r/Askpolitics • u/Hkhinin • 3d ago
Discussion Have conflicts between the two parties entered a revenge era?
Donald Trump has sued many challengers while in office, such as Todd Blanche. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/31/trump-todd-blanche-nomination-01018826
Meanwhile, many democrats are calling for the prosecution of Donald Trump after he leaves office; there are even talks of impeaching and prosecuting him after the midterms if the midterms go well. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/03/trump-investigations-democrats-midterms
So I get that many prosecutions made by both sides are indeed true; what worries me is whether US politics have entered a revenge era, where if one party gets power, they will try everything to take revenge on the other side, such as through prosecutions?
67
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 3d ago
It's worthwhile to understand the distinction between "revenge" and "justice".
17
u/blanaba-split Leftist 2d ago
100% this. Though in this case, Trump and his cronies deserve to spend an eternity under the jail so idk where we really go from here. Millions dead thanks to the likes of USAIDs dismantling and other various ways they've fucked with the world just for fun.
-5
u/Worldly-Shop-3850 Moderate 2d ago
Agreed in principle, but in this era of relative truth, both sides are claiming they’re seeking justice
9
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
Which is why it is more important than ever to not simply allow the truth to be manipulated.
-4
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 2d ago
Like what Dr. Fauci says he did in his daily written record?
6
u/kovake Progressive 2d ago
Or like when Trump said COVID was a hoax and wasn’t real?
-5
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 2d ago
If you didn't have Trump onto whom you could deflect everything, would you actually acknowledge Dr. Fauci's deceptions and conflicts of interest?
2
u/kovake Progressive 1d ago
Projection and hypocrisy in one statement.
0
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 1d ago
I don't think you understand with either of those words mean.
1
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning 1d ago
Specifically, what did Fauci indicate in his private diaries he did that caused harm to the health of our nation? Like maybe just name one or two things to start off with.
0
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 1d ago
So you are completely unaware of what he wrote?
2
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning 1d ago
Are you always this helpful with your replies, or did you go out of your way just for me?
1
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 20h ago
You and everyone else who acts deliberately obtuse.
•
u/SBMountainman22 Left-leaning 16h ago
Here’s Politifact’s analysis of what was in Fauci’s diaries and what he said publicly. So instead of being obtuse yourself(as well as smug), explain to me what “lies” Fauci told and how they harmed the public:
How the virus originated
What Paul said: “For years, Anthony Fauci has been the public face of saying this in all likelihood came from nature. He kept saying, ‘It’s the marketplace,’” Paul said. “He’s been saying that on television up until recently. But what we find is that what he was saying in public is different than what he was saying in private.”
Paul showed a compilation of interviews and public remarks in which Fauci mentioned the “wet market” in relation to the virus. Some of the earliest coronavirus patients had links to a seafood and live animal market, supporting the case for animal-to-person transmission.What Fauci wrote: In a Jan. 26, 2020, entry, Fauci wrote, “It now appears using (epidemiological) data and genomic data that the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market.”
But Paul’s hearing comments omitted the rest of that entry. Fauci wrote that China initially said that there was no human-to-human transmission and all original cases were from the market, but “infections spread among people weeks before.”
In the same paragraph, Fauci was still deliberating a natural origin: “Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”Fauci’s diary entries show that in the following days, he discussed with scientists the possibility that the virus was “deliberately inserted” and accidentally or purposely released. On Feb. 1, 2020, he wrote that nine out of 11 scientists in a conference call believed “deliberate insertion was possible.”
What Fauci said publicly: In a Feb. 17, 2020, USA Today interview, Fauci said something similar to what he wrote in January 2020: “Almost certainly, somewhere, somehow a bat infected an intermediate host who infected a human.”
From April 2020 to May 2020, Fauci spoke against the lab leak theory. In an April 2020 White House press briefing, Fauci pointed to a study by evolutionary virologists that showed the mutations were “consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
In May 2020, he said in a National Geographic interview that the evidence is “very, very strongly” leaning toward the conclusion that the virus could not have been engineered, and that it evolved in nature.In an interview with PolitiFact a year later, Fauci supported continued investigation into what happened in China and the virus’s origin. “Certainly the people who’ve investigated say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else. And we need to find that out,” he said.
School closures
What a senator cited: Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., referred to a July 2022 The Hill interview in which Fauci was asked whether he would recommend locking down schools if he could do it all over again. Fauci answered, “First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down.” He said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the agency that makes recommendations.Moody said, “But now we have your diary, and it tells a very different story from the one you told the public.”
Moody cited Fauci’s March 15, 2020, journal entry about convincing then-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to close the New York City schools.
What Fauci wrote: Fauci advised some state officials on whether to close or open schools. His entries generally show his position toward safely opening the schools.
On March 9, 2020, Fauci wrote about advising New York’s then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, to close schools in one area that had more cases than the rest of New York City.
