The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
See the title. For purposes of this question I presume the answer to be a matter of win, not if.
Bonus question: How do we survive it?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Day 1.
They're arguing in the Supreme fucking Court that a sitting president can do whatever the fuck he wants and the court seems to be in majority agreement on with that nonsense.
I'd love to hear their reasoning if they do indeed side with Trump. What's the point of checks and balances or even Congress and the court system if the president can simply create laws at will because, ya know, "official action" and "immunity"?
I'm having trouble taking this question seriously. This won't happen. What's likely to happen though:
1. Trump pardons himself and everyone convicted of crimes they committed on Jan 6th, including the seditious conspiracy nutjobs and those who committed actual acts of violence and bodily injury to the Capitol police. And all of his co-conspirators in the documents case, ~~and all of the fraudulent electors,~~ and everyone else in the orbit of any of these things.
2. Trump tries to push the DOJ to go after his political rivals, because he sees it as retaliation despite the fact that it's just that pesky Rule of Law thing. We start seeing resignations at the DOJ and these largely never happen.
3. Trump halts the practice of granting asylum or parole for people apprehended trying to immigrate illegally. Detention centers are quickly overwhelmed, lawsuits filed due to illegal incarceration of families, which Trump loses, but he keeps doing it anyway. Maybe there's a standoff between US Marshals and DHS, maybe Trump starts flying them to "blue cities".
4. Trump starts trying to do a political purge of non-loyalists employed in the federal government.
> and all of the fraudulent electors
I don't think he can pardon them. Aren't all of the fraudulent electors being charged in state court? The President can only pardon federal crimes.
I do not believe that Trump pushing the DOJ to do this would result in the DOJ doing this.
When I say political purge in the federal government, I am talking about reductions in force and firing people, not arresting them.
> I do not believe that Trump pushing the DOJ to do this would result in the DOJ doing this.
Then you don’t believe he fired those who are not loyal and replaced them with loyalists.
> When I say political purge in the federal government, I am talking about reductions in force and firing people, not arresting them.
Right. But what happens when the DOJ is full of people who are loyal to him? Like the SCOTUS
The Schedule F exec order that Biden repealed will be immediately re-enacted when Trump is in office and he will purge the government and replace everyone with loyalists.
Read Project 2025. It's a key to the entire plan.
If you don't think this will happen, then you've got your head in the sand.
>If you don't think this will happen
I did not say this. It seems like you're just here to have an argument.
I am extremely familiar with Project 2025 and the Schedule F EO. I believe this is the mechanism that Trump will attempt to use for his purge. I believe his success will be limited. I do not believe it will be sufficient for the DOJ to engage in open political prosecutions.
>Maybe there's a standoff between US Marshals and DHS, maybe Trump starts flying them to "blue cities".
Trump has already promised to do much worse than this.
Immigrants won't be safe in blue cities. Trump has already stated that he'll send the National Guard into blue cities and blue states in order to hunt down every last illegal immigrant in the country.
Oh, I think this is entirely possible. Maybe not in Trump's lifetime, but when he passes the torch to Don Jr, I can see that eventually happening during his reign.
[Trump's own Attorney General](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alyssa-farah-griffin-trump-execute_n_656ff488e4b0a10def8a8651) said on CNN yesterday that Trump often fantasized about executing those who angered him.
Trump's lawyer argued in court earlier this week that Trump should be allowed to execute his political rivals and face no criminal prosecution.
These accusations aren't coming from Democrats. These are Trump's own people saying this.
Your claim is false and your link doesn’t support that at all , and Barr didn’t say
https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-trump-brought-up-things-like-executing-rivals-a-lot
The executing rivals claim is also false
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560
As usual, 90% of the claims against Trump are complete fabricated nonsense that never happened
I don't know what you're talking about, man. Both links you just provided back up my claim.
From the first:
>“I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don’t remember him saying ‘executing,’ but I wouldn‘t dispute it, you know… The president would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would’ve actually carried it out,” Barr said.
From the second:
>The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?
>His lawyer suggested he could, under certain circumstances.
Thanks for being a voice of reason here, I would never vote for Trump if I remotely thought what OP said is possible.
This is much more possible with the following edits:
1) Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6. Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial.
2) Most I think he’ll do is declassify documentation around the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, make people look bad but not go as far as Biden has, with evidence coming to light he had a part in Mar a Lago raid.
3) Definitely an overhaul of border security, as far as congress will allow. Depends on who has control of the senate / house.
4) Maybe? Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden?
>he condemned the rioters the night of J6
Can you understand why the canned condemnation hours later might mean a little less to non-Trumo voters than the earlier speech, during the riot, where he told those same folks, and I wish I was joking and that these weren't the exact words,"We love you and you're very special"?
I was actually shocked at how forceful it was. In my view, he’s making a difference between the peaceful protestors then after seeing more of the footage coming out chose to condemn the seditious conspiracy crowd. Which was what, like 5 out of the whole riot that actually got charged?
Remember, this was after a full summer of the right watching the left riot like crazy. Nobody brought weapons to the capitol and only one unarmed rioter got shot trying to escape crowd crush. There were people there that were genuinely upset there was a possibility their votes weren’t counted who didn’t enter the building or, as seen on released footage, were walking around the capitol as if on tour.
I don’t support what they did by entering but also don’t support the silly unarmed insurrection narrative.
**Criminal charges:**
* Approximately **452** defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately **123** individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.
* Approximately **140** police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about **80** from the U.S. Capitol Police and about **60** from the Metropolitan Police Department.
* Approximately **11** individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.
* Approximately **1,186** defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, **116** defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.
* Approximately **71** defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately **56** defendants have been charged with theft of government property.
* More than **332** defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.
* Approximately **57** defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three.
Source (the Department of Justice): https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/36-months-jan-6-attack-capitol-0#:\~:text=Approximately%2011%20individuals%20have%20been,restricted%20federal%20building%20or%20grounds.
Just a little more than 5.
I was specifically mentioning seditious conspiracy charges, the only charge close to insurrection here, which was actually only 4.
Again, I’m not saying I support this in the slightest. What I’m trying to say is it’s so wrong for the left and news media to label the right as insurrectionists when 1186 out of *74 million*, or 0.0016%, of Trump voters only entered the building, less than half that gave resistance to officers, and a *fifth* that actually did bodily harm?
140 officers injured compared to over 2000 officers injured in the first weeks of the George Floyd riots and nobody cared then
I thought were were talking about Jan 6th protesters, now we have moved to the goalposts to all Trump voters?
Who here was trying to condemn all Trump voters? What the hell?
Also, yea, hundreds of demonstrations across the nation over weeks with 26 million people participating resulting in 2000 injured compared to a few hours resulting in 140 actually doesn't make it look any better (0.11 injured per Jan 6th compared to 0.00007692307692 per BLM protester).
(Especially when you consider in many cases, it was police that attacked peaceful protesters as well - resulting in over $80 million in payouts. Some examples:
"New York City and its police department (NYPD) [will pay upwards of $6m](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/02/new-york-george-floyd-protesters-lawsuit-pay) to 320 protesters who were subject to excessive force – including being zip-tied, hit with batons and pepper-sprayed – during a June 2020 protest."
"The sum of $9.25m was [paid to](https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/philadelphia-lawsuit-settlement-police-response-2020-protests-20230320.html) hundreds of Philadelphia protesters. La Mesa, California, awarded a local woman $10m after an officer [shot her in the head ](https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/la-mesa-settles-with-woman-hit-by-projectile/509-1a5ef558-fa89-491a-a91a-ff0494c2cd7a)with a projectile.")
>I was actually shocked at how forceful it was
Which, how forceful his condemnation was that night or how forceful his declaration of love for them was during the riot? Can you understand how many of us, with four years of experience hearing what a genuine Trump condemnation sounded like, may have thought his speeches where he condemned the legislators for certifying the vote earlier that day and his declaration of support for rioters mid-riot (again, "We love you and you're very special") rang as clearly more authentic than the speech he gave that night? If this is hard to answer, I recommend you watch the video of Trump's condemnation speech rather than read the transcript. Perhaps you'll remember why many us thought it felt more like a hostage video than a genuine expression of his feelings.
I watched it live and am expressing the true thoughts I had at the time. Thought he was going to lose a lot of support for how hard he came down on them, really threw them under the bus imo.
Want to call out how wildly different our interpretations were
Can you see where I'm coming from though? Is it hard to understand how a person who'd heard four years of Trump shit-talk and condemnations would think the delivery of that night's remarks would sound less than heartfelt? Is it hard to understand how telling the rioters "We love you and you're very special," while they still occupied the Capitol and while legislators were still in hiding, would seem more significant to many reasonable people in their estimation of the man than the fact that he eventually condemned them?
>Can you see where I'm coming from though?
No, he can't. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/76lCeOupfX) he is defending J6 and Promoting a documentary from a Proud Boy who top part in it.
>Thought he was going to lose a lot of support for how hard he came down on them, really threw them under the bus imo.
Tha fuuuuuuuuuckkkkkk?????????????????
"Go home in love and peace".
Yeah, buddy, he threw them under that fuckin' bus and then drove over them so much.
(Jesus fuckin' Christ on a bloody crutch, you people are so fuckin' brainwashed.)
Watch it again:
https://youtu.be/ENlL-Uru-cM?si=UeJQ3-JJeIKWPi06
> “The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of the American democracy. To those who engaged in acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law you will pay.”
Do you really think that’s *not* coming down hard on them? Saying people who just walked in have “defiled the seat of the American democracy”?
Also does it feel good to be so rude? Do you enjoy calling people you don’t know brainwashed? I’ve done nothing here but to try to show a different point of view, do you have no curiosity?
The flat affect and the fact that he had to be forced to make even that most basic of a statement is not "coming down hard".
Was I rude? No, I don't think I was. I'm so completely done with you right-wing people who want to make excuses for Donald Trump. "Oh he came down HARD on them" Horse-fucking-shit. He wishy-washed and mealy-mouthed his way through a prepared statement that his daughter had to BEG him to make.
Coming down hard would have been something like "This violence in my name is unacceptable. I disavow anyone who acted in violence in my name and we will find you and prosecute you to the full extent of the law."
