← Back to context

Comment by Cthulhu_

2 days ago

It's only illegal if you get caught. If this administration ever ends, the next one will be focused on the fallout of this one. (as is usually the case)

That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups.

Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.

  • Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?

    • The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc.

      You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.

      1 reply →

    • careful, boomers have selective memory... the 80's was some sort of fever dream

  • Wasn't it reactive from the start? From (mostly journalistic) history I've read, GBII started their administration by refusing to do all sorts of things because the adminstration associated them with Clinton, including listening to Richard Clarke's, a carryover advisor's, warnings about terrorist threats.

It needs to be far more focused than the last one.

We can come back from this, but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.

  • As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.

    • I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...

      9 replies →

    • Two-parties system naturally evolve.

      Get rid of money, punish lying, decrease the power of the Executive branch…

      Lots to do, but getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream.

      3 replies →

    • Secondary to the extreme corruption. Corruption is the issue that must be resolved before everything else. The fashions of political parties or their structures are superficial by comparison.

  • You have Jared Kushner pulling a lot of strings on one side, and you have his brother, Josh Kushner, giving enormous amounts of money to the other side. They’re both incredibly evil. And it’s obvious that both sides completely disdain their civilian constituents, because their real constituents are corporations and oligarchs.

    It’s not just the two party system. You have to get the money out out of politics before anything else can positively move back toward democracy.

  • >but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison.

    Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes.

    And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.

    • People will correctly consider it a partisan witchhunt, but that is ultimately the only way back to "normal". Pack the court and start the prosecutions. Look at Hungary and Poland.

      (The UK has the opportunity to do this before the fash get into power, but we can watch it being fumbled in real time)

    • > a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues.

      It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here.

      It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues.

      6 replies →

  • And doing so risks societal fractions against the idea of lawfare. It’s a lose lose situation.

    • That may be, but the consequences for not taking these bad actors to task would have worse and longer lasting consequences. The portion of society that will fracture the most loudly has already attempted to storm the seat of government after a national election. We've seen what they're capable of and I'm much less afraid of that than permanently mafiatizing basically every level of the Federal government.

    • Yes, but expect those prison sentences will be more popular than you might expect. The current admin expends an insane amount of energy pumping the size of their supposed fanbase.

    • Forgiving the south after the civil war led to Jim Crow. Forgiving most of the nazis after WW2 seems to be the reason nazis are rising again so quickly. Forgiveness has been given enough chances already. I think we should try giving the full punishment a try.

      2 replies →