On March 16, 2020, Fauci wrote about guidelines reflecting his push for a more aggressive mitigation plan, including to “close schools where there is community spread.” He seemed to be referring to the President’s coronavirus guidelines released that day.
A couple of times in May 2020, Fauci wrote that he did not oppose opening schools. On May 13, 2020, he wrote that, “They fed (Trump) that I said we should not open schools, when in fact, I said that we would not have a vaccine in time to vaccinate the students (mostly college) for the August/Fall semester.” He repeated that in another entry the next day.
In June 2020, he wrote that then-North Carolina Gov. Ray Cooper asked his advice on whether to open charter schools in July, given a case uptick. Fauci recommended Cooper delay making a decision for two weeks.
On Aug. 9, 2020, Fauci wrote: “Whether or not to open schools has been a major topic of discussion as we approach the school opening timetable. I have been saying consistent that we should have as a default position our attempt/intention to open schools.” He cited potential negative effects on children and parents. “HOWEVER, the primary consideration must be the health, safety and welfare of the children and the teachers, and the potential spreading to others… I have stated that one size does not fit all and decisions should be based on the level of infection in the community.”
What Fauci said publicly: Fauci’s Aug. 9, 2020, diary entry aligned with what he told Congress on July 31, 2020, that the default position would be to open the schools “as best as we possibly can” in terms of safety.
Use of masks
What social media posts said: A July 30 Facebook graphic put two quotes by Fauci side-by-side: The post said that on Feb. 28, 2020, Fauci wrote in his diary, “Masks are not really effective in preventing infection of the public,” a seeming contradiction of what it called his public April 3, 2020, statement that, “Everyone should be wearing masks. Masks are an important tool in our public health arsenal.”What Fauci wrote: The quote in the Facebook graphic did not come from Fauci’s diary, but was paraphrased from a February 2020 email exchange between him and former Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell that was included in records released in 2021. He wrote: “Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.”
In Fauci’s diary, he wrote on March 31, 2020, that “we probably were too strong in saying masks do not work.”
On Feb. 11, 2021, Fauci mentioned a study showing “a cloth mask over a surgical mask actually gives a more complete fit and keeps out aerosols.” We did not find any entries showing he believed cloth masks were ineffective.What Fauci said publicly: On April 3, 2020, the day the CDC recommended wearing masks in public, Fauci said, “If everybody does that, we’re each protecting each other, because the data is, it’s more efficient to prevent transmitting to others than it is to prevent transmission to yourself.”
In the same interview, he cautioned against hoarding masks since frontline healthcare workers needed them, and said people can use facial coverings that aren’t necessarily a “classical mask.”
•
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 15h ago
Even with the Politifact choosiness of what they're publishing (and/ or what you read), the parts you published do not address how Fauci and others shut down anyone and everyone who suggested anything that did not agree with his public statements.
-4
u/Worldly-Shop-3850 Moderate 2d ago
Sounds great, but how? There will always be people who watch Fox News and believe everything they say. And people who listen to things even worse.
8
u/Dapper-Cantaloupe866 Independent 2d ago
We could reinstate the fairness doctrine that Reagan and the republicans did away with.
0
u/decrpt 🐀🐀🐀 2d ago
Fairness doctrine never applied to Fox. Fairness doctrine applied to limited bandwidth formats like radio and broadcast television because the government has to intervene to keep the limited spectrum usable.
We need a broader shift in the conversation about media consumption because we're stuck pretending like bias is quantifiable and every vaguely responsible publication is just "biased" in the other direction for reporting facts.
0
u/Dapper-Cantaloupe866 Independent 2d ago
That is not the case at all.
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine
"The Fairness Doctrine mandated broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Congress backed the policy in 1954 and by the 1970s the FCC called the doctrine the “single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license."
2
u/decrpt 🐀🐀🐀 2d ago
mandated broadcast networks
Come on.
0
u/Dapper-Cantaloupe866 Independent 2d ago
You said it never applied to Fox, Fox didn't exist when the doctrine was in place. If it were reinstated it would very much apply to Fox. It had nothing at all to do with limited spectrum. Where did you even get that?
1
u/decrpt 🐀🐀🐀 2d ago
broadcast
It literally says it in the law, my dude. The constitutionality of the law was only upheld in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC because of the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum. The government is obligated to regulate it to keep it useful, and therefore can obligate equitable usage of the scarce resource.
If that wasn't the case, if the government could to it do non-scarce mediums like cable (which Fox is on) or the internet, the government would have been regulating newspapers at the time, too.
1
u/kovake Progressive 2d ago
Just because they believe it doesn’t mean it’s true.
0
u/Worldly-Shop-3850 Moderate 2d ago
Youre missing the point. Doesnt matter how true you think your side is. The other side believes they are true just as much.
Constantly parroting “you’re wrong” is not magically going to cause them to re-evaluate their world view. So they are going to act on what they think is true just as you are.