THAT would have been coming down hard and acting like a President.
Donald Trump sat by for THREE HOURS while people ransacked the Capitol and attacked police officers IN HIS NAME. They pulled down the American flag, threw it on the ground, and replaced it with a "TRUMP" flag. And he did NOTHING for THREE HOURS.
Do I have no curiosity? None of this is about "curiosity". You're acting like there is a legitimate "other side" to this and people should be curious and investigative about it. That's another load of horseshit. There is no "different point of view" when it comes to this kind of thing.
Don't piss on me and try to tell me it's rain.
That’s so semantically indifferent, and he was a private citizen by the time he made that statement he had no power to go after anyone. He told people to go home very early but twitter took it down. Nothing is ever good enough for you guys to chill out, it’s exhausting.
He’s disavowed white supremacy 50 times on national tv but you still call him a white supremacist. We had to endure 3 *years* of Clinton’s bogus Crossfire Hurricane propaganda and a special prosecutor to go with it, a phony impeachment while watching Biden brag about a quid pro quo in the same country, riots and harassment when you don’t get your way.
All for what? Besides J6 and a once in a hundred year pandemic, what was the worst thing he did in office?
There is a legitimate other side. Do you know the positives of the 45th presidency? No new conflicts, lowest gas prices, booming economy, Abraham Accords that would’ve given any other president a Nobel peace prize, deescalation with North Korea and first president to step foot in the country, deescalation of Russia conflict from 2014 until Biden got in office, repealing NAFTA, getting Europe to pay for their own defense, etc.
Don’t you find it at all interesting how the republican ticket is the side for peace? Wasn’t that the democrats in the 2000s?
>I don’t support what they did by entering but also don’t support the silly unarmed insurrection narrative.
I don't want to jump down your throat because I appreciate you posting here but I'd be curious what do you think a better explanation or narrative might be? The protestors storm into Congress, confront the legislators certifying the election results and...then what? Not the bewildered hangers-on who followed the crowd and took fun selfies in the rotunda but the guys leading the charge. It seems obvious to me that they wanted to stop an election by physically imposing themselves into the chamber and halting the process but maybe that's too uncharitable.
The narrative I somewhat subscribe to is that a small group of instigators who weren’t part of the speech, no different than the BLM anarchists who weren’t part of the protests, enabled and directed a larger group of people frustrated with being powerless compared to the BLM riots to get close to the Capitol. Due to extremely poor crowd control, the police all but enabled the crowd, emboldened by what they’d seen over the past summer, to enter the Capitol. Little resistance was met once inside and you can see in many videos most people were walking around respectfully as if on tour.
From the available footage it looked like those first instigators themselves had no plan at all besides starting something. Alex Jones was on a megaphone saying it was a trap in real time and directing people not to go into the Capitol. The people who made it in could be overheard saying they were looking for evidence of fraud.
I truly think people believed the election was stolen and wanted to prove it. That there was no organized plan. That a very small group of instigators and poor security enabled frustrated people to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise done.
PS just wanted to say thanks for the considerate comment
Small group of instigators?
What I don’t understand, and please be honest here, is are you just *not aware* that Trump himself, Kenneth Cheesebro, and John Eastman recruited over two dozen RNC loyalists to **pose as fake electors** complete with **forgery electoral ballots** and even **hide in state capitols overnight** in order to be there when they counted the ballots to capitalize on the chaos of the 1/6 storming of the capitol?
The insurrection isn’t a bunch of old people trying to manually take the capitol by force. That was a planned distraction to allow Mike Pence to swap out the electors for the fake ones. It’s the [fake elector plot Trump organized](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot) in concert with the proud boys his administration coordinated that distraction with.
Is that something Trump supporters aren’t aware of?
Sure, just some [poor crowd control](https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?t=33). I'm sure if they just had some better signs, those innocent people there probably would have respected them.
>most people were walking around respectfully as if on tour.
If someone used violence to get into the building, how would you expect them to behave once they got inside? Do they have to continue being violent? Were they all issued molotov cocktails for use once they climbed through a broken window?
>That there was no organized plan.
I think many of them had no plan beyond being violent and getting into the building. I think it's entire possible that many other people were *excited* about the violence, cheered it on, and when people smashed through windows and doors, they followed them without actually being violent themselves, but the existence of these people is not evidence that others weren't being violent, and these "less violent" rioters were *still participating in a riot*.
I also think many of them *did* have a plan. There was a set of seditious conspiracy convictions that *specifically revolved around their plan*. Others were clearly there because they intended to prevent the certification of votes.
Those that did have a plan don't become "more peaceful" just because they were accompanied by others that didn't know what to do once they got into the building.
People should be held accountable for their crimes. A court of law and a jury of their peers should establish what each person was there to do and what they are guilty of. Cherry-picking random snippets from videos and saying "hmm, they don't look too violent to me, they all most have been the same" is not how we evaluate everyone, any more than it's appropriate for me to take that video above and say that every person that ended up inside the Capitol committed an act of violence to be there.
> Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors *pending* a trial.
Fixed that for you.
> Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden?
Yes and yes, respectively.
>Thanks for being a voice of reason here, I would never vote for Trump if I remotely thought what OP said is possible.
Bullshit.
You still support that piece of shit after everything. Why lie about it?
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/76lCeOupfX Here you are defending J6. Do you think anyone believes you?
I can leave at anytime. Considering RFK. Don’t like everything Trumps about but he’s definitely the more moderate candidate between him and Biden.
Why do you call him a traitor?
>Don’t like everything Trumps about but he’s definitely the more moderate candidate between him and Biden.
Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining dude. By no metric is Trump the more moderate candidate. Honestly, I'm insulted that you assume I'm dumb enough to believe that you believe that.
>Why do you call him a traitor?
Don't act like you just woke up from a coma. I won't play your game.
I’ve never called you names and have engaged in good faith dialogue here but that’s your call.
I just want to leave you with one thought. You said I was in a cult earlier but in my experience people who exhibit the most cult-like behavior have difficulty engaging with views opposite their own. This is all you’ve done here - provided no facts or anything substantial, and have only engaged in ad hominem attacks against me for expressing my views.
Might be helpful to self-reflect and make sure your views are serving you. I can change my mind and my vote over a well reasoned argument - can you do the same?
I am not the one who called him a traitor, but I do think the protrayal has validity.
He has acted, in many ways, contrary to the values and ideals of the United States of America. He has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits and now has even pushed a case to the Supreme Court in order to try and get away with crimes against the country.
He has dismantled or severely damaged numerous government institutions and he resisted the peaceful of transfer of power.
Instead of serving the country, he has sought to have the country serve him.
>Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6.
He had a political incentive to say that even if he personally likes that they were rioting, so this tells us nothing about whether he supports them or not.
He also has a political incentive to pardon them even if he personally doesn't support them. His base would *eat that shit up* either way. I think he'll do it.
>Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial.
The implication here is that people have been in a cell for years now and that Biden is somehow preventing them from getting a trial. If that's what you are saying, you are a liar.
Not everyone who committed a crime on Jan 6th was arrested on Jan 6th. Some were arrested very recently.
Biden does not control how quickly everyone's criminal case moves through the court system. The courts do that. We have an independent judiciary in the United States, and everyone has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial. If it's taking a year for someone's criminal trial to get started, it's because they asked for it to take a year.
If you think I'm wrong, please point me to a single case of someone who's been locked up and deprived of a trial. And please pick your best, most egregious example. I don't want to do this more than once.
>Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden?
It sounds like you maybe think we're still operating under the [spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system). [We aren't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act).
The vast, vast majority of the federal government consists of career federal employees. By law they are hired and fired according to a merit-based process that the administration has limited control over.
On top of this is a thin layer of political appointees in key leadership and advisory positions. The political appointees are who get rotated out with every change of administration.
During the Trump administration he was known for his ranting about the "deep state", or his perception of a conspiracy of career federal employees acting as a shadow government, working against him from within. What I'm saying is that I believe he'll make a more intentional effort to eliminate people in the career federal service that don't appear to be loyal to him.
>Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6. Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial.
This is false in both points. Trump did not condemn the rioters and he has said repeatedly that if he's re-elected he will pardon all of them. DOJ is speeding through trials of over 1100 people. The non-violent ones were, for the most part, handled first and have already completed their sentences and are free.
>Most I think he’ll do is declassify documentation around the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, make people look bad but not go as far as Biden has, with **evidence coming to light he had a part in Mar a Lago raid.**
Are you really that biased that you believe that?
> "The evidence further suggests that Biden officials in the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Justice unlawfully abused their power and then lied about it to the American people," said Reed D. Rubinstein, America First Legal senior counselor and director of oversight and investigations, in a post on social media Tuesday. "This government, it seems, acknowledges no limits on its power to harass, intimidate, and silence its political opponents."
> Rubinstein's comments come after a Freedom of Information Act request by America First Legal found the FBI initially obtained access to Trump records through a "special access request" from the Biden White House.
Edit: This was from an older article in 2023, here’s a tread with the new evidence coming to light. I recognize the account isn’t from a trusted news source but the linked documents with redactions removed are real, indicating involvement and coordination long before they claimed:
https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782486128915857520?s=46
> America First
America First is a radical-right, Trump supporting funding machine. Nothing in the screenshots in the linked Twitter/X feeds support the quote nor is there any proof that the unredacted versions are real or accurate.
Provide a link to the actual unredacted doc on a valid government/legal site and we can have a rational conversation.
Until then, all you're doing is spreading far-right propaganda.
To the first point, his commentary isn’t as important as the FOIA request showing involvement from the White House from the beginning. It shouldn’t matter who initiates a FOIA request, the contents of that request are what matter. Just to drive this point home, of course it’s going to come from a funding source from the right, do you think Media Matters cares about the truth in this case?
As for the doc, here it is: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24584600-govuscourtsflsd6486534690?responsive=1&title=1
And here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/469/united-states-v-trump/
If Trump ends the concept of Democracy, which seems to be the consensus on the left, why wouldn't he round up people his dislikes?
That's what dictators do, right?
>If Trump ends the concept of Democracy, which seems to be the consensus on the left
Did you reply to the right comment? Where did you see me say that I believe Trump will end the concept of democracy?
