3 ms·

If citing the behavior of the most rabbid supporters is allowed (because that's who shows up to campaign rallies), then it's not hard to find an equivalent on t

by gruez 10mo ago

If citing the behavior of the most rabbid supporters is allowed (because that's who shows up to campaign rallies), then it's not hard to find an equivalent on the left. /r/all is full of people wanting various people in the epstein files, including trump, to be locked up on spurious associations.

davidw 10mo ago
Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I don't think I've seen people on the left yelling about locking Mitch McConnell up, for instance, even if he bears much responsibility for all of this.
- gruez 10mo ago
  >Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I thought they were upset about her emails or whatever?
  - dd8601fn 10mo ago
    I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter. Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks. None of it is about law and order.
    - gruez 10mo ago
      >I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter. From a 10s skim on wikipedia: >Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping. I'm not saying those allegations are true, but to claim "none could name a crime" suggests you didn't even try. >Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks. If you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in..., that has the same air of credibility as him going after Fed governors for mortgage fraud.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically. Whereas everyone thinks that all child rapists should be in prison!
        ben_w 10mo ago
        > It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically. I think the world would be a better place if politicians with access to critical information were held to suitable security requirements under threats of punishment for laxity. This would absolutely also include Hesgeth inviting a journalist to an airstrike planning meeting on Signal. And likewise Trump putting boxes full of state secrets in a disused bathroom and on a stage. The Trump administration are clearly hypocrites, clearly trying to throw the book at everyone else while bemoaning even the slightest consequences for themselves. I wouldn't call for Clinton's arrest, but I will say that anywhere that would arrest her should've given a much more severe punishment to Trump. Then again, I'm not even American so I genuinely don't actually care if y'all leak state secrets like a basketball net leaks water.
SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. Did any Trump supporters, for example, criticize the prosecution of James Comey?
- gruez 10mo ago
  >Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. In the context of the previous comment, the "non-rabbid" (and probably median) supporter would be someone voting Trump because they think they trust him more on the economy/immigration or whatever. They might be indifferent to his claims that he'll lock up his political opponents, or think that they're actually guilty of something, but that's not the same as being "rabbid" (ie. showing up to rallies and chanting "lock her up").
  - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
    Right! With a non-fascist politician, what you're describing would be extremely abnormal; the median Biden supporter, Obama supporter, or Bush supporter would routinely take positions their guy didn't agree with even though they supported him overall. But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 10mo ago
      >But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do". You're basing this off... what? You're missing the options of "I'm indifferent about this", or "I don't agree with him on this but still think he's better as a whole than the alternative".

by gruez 10mo ago

davidw 10mo ago

Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I don't think I've seen people on the left yelling about locking Mitch McConnell up, for instance, even if he bears much responsibility for all of this.

gruez 10mo ago
>Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I thought they were upset about her emails or whatever?
- dd8601fn 10mo ago
  I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter. Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks. None of it is about law and order.
  - gruez 10mo ago
    >I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter. From a 10s skim on wikipedia: >Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping. I'm not saying those allegations are true, but to claim "none could name a crime" suggests you didn't even try. >Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks. If you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in..., that has the same air of credibility as him going after Fed governors for mortgage fraud.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically. Whereas everyone thinks that all child rapists should be in prison!
      - ben_w 10mo ago
        > It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically. I think the world would be a better place if politicians with access to critical information were held to suitable security requirements under threats of punishment for laxity. This would absolutely also include Hesgeth inviting a journalist to an airstrike planning meeting on Signal. And likewise Trump putting boxes full of state secrets in a disused bathroom and on a stage. The Trump administration are clearly hypocrites, clearly trying to throw the book at everyone else while bemoaning even the slightest consequences for themselves. I wouldn't call for Clinton's arrest, but I will say that anywhere that would arrest her should've given a much more severe punishment to Trump. Then again, I'm not even American so I genuinely don't actually care if y'all leak state secrets like a basketball net leaks water.

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago

Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. Did any Trump supporters, for example, criticize the prosecution of James Comey?

gruez 10mo ago
>Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. In the context of the previous comment, the "non-rabbid" (and probably median) supporter would be someone voting Trump because they think they trust him more on the economy/immigration or whatever. They might be indifferent to his claims that he'll lock up his political opponents, or think that they're actually guilty of something, but that's not the same as being "rabbid" (ie. showing up to rallies and chanting "lock her up").
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  Right! With a non-fascist politician, what you're describing would be extremely abnormal; the median Biden supporter, Obama supporter, or Bush supporter would routinely take positions their guy didn't agree with even though they supported him overall. But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 10mo ago
    >But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do". You're basing this off... what? You're missing the options of "I'm indifferent about this", or "I don't agree with him on this but still think he's better as a whole than the alternative".