7 ms·
Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thin
by sashank_1509 4y ago
Alright let me make the argument why indicting Trump is a horrible idea. It's really not hard to see why, if you have any insight into what the other side thinks:
1. First there are two alternative realities being played in real time in US:
This arguably is the first time this has happened in US history (maybe civil war was another time) but two populations have become so isolated that they essentially live in 2 different realities. An amusing moment that depicts this occurred in John Oliver's recent segment where he plays a clip of Ron Desantis bragging that the UN hates the laws he passed and John plays it completely incredulous why would someone brag that he is hated by the UN. Since this audience is mostly liberal and understands the liberal worldview, please quiz yourself what worldview would brag about being hated by UN. If you cant understand, you literally can't understand anything about ~48% of the country, and if you're serious about politics you need to at least understand the 2 sides, ideally more than that. The fact is most of the US population barely understands the other side and so they will necessarily clash on most political issues.
2. There is a huge amount of democratic energy on both sides. There was always a lot of political energy on the left, since RooseVelt, Civil Rights movement, now LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter etc. It used to be a characteristic of the left. Now there is in fact a suprisingly large amount of political energy on the right, that first started with the Tea Party Movement in the 2010's and of culminating Trump who could essentially be considered a Populist Leader from the Right.
3. So we have two populations, with large political energies compared to any time in recent history, who also see the world so differently that neither can understand each other. The only reason this hasn't led to civil war like situation is because they both still to some extent follow the law, and still believe in Democracy as a schelling point for choosing who rules them. Now if you go ahead and jail the populist leader, you are going even closer to complete political fracture especially after a good chunk of the population believes the election was stolen from him. If you think this will convince any Trump supporters they're wrong (lol), I have a pipe dream to sell you.
Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? If your instant answer wasn't Obama (or if it was Obama because of drone strikes lol), you definitely do not understand the other side in any meaningful way to heal any political fracture this country is suffering with. So good job playing your reenactment in our version of Populares vs Optimates, and we all know how that ended
- cma 4y ago> what worldview would brag about being hated by UN Surely not the constitutional originalists, since under the constitution and its original interpretation the UN Charter is the supreme law of the land.
- graeme 4y ago>Quick question, who is the most criminal president in US history? Your post is a lot of meta talk and very short on actual....crimes. The idea behind this indictment is that Trump broke the law as a citizen. Not that he did stuff in office that people dislike. Which law did Obama break which you think he evaded prosecution for on account of being president. Please be specific.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoNot parent, but I am relatively certain you can't just kill US citizen with a wave of a hand ( not legally that is[1]). Obama did just that. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoThe argument that this is legal was from Bush Jr's office: https://thenewamerican.com/cia-has-program-to-assassinate-us-citizens/ https://thenewamerican.com/cia-has-program-to-assassinate-us... Your Wikipedia link makes it seem like an honest mistake. Which would not be a crime, though could have civil penalties if government immunity wasn't involved.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoUnless I am misreading it, the link you provided makes it sound even worse than, by comparison, benign Wiki article: << The Bush administration had made a point of claiming unlimited power under the << “the Obama administration has adopted the same stance.” I am aware of the theory about 'imperial presidency', but I think we can agree that US president does not actually have unlimited power. << our Wikipedia link makes it seem like an honest mistake. Yeah. Funny how the president did not address it himself, but instead we have mere 'leaks' to speculate on. << Which would not be a crime, though could have civil penalties if government immunity wasn't involved. No. Factually wrong. It would be a crime were government immunity not involved. If you kill a person in US by a sheer stroke of bad fortune, you may still end up being convicted for a crime ( involuntary manslaughter ). Naturally, this being government makes it fairly complicated, because the actual responsibility is spread across many decision centers, but, as the saying goes, 'the buck stops here' so one would think that if it was a.. mistake, it would be addressed as such and not quietly forgotten and dismissed.