Why Isn't Trump in Prison?

There isn't going to be any new information on Donald Trump that hasn't already been aired--there are no secrets, although a lot of details that have been overlooked or forgotten.  

Before and during his first presidential time he very loudly proclaimed he had nothing to do with Russia and has since made fun of the Mueller Report.  He actually had a history with Russia.  He visited Moscow and had planned to build a Trump Tower there.  He did in fact take one of his beauty pageants to Russia.  When he had financial problems leading to bankruptcy with casinos it has been speculated that he laundered money for the Russian mob--in any case he did get back on his feet.   We don't know but Putin and those before him have a reputation for seeking compromising material on foreigners who might have influence.

Not sure how well they might have succeeded, but on television with Putin beside him in Helsinki he proclaimed that he felt Putin told the truth against 16 American federal agencies who felt otherwise.  More recently he blamed Ukraine for attacking Russia and that Zelensky was a dictator.  With his Vice President he demanded an apology.  He agreed with Russia that Ukraine should not join NATO.  Ignoring an agreement when Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal.  Recently while Ukraine is being bombed the U.S. cut off intelligence that could have allowed some lives to be saved. Again we are left with the notion that Trump admires Putin; he is stupid or there really is some sort of hold on him.  More perspective on Russian connections:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

The Mueller Report has been dismissed by Trump supporters.   Much of it had been redacted, but nonetheless there were convictions with some of the guilty parties exiled in Russia.  Read more...http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/07/the-mueller-report-and-american-voter.html

Further Trump has indicated he thinks NATO is not a good deal for America.  The trans Atlantic alliance has worked well as a deterrent and has been called to action a number of times.  I don't quarrel that other members do not all have 2% of their budget on defense.  The truth is that most of them spend more money on different priorities like health and education.

How does one define treason?  At what point is it considered punishable by prison?  

What many people consider criminal occurred on January 6, 2021.  There was a riot in which some were injured and some died directly and indirectly.  Why?  A little speculation, but is obvious that Trump did not accept the voter's verdict.  Not necessarily unusual or unjustified, but there is a system of courts that determine the truth.  Again he didn't like the result and encouraged people to come to Washington to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country".  He tried to get the Vice-President to refuse to verify Joe Biden's election ignoring advice from many experts that it would be unconstitutional.  

The House of Representatives was able to put together a hearing which is not by itself constitutionally binding.  Cleverly the only witnesses were Republicans, many of whom were close to the President during the events of January 6th.  To outsiders this was impressively damning evidence.  The catch was that it was not legally binding.  It should have been brought to the proper courts, but for various reasons it kept getting delayed along with another damning accusation regarding government archives.  Some of us would think this would be among the very highest priorities, but the case NEVER made it to where it could be finally decided.  See more...http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/january-6th-hearings.html

Trump is a rich, powerful man with a lot of experience being sued.  Occasionally he has paid a fine, one of the most spectacular ones over the Trump Sales school where he paid $25 million before the 2016 election.  He found delaying was the most reliable way and he hired lawyers skilled at it.  A study on how he got away with avoiding legal problems check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/08/untouchable-how-they-get-away-with-it.html

How did he get elected.  Partly by appealing to prejudice, but that is not necessarily his fault--he just took advantage and admittedly fanned it.  Many extreme right wingers thought he had the necessary appeal so the legislature could favor the wealthy more than the constitution currently allows

Perhaps I really do have Trump Derangement Syndrome   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-valid.html

Instead of praising him for all the good things he has done his supporters should reflect on what non-indictable decisions he has made that have harmed all the citizens.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/10/the-non-indictable-sins-of-trump.htm   There is much more anti-Trump material in my posts and I wonder what I would do if he finally disappears.

At a Loss for Words

Words are critical and how they are used is meaningful.  Carol Off laments how some important words have been transformed.  Un-fortunately the transformation are impacting our lives.  Words have become weapons.

The first word is Freedom.  One example was how the Freedom Convoy defined freedom as not obeying government protocols for masks, distancing and vaccinations.  The author suggests that your freedom ends near the tip of my nose.  I would go further and suggest your freedom should be restricted to not harming me.  The point is that one person's freedom should be balanced against other people, but so many view personal restrictions as a lack of freedom.  One conclusion is that freedom needs to be more inclusive.  

The second word is Democracy.  At one time kings made the decisions.  A few centuries ago only white men who owned property could vote.  Over time and with a great deal of effort men without property (renters), women, people of different racial minorities were allowed to vote.  The voting age has gradually been lowered.  Some jurisdictions make it easy for eligible voters to actually vote while others make it difficult.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrestled with the notion that democracy and equality were difficult to balance.  The author noted that the United Empire Loyalists were not in favor of democracy.  Early suffragettes wanted to exclude Asians and indigenous.  

Project 2025 is the product of key backers for Donald Trump.  If he goes the plan will likely go forward as long as nobody stops them. 