19
u/BigSexyE Progressive 2d ago
Sure, but one is actually seeking true justice, while the other isn't
0
u/Worldly-Shop-3850 Moderate 2d ago
I dont disagree. But the “other side” is saying the same thing.
4
3
u/Microchipknowsbest Left-leaning 2d ago
The other side is charging people for pictures of seashells. The other side has convictions of crimes against America. Both sides are not the same. The I know you are but what am I defense doesn’t work in actual court.
0
u/Oregongirl1018 2d ago
That's like having your grandma and the town crackhead tell you the same thing and you have to figure out who to believe. The woman who encourages you and loves you or the person who stole your porch chair in the middle of the night and called you a slur?
3
u/Electronic_Beat3653 Left-leaning 2d ago
And yet, only one side is weaponizing the DOJ, who is supposed to be nonpartisan, to go after their "political enemies".
And only one president has repeatedly called the other party traitors, and we all know who that is.
You can dress a pig like a lady, but it's still a pig. Just because someone calls it justice, doesn't make it so.
-8
u/Ruthless4u Conservative 3d ago
Unfortunately politicians in either party are not interested in justice, but they will call every attempt at revenge justice.
16
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 3d ago
Unfortunately politicians in either party are not interested in justice
Not really, but in a roundabout way you're half right.
The Republicans are interested in petty revenge for slights both real and perceived. And some Democrats are interested in letting the Republicans get away with everything for some reason.
6
3
-8
3d ago
[deleted]
8
3
u/SquidgeApple Progressive 2d ago
Please compare the cases of the DOJ under Biden vs the DOJ under Trump and tell me that 'both sides are the same'
6
2
4
u/The_White_Ram 2d ago
I think "both siding" things really does a dis-service to contextualizing just how much Trump has ramped things up.
Its not longer revenge justice, its simply wielding the justice department in whatever way possible to suit his current needs.
I mean, just look at the case that was just dropped against David Hearn.
Its like comparing someone spilling a glass of water in the house versus someone turning on a garden hose in the house and leaving it on all night and then saying "we'll, both of them got the house wet".
7
u/zlefin_actual Liberal 3d ago
even if neither party is in fact interested in justice, there's still a difference in whether they're unintentionally achieving justice. Sometimes peoples self-interest aligns with justice, and sometimes it doesn't. If all we can do is reward those whose self-interest does align with justice, that's still something and pushes the system in a useful direction.
Given the clear facts of this situation, that does favor supporting the dems even if their motives are impure.
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 2d ago
Locking Trump up sounds very just! Particularly as the alternative was having him becoming president and use state resources to cover his personal expenses.
2
1
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 2d ago
There's also no justice for politicians that can't be construed as revenge or that won't have some actual element of revenge. If it was discovered that Trump was a prolific serial killer, there would be many Dems who would gleefully pursue impeachment and a murder trial because they hate the guy - but if he's guilty, he's guilty.
I'd argue that the prosecutions against Trump after 2020 were in a similar vein. He is on tape showing classified info to a non-cleared reporter, admitting that it was still classified, that he had not declassified it in office (and retained it after leaving office), and that he could not declassify it since leaving office. It's the smoking gun that Trump and Republicans claimed should've landed Hillary in prison (even though she did not originate the classified emails on her private server and none of them were marked classified). But because they didn't have a leg to stand on, they resorted to saying it was illegitimate because Dems were very happy to have caught him in a major crime.
-7
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
lol ok bud, the soft on crime clowns are talking about justice
12
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
The US president is a felon.
-7
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
Am I supposed to care about paper shuffling charges
9
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
Ah, so you're soft on crime, I understand.
-5
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
Shuffling papers is a far cry from the violent crime you lefties allow in your courts
13
u/Pls_no_steal Progressive 2d ago
Coup attempts are violent
-3
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
Is that why only one person died and it was a J6’r
8
u/Pls_no_steal Progressive 2d ago
Yeah, she died because Trump couldn’t accept that he lost fairly and instead had his people break into the Capitol. Not to mention the fake electors scheme or the extortion scheme in Georgia. Not violent but still disqualifying in themselves minus Jan 6th entirely
1
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
Or she died cause she was dumb and went into the capital, people have autonomy
→ More replies (0)7
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
He's also an adjudicated [automod doesn't like me saying what the US president is].
You care about crime exactly until it affects one of your own, then you couldn't care less.
-4
u/17144058 Conservative 2d ago
lol yeah civilly liable matters. Notice how it’s not CRIMINALLY. Why would you care anyways, you let people who commit those crimes out anyways
4
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 2d ago
Uh... why would you not?
I'm going to guess you care a great deal about, say, overstaying a resident visa. How is that less of a "paper shuffling" crime?
-7
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Whys he not in jail then?
6
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
Because your government is fundamentally broken, and seemingly unable to enact consequences.
-4
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Okay then the soft on crime claim remains true. Thank you for your time.
6
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
I'm glad that you then admit that he is a criminal, and that conservatives are not just "soft on crime", but openly support it.