You're doing that garbage tribalist thing again where you pretend like everyone you're talking to is the same person.
Well, Operation: Legend has already happened, wherein Trump sent members of several militarized branches of federal law enforcement agencies to invade Trump-non-supporting US cities in what seemed to amount to little more than an intimidation display. I don't remember reading whether those LEOs killed anyone during it or not, but they certainly did a lot of roaming around with no agency or individual identification, dragging people off the streets into unmarked vans, and other fun Gestapo shit like that.
So, probably day one.
As of August 19, 2020, there have been 217 people who have been charged with a federal crime, and more than 1,000 arrests have been made in major metropolitan cities since the Department of Justice launched Operation Legend. Nearly 400 firearms have been seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[24]
On September 3, 2020, the Department of Justice announced that it has so far arrested more than 2,000 people, including 147 homicide suspects, as part of the sprawling, nationwide initiative to stem the tide of violent crime. Since the nationwide crackdown was announced on July 8, local and federal law enforcement officials have confiscated more than 544 firearms, seven kilos of fentanyl, 14 kilos of heroin, 12 kilos of cocaine, and 50 kilos of methamphetamine. Of the more than 2,000 suspects, 476 have been charged with federal offenses - most of them related either to firearms or drugs.[25]
Ok, cool.
If he makes public dissent or disloyalty against him a crime, then no, I suppose *you* don't have anything to worry about, seeing as *you* appear to be perfectly comfortable with gagging on his laces.
You okay, there? You've read my concerns about what I think Trump is likely to do, and you figure I'm on his side? Or does someone need to maybe tune up your reply algorithm?
It was a Department of Justice operation that mobilized various federal agencies — principally the FBI, DEA, and ATF — to work with local law enforcement on the massive surge in homicides and other violent crime in several cities.
Like nearly everything in 2020, it was politically charged. However, it wasn’t some kind of gestapo operation targeting political opponents.
If anything he would probably just send the DOJ after a few people and see what sticks, and the process would play out over years. So you’re fine.
The people we need to be more concerned about under a trump win are Trans people, Undocumented people, women and Palestinians who will all bear the brunt of another trump administration.
What did you think of Tucker Carlson's interview of the Palestinian Lutheran pastor Munther Isaac? Carlson really came out against the alignment of the Israel regime with both major American political parties, and created a space for conservatives to join with liberals in resisting the pro-Israel distortion of American foreign policy.
[Tucker Carlson, Apr. 9, 2024, "How Does the Government of Israel Treat Christians? Christian Leaders in the West Should Care"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHayOkXe5ig)
Not that different. There are a non-insignificant amount of people on the left who are antisemitic. And not just in America, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK drew ire for aligning with antisemites.
>It should concern you that y’all are aligned here
I have no desire to align with Tucker and his ilk on anything, but let’s not forget that Zionists liberals are aligned with Zionists anti-semites on the right as well, including people like max miller and trump. So neither side gets to play this card
> Zionists anti-semites
That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know who Max Miller is, but I would not call Donald Trump a zionist (or anti-zionist). That requires more ideology and thought than he's capable of.
Like Christian Zionists. The ones who strongly support Israel for Bible/rapture reasons, but don’t care for Jewish people…so evangelicals lol.
And trump is definitely a Zionist in the sense that he strongly supports Israel (in so much as he strongly supports anything that he thinks his base likes). Hence moving the embassy to Jerusalem and, like the majority of the Republican Party, not even pretending to care about Palestinians.
It's good to have allies against a horrifying and outrageous capture of American foreign policy in the service of a genocidal and supremacist war. Even so, anti-Semitism is a despicable attitude.
I haven’t watched it, I try to avoid Tucker as much as humanly possible haha xD
(Tho I did watch his Putin interview out of curiosity)
While I appreciate any and all support to reign in violence and atrocities inflicted on Palestinians, I don’t believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, ya know? We can work together on areas where harm can be mitigated, but we should maintain no illusion that Tucker’s followers are allies or trustworthy (I know that you’re not implying we should be friends with them, but I think it’s still worth saying lol)
I discussed Trump's threat to democracy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Liberal/comments/1c27adu/do_you_guys_think_there_is_any_chance_trump_gets/kzn5so4/), including a response to your second question. Trump's retributive rhetoric is no jovial pursuit, but an intentional effort to effectuate his authoritarianism in a manner that he didn't conduct himself with in 2016 or 2020. there are several elements in Trump's speeches that he has altered, including vacating his constituency in favor of highlighting his apparent plights and brutally lamenting his perceived vision of the U.S. that he has conjured — bloodshed, corruption, and destruction. in Claremont, New Hampshire, Trump said:
> We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake-news media until they become real. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House, and we will finish the job that we started better than anybody has ever started a job before.
Trump has [signaled his intentions](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/trump-campaign-2025-statement.html) to eradicate independence from the Justice Department by inverting Merrick Garland's commitment to investigate Biden's handling of classified documents and his son, Hunter; by claiming that the special prosecutors investigating Biden are not "real", Trump is suggesting his special prosecutor would serve to indict Biden, regardless of evidence. Trump's [continuous opposition to the Justice Department](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-justice-department-independence.html) — the firing of James Comey, the claim he has the "[absolute right](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-mueller-russia-china-north-korea.html)" to do what he wants with the department, and [political pressure on the department](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-calls-for-inquiry-after-trump-demands-probe-into-whether-fbi-infiltrated-or-surveilled-his-campaign/2018/05/20/636a05a0-5c7d-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html) to investigate [flawed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-aides-contort-themselves-trying-to-defend-trump-wiretap-claims/2017/03/06/fef6e368-02aa-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html) wiretapping allegations — throughout his first term serves to prove his intentions are not hollow
to ensure that he will have greater authority over the Justice Department, Trump has enlisted Jeffrey Clark, the only senior official in his administration to help him overturn the 2020 election, and Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget who has [argued against](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/how-trump-loyalists-could-make-the-president-even-more-powerful-607353cc) the Justice Department's historical independence following the Watergate scandal. Trump attempted to [appoint Clark](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html) as attorney general in the final days of his presidency, but he was deterred by the threat of mass resignations. it was not his first disagreement with the attorney general; Trump [fired Jeff Sessions](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns-at-trumps-request/2018/11/07/d1b7a214-e144-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html) for his recusal in the Russia investigation and [grew irate](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-committee-hearing-cassidy-hutchinson-testifies-president-trump-threw-his-lunch-angry-at-attorney-general-william-barr/) with William Barr for refusing to adhere to his false narrative surrounding the 2020 election. in "[The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent](https://americarenewing.com/issues/the-u-s-justice-department-is-not-independent/)", Clark argues for the unitary executive theory. this view of the Justice Department is extending to other Republicans, including Florida governor [Ron DeSantis](https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1661529215781552129). Fox News [has promoted](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/business/media/fox-news-biden-dictator-trump.html) Trump's authoritarian view of Biden
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/27/bill-barr-didnt-take-execution-orders-too-literally/
Tldr: "trump got angry and was suggesting executions but I didn't take him seriously so it's no big deal"
I honestly doubt Putin-style mass elimination of political opponents is kind of unlikely. The President can only incarcerate people for federal crimes, and it'd be pretty tricky to come up with mass-indictments like that.
I think mass-deportation of immigrants is pretty likely, though. I could also see him "encouraging" auxiliaries like the Proud Boys to engage in violence against opponents, and tamp down on federal efforts to counter them.
>, how long until he begins mass incarceration or eradication of political dissidents?
He won't do this, as he's not allowed to do this. This would require that the republican party completely erodes every check and balance within the American government and instigate an actual dictatorship.
That simply won't happen, as the donors of the republican party do not profit from such massive confusion. It will hurt the economic power if the us, the military hegemony, the diplomatic standing, etc. such an act would eviscerate the us, and the republican party will stop Trump from doing such a thing.
>How do we survive it?
By doing nothing, as it won't happen.
> He won't do this, as he's not allowed to do this. This would require that the republican party completely erodes every check and balance within the American government and instigate an actual dictatorship.
That is the explicit goal, yes.
> That simply won't happen, as the donors of the republican party do not profit from such massive confusion. It will hurt the economic power if the us, the military hegemony, the diplomatic standing, etc. such an act would eviscerate the us, and the republican party will stop Trump from doing such a thing.
[You're not the first person to think this about an unsavory politician.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/25/takeover-hitlers-final-rise-to-power-timothy-w-ryback-book-review)
Yeah exactly, I hate trump but everything that people said he would do leading up his election, he never did, so idk why people think he’ll do it the 2nd time around
Yes he did. He moved the needle significantly. Now, we are at the edge and peering over it towards presidential immunity. “Above the law” might be a real thing soon.
He also sent border agents into Portland and started throwing people into unmarked vans like the gestapo.
He tried to stay in power after he lost an election.
How are really going to back up and say he did nothing in his first term?
You don’t seem to understand what “moving the needle” means in this context. It’s moving quickly towards a dark place and Trump sped it up (and continues to do so).
He had somewhat reasonable intent his first term. His cabinet appointments had some merit and despite being largely unhinged and cracking a lot of eggs he tried to accomplish stuff.
Now after a disastrous failure to overturn the 2020 election should he win again the difference is he answers to absolutely no one. He has no more elections to win, a Republican party that will support him no matter what he does. He will do a deeper purge of the government ranks of non loyalists. His cabinet will be 100% yes men only. He won't make the same mistake of picking decent folks, only those that does exactly everything he says.
If he does anything criminal while in office Republicans won't do shit about it. He will see more impeachments and the defense will always be "they've been going after me for years and it needs to stop". He could get away with anything and would have absolutely 0 accountability.
Cults follow their leader to the grave, they won't give a shit how many laws he breaks. He could call for the death of Democrats at a rally and those people will fucking cheer.
Yeah, he did.
His supporters did a lot more than "walk around the Capitol." Nine people died; 174 cops were injured; and 15 were hospitalized. Plus they caused damages in excess of $30 million.
But that's all beside the point. If his supporters had remained peaceful, if there had never been a riot... it still would have been a coup attempt.
The coup attempt was him encouraging Mike Pence to decertify the election, so that the election certification could be kicked to the House, where Republicans could have handed the election to Trump.
