed the frustration and anger he caused by holding a political event on the South Lawn of the White House, shattering conventional norms and raising questions about ethics-law violations,” and “relished the fact that no one could do anything to stop him.” Unashamed legal impunity was itself the message.
    A democracy is not only a collection of laws, and norms of behavior by political elites. It is a set of beliefs by the people. The conviction that crime pays, and that the law is a weapon of the powerful, is a poison endemic to states that have struggled to establish or to maintain democracies. If the post-election period descends into a political crisis, having all the relevant prosecutors promise immunity for Trump would be the most tempting escape valve. Yet the price of escaping the November crisis, and simply moving past Trump’s criminality by allowing him to ease off to Mar-a-Lago, is simply too high for our country to bear.
    Gulag, Anne Applebaum’s 2003 history of Soviet concentration camps, argues in its conclusion that the failure to come fully to terms with the crimes of the old regime had “consequences for the formation of Russian civil society, and for the development of the rule of law … To most Russians, it now seems as if the more you collaborated in the past, the wiser you were.” This observation, written in the early years of Putin’s regime, captures a cynicism that pervades Putin’s now-almost-unchallenged autarky.
    Ziblatt likewise suggested to me that Spain’s handling of the post-Franco era has soured in retrospect. In the immediate wake of Spanish democratization, letting many of Franco’s fascist collaborators walk away scot-free seemed like a masterstroke. But over time, a “growing resentment of a collusive bargain between elites” discredited the system and fueled the growth of extremism.
    Before 1945, the international norm held that deposed rulers, however crooked or abusive, should be allowed exile. Kathryn Sikkink’s The Justice Cascade: How Human-Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics captures the modern norm, which emphasizes the social value of transparent and fair prosecutions as a deterrent. These cases apply most often, though, to states transitioning from dictatorship to democracy. There is less precedent for what to do when a reasonably healthy democracy elevates a career criminal to the presidency.
    Trump’s unique contribution to the decay of the rule of law has been to define criminality in political terms, but he has also joined a very old project in which the political right has long been engaged: associating criminality with a category of people, so that knocking over a 7-Eleven makes you a “criminal” but looting a pension fund does not. Trump’s unusual level of personal crookedness dovetails with a familiar reactionary agenda of combining permissive enforcement of white-collar crime with a crackdown on street crime—or, as Trump calls it, simply “crime.” The implicit meaning of “Law and Order” is that order is distinct from lawfulness and that some crimes create disorder while others do not.
    Trump’s reversals of Obama-era police reforms and his open contempt for the law send a signal about whom the law constrains and whom it protects. The fashioning of a more equal society means sending a different message: The rule of law must bind everyone, just as it protects everyone. A world where the power of the state can be brought to bear against a person who was once its most famous symbol of wealth is one where every American will more easily imagine a future in which we are all truly equal before the law. ■

    • Manuel 16 September 2020 at 3:42 pm Permalink

      Como pueden ver, ninguno de los 3 procesos antitrump
      Que se enumeran al inicio de esta publicacion ha
      Concluido, pero ya las fieras babean rabiosas
      Y se hacen ideas de lo que seria juzgar a trump
      Por esos supuestos crimenes en una america
      “Mas unida” (sic) y “democratica”. Dudo que la america
      Con biden-bernie-kamala-resto de la camada vaya
      A traer otra cosa que mas division de clases, y conflictos
      Entre estas de las que todos estos fanaticos y fundamentalistas
      Logran sacar combustible para desarrollar
      Todo lo lindo y bueno que tienen en el cartucho
      De sus ametralladoras del perfecto idiota marxista cultural

  4. Julian Perez 16 September 2020 at 4:24 pm Permalink

    Amigos Manuel y Ramiro, los otros dos médicos

    Estaba esperando para hacer esta pregunta al amigo Cubano, pues se trata de ¨su¨ tema, pero no está participando mucho ultimamente, así que no espero más.

    Me gustaría saber vuestra opinión profesional sobre el compuesto herbal llamado ¨Sugar Balance¨. Lo estoy tomando y me parece que me va bien con él, pero no sé hasta qué punto pueda ser subjetivo.

  5. vicente 17 September 2020 at 9:02 am Permalink

    En las elecciones de 2016 saco el 70 por ciento de los votos,Ortega es muy popular en su pais,en Miami no tanto.

  6. Bernardo 18 September 2020 at 12:36 am Permalink

    “Daniel Ortega y su esposa tienen que irse”. Bueno, eso ya lo hemos escuchado antes y no ha pasado nada. Daniel Ortega no se ha ido como tampoco se han ido Maduro y Cabello ni Raul Castro y los 4 generales que están en el poder en Cuba. Y siguen pasando los años y ninguno de ellos se va. Los cubanos o los venezolanos o los nicaraguenses no han podido sacar a estos criminales del poder pese a que cada año en estos países las condiciones empeoran y estos dictadores cometen los peores crímenes con total impunidad. Maduro es buscado por la DEA por narcotráfico, las Naciones Unidas lo acaban de condenar por violaciones de los derechos humanos, todos los días mueren miles de venezolanos por hambre o falta de medicinas, sus escuadrones de la muerte asesinan a decenas de inocentes y si no fuera por gasolina que le regalan clandestinamente los ayatolas de Irán, el país colapsaría en unas pocas semanas. Pero no solo que sigue en el poder sino que ha convocado a elecciones fraudulentas y ha dado órdenes al ejército para que soldados vayan de casa en casa obligando con el barril de un fusil a que salgan a votar en ese fraude. La dictadura venezolana anda envalentonada y lo mismo se podría decir de las dictaduras cubana y nicaraguense.


Leave a Reply