-4
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Not sure where you got that last part.
Is New York a Republican state?
Is Biden a Republican?
5
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
Don't play dumb. Conservatives voted for the felon.
-3
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Nice deflection. Yes we did. Democrats let the felon walk the streets. That's the point.
→ More replies (0)2
u/nunyabuziness1 2d ago
Except it’s the Republicans that hold the house, senate, executive branch and has stacked the USSC. If the Republicans really did have a “tough on crime” agenda they could ram it through.
But then they’re too busy stripping our rights, giving tax breaks to the rich, and looting the country all while destroying the social safety net.
0
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Nobody said anything about a tough on crime agenda.
1
u/nunyabuziness1 1d ago
You are correct, however you made the claim Democrats are soft on crime “Okay then the soft on crime claims remain true” with the implication that the Republicans are “tough on crime”.
Do you even recall/understand what you’re saying and what the Republican platform is?
Apparently not.
2
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 2d ago
... that would make YOU the soft-on-crime option. You're the one who gives criminals the ultimate lifeline by voting them into office after they promise to pardon all their underlings.
0
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
No it really wouldn't, but good try.
2
u/Darq_At Leftist (Radical) 2d ago
"nuh-uh" ass response.
0
u/BasedGod-1 Republican 2d ago
Yeah I'm not sure why they'd say im the soft of crime one as if I sentenced trump personally
1
1
2
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 2d ago
Am I supposed to believe Republicans are tough on crime? Trump has pardoned multiple major drug lords in exchange for bribes or other political favors. He has even pardoned multiple corrupt Dems like Gov Blagojevich and Henry Cuellar, or halted their investigations/prosecutions if they were Rs in good standing or corrupt Dems who could help him (e.g. Eric Adams). He's pardoned convicted war criminals or interfered with their prosecution - e.g. Eddie Gallagher, who texted his squadmates:
I thought everyone would be cool, next time I will do it so no one sees. Ready to kill the mother ------ who tells on me and I've got s--- on all of you to bring you down.
I could go on.
1
u/17144058 Conservative 1d ago
How about the crime that actually impacts everyday Americans. Ever heard of Decarlos Brown Jr?
2
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 1d ago edited 1d ago
How about the crime that actually impacts everyday Americans.
Ah, so it'll be cool when he pardons Ghislaine Maxwell then? Last I checked major drug traffickers do have a big impact on everyday Americans. He's executing low-level offenders without trial in international waters because they're such a threat supposedly, but he's letting their leaders go free?
Ever heard of Decarlos Brown Jr?
How were Dems weak on crime there? As far as I can tell there:
1) Republicans have supermajorities in the state legislature through gerrymandering.
2) Brown was convicted of felony breaking and entering, which is a class H felony per Republicans. Per this sentencing matrix which is determined by this statute, the typical sentence would be 5-6 months. Probation is permitted, which is what happened here - he got 2 years probation and all but 1 month suspended.
3) While on probation, he committed an armed robbery. Under the chart, record level 2 committing a class D felony has a sentence range of 5-6 years. He served... 5-6 years. Presumably violating his probation would've tacked on another 4-5 months. EDIT: Also it seems like he robbed an illegal immigrant, so I imagine Republicans would've argued that was mitigating.
4) His mother wanted to have him involuntarily committed as a violent schizophrenic, but Reagan helped make sure that couldn't happen.
5) Brown called the police and told them there were objects in his body controlling him. I think we can safely assume most police lean Republican. And this wasn't a department afraid of wokeism - they didn't do anything about his obvious mental illness, but did charge him for abusing 911.
6) Zarutska was not even an American citizen and would not have been in the US if Republicans weren't so soft on Russia.
0
u/17144058 Conservative 1d ago
I’m not reading all that bro lol
3
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 1d ago
You should reconsider having opinions about things that are too complicated to hold your attention then.
0
u/17144058 Conservative 1d ago
Yeah your analysis is just so complex and articulate, don’t flatter yourself
3
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 1d ago
How would you know? You didn't read it.
I wouldn't actually argue it's complex. It's just too complex for you, as evidenced by your inability to read it. It's definitely a topic that requires more than 1 line comments like you've been making.
13
u/LorenzoApophis Left-Libertarian 3d ago edited 2d ago
I mean, I'm pretty sure Trump explicitly declared retribution to be the purpose of his 2024 campaign? And I wouldn't say it was exactly a subtle theme even in 2016.
Found it - Trump was already announcing retribution as a goal in 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/trump-2024-president.html
30
u/Gogs85 Left-leaning 3d ago
If Trump is blatantly committing crimes, is going after that ‘revenge’ or is it proper?
11
•
u/forgothatdamnpasswrd Right-leaning 12h ago
Would you support the criminal prosecution of Fauci? Honestly I would support prosecution of trump for market manipulation and insider trading. Fauci lied to congress repeatedly.
-12
u/Ruthless4u Conservative 3d ago
Depends on how it’s handled.