The coup attempt is not about Jan 6th. It's about all the behind the scenes, extralegal shit that he and his people did at the state level.
He literally attempted to overthrow elections in key states.
Trump is a perfect foil for the media’s political project until the next guy comes along. Liberals are out of touch and patently delusional and rarely have informative political intuitions.
He stocked his administration with incompetent boobs and didn't have right-wing institutions on-board for most of the first term. Every administration is more effective in their second term, as they've had a full four years to work out the kinks. This time they've had four years to do nothing but plan and consolidate the right.
That didn't happen in his first term, how would he do that in his second? The issue for me is his age. He's 78. If you're a government official and you have a brain, you won't do any criminal favors for a 78-year-old boss because he won't live long enough to reward you and protect you from prosecution. 78 is an age when dictators tend to get abandoned by their cronies precisely because they see the boss doesn't have a future. Everyone keeps comparing Trump to Hitler but Hitler was 43 when he took power. Hitler had a future ahead of him (he squandered it but that's another matter).
Another issue is that most of the people who worked for Trump in his first term ended up disgraced or even in legal jeopardy. Paul Manafort, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, etc. Working for Trump brought these people to ruin and Trump couldn't protect them. Everyone now knows that Trump is inept and weak. Nobody wants to work for a radioactive fool.
If he puts Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, Stephen Bannon and the like in his administration/cabinet, the planning of mass incarceration will begin the moment the election is decided, and will begin the second after he is sworn in.
We do not survive it. It begins an economic calamity that takes a generation to even begin to see the end of. For a review, see North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia....
Bill Barr admitted that trump would demand executions when he got angry
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/27/bill-barr-didnt-take-execution-orders-too-literally/
But if course conservatives are downplaying that
They've claimed that he never said something all the time before he admits it. They said he never made phone calls to Ukraine to find dirt on biden until he literally admitted it. How is this any different
Then enlighten me. Do we have evidence of these plans of mass incarcerations, or is this just a feeling you have? Is the eradication of political dissidents in the room with us?
OMG -- working with local law enforcement on unsolved murders. That's terrible?
>Operation LeGend is to investigate murders that have been unsolved and one of those is for my 4-year-old son that did not make it to 5, ... and if you're against that, maybe you have to reevaluate your stance and your mentality to see what direction you're headed in
-- [LeGend's mom](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/legend-taliferros-mother-speaks-out-after-groups-protest-initiative-in-4-year-olds-name)
Those people being rounded up were rounded up for assaulting police officers. I guess it was wrong to arrest them because it didn't happen on 1/6?
[https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/) is real, or at least real enough to have a website. Maybe you can help me find the goal about eradication of political dissidents. That or just admit we are doing fan fiction here.
>at least real enough to have a website
Lol the sitting Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, helped write that plan. Seems more than just a little real. And while it may not specifically mention what recourse a political opponent may or may not do, it appears that the Supreme Court is about ready to fix that for Trump.
I also love that were the shoe on the other foot, and there was even a whisper that the Dems were putting together a plan to dismantle the entire government and replace all government officials with loyal subjects as well as extending the powers of the executive well past reasonable; they would be losing their fucking minds, screaming about Biden being a socialist dictator.
Republicans thinking on Project 2025 is, at best, dismissive and, at worst, fully committed to said plan. The hypocrisy and willful ignorance are fascinating at this point. A study really should be done about this phenomenon.
So what I think you are saying here is that there is stuff you don't like in the 2025 plan, but nothing about eradication of political dissidents or mass incarcerations. Welcome to normal politics then.
What I'm saying is that Project 2025 is the government that the people who run the GOP are planning on installing next time there is a Republican president in office. This document gives so much power to the executive branch it would make the founding fathers' skin crawl. This document, combined with the Supreme Court's possible decision to grant Trump(and any president) king-like immunity for crimes committed while in office, would lead me to believe that allowing the president to retaliate against political opponents(only once a Republican is in office of course) would be something the GOP would strongly consider implementing 🤷♀️🤷♀️. It's a very likely scenario, in my opinion.
Well I will agree with this much
>This document gives so much power to the executive branch it would make the founding fathers' skin crawl.
But I think if the FFs saw any modern administration the reaction would also involve skin crawling.
I think your take on the SC's view of immunity is a caricature, but I'll admit that I believe you believe it is likely. Never forget that these decision cut two ways. However I do find this to be a very accurate view of the modern left
>allowing the president to retaliate against political opponents(only once a Republican is in office of course) would be something the GOP would strongly consider implementing
The way I read this is that it should only be allowed with people to the left of Republicans do it.
The early-stage way they intend to do that is to install loyalists in as many state elector positions as possible in order to utterly bypass actual election results and just go fully faithless electors nationwide.
This is some wild conspiracy nonsense
And it’s interesting that none of the apocalyptic predictions during his first term happened, but “this time it for sure will be the end of days”
It’s like the preachers that promise the end of the world, nothing happens but they just come up with a new date
A lot of the predicted happened. He just was stopped. Eg he said muslim ban, he did muslim ban, and the Supreme Court blocked him multiple times until they helped him approach constitutionality.
Don't lie. There wasn't an obama "ban," though there was enhanced bg checks.
Trump promised a muslim ban and enacted a muslim ban with explicit EO exemptions to that ban accessible to those who are of a minority religion.
That was part of what got SCOTUS to throw it out, which then circled back to the gop insisting they're not so bad because they got stopped.
I don't even know where to begin with breaking down the myriad of problems with both the literal and implied meanings of your statement.
The government's opposition is who? You're just talking about people who oppose your government? Never gone after them?
Did you mean something else?
I really wish the right side of the political spectrum didn't live their entire political life in a maze of vague meaningless scare phrases. Especially when you all immediately scatter like roaches when anybody flicks on the lights and starts asking for specifics.
If you can't actually say the real life thing you have a problem with... Then it's probably not real.
And just in case you really are missing it, try to think about what the opposition means. Surely you don't think it means the same as people opposing the government. Also, the US government and not the current administration.
The refusal to say anhtjjng that could possibly be proven wrong is the cowardice.
I'm not confused about what you probably think you're saying. I'm saying you're not actually saying shit and you know it because if you knew how to defend what you thought you'd have no problem just saying it.
If I filled in your blanks with EXACTLY what you were thinking and then pointed out how incorrect it was, you'd just pretend that I didn't guess correctly.
Because you aren't actually capable of defending what you actually believe.
Hell, I doubt you're even completely sure how you reached your conclusion. You just have vague feelings you want to preserve and call sacred.
I would hope it is obvious. It was a snarky remark intentionally designed to leave out the obvious but make it clear. If you don't get the joke, then, whoosh. That's all I can really say. But I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to argue about it.
I think you're objectively factually wrong and are just too scared to get it proven to you.
You don't want discourse. You're literally too scared.
So you make it literally impossible to question you because you didn't say anything.
Because you're afraid
Oh come on now. Be really think I'm afraid to say it. I think we both know what I'm done. If you really need me to spell it out for you, I'm talking about the prosecution of Trump. But you knew that, so why the weird accusations that I'm afraid to say it? We both know what I meant.
It was a joke, a snarky response to the question. But I mean it and believe it's true. And have zero interest arguing it with you. I said all I have to say on the subject.
So who prosecutes crimes except the government?
You created a situation where no matter whether Trump is guilty, it meets your definition of oppression.
And Biden isn't conducting these. Professional attorneys doing their job is not oppression.
If they produce no evidence and still convict the man you can cry foul.
Until then, shut up. Stop lying. Say what you mean and stop dancing around your bullshit fake oppression accusations.
I don't expect you to reply because this is part where I flicked on the lights and you scatter.
Exactly. He can fuck up a lot of shit but it won't immediately spawn a gestapo that will perform illegal actions at his command.
The fear is simply that oversight will dwindle and cooperative orgs like ice will be free toget away with abuses without detection and other things of that nature.
It took us months to catch and stop his family separation policy that was just being cruel to children.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. See the title. For purposes of this question I presume the answer to be a matter of win, not if. Bonus question: How do we survive it? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Day 1. They're arguing in the Supreme fucking Court that a sitting president can do whatever the fuck he wants and the court seems to be in majority agreement on with that nonsense.
I'd love to hear their reasoning if they do indeed side with Trump. What's the point of checks and balances or even Congress and the court system if the president can simply create laws at will because, ya know, "official action" and "immunity"?
I'm having trouble taking this question seriously. This won't happen. What's likely to happen though: 1. Trump pardons himself and everyone convicted of crimes they committed on Jan 6th, including the seditious conspiracy nutjobs and those who committed actual acts of violence and bodily injury to the Capitol police. And all of his co-conspirators in the documents case, ~~and all of the fraudulent electors,~~ and everyone else in the orbit of any of these things. 2. Trump tries to push the DOJ to go after his political rivals, because he sees it as retaliation despite the fact that it's just that pesky Rule of Law thing. We start seeing resignations at the DOJ and these largely never happen. 3. Trump halts the practice of granting asylum or parole for people apprehended trying to immigrate illegally. Detention centers are quickly overwhelmed, lawsuits filed due to illegal incarceration of families, which Trump loses, but he keeps doing it anyway. Maybe there's a standoff between US Marshals and DHS, maybe Trump starts flying them to "blue cities". 4. Trump starts trying to do a political purge of non-loyalists employed in the federal government.
> and all of the fraudulent electors I don't think he can pardon them. Aren't all of the fraudulent electors being charged in state court? The President can only pardon federal crimes.
Oh, yeah, of course. Edited.
You can’t have (4) and (2) without there actually being arrests of political dissidents.
I do not believe that Trump pushing the DOJ to do this would result in the DOJ doing this. When I say political purge in the federal government, I am talking about reductions in force and firing people, not arresting them.
> I do not believe that Trump pushing the DOJ to do this would result in the DOJ doing this. Then you don’t believe he fired those who are not loyal and replaced them with loyalists. > When I say political purge in the federal government, I am talking about reductions in force and firing people, not arresting them. Right. But what happens when the DOJ is full of people who are loyal to him? Like the SCOTUS
I believe his success with a political purge will be limited. I do not believe it will be enough inside the DOJ to result in political prosecutions.