The third word is Truth.  Misinformation is prolific.  The media tries to convey true facts but much of their "freedom" is restricted by corporations.  Those with vested interests have command of our personal data and have targeted people who can be easily persuaded of their truths.  Prejudices have long been a tool of politicians, but now they can be used in a nuanced and more effective manner.

The fourth word is Woke.  This is a relatively new word, now used to mock people who have different family values.  Newt Gingrich is credited with using words to attack rivals, regardless of reality..  Black Lives Matter has been used to make whites feel uncomfortable in fact to make them feel guilty.  

Ron De Santis uses "woke" to characterize progressive thinkers as unworthy to discuss or debate.  Others think the world needs to wake up before it is too late. 

The fifth word is Choice.  It refers mainly to the abortion issue.  The laws were all set by males.  At one time it was noted that deaths related to (illegal) abortions were the leading cause of deaths for women of child bearing years.  It took a number of champions including Dr. Morton Shulman and Dr. Henry Morgentaler among many others.  Pierre Trudeau is famous for "There is no place for the state in the nation's bedrooms", but nevertheless did not change abortion laws.  After much effort American politicians forced the reversal of their abortion laws despite most of the public supporting them.  

Margaret Atwood famous for  "The Handmaid's Tale" asked "If you are going to ban abortion what are the alternatives.  What are you proposing?  Are you going to take care of all these children?". 

The final word is Taxes, an offensive word to some.  Most politicians prefer to talk about reducing taxes, but in fact a lot of problems would be resolved with higher taxes, especially from the wealthy.  It seems that one of the underlying strategies appealing to prejudices is a strategy to distract voters from efforts to reduce taxes.  It is more than just money, but a resentment from wealthy people that lesser people should share in their hard earned money.  One new idea for me comes from Carol Off is that workers are subsidized by government programs.  The worker is more pleased with working conditions and have more money to spend.

The years 1945-1980 were ones with the closest equality.  There have always been those manipulating to get a bigger share of the wealth.  Ronald Reagan, famously said "the government is the problem".  He brought forth much lower taxes for the top income groups:  from 90% to 28% and did much more to increase the equality gap. 

The Koch brothers were confronted some legal response to environmental abuses.   They also resented their tax rates and started behind the scenes efforts to change the laws.  They spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars.  They found ways to legally increase donations to groups who fought their battles.  Some money was given to the "spontaneous" Tea Party and to Rush Limbaugh among many others. Much money was funneled to compliant politicians.

Here in Canada Stephen Harper was in the battle to lower taxes and de-regulate annoying environmental laws.  He was stopped by the courts at one time, but continued his efforts.  Since then the equality gap has widened.

 Some earlier thought on taxes:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/06/the-role-of-taxes.html 

 There is much more than I can convey in a blog post.  I have skimmed over many points and left out many relevant points.  Carol Off has much more to say and is worth the effort.

Bolehkah Sekali Saja Kumenangis

 A tongue twister for a title and something picked as a time filler.  The plot includes an abusive father, group therapy and a bit of a romance.  Nothing very original, but very (I mean very) well done. Indonesian films are now getting more attention.

They had done research for abusive fathers and group therapy.  The writing made sense, the acting was very believable and the directing precise.

Tari goes to her room to try to avoid hearing her father shout and hit her mother.  She has been going to therapy, but at this stage is not willing to share with the other participants.  We are introduced to Baskara who seems to be well regarded, but when teased violently hits a fellow and is persuaded to go to the same group therapy as Tari.  They become "friends" with a hint of romance.

The father Pras at various times hits his wife, Tari, and Baskara.  Not excessively, but very firm.  But he has work stresses.  Surprisingly he joins a therapy group.

Does it have a happy ending?   Sort of, but it is realistic.

This is very well done and here are some of the contributors.

Reka Wjaya is the director.  She has 17 director credits, 9 for writing and 3 for acting.

Uma Shahab was one of the writers and a producer.  Uma is well known as a singer, once winning for children's music.  He wrote and performed two songs, one of which I bought.

Alim Sudir was another writer.  He has 92 writing credits, 2 for acting and 1 for producing including for "Heartbreak Motel" (2024).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/12/two-year-end-film-reviews.html

Prilly Latuconsina was still another writer and an executive producer and critically played the lead female, Tari.  She has been a successful singer.  Prilly has 30 acting credits and 11 as producer and 1 for writing, including "Andragogy" (2023).  Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/03/andragogy.html

Andi Rianto was responsible  for the music.  He had been to America for high school and then graduated from the Berklee College of Music.  He has been the leader of the Magenta Orchestra.  He has 79 composing credits plus 6 for the music department and 4 for acting.

Amalia T.S. was the cinematographer.  She has 24 cinematography credits, 3 for the camera and electrial department and 2 for producing.

Oliver Sitompul was the editor with 17 editor credits.

Pradikta Wicaksono played Baskara.  He had been a singer.  Pradikta has 6 acting credits.