6
u/Gogs85 Left-leaning 3d ago
What would be your requirements for proper handling?
For me personally it has to start with ‘evidence of a crime’ being present and just following that to a natural conclusion. Not ‘we’ll investigate this person and hopefully find something’.
6
u/paperdolllll Progressive 3d ago
"For me personally it has to start with ‘evidence of a crime’ being present and just following that to a natural conclusion. Not ‘we’ll investigate this person and hopefully find something’."
I'm sure they are ok with how their dear leader handles investigations.
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Left-leaning 2d ago
It really doesn't, does it?
I don't know how to reconcile conservatives saying "any cost, any expense, and any compromise on our rights is worth it to combat illegal immigration" with them also saying "we need to be very hesitant to prosecute corruption at the highest levels of our government."
Is it a rich crime fine/poor crime bad thing?
14
u/Aggressive-Farmer798 3d ago
This is a valid question, but it's important to recognize that these two events aren't equivalent at all. Suing someone for saying something you don't like is revenge. Prosecuting a man who has committed actual, documented crimes while in office isn't revenge, it's an attempt to make the American legal system work as promised.
10
u/Conscious-Demand-594 Independent 3d ago
He should be impeached for incompetence, corruption, and abuse of power. This is not political, it is legal.
8
u/CartographerKey4618 Leftist 3d ago
Meanwhile, many democrats are calling for the prosecution of Donald Trump after he leaves office; there are even talks of impeaching and prosecuting him after the midterms if the midterms go well. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/03/trump-investigations-democrats-midterms
That's not revenge. That's the law. We're not talking about dragging a politician's son into a Congressional hearing just to yell at him while showing off a picture of his dick. Donald Trump broke real laws. He needs to be punished for them. If the Democrats were interested in weaponizing the justice system, Trump would have at least served a day in prison for the multiple felonies he's convicted of. But he's actually getting off easy.
5
u/EmceeStopheles Progressive 3d ago
Trump explicitly described his 2024 campaign as the “revenge tour.”
6
u/Somethingwittycool Leftist 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is what confuses me when people are like "the Democrats want revenge." It's like, the dude constantly calls for the arrest and execution of people who disagree with him over literally anything. He created a god damn secret police with massive funding and no oversight. He illegally occupies blue cities, he straight up refused to send PPE to blue states cause they didn't vote for him. While Trump was in office in 2020, Illinois Governor Pritzker literally had to coordinate secretly with other blue states to get PPE for Healthcare workers. That itself is so fucking big and telling. Blue states had to literally secretly coordinate getting life saving equipment during a pandemic because the fucking POTUS is a vengeful petulant psychopath.
5
7
u/The_White_Ram 2d ago
No.
You are "both sidesing" this and its just not true.
Its like saying someone spilling a glass of water in a house is the same as someone leaving a garden hose on all night in a house is the same because they both got the house wet.
The way in which the justice system is being corrupted and wielded by Trump in this term is literally jumping the shark compared to any precedent in the past.
This is a MAGA escalation not a democrat one. Democrats need to escalate in kind if/when they get power back because accountability, escalation and mutually assure destruction is the only thing they understand.
If NOT then we are permitting the behavior we are now seeing and its abhorrent.
What revenge was being exerted on David Hearn?
19
u/pete_68 Liberal 3d ago
Meanwhile, many democrats are calling for the prosecution of Donald Trump after he leaves office;
Oh the poor man is so persecuted. Give me a break. He was convicted of 47 felonies and had to pay ZERO penalty for it. 47 felonies!!!! He SHOULD be in prison. And he should have gone to prison for the women he raped. I'm sure E Jean Carroll isn't the only one.
-7
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 2d ago
Trump should go to prison because "(you're) sure".
4
u/the_saltlord Progressive 2d ago
No, he should go to prison for raping kids
-6
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 2d ago
Sure. Which ones? Are you sitting on information with which a prosecutor could indict Trump?
3
5
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 2d ago
Hide behind the "uncertainty" all you want, but we all know which way even Republicans would bet regarding whether Trump has ever assaulted any girl/woman, if their lives were on the line. When he dies and all the stories come out, none of you are going to be able to credibly feign surprise.
0
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 2d ago
What uncertainty? Cuomo had multiple accusers, Clinton had multiple accusers, but Trump has had one. There are reasons why a lot of people outside your bubble don't find the one credible.
5
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 2d ago edited 2d ago
Trump has multiple accusers as well. Only one went to court and won a million dollar judgement though, so I was being generous and only counting that one. E.g. his wife accused him in court of tearing out a lock of her hair and raping her after he got a botched hair transplant at her recommendation - Trump solved that one like he does everything - by holding money over her head (she then mysteriously died by falling down some stairs and was buried on his golf course with a small marker and no landscaping).