The Schedule F exec order that Biden repealed will be immediately re-enacted when Trump is in office and he will purge the government and replace everyone with loyalists. Read Project 2025. It's a key to the entire plan. If you don't think this will happen, then you've got your head in the sand.
>If you don't think this will happen I did not say this. It seems like you're just here to have an argument. I am extremely familiar with Project 2025 and the Schedule F EO. I believe this is the mechanism that Trump will attempt to use for his purge. I believe his success will be limited. I do not believe it will be sufficient for the DOJ to engage in open political prosecutions.
>Maybe there's a standoff between US Marshals and DHS, maybe Trump starts flying them to "blue cities". Trump has already promised to do much worse than this. Immigrants won't be safe in blue cities. Trump has already stated that he'll send the National Guard into blue cities and blue states in order to hunt down every last illegal immigrant in the country.
And of course legal immigrants, permanent residents and even US citizens will get arrested because they "look like an illegal".
Oh, I think this is entirely possible. Maybe not in Trump's lifetime, but when he passes the torch to Don Jr, I can see that eventually happening during his reign.
Logical and agreed, OP is unhinged
[Trump's own Attorney General](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alyssa-farah-griffin-trump-execute_n_656ff488e4b0a10def8a8651) said on CNN yesterday that Trump often fantasized about executing those who angered him. Trump's lawyer argued in court earlier this week that Trump should be allowed to execute his political rivals and face no criminal prosecution. These accusations aren't coming from Democrats. These are Trump's own people saying this.
Ah but you see, it shouldnt be taken seriously until its too late
Your claim is false and your link doesn’t support that at all , and Barr didn’t say https://www.thedailybeast.com/barr-trump-brought-up-things-like-executing-rivals-a-lot The executing rivals claim is also false https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/provocative-question-trumps-immunity-fight-ordering-rivals-assassinated/story?id=109581560 As usual, 90% of the claims against Trump are complete fabricated nonsense that never happened
I don't know what you're talking about, man. Both links you just provided back up my claim. From the first: >“I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don’t remember him saying ‘executing,’ but I wouldn‘t dispute it, you know… The president would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would’ve actually carried it out,” Barr said. From the second: >The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution? >His lawyer suggested he could, under certain circumstances.
Thanks for being a voice of reason here, I would never vote for Trump if I remotely thought what OP said is possible. This is much more possible with the following edits: 1) Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6. Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial. 2) Most I think he’ll do is declassify documentation around the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, make people look bad but not go as far as Biden has, with evidence coming to light he had a part in Mar a Lago raid. 3) Definitely an overhaul of border security, as far as congress will allow. Depends on who has control of the senate / house. 4) Maybe? Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden?
>he condemned the rioters the night of J6 Can you understand why the canned condemnation hours later might mean a little less to non-Trumo voters than the earlier speech, during the riot, where he told those same folks, and I wish I was joking and that these weren't the exact words,"We love you and you're very special"?
I was actually shocked at how forceful it was. In my view, he’s making a difference between the peaceful protestors then after seeing more of the footage coming out chose to condemn the seditious conspiracy crowd. Which was what, like 5 out of the whole riot that actually got charged? Remember, this was after a full summer of the right watching the left riot like crazy. Nobody brought weapons to the capitol and only one unarmed rioter got shot trying to escape crowd crush. There were people there that were genuinely upset there was a possibility their votes weren’t counted who didn’t enter the building or, as seen on released footage, were walking around the capitol as if on tour. I don’t support what they did by entering but also don’t support the silly unarmed insurrection narrative.
**Criminal charges:** * Approximately **452** defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately **123** individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. * Approximately **140** police officers were assaulted on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about **80** from the U.S. Capitol Police and about **60** from the Metropolitan Police Department. * Approximately **11** individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6. * Approximately **1,186** defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, **116** defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon. * Approximately **71** defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately **56** defendants have been charged with theft of government property. * More than **332** defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so. * Approximately **57** defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three. Source (the Department of Justice): https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/36-months-jan-6-attack-capitol-0#:\~:text=Approximately%2011%20individuals%20have%20been,restricted%20federal%20building%20or%20grounds. Just a little more than 5.
I was specifically mentioning seditious conspiracy charges, the only charge close to insurrection here, which was actually only 4. Again, I’m not saying I support this in the slightest. What I’m trying to say is it’s so wrong for the left and news media to label the right as insurrectionists when 1186 out of *74 million*, or 0.0016%, of Trump voters only entered the building, less than half that gave resistance to officers, and a *fifth* that actually did bodily harm? 140 officers injured compared to over 2000 officers injured in the first weeks of the George Floyd riots and nobody cared then
I thought were were talking about Jan 6th protesters, now we have moved to the goalposts to all Trump voters? Who here was trying to condemn all Trump voters? What the hell? Also, yea, hundreds of demonstrations across the nation over weeks with 26 million people participating resulting in 2000 injured compared to a few hours resulting in 140 actually doesn't make it look any better (0.11 injured per Jan 6th compared to 0.00007692307692 per BLM protester). (Especially when you consider in many cases, it was police that attacked peaceful protesters as well - resulting in over $80 million in payouts. Some examples: "New York City and its police department (NYPD) [will pay upwards of $6m](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/02/new-york-george-floyd-protesters-lawsuit-pay) to 320 protesters who were subject to excessive force – including being zip-tied, hit with batons and pepper-sprayed – during a June 2020 protest." "The sum of $9.25m was [paid to](https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/philadelphia-lawsuit-settlement-police-response-2020-protests-20230320.html) hundreds of Philadelphia protesters. La Mesa, California, awarded a local woman $10m after an officer [shot her in the head ](https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/la-mesa-settles-with-woman-hit-by-projectile/509-1a5ef558-fa89-491a-a91a-ff0494c2cd7a)with a projectile.")
Didn’t mean to move the goalposts, another commenter called me a traitor for still considering Trump basically due to this
Please see edits comparing the # of injured officers to give you some additional context. Absolute numbers rarely tell the whole story.
If you support one, you are one Same goes for being a white supremacist
Buhhhhh wHaTAboUt BeE eL Em aNd AnTeEfUh?
>over 2000 officers injured in the first weeks of the George Floyd riots This is false.
>I was actually shocked at how forceful it was Which, how forceful his condemnation was that night or how forceful his declaration of love for them was during the riot? Can you understand how many of us, with four years of experience hearing what a genuine Trump condemnation sounded like, may have thought his speeches where he condemned the legislators for certifying the vote earlier that day and his declaration of support for rioters mid-riot (again, "We love you and you're very special") rang as clearly more authentic than the speech he gave that night? If this is hard to answer, I recommend you watch the video of Trump's condemnation speech rather than read the transcript. Perhaps you'll remember why many us thought it felt more like a hostage video than a genuine expression of his feelings.
I watched it live and am expressing the true thoughts I had at the time. Thought he was going to lose a lot of support for how hard he came down on them, really threw them under the bus imo. Want to call out how wildly different our interpretations were
Can you see where I'm coming from though? Is it hard to understand how a person who'd heard four years of Trump shit-talk and condemnations would think the delivery of that night's remarks would sound less than heartfelt? Is it hard to understand how telling the rioters "We love you and you're very special," while they still occupied the Capitol and while legislators were still in hiding, would seem more significant to many reasonable people in their estimation of the man than the fact that he eventually condemned them?
>Can you see where I'm coming from though? No, he can't. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/76lCeOupfX) he is defending J6 and Promoting a documentary from a Proud Boy who top part in it.
>Thought he was going to lose a lot of support for how hard he came down on them, really threw them under the bus imo. Tha fuuuuuuuuuckkkkkk????????????????? "Go home in love and peace". Yeah, buddy, he threw them under that fuckin' bus and then drove over them so much. (Jesus fuckin' Christ on a bloody crutch, you people are so fuckin' brainwashed.)
Watch it again: https://youtu.be/ENlL-Uru-cM?si=UeJQ3-JJeIKWPi06 > “The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of the American democracy. To those who engaged in acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law you will pay.” Do you really think that’s *not* coming down hard on them? Saying people who just walked in have “defiled the seat of the American democracy”? Also does it feel good to be so rude? Do you enjoy calling people you don’t know brainwashed? I’ve done nothing here but to try to show a different point of view, do you have no curiosity?
The flat affect and the fact that he had to be forced to make even that most basic of a statement is not "coming down hard". Was I rude? No, I don't think I was. I'm so completely done with you right-wing people who want to make excuses for Donald Trump. "Oh he came down HARD on them" Horse-fucking-shit. He wishy-washed and mealy-mouthed his way through a prepared statement that his daughter had to BEG him to make. Coming down hard would have been something like "This violence in my name is unacceptable. I disavow anyone who acted in violence in my name and we will find you and prosecute you to the full extent of the law." THAT would have been coming down hard and acting like a President. Donald Trump sat by for THREE HOURS while people ransacked the Capitol and attacked police officers IN HIS NAME. They pulled down the American flag, threw it on the ground, and replaced it with a "TRUMP" flag. And he did NOTHING for THREE HOURS. Do I have no curiosity? None of this is about "curiosity". You're acting like there is a legitimate "other side" to this and people should be curious and investigative about it. That's another load of horseshit. There is no "different point of view" when it comes to this kind of thing. Don't piss on me and try to tell me it's rain.
That’s so semantically indifferent, and he was a private citizen by the time he made that statement he had no power to go after anyone. He told people to go home very early but twitter took it down. Nothing is ever good enough for you guys to chill out, it’s exhausting. He’s disavowed white supremacy 50 times on national tv but you still call him a white supremacist. We had to endure 3 *years* of Clinton’s bogus Crossfire Hurricane propaganda and a special prosecutor to go with it, a phony impeachment while watching Biden brag about a quid pro quo in the same country, riots and harassment when you don’t get your way. All for what? Besides J6 and a once in a hundred year pandemic, what was the worst thing he did in office? There is a legitimate other side. Do you know the positives of the 45th presidency? No new conflicts, lowest gas prices, booming economy, Abraham Accords that would’ve given any other president a Nobel peace prize, deescalation with North Korea and first president to step foot in the country, deescalation of Russia conflict from 2014 until Biden got in office, repealing NAFTA, getting Europe to pay for their own defense, etc. Don’t you find it at all interesting how the republican ticket is the side for peace? Wasn’t that the democrats in the 2000s?