Surya Saputra played Pras, the abusive father.  Also another singer.  He has 57 acting credits.

Dominque Sanda played Devi, the mother.  She has 20 acting credits.

I regret I could not confidently identify the woman who played the group therapy leader.  She was very good.  Overall the cast was very believable. 

The film is available subtitled on Netflix.  A quiet gem.

As usual I have bolded the first mention of films I have seen.  They are not necessarily a recommendation, but generally I found them worthy of my time and if you follow the links you should be able to determine if either film is worth following up.

Ontario Voters were Cheated Again.

 Doug Ford, the winner of the recent Ontario election self righteously declared he has a mandate that includes new highways, a tunnel and control over bike lanes amongst others.   Does he really have a mandate? The listed policies are ones that he advocated in his campaign, but not necessarily ones favored by the other parties.  Mandates are pretty serious, but the term is much abused.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/01/do-elections-guarantee-mandates.html

 Our current electoral system is known by many as "first past the post" meaning only the one who gets the most votes wins.  Only a plurality is required, not a majoirty.

One of the most important details is that only approximately 45% of eligible voters actually were able to get to the voting polls.  You might think of the other 55% as lazy and I am sure many would have some sort of excuse.  On the other hand many of them were actually smart.  They knew that their favored party was extremely unlikely to win.  In individual ridings it is only the winner who gets to go to the Ontario Parliament and vote on legislation.  All the votes for the losers get virtually nothing for their efforts.  Their candidate will not vote on any legislation.  We don't know who the non voters would have chosen, but it doesn't really matter. much.

Getting back to those who did vote there was as almost always, a distortion.  The Conservatives were able to get 43% of the votes  which translated to 64% of the seats meaning they don't require the support of the other 56% of voters who were only able to obtain 34% of the seats that could oppose the party who got the majority of seats.  So in a very real sense the votes of the losers don't have much impact.  It must be said that they are allowed to voice their opinions, but their actual votes don't add up to make the difference.    

Politics is really about getting elected to make policies.  In the recent election there were a few odd results.  The Liberals got almost 30% of the votes, but only about 11% of the seats.  A bonus for them is they now qualify as an official party with some signficant benefits, but although they might have been the official opposition, that honor goes to the NDP who got only about 18% of the votes, but over 21% of the seats.  Many observers commented that they were more efficient.  In truth they were concentrated in enough ridings to overcome the overall voting of the Liberals.  The NDP will get a chance for better media coverage.

Next, a confession.  My first choice is the Green Party because I believe climate change is the most critical issue for our future.  There is some support from the other two progressive parties, but not as much effort.  The Greens did get almost 4% of the overall vote, but ended up with only 2 seats.  So their impact will be based on speaking in the Parliament Building.  In a tight minority government they might have some influence on legislation, but not so much in a majority government.

Voters have a big decision to make--who would they prefer to win their riding and who do they actually vote for.  A lot try strategic voting which often boils down to who they don't want to win.  They then try to guess who has the best chance to defeat the unwanted candidate.  Sometimes this might work, but often it just distorts what the people really want.  The so-called progressive parties find themselves split against the conservative party leaving the false impression that conservatives have the most public support and in this particular case have a mandate.

Proportional representation offers a different outcome.  There are many variations, but essentially it means a party gets as much legislation power as it gets a voting percentage.  In the recent election no party would have gotten majority control and definitely no mandate.  To some people that sounds frightening, but in actual fact such systems offer benefits.  For starter your vote actually COUNTS.  To get any legislation passed elected candidates will have to talk to one another and cut down insults.  International polls pretty consistently show that proportional representative governments make more progress in such issues as the environment, pollution and most interesting to me is they top the happiness surveys.  Part of the reason is that each individual has some real power.

What does all this mean for YOU.   If your candidate won your riding your efforts paid off.  If your candidate's party won a majority hopefully the promised agenda will be carried out.  If we have a minority government your candidate will be listened to.   If your candidate did not win your riding all your effort resulted in virtually nothing.  If your candidate's party won a majority hopefully the promised agenda will be carried forth.  If you have a minority government your candidate's party may have some influence on what gets decided.

 Politics is more than policies, it is getting elected so that policies can get enacted.  The established party usually gets to decide when an election can be held and of course they have ideas on which time best increases their chances of being re-elected.  My opinion for this election is that the party in power thought they had an issue they could exploit.  In this case American threatened tariffs even though that is mainly a concern of the federal government.  Others speculated that there was some bad (even criminal) news coming out soon that could be avoided with an election.  Generally speaking conservatives have learned their supporters are more steadfast in their opinions and are stronger motivated to deal with bad weather, so winter is an advantage. 

Proportional representation is avoided by those who got their power through the current electoral system.  That also includes most of their financial supporters.  They are happy that most people appear ignorant of proportional representation.  Look at it closely--it gives you more power.

One source for information is https://www.fairvote.ca/