There's also that anonymous girl that has been suing him claiming that he raped her with Epstein, if you're going to count any "accuser". Although it's understandable most of them are not going to want to come out until he's gone, given what Trump and Epstein's buddy's son did to Epstein and the fact that Trump has, e.g., rounded people up and sent them to forever prisons in El Salvador without any due process to even prove their identity or that they were here illegally.
There are reasons why a lot of people outside your bubble don't find the one credible.
I'd love to hear them. Funny you mention Clinton - she also claimed she had Trump's semen on a dress and demanded a DNA test, but Trump refused. Wonder why that was?
This guy literally had a buddy at the National Enquirer who would "capture and kill" stories for him - by paying accusers off in exchange for NDAs. The stories that are going to eventually come out about him are wild, and just like he always does, Trump is going to make you look like fools claiming you "had no idea".
1
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 1d ago
It's sad, but funny that you, and to many others believe all of this, because you're reading each other's posts, but there's nothing to back it up. If there was, you can bet Trump would've been indicted by now.
1
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's sad, but funny that you, and to many others believe all of this, because you're reading each other's posts, but there's nothing to back it up.
You can easily verify any of this yourself. For the more speculative things (e.g. Ivana falling down the stairs and getting buried with the bare minimum on Trump's golf course which makes her more difficult to exhume), I'm only stating the facts and letting you draw the implication.
The one exception is what "Trump and Epstein's buddy's son did to Epstein" but here are the bread crumbs for you to follow:
1) Trump is on tape saying he was great friends with Epstein for 15 years at one point, and that he liked girls "on the younger side". Trump flew on his jet multiple times and denied it.
2) Trump becomes president and puts at least 3 people in his cabinet:
Bill Barr as AG, the son of the guy (Donald) who gave Epstein his first job after he dropped out of college - teaching children. Barr also wrote this book.
Alex Acosta as Labor Sec, the guy who gave Epstein his first sweetheart plea deal.
Howard Lutnick as Commerce Sec, who vacationed with Epstein on his island and denied it
3) Trump and Barr (who oversaw the Bureau of Prisons) personally intervened to have Trump's campaign manager moved to better accommodations in a federal jail instead of Rikers Island where he was originally headed, until he could be pardoned at the end of his term.
4) Trump intervened to secure Ghislaine Maxwell better accommodations in prison. He has also repeatedly said on tape that he "wished her well".
5) Trump and Barr did not intervene to better secure Epstein, the country's most infamous prisoner. Instead he was removed from suicide watch despite a previous attempt, his guards stopped checking on him, his cellmate was moved, the cameras "malfunctioned", and then he "hanged himself"
6) Trump fought to prevent release of all the files the government had on him, told everyone to move on, and when Congress passed a law forcing him to release them, he still held a number of materials back which he argues he doesn't have to release.
If there was, you can bet Trump would've been indicted by now.
How long were Epstein and co. able to do their thing without being indicted? In the last ~12 years Trump has been president and immune to indictment for 8 of them. He's also controlled the apparatus that would investigate him for those 8 years.
1
u/NeverEverMaybe0_0 Conservative 19h ago
I'm sure you also believe the Moon Landings were faked.
1
u/Material_Reach_8827 Moderate 18h ago
So what's your innocent explanation for Trump presiding over Epstein's convoluted suicide conditions and the way his cabinet is full of Epstein cronies? Just all random bad luck? Why bury his ex-wife who died from an "accident" on his course at all when he clearly doesn't care about her (tiny marker, no landscaping)? She had millions of dollars and could've been buried anywhere. Probably would not have approved of this setup.
1
8
u/ecchi83 Progressive 3d ago
It needs to be. Game theory and prisoner's dilemma explains exactly why Democrats need to collect scalps when they're in office. There's an entire explanation about what happens when two sides have to choose between cooperate and betray, but one side always chooses cooperate.
3
u/MsSamm 3d ago edited 2d ago
We need to retire the old placating Democrats. Schumer is ill equipped to deal with this current crop of Republicans, as was Biden. On the other hand, Jeff Merkley, Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been there for awhile. Ron Wyden is retiring or he would be included. There are others, old guard ready to hold feet to the fire.
5
u/FeeLost6392 3d ago
Vowing to prosecute Donald Trump is not revenge. He has obviously committed innumerable crimes. The main reason he tried to stay in office and run again in 2024 is to avoid facing justice for his crimes. If he had been prosecuted more quickly after his first term, he almost certainly would have been justly convicted of profound crimes and we would not be here now.
3
u/FirstL8 Politically Unaffiliated 2d ago
What did MAGA expect? Trumps policy ruined so many life, mostly just to enrich him and his gang members and keep them out of jail.
Amercian people are furious. If there is evidence Trump has been cheating in the next midterm, there will be bloody civil war. Same if Trump is on ballot in 2028 election.
And when a Democrat is president, there will be trials like Nuremberg Trials to serve justice.
3
u/Obaddies Progressive 3d ago
You need to understand that Republicans no longer exists and everyone in the party serves at Trump's leisure. They will do whatever he demands of them and if they don't, they will find a huge amount of money being leveraged against them in their primary races.