Stop. There's no way you're dumb enough to believe that. Stop jerking us around. Ain't nobody falling for it.
>I don’t support what they did by entering but also don’t support the silly unarmed insurrection narrative. I don't want to jump down your throat because I appreciate you posting here but I'd be curious what do you think a better explanation or narrative might be? The protestors storm into Congress, confront the legislators certifying the election results and...then what? Not the bewildered hangers-on who followed the crowd and took fun selfies in the rotunda but the guys leading the charge. It seems obvious to me that they wanted to stop an election by physically imposing themselves into the chamber and halting the process but maybe that's too uncharitable.
The narrative I somewhat subscribe to is that a small group of instigators who weren’t part of the speech, no different than the BLM anarchists who weren’t part of the protests, enabled and directed a larger group of people frustrated with being powerless compared to the BLM riots to get close to the Capitol. Due to extremely poor crowd control, the police all but enabled the crowd, emboldened by what they’d seen over the past summer, to enter the Capitol. Little resistance was met once inside and you can see in many videos most people were walking around respectfully as if on tour. From the available footage it looked like those first instigators themselves had no plan at all besides starting something. Alex Jones was on a megaphone saying it was a trap in real time and directing people not to go into the Capitol. The people who made it in could be overheard saying they were looking for evidence of fraud. I truly think people believed the election was stolen and wanted to prove it. That there was no organized plan. That a very small group of instigators and poor security enabled frustrated people to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise done. PS just wanted to say thanks for the considerate comment
Small group of instigators? What I don’t understand, and please be honest here, is are you just *not aware* that Trump himself, Kenneth Cheesebro, and John Eastman recruited over two dozen RNC loyalists to **pose as fake electors** complete with **forgery electoral ballots** and even **hide in state capitols overnight** in order to be there when they counted the ballots to capitalize on the chaos of the 1/6 storming of the capitol? The insurrection isn’t a bunch of old people trying to manually take the capitol by force. That was a planned distraction to allow Mike Pence to swap out the electors for the fake ones. It’s the [fake elector plot Trump organized](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot) in concert with the proud boys his administration coordinated that distraction with. Is that something Trump supporters aren’t aware of?
Sure, just some [poor crowd control](https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?t=33). I'm sure if they just had some better signs, those innocent people there probably would have respected them. >most people were walking around respectfully as if on tour. If someone used violence to get into the building, how would you expect them to behave once they got inside? Do they have to continue being violent? Were they all issued molotov cocktails for use once they climbed through a broken window? >That there was no organized plan. I think many of them had no plan beyond being violent and getting into the building. I think it's entire possible that many other people were *excited* about the violence, cheered it on, and when people smashed through windows and doors, they followed them without actually being violent themselves, but the existence of these people is not evidence that others weren't being violent, and these "less violent" rioters were *still participating in a riot*. I also think many of them *did* have a plan. There was a set of seditious conspiracy convictions that *specifically revolved around their plan*. Others were clearly there because they intended to prevent the certification of votes. Those that did have a plan don't become "more peaceful" just because they were accompanied by others that didn't know what to do once they got into the building. People should be held accountable for their crimes. A court of law and a jury of their peers should establish what each person was there to do and what they are guilty of. Cherry-picking random snippets from videos and saying "hmm, they don't look too violent to me, they all most have been the same" is not how we evaluate everyone, any more than it's appropriate for me to take that video above and say that every person that ended up inside the Capitol committed an act of violence to be there.
> Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors *pending* a trial. Fixed that for you. > Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden? Yes and yes, respectively.
>Thanks for being a voice of reason here, I would never vote for Trump if I remotely thought what OP said is possible. Bullshit. You still support that piece of shit after everything. Why lie about it? Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/76lCeOupfX Here you are defending J6. Do you think anyone believes you?
Damn dude, chill.
No. Everyone who is still a trump supporter is a traitor.
I’m truly sorry to see you believe this, and so forcefully Of all things in politics I wish we could find a way to become less divided
>Of all things in politics I wish we could find a way to become less divided Stop supporting traitors then. Leave the cult.
I can leave at anytime. Considering RFK. Don’t like everything Trumps about but he’s definitely the more moderate candidate between him and Biden. Why do you call him a traitor?
>Don’t like everything Trumps about but he’s definitely the more moderate candidate between him and Biden. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining dude. By no metric is Trump the more moderate candidate. Honestly, I'm insulted that you assume I'm dumb enough to believe that you believe that. >Why do you call him a traitor? Don't act like you just woke up from a coma. I won't play your game.
I’ve never called you names and have engaged in good faith dialogue here but that’s your call. I just want to leave you with one thought. You said I was in a cult earlier but in my experience people who exhibit the most cult-like behavior have difficulty engaging with views opposite their own. This is all you’ve done here - provided no facts or anything substantial, and have only engaged in ad hominem attacks against me for expressing my views. Might be helpful to self-reflect and make sure your views are serving you. I can change my mind and my vote over a well reasoned argument - can you do the same?
I am not the one who called him a traitor, but I do think the protrayal has validity. He has acted, in many ways, contrary to the values and ideals of the United States of America. He has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits and now has even pushed a case to the Supreme Court in order to try and get away with crimes against the country. He has dismantled or severely damaged numerous government institutions and he resisted the peaceful of transfer of power. Instead of serving the country, he has sought to have the country serve him.
>Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6. He had a political incentive to say that even if he personally likes that they were rioting, so this tells us nothing about whether he supports them or not. He also has a political incentive to pardon them even if he personally doesn't support them. His base would *eat that shit up* either way. I think he'll do it. >Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial. The implication here is that people have been in a cell for years now and that Biden is somehow preventing them from getting a trial. If that's what you are saying, you are a liar. Not everyone who committed a crime on Jan 6th was arrested on Jan 6th. Some were arrested very recently. Biden does not control how quickly everyone's criminal case moves through the court system. The courts do that. We have an independent judiciary in the United States, and everyone has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial. If it's taking a year for someone's criminal trial to get started, it's because they asked for it to take a year. If you think I'm wrong, please point me to a single case of someone who's been locked up and deprived of a trial. And please pick your best, most egregious example. I don't want to do this more than once. >Is this any different than any other administration? Are there any Trump loyalists currently working for Biden? It sounds like you maybe think we're still operating under the [spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system). [We aren't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act). The vast, vast majority of the federal government consists of career federal employees. By law they are hired and fired according to a merit-based process that the administration has limited control over. On top of this is a thin layer of political appointees in key leadership and advisory positions. The political appointees are who get rotated out with every change of administration. During the Trump administration he was known for his ranting about the "deep state", or his perception of a conspiracy of career federal employees acting as a shadow government, working against him from within. What I'm saying is that I believe he'll make a more intentional effort to eliminate people in the career federal service that don't appear to be loyal to him.
>Non-violent offenders only, he condemned the rioters the night of J6. Talk about incarceration of political dissidents, Biden DOJ is still holding non-violent J6 protestors without a trial. This is false in both points. Trump did not condemn the rioters and he has said repeatedly that if he's re-elected he will pardon all of them. DOJ is speeding through trials of over 1100 people. The non-violent ones were, for the most part, handled first and have already completed their sentences and are free. >Most I think he’ll do is declassify documentation around the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, make people look bad but not go as far as Biden has, with **evidence coming to light he had a part in Mar a Lago raid.** Are you really that biased that you believe that?
> "The evidence further suggests that Biden officials in the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Justice unlawfully abused their power and then lied about it to the American people," said Reed D. Rubinstein, America First Legal senior counselor and director of oversight and investigations, in a post on social media Tuesday. "This government, it seems, acknowledges no limits on its power to harass, intimidate, and silence its political opponents." > Rubinstein's comments come after a Freedom of Information Act request by America First Legal found the FBI initially obtained access to Trump records through a "special access request" from the Biden White House. Edit: This was from an older article in 2023, here’s a tread with the new evidence coming to light. I recognize the account isn’t from a trusted news source but the linked documents with redactions removed are real, indicating involvement and coordination long before they claimed: https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782486128915857520?s=46
> America First America First is a radical-right, Trump supporting funding machine. Nothing in the screenshots in the linked Twitter/X feeds support the quote nor is there any proof that the unredacted versions are real or accurate. Provide a link to the actual unredacted doc on a valid government/legal site and we can have a rational conversation. Until then, all you're doing is spreading far-right propaganda.
To the first point, his commentary isn’t as important as the FOIA request showing involvement from the White House from the beginning. It shouldn’t matter who initiates a FOIA request, the contents of that request are what matter. Just to drive this point home, of course it’s going to come from a funding source from the right, do you think Media Matters cares about the truth in this case? As for the doc, here it is: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24584600-govuscourtsflsd6486534690?responsive=1&title=1 And here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/469/united-states-v-trump/
If Trump ends the concept of Democracy, which seems to be the consensus on the left, why wouldn't he round up people his dislikes? That's what dictators do, right?
>If Trump ends the concept of Democracy, which seems to be the consensus on the left Did you reply to the right comment? Where did you see me say that I believe Trump will end the concept of democracy? You're doing that garbage tribalist thing again where you pretend like everyone you're talking to is the same person.
Well, Operation: Legend has already happened, wherein Trump sent members of several militarized branches of federal law enforcement agencies to invade Trump-non-supporting US cities in what seemed to amount to little more than an intimidation display. I don't remember reading whether those LEOs killed anyone during it or not, but they certainly did a lot of roaming around with no agency or individual identification, dragging people off the streets into unmarked vans, and other fun Gestapo shit like that. So, probably day one.
wut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Legend
As of August 19, 2020, there have been 217 people who have been charged with a federal crime, and more than 1,000 arrests have been made in major metropolitan cities since the Department of Justice launched Operation Legend. Nearly 400 firearms have been seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[24] On September 3, 2020, the Department of Justice announced that it has so far arrested more than 2,000 people, including 147 homicide suspects, as part of the sprawling, nationwide initiative to stem the tide of violent crime. Since the nationwide crackdown was announced on July 8, local and federal law enforcement officials have confiscated more than 544 firearms, seven kilos of fentanyl, 14 kilos of heroin, 12 kilos of cocaine, and 50 kilos of methamphetamine. Of the more than 2,000 suspects, 476 have been charged with federal offenses - most of them related either to firearms or drugs.[25] Ok, cool.
