4 ms·

> Trump is the definition of a political insider. right, which is why the 2016 Republican nomination debates had a record number of debaters on stage—they real

> Trump is the definition of a political insider. right, which is why the 2016 Republican nomination debates had a record number of debaters on stage—they really just wanted to provide maximum contrast against their favored candidate to make him more electable, you see, not because they were doing everything they could to dismantle his candidacy, or anything like that. Trump also got along with every other Republican 100% of the time, and never had beef with any of them, especially the most entrenched ones, like the torchbearers of various entrenched Republican political dynasties, such as the Bushes. it's really amusing to me that anyone can pretend to objectively view the sequence of events of the past seven years and come away with the conclusion that Donald Trump is "the definition of a political insider", when the opposite is so blatantly, obviously true. you don't need to be a fan of the guy or his politics to see that he is most definitely an outsider compared to the rest of the entrenched political class, and in fact that is most of the source of his appeal. if Trump is really a political insider, then why did he get indicted for something that is objectively small potatoes compared to crimes of other federally-elected officials? why didn't his entrenched brethren cover for him, as they have for so many others, in both parties? surely if you can get Bush and Obama in the clear for their demonstrable war crimes, covering up for paying off a porn star should be simple and straightforward? if the Democrats really wanted to take the GOP down a peg, they would've indicted Bush (and much of his cabinet) on war crimes. if the GOP really wanted to take the Democrats down a peg, they would've indicted Obama (and most of the rest of his cabinet, including HRC) on war crimes. but neither of those things happened, because the entrenched political class goes easy on each other when it comes to anything more than spouting rhetoric at the podium, or as a talking head on television. only Trump has been uniquely attacked in this way, not for the scale or impact of his alleged crimes, but simply because he's an unwanted foreign body in the federal government, and antibodies must be deployed to dispose of him. again: none of this analysis is predicated upon liking Donald Trump, wanting him to be President, finding him to be of strong moral fiber, agreeing with him politically, or anything like that. rather, one must simply look at the manner the entrenched political class reacted to his running for President, and eventual election—the man clearly has few true friends in Washington.

ModernMech 4y ago
> 2016 Republican nomination Right, but it's 2023. He became POTUS and the entire Republican party reoriented around him. Things change, and the outsiders are now named Cheney and Bush. > only Trump has been uniquely attacked in this way Because maybe Trump is uniquely a criminal. I guess we'll see after the trial(s). If he's acquitted, then maybe it was a witch hunt after all. But if he's convicted, then it's more likely it was a legitimate investigation all along that put a deserved criminal behind bars. > the man clearly has few true friends in Washington. He has very true friends in life, because he's an odious individual and serial career criminal. I mean, the man has been found guilty in a court of law of fraud. His namesake charity was a fraud. His namesake school was a fraud. His namesake company was found guilty of criminal tax fraud. Is it really such a surprise that now he's crossed the line into criminal territory?
- adamrezich 4y ago
  none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of, so, it's odd that you would characterize Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians, and it's odd that you think that this move—led by other politicians, many of whom are themselves criminally corrupt—would somehow "open the door" to further politician corruption prosecution down the road. additionally: is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy? didn't we all get that out of our systems a few years ago? it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes War crimes are one thing. I have no idea how that kind of prosecution would go, but the DA of Manhattan definitely wouldn't bring that to court. > crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of, Yes, and we routinely prosecute such people for their offenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc... These lists are really long. Trump is just one more name to this list, and it shouldn't matter that he was President if he committed the crimes he's accused of. > Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians Well he's not unique in that the law should apply to him, but find me one other politician who has been found to run a fraudulent company, charity, and university; and has been criminally indicted. > is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy? Well I'd be talking less about him if he hadn't tried to overthrow the government I support, and is now running to lead it again. He will be the nominee at this rate, and so these opinions cannot be left unsaid unfortunately. > it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later. Yes! And at long last we will have that discussion in the courtroom, where facts prevail. We will finally cut through the BS, posturing, politics, and the facts will be presented in front of an impartial jury. They will render a verdict based on the facts, and when they do, he will either be guilty or not. That will be the end of the story for me, and it hopefully that will finally put an end to some of the debate. Obviously it will continue, but we will have heard the evidence.

ModernMech 4y ago

> 2016 Republican nomination Right, but it's 2023. He became POTUS and the entire Republican party reoriented around him. Things change, and the outsiders are now named Cheney and Bush. > only Trump has been uniquely attacked in this way Because maybe Trump is uniquely a criminal. I guess we'll see after the trial(s). If he's acquitted, then maybe it was a witch hunt after all. But if he's convicted, then it's more likely it was a legitimate investigation all along that put a deserved criminal behind bars. > the man clearly has few true friends in Washington. He has very true friends in life, because he's an odious individual and serial career criminal. I mean, the man has been found guilty in a court of law of fraud. His namesake charity was a fraud. His namesake school was a fraud. His namesake company was found guilty of criminal tax fraud. Is it really such a surprise that now he's crossed the line into criminal territory?

adamrezich 4y ago
none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of, so, it's odd that you would characterize Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians, and it's odd that you think that this move—led by other politicians, many of whom are themselves criminally corrupt—would somehow "open the door" to further politician corruption prosecution down the road. additionally: is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy? didn't we all get that out of our systems a few years ago? it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > none of those things either are or are on par with war crimes War crimes are one thing. I have no idea how that kind of prosecution would go, but the DA of Manhattan definitely wouldn't bring that to court. > crimes and other sorts of criminal government corruption that countless other high-level officials are most definitely guilty of, Yes, and we routinely prosecute such people for their offenses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc... These lists are really long. Trump is just one more name to this list, and it shouldn't matter that he was President if he committed the crimes he's accused of. > Trump as being uniquely criminal among politicians Well he's not unique in that the law should apply to him, but find me one other politician who has been found to run a fraudulent company, charity, and university; and has been criminally indicted. > is it really still therapeutic to expound on how much you dislike the guy? Well I'd be talking less about him if he hadn't tried to overthrow the government I support, and is now running to lead it again. He will be the nominee at this rate, and so these opinions cannot be left unsaid unfortunately. > it would be nice to have a frank discussion about facts and logic instead of letting that sort of thing continue to seep in, all these years later. Yes! And at long last we will have that discussion in the courtroom, where facts prevail. We will finally cut through the BS, posturing, politics, and the facts will be presented in front of an impartial jury. They will render a verdict based on the facts, and when they do, he will either be guilty or not. That will be the end of the story for me, and it hopefully that will finally put an end to some of the debate. Obviously it will continue, but we will have heard the evidence.