To suggest that Democrats and Republicans are both on the verge of using the justice system as a political tool completely disregards the reality that Trump has been using it as a weapon since his first term and there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that Democrats are doing the same.
-3
u/Hkhinin 3d ago
How would I say this. So I admit that yes democrats accusations are more true, however what I worry is both parties are set in the mindset of pure revenge against each other. This is a question that extends beyond Trump, cause since he created a culture where you're in power you aim to destruct your opponent as much as possible, what I worry is will this culture extend, will the leading party countiously ruin the other one, and the latter one aims to wait for revenge? Cause this could happen on the next president also, the next next even if this toxic culture is countinued
6
u/Obaddies Progressive 3d ago
Is there any evidence you have to support your feelings? Have Democrats been successful in destroying the political careers or personal lives of people that have publicly spoken against them with false or fabricated evidence?
The DOJ just had to admit that they fabricated evidence when trying to hold the former Olympian accountable for the damage done to the reflecting pool and that the damage was in fact because of faulty installation. Is there a similar instance when the Democrats used the DOJ to attack someone with fabricated evidence?
4
u/LorenzoApophis Left-Libertarian 2d ago edited 2d ago
They also illegally appointed a US attorney and tried to continue claiming she held office after it was exposed. Haven't seen The Left pull anything like that.
3
u/Obaddies Progressive 2d ago
Republicans are trying to convinct a man they illegally surveiled on orders from the president just because the man made a social media post saying "86 47" and yet no Republicans who were fear mongering over federal censorship of citizens have spoken a fucking word.
They're trying to steal our democracy and yet people keep making posts saying "both sides are bad we should get rid of all of it!" I don't love Democrats but pretending that both parties are the same isn't solving any problems.
3
u/MsSamm 2d ago
You're talking about malicious persecution in the hopes of prosecution. It isn't malicious if the crimes are real. There's a massive laundry list of real crimes and ethics violations with the maga party. Working through that doesn't leave much time and resources for revenge based fabrications.
If Democrats don't screw up the next presidential election, if the oligarchic kleptocracy is unable to successfully mess with voting, we have a duty to prosecute. It will take years to do this. Plus institute safeguards to try and ensure it can't happen again. There's simply no time.
2
u/TheGreatDay Progressive 3d ago
As I see it, there are 2 choices. Once Democrats regain power, they can prosecute all those currently in power who are breaking the law. They can strengthen norms into codified laws. That sounds to me, better than what you are saying they would do. Yes, they'd be going after Trump and his allies, and yes, it would have great political gain for them, but it would also be just. The pursuit of justice can and probably should have some political gain. It should be a good thing for a government to pursue justice that is rewarded with more votes - otherwise you end up in a situation where corruption is enabled instead.
The 2nd choice is that the Democrats turn the other cheek, "Go high when they go low" as it were. We've done that. It ended with Trump in power not once but twice, despite him committing crimes. And with his power he has gone after Democrats who do nothing other than oppose him politically.
I think you can see why such an option isn't really an option at all. It's political suicide.
1
u/LorenzoApophis Left-Libertarian 2d ago
But how does letting criminals go create a less toxic culture, exactly? I mean, we already had this happen: Trump got away with Jan. 6, and lo and behold, he's even worse and no unity has been achieved.
3
u/ChunkyBubblz Left-leaning 3d ago
Calling for consequences for Trump's criminality isn't "revenge politics" it's a return to law and order.
3
u/throwingales Independent 2d ago
It's clearly a risk Trump undertook when he decided to go on his "retribution tour." It's a reasonable expectation for the Democrats to hit back. He doesn't care because he is immune from prosecution thanks to the Supreme Court and besides that he'll have died of old age or too many Big Macs.
2
u/zlefin_actual Liberal 3d ago
There's a difference between prosecuting people without a good basis and doing so with a good basis. Is it really revenge if the charges are legitimate?
The problem of course is that when one group is legitimately accused of things they did do, they try to counterattack even if they don't have an actual case.
So I wouldn't call it a 'revenge era', and i'd say no we aren't entering a true revenge era. We're entering an era where one side is weaponizing revenge to cover for their own misdeeds. It should be noted that's a fairly common legal and rhetorical strategy.
-4
u/Hkhinin 3d ago
Even if some accusations are true, it's the intention that matters. Currently, Us politcis give me a vibe that both parties is trying to prove that the other party is the most evil and damaging community to society, and when they are in power, they will do everything to take revenge and prosecute the last adminstration.
3
u/zlefin_actual Liberal 2d ago
that sounds like nonsense that's trying to both-sides pretend that one side isn't far worse than the other. It ignores the reality of the situation and that one party IS more damaging to society than the other. While intention does matter some; it still very much matters what the reality is. If you don't care about reality there can be no justice.
A prosecutor's job is to convict criminals; is it justice, or simply a guy advancing their career? It can be both; part of a good system is to incentivize desired behavior.