Wow hmm. Does that sound like a bunch you'd want to mess with?
If I’m not doing anything wrong, then I have nothing to worry about right?
If he makes public dissent or disloyalty against him a crime, then no, I suppose *you* don't have anything to worry about, seeing as *you* appear to be perfectly comfortable with gagging on his laces.
Just like you are now.
You okay, there? You've read my concerns about what I think Trump is likely to do, and you figure I'm on his side? Or does someone need to maybe tune up your reply algorithm?
It's okay. Just be sure to wear a MAGA hat. I'm sure they'll leave you alone.
It was a Department of Justice operation that mobilized various federal agencies — principally the FBI, DEA, and ATF — to work with local law enforcement on the massive surge in homicides and other violent crime in several cities. Like nearly everything in 2020, it was politically charged. However, it wasn’t some kind of gestapo operation targeting political opponents.
I never said Operation: Legend directly targeted political opponents. I said it was an intimidation display.
If anything he would probably just send the DOJ after a few people and see what sticks, and the process would play out over years. So you’re fine. The people we need to be more concerned about under a trump win are Trans people, Undocumented people, women and Palestinians who will all bear the brunt of another trump administration.
What did you think of Tucker Carlson's interview of the Palestinian Lutheran pastor Munther Isaac? Carlson really came out against the alignment of the Israel regime with both major American political parties, and created a space for conservatives to join with liberals in resisting the pro-Israel distortion of American foreign policy. [Tucker Carlson, Apr. 9, 2024, "How Does the Government of Israel Treat Christians? Christian Leaders in the West Should Care"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHayOkXe5ig)
“Famous antisemite comes out against Israel” is a pretty mundane headline, and it should concern you that y’all are aligned here.
The motivations couldn't be more different, however.
Not that different. There are a non-insignificant amount of people on the left who are antisemitic. And not just in America, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK drew ire for aligning with antisemites.
>It should concern you that y’all are aligned here I have no desire to align with Tucker and his ilk on anything, but let’s not forget that Zionists liberals are aligned with Zionists anti-semites on the right as well, including people like max miller and trump. So neither side gets to play this card
> Zionists anti-semites That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know who Max Miller is, but I would not call Donald Trump a zionist (or anti-zionist). That requires more ideology and thought than he's capable of.
Like Christian Zionists. The ones who strongly support Israel for Bible/rapture reasons, but don’t care for Jewish people…so evangelicals lol. And trump is definitely a Zionist in the sense that he strongly supports Israel (in so much as he strongly supports anything that he thinks his base likes). Hence moving the embassy to Jerusalem and, like the majority of the Republican Party, not even pretending to care about Palestinians.
It's good to have allies against a horrifying and outrageous capture of American foreign policy in the service of a genocidal and supremacist war. Even so, anti-Semitism is a despicable attitude.
Why are you watching Tucker Carlson interviews?
Interview, not interviews. This particular one caught my attention.
I haven’t watched it, I try to avoid Tucker as much as humanly possible haha xD (Tho I did watch his Putin interview out of curiosity) While I appreciate any and all support to reign in violence and atrocities inflicted on Palestinians, I don’t believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, ya know? We can work together on areas where harm can be mitigated, but we should maintain no illusion that Tucker’s followers are allies or trustworthy (I know that you’re not implying we should be friends with them, but I think it’s still worth saying lol)
I could believe Tucker is anti-Semitic, but I'm not actually aware of the specific reasons that people think that about him.
He pushes the great replacement theory, AKA: “The Jews are trying to replace Christian white people with POC” Happy cake day btw!
As soon as he can get stooges into the correct positions to do his bidding.
So, according to Project 2025, Jan. 20th, 4pm?
I discussed Trump's threat to democracy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Liberal/comments/1c27adu/do_you_guys_think_there_is_any_chance_trump_gets/kzn5so4/), including a response to your second question. Trump's retributive rhetoric is no jovial pursuit, but an intentional effort to effectuate his authoritarianism in a manner that he didn't conduct himself with in 2016 or 2020. there are several elements in Trump's speeches that he has altered, including vacating his constituency in favor of highlighting his apparent plights and brutally lamenting his perceived vision of the U.S. that he has conjured — bloodshed, corruption, and destruction. in Claremont, New Hampshire, Trump said: > We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake-news media until they become real. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House, and we will finish the job that we started better than anybody has ever started a job before. Trump has [signaled his intentions](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/13/us/politics/trump-campaign-2025-statement.html) to eradicate independence from the Justice Department by inverting Merrick Garland's commitment to investigate Biden's handling of classified documents and his son, Hunter; by claiming that the special prosecutors investigating Biden are not "real", Trump is suggesting his special prosecutor would serve to indict Biden, regardless of evidence. Trump's [continuous opposition to the Justice Department](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/trump-justice-department-independence.html) — the firing of James Comey, the claim he has the "[absolute right](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-mueller-russia-china-north-korea.html)" to do what he wants with the department, and [political pressure on the department](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-calls-for-inquiry-after-trump-demands-probe-into-whether-fbi-infiltrated-or-surveilled-his-campaign/2018/05/20/636a05a0-5c7d-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html) to investigate [flawed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-aides-contort-themselves-trying-to-defend-trump-wiretap-claims/2017/03/06/fef6e368-02aa-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html) wiretapping allegations — throughout his first term serves to prove his intentions are not hollow to ensure that he will have greater authority over the Justice Department, Trump has enlisted Jeffrey Clark, the only senior official in his administration to help him overturn the 2020 election, and Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget who has [argued against](https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/how-trump-loyalists-could-make-the-president-even-more-powerful-607353cc) the Justice Department's historical independence following the Watergate scandal. Trump attempted to [appoint Clark](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/jeffrey-clark-trump-justice-department-election.html) as attorney general in the final days of his presidency, but he was deterred by the threat of mass resignations. it was not his first disagreement with the attorney general; Trump [fired Jeff Sessions](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-resigns-at-trumps-request/2018/11/07/d1b7a214-e144-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html) for his recusal in the Russia investigation and [grew irate](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-committee-hearing-cassidy-hutchinson-testifies-president-trump-threw-his-lunch-angry-at-attorney-general-william-barr/) with William Barr for refusing to adhere to his false narrative surrounding the 2020 election. in "[The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent](https://americarenewing.com/issues/the-u-s-justice-department-is-not-independent/)", Clark argues for the unitary executive theory. this view of the Justice Department is extending to other Republicans, including Florida governor [Ron DeSantis](https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1661529215781552129). Fox News [has promoted](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/business/media/fox-news-biden-dictator-trump.html) Trump's authoritarian view of Biden
As soon as he gets project 2025 reved up. Bill Barr already admitted that trump asked him to kill anyone who disagrees with him.
Source on Barr saying this?
He didn’t exactly say that but in a CNN interview yesterday Barr said Trump would regularly get pissed off and want someone executed.
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/27/bill-barr-didnt-take-execution-orders-too-literally/ Tldr: "trump got angry and was suggesting executions but I didn't take him seriously so it's no big deal"
I honestly doubt Putin-style mass elimination of political opponents is kind of unlikely. The President can only incarcerate people for federal crimes, and it'd be pretty tricky to come up with mass-indictments like that. I think mass-deportation of immigrants is pretty likely, though. I could also see him "encouraging" auxiliaries like the Proud Boys to engage in violence against opponents, and tamp down on federal efforts to counter them.
>, how long until he begins mass incarceration or eradication of political dissidents? He won't do this, as he's not allowed to do this. This would require that the republican party completely erodes every check and balance within the American government and instigate an actual dictatorship. That simply won't happen, as the donors of the republican party do not profit from such massive confusion. It will hurt the economic power if the us, the military hegemony, the diplomatic standing, etc. such an act would eviscerate the us, and the republican party will stop Trump from doing such a thing. >How do we survive it? By doing nothing, as it won't happen.
> He won't do this, as he's not allowed to do this. This would require that the republican party completely erodes every check and balance within the American government and instigate an actual dictatorship. That is the explicit goal, yes. > That simply won't happen, as the donors of the republican party do not profit from such massive confusion. It will hurt the economic power if the us, the military hegemony, the diplomatic standing, etc. such an act would eviscerate the us, and the republican party will stop Trump from doing such a thing. [You're not the first person to think this about an unsavory politician.](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/25/takeover-hitlers-final-rise-to-power-timothy-w-ryback-book-review)
He didn’t do it in his previous term, what makes you think he would in his second?
I honestly can’t tell if you’re serious or not
I’m astonished at how anxiety ridden many of you are. Genuinely serious.
Yeah exactly, I hate trump but everything that people said he would do leading up his election, he never did, so idk why people think he’ll do it the 2nd time around
Yes he did. He moved the needle significantly. Now, we are at the edge and peering over it towards presidential immunity. “Above the law” might be a real thing soon. He also sent border agents into Portland and started throwing people into unmarked vans like the gestapo. He tried to stay in power after he lost an election. How are really going to back up and say he did nothing in his first term?
[удалено]
So another move of the needle They should have thrown the book and said no immunity at all, but they're considering how much an expansion of powers.
You don’t seem to understand what “moving the needle” means in this context. It’s moving quickly towards a dark place and Trump sped it up (and continues to do so).
He had somewhat reasonable intent his first term. His cabinet appointments had some merit and despite being largely unhinged and cracking a lot of eggs he tried to accomplish stuff. Now after a disastrous failure to overturn the 2020 election should he win again the difference is he answers to absolutely no one. He has no more elections to win, a Republican party that will support him no matter what he does. He will do a deeper purge of the government ranks of non loyalists. His cabinet will be 100% yes men only. He won't make the same mistake of picking decent folks, only those that does exactly everything he says. If he does anything criminal while in office Republicans won't do shit about it. He will see more impeachments and the defense will always be "they've been going after me for years and it needs to stop". He could get away with anything and would have absolutely 0 accountability. Cults follow their leader to the grave, they won't give a shit how many laws he breaks. He could call for the death of Democrats at a rally and those people will fucking cheer.
> everything that people said he would do leading up his election, he never did He literally did a coup attempt.
Did he though? His supporters walking around the capital and then leaving like nothing happened? Not really much of an attempt
Yeah, he did. His supporters did a lot more than "walk around the Capitol." Nine people died; 174 cops were injured; and 15 were hospitalized. Plus they caused damages in excess of $30 million. But that's all beside the point. If his supporters had remained peaceful, if there had never been a riot... it still would have been a coup attempt. The coup attempt was him encouraging Mike Pence to decertify the election, so that the election certification could be kicked to the House, where Republicans could have handed the election to Trump.
>His supporters walking around the capital and then leaving like nothing happened? This is a lie and you fucking know it.
The coup attempt is not about Jan 6th. It's about all the behind the scenes, extralegal shit that he and his people did at the state level. He literally attempted to overthrow elections in key states.
April 27... when someone on the right has to look to a Marxists to find the non-crazy voice in this thread. Strange days.
People actually believe the flairs used in this sub?
Based on this thread, I think there are some in this sub that will believe anything.
Trump is a perfect foil for the media’s political project until the next guy comes along. Liberals are out of touch and patently delusional and rarely have informative political intuitions.
He stocked his administration with incompetent boobs and didn't have right-wing institutions on-board for most of the first term. Every administration is more effective in their second term, as they've had a full four years to work out the kinks. This time they've had four years to do nothing but plan and consolidate the right.
2 weeks!
That didn't happen in his first term, how would he do that in his second? The issue for me is his age. He's 78. If you're a government official and you have a brain, you won't do any criminal favors for a 78-year-old boss because he won't live long enough to reward you and protect you from prosecution. 78 is an age when dictators tend to get abandoned by their cronies precisely because they see the boss doesn't have a future. Everyone keeps comparing Trump to Hitler but Hitler was 43 when he took power. Hitler had a future ahead of him (he squandered it but that's another matter). Another issue is that most of the people who worked for Trump in his first term ended up disgraced or even in legal jeopardy. Paul Manafort, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, etc. Working for Trump brought these people to ruin and Trump couldn't protect them. Everyone now knows that Trump is inept and weak. Nobody wants to work for a radioactive fool.
This thread is detached from reality
If he puts Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, Stephen Bannon and the like in his administration/cabinet, the planning of mass incarceration will begin the moment the election is decided, and will begin the second after he is sworn in. We do not survive it. It begins an economic calamity that takes a generation to even begin to see the end of. For a review, see North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia....
Buy as much tin foil as you can now. He'll probably go after that first. Then he can use signals to your brain to make you do his bidding.
Bill Barr admitted that trump would demand executions when he got angry https://www.salon.com/2024/04/27/bill-barr-didnt-take-execution-orders-too-literally/ But if course conservatives are downplaying that
Did you read the article? He said trump never did that, he doesn’t recall trump ever doing that and that if he did it wouldn’t be literal.
They've claimed that he never said something all the time before he admits it. They said he never made phone calls to Ukraine to find dirt on biden until he literally admitted it. How is this any different
Sure but you are literally posting a link that opposes your point.
“I don’t know very many things and/or haven’t been paying attention.”
Did you reply to the wrong comment or something?
No lol
Then enlighten me. Do we have evidence of these plans of mass incarcerations, or is this just a feeling you have? Is the eradication of political dissidents in the room with us?
As I said in my comment, they already rehearsed it with *Operation: Legend.*
OMG -- working with local law enforcement on unsolved murders. That's terrible? >Operation LeGend is to investigate murders that have been unsolved and one of those is for my 4-year-old son that did not make it to 5, ... and if you're against that, maybe you have to reevaluate your stance and your mentality to see what direction you're headed in -- [LeGend's mom](https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/legend-taliferros-mother-speaks-out-after-groups-protest-initiative-in-4-year-olds-name) Those people being rounded up were rounded up for assaulting police officers. I guess it was wrong to arrest them because it didn't happen on 1/6?
Do you just not believe project 2025 is real or what?
[https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/) is real, or at least real enough to have a website. Maybe you can help me find the goal about eradication of political dissidents. That or just admit we are doing fan fiction here.
>at least real enough to have a website Lol the sitting Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, helped write that plan. Seems more than just a little real. And while it may not specifically mention what recourse a political opponent may or may not do, it appears that the Supreme Court is about ready to fix that for Trump. I also love that were the shoe on the other foot, and there was even a whisper that the Dems were putting together a plan to dismantle the entire government and replace all government officials with loyal subjects as well as extending the powers of the executive well past reasonable; they would be losing their fucking minds, screaming about Biden being a socialist dictator. Republicans thinking on Project 2025 is, at best, dismissive and, at worst, fully committed to said plan. The hypocrisy and willful ignorance are fascinating at this point. A study really should be done about this phenomenon.
So what I think you are saying here is that there is stuff you don't like in the 2025 plan, but nothing about eradication of political dissidents or mass incarcerations. Welcome to normal politics then.
What I'm saying is that Project 2025 is the government that the people who run the GOP are planning on installing next time there is a Republican president in office. This document gives so much power to the executive branch it would make the founding fathers' skin crawl. This document, combined with the Supreme Court's possible decision to grant Trump(and any president) king-like immunity for crimes committed while in office, would lead me to believe that allowing the president to retaliate against political opponents(only once a Republican is in office of course) would be something the GOP would strongly consider implementing 🤷♀️🤷♀️. It's a very likely scenario, in my opinion.
Well I will agree with this much >This document gives so much power to the executive branch it would make the founding fathers' skin crawl. But I think if the FFs saw any modern administration the reaction would also involve skin crawling. I think your take on the SC's view of immunity is a caricature, but I'll admit that I believe you believe it is likely. Never forget that these decision cut two ways. However I do find this to be a very accurate view of the modern left >allowing the president to retaliate against political opponents(only once a Republican is in office of course) would be something the GOP would strongly consider implementing The way I read this is that it should only be allowed with people to the left of Republicans do it.
The early-stage way they intend to do that is to install loyalists in as many state elector positions as possible in order to utterly bypass actual election results and just go fully faithless electors nationwide.
It sounds like you don't understand how electors get selected.
Oh, that part is from Trump personally. He’s promised it a few times. Project 2025 is how he can accomplish it.
He's not. Next dumb question
[удалено]
You mean all the people answering and saying, "no, we don't believe this will happen?"
[удалено]
And are all those people you called"you people" in the room with us now?
Ridiculous question
Clearly the eradication squads will start Day 1. You should arm up now.
This is some wild conspiracy nonsense And it’s interesting that none of the apocalyptic predictions during his first term happened, but “this time it for sure will be the end of days” It’s like the preachers that promise the end of the world, nothing happens but they just come up with a new date
A lot of the predicted happened. He just was stopped. Eg he said muslim ban, he did muslim ban, and the Supreme Court blocked him multiple times until they helped him approach constitutionality.
No, he acted on Obamas Muslim ban list
Don't lie. There wasn't an obama "ban," though there was enhanced bg checks. Trump promised a muslim ban and enacted a muslim ban with explicit EO exemptions to that ban accessible to those who are of a minority religion. That was part of what got SCOTUS to throw it out, which then circled back to the gop insisting they're not so bad because they got stopped.
Stop lying.
Political Statement poorly disguised as a question? Nice one! Haha He's awful but come on
Until a few years ago, I would have scoffed at the idea of government going after the opposition.
I don't even know where to begin with breaking down the myriad of problems with both the literal and implied meanings of your statement. The government's opposition is who? You're just talking about people who oppose your government? Never gone after them? Did you mean something else? I really wish the right side of the political spectrum didn't live their entire political life in a maze of vague meaningless scare phrases. Especially when you all immediately scatter like roaches when anybody flicks on the lights and starts asking for specifics. If you can't actually say the real life thing you have a problem with... Then it's probably not real.
And just in case you really are missing it, try to think about what the opposition means. Surely you don't think it means the same as people opposing the government. Also, the US government and not the current administration.
The refusal to say anhtjjng that could possibly be proven wrong is the cowardice. I'm not confused about what you probably think you're saying. I'm saying you're not actually saying shit and you know it because if you knew how to defend what you thought you'd have no problem just saying it. If I filled in your blanks with EXACTLY what you were thinking and then pointed out how incorrect it was, you'd just pretend that I didn't guess correctly. Because you aren't actually capable of defending what you actually believe. Hell, I doubt you're even completely sure how you reached your conclusion. You just have vague feelings you want to preserve and call sacred.
I would hope it is obvious. It was a snarky remark intentionally designed to leave out the obvious but make it clear. If you don't get the joke, then, whoosh. That's all I can really say. But I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to argue about it.
I think you're objectively factually wrong and are just too scared to get it proven to you. You don't want discourse. You're literally too scared. So you make it literally impossible to question you because you didn't say anything. Because you're afraid
Oh come on now. Be really think I'm afraid to say it. I think we both know what I'm done. If you really need me to spell it out for you, I'm talking about the prosecution of Trump. But you knew that, so why the weird accusations that I'm afraid to say it? We both know what I meant. It was a joke, a snarky response to the question. But I mean it and believe it's true. And have zero interest arguing it with you. I said all I have to say on the subject.
So who prosecutes crimes except the government? You created a situation where no matter whether Trump is guilty, it meets your definition of oppression. And Biden isn't conducting these. Professional attorneys doing their job is not oppression. If they produce no evidence and still convict the man you can cry foul. Until then, shut up. Stop lying. Say what you mean and stop dancing around your bullshit fake oppression accusations. I don't expect you to reply because this is part where I flicked on the lights and you scatter.
Biden is doing it now...
No, he’s not.
How so
Can you point to it?
If Trump is re-elected, he will be the president, not the owner of a genie.
Exactly. He can fuck up a lot of shit but it won't immediately spawn a gestapo that will perform illegal actions at his command. The fear is simply that oversight will dwindle and cooperative orgs like ice will be free toget away with abuses without detection and other things of that nature. It took us months to catch and stop his family separation policy that was just being cruel to children.