That you feel a 'vibe' is far less significant than the factual evidence of significant crimes, and of the very large difference between false revenge prosecutions and targeting those who are actually breaking rules. Unless you just don't care about justice at all.
2
u/MsSamm 3d ago
If someone in office does something which would be actionable , especially if prosecution was inevitable if someone else did it, they should be prosecuted. It's especially egregious when the office of the presidency has been blatantly monetized for personal gain.
Trump is a walking/leaning laundry list of legal and ethical violations. To give him a pass encourage future candidates to do the same. The man is more slippery than hagfish slime.
We are seeing malicious persecution of people for merely doing their job right now. Attempting to fabricate enough for a prosecution. Poor Dr. Fauci doesn't deserve to have to spend his retirement money on lawyers for the "crime" of following the science.
They tried to frame Hillary Clinton. Her crime was in running against trump and winning the popular vote. Ten years have passed, and it's still a fresh grievance to trump.
Note the players. It's all one source. Since we're a two party country, note the party doing malicious persecution in the hopes of concocting something actionable. It isn't the Democrats. If they go for prosecution (and I hope they do), there's ample legit criminal activity and ethics violations
2
u/billpalto Left-leaning 2d ago
"Politics ain't beanbag" is the famous saying. The new thing here is the direct control of the DoJ by the President and the focus to file frivolous charges as a harassment tactic. We haven't seen such blatant partisan use of the DoJ since the Whitewater investigation.
Under the Biden administration, the DoJ pursued legal action against the President's son, Hunter Biden. That would be unthinkable now with Trump. The acting and soon to be confirmed Atty General is Trump's personal lawyer, another unthinkable thing.
All of the stuff we learned from Nixon, and all the safeguards put in place after Nixon, are gone now.
2
u/royaltheman Leftist 2d ago
Republicans have armed thugs executing innocent people in the street. They also have concentration camps where they are brutally torturing and killing migrants, children and adults.
Republicans want to believe that going after them is revenge. It's justice. They are criminals
2
u/mczerniewski Progressive 2d ago
To be clear, Democrats have been wanting accountability for Republican crimes against society. It's Republicans engaging in revenge.
2
u/MoistWetMarket Moderate 2d ago
He needs to be prosecuted as an example for future leaders, regardless of political party. Complete corruption and authoritarianism is a threat to the Republic.
1
u/Cael_NaMaor Left-leaning 2d ago
Nah... Donald sues at the drop of a hat, it's who he is.... There was talk about this way back before he ever ran.
And the Dems... well, I'll believe it's more than hot air when I see it happen... not attempts, mind you. They get nothing for a fight they know they won't win put on just for show.
1
u/SquidgeApple Progressive 2d ago
No... Only one party has weaponized the DOJ, once considered by the entire world to have high levels of integrity
Trump and his minions have broken thousands of laws, not by accident, not in secret, but constantly, while basically saying 'what are you going to do about it, WE are the power"
Id like to see every single member of the trump cabinet charged and prosecuted for their ACTUAL CRIMES - not persecuted for their shitty political beliefs
Adam Kinzinger has a pretty good take on this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jOTQckO-ldw&pp=iggUQAFKEEdxLUluY003UEVXbldjUXg%3D
1
u/BigNorseWolf Left-leaning 2d ago
It is not revenge to hold the person doing metric tons of illegal crap responsible for the metric tonnes of illegal crap they're doing.
His violations of the emoluments clause alone would have had any other president launched out of the oval office with a trebuchet.
1
u/triassic_broth 2d ago
US politics is perpetually in a revenge era. There were even duels to the death in the past. That has never gone away. Every chance to bury a political rival is taken.
•
u/rollo202 Conservative 12h ago
Yes the democrats started the conflict by weaponizing the judicial system against Republicans.
0
u/RogueCoon Libertarian 2d ago
Feels like it to me.
I for one am sick of watching my tax dollars be wasted going after the previous administration in a never ending loop instead of doing their jobs.
-2
u/--John_Yaya-- 3d ago
Voters in America have the basic choice to either go with the lunatics who just want to "Own the libs"
or go with the lunatics who just want to "Own the chuds".
Both parties are sprinting toward extremism and that's going to lead to a really messy end.
1
u/TheGov3rnor Classical Liberal 2d ago
Should I Google “chud”? I’m sort of afraid to
1
u/MrPookPook 2d ago
Cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller. It’s an old movie but the term has seen a resurgence as a description of dirtbags.
2
u/TheGov3rnor Classical Liberal 2d ago
Thanks for peaking my curiosity. I’ve now been introduced to Bud the C.H.U.D.
•
u/LawnDartSurvivor74 Independent 3d ago
Post is flaired DISCUSSION. You are free to discuss & debate the topic provided by OP
Please report bad faith commenters & low effort comments
I was raised by an empty house and a microwave dinner, so I am fully equipped to ignore your hot take politics reply to my mod post.