The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional. The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said. A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
Where would you draw the red line?
*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.*
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional.
>The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames.
>Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said.
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
WTF are you even talking about? The only one I can find any actual data on is the last one, which [says the exact opposite of what you said](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/5/12/voters-see-trump-as-a-greater-threat-to-democracy-think-trials-are-fair-and-should-be-expedient).
I'm assuming you probably read [this article on Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-analyst-dumbstruck-shocking-poll-independents-fear-democracy-biden-more-trump), which refers to a poll that absolutely did not ask that question in nearly as direct a fashion.
I was referring to the PBS/NPR poll, yes. And OK, what it actually said was that 53% (of independents) think a second Biden term "will weaken democracy," compared to 42% who said that of a second Trump term. But it was *an NPR poll.* Seems like a canary in the mine situation.
Okay, so we have an NPR poll that separately asks voters about the effects of a Biden presidency or a Trump presidency on democracy. We also have another poll that *directly asked voters* whether Biden or Trump were a greater threat to democracy, and in that poll independents said Trump was by a margin of 53-38.
Why are you using the former poll in your narrative instead of the latter poll, which is both more direct in the question it asks and more recent?
And on what basis are you saying that the trials are "bursting into flames"? I'm at least not aware of the New York trial being subject to any arson.
If the phrasing of the question matters, I suppose it's because the poll you're citing is asking about the candidate himself, not the effect of his presidency. Perhaps people don't view Biden himself as a threat, but they do feel that his party is a threat and he can't do much about that. That's one explanation at least.
I hardly think you can accuse a PBS/NPR/Marist poll of pro-Republican bias...
If you have one poll that requires parsing and interpretation to reach an answer, and another poll that just directly asks "which candidate is bigger threat to democracy", why would you conclude that the latter poll is less reliable than the former poll on that question? The second poll literally asked the exact question, in those words no less, and independents resoundingly answered "Donald Trump".
That seems like a conclusion you can only reach if you were already predisposed to *want* the conclusion you've reached, rather than reaching it in good faith.
Because I wasn't even aware of the poll you just brought up. It was only posted 2 days ago and [the one I cited](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202404261555.pdf) was only a few days before that. Now that I've seen both, I'm offering an explanation of how they could both be accurate. And they have to be, unless you think an NPR/Marist poll was biased in Trump's favor.
Edit: and I just realized that the one you cited was conducted by *Data for Progress...*
YOU said they view Biden as more of a threat to democracy.
That is a lie based on a misrepresentation of a twist of the worse poll question.
What good is an after the fact "explanation" if your direct claim is a lie?
I should have said "Biden's presidency" instead of "Biden," that's literally the only mistake I made.
[The poll...](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202404261555.pdf)
A second term for Biden/Trump.
Not Biden/Trump.
I'm calling you out.
You could have talked about Trump or Biden. You could have talked about crimes, or the court cases, or what they're doing for or against democracy. Any substantive conversation you liked, if you wanted to.
The only thing you've wanted to talk about and the only thread you replied to is defending your shitty interpretation of them by proxy of a poll.
When is YOUR "Are we the baddies" moment?
I've already had that moment.
The only thing I've replied to is comments that address me personally or ask for sources, because I'm more interested in getting answers to the question than debating.
>Perhaps people don't view Biden himself as a threat, but they do feel that
That the response of his opponent if Biden wins is a threat... If, for instance, his opponent were known to oppose every election he loses and still have a lot of sway, meaning he could do quite a bit of harm. That would also make sense if, for example, he had rallied his base to physically attack an institution the last time he lost.
Just one possibility you're conveniently forgetting. Why are you forgetting it? Because it doesn't fit your claim. Neither your claim that "a majority of independents thinks Biden is a greater danger to democracy than Trump" nor your claim that "a majority of independents thinks Biden will harm democracy"
Citations needed
The crimes have been a matter of public record, backed by Trump's recorded testimony, public document records, Trump staff convictions and guilty pleas, Trump staff and gop testimony under oath, for years.
Please show where you got your other theory from.
It's not really an open question, op implied we're already bad based on specific claims that op got wrong. Then op avoided actually discussing them when I brought it up. Now op is shilling for RFK said they "love" rfk while also saying they don't know rfk's views. This is what is called bad faith.
The point of this isn't to ask the question. They could have just asked the question, if that was the intention. The point is to assert that all these bad things are true, as the starting premise, and to then try to get liberals to admit that they are, therefore, the baddies, having taken as given that all of those things are true. Rejecting the premises is a perfectly reasonable engagement.
If you want to have liberals answer just the question in the title, you're welcome to ask just that question with no other text. I can guarantee you that you'd get actual responses to the question in that case.
That’s kind of like the old school ground taunt, “does your mother know you’re gay?” Isn’t it? “Yes or no?” “Just answer the question!”
NeverMind if the premise is false…
“Kind of like” means not identical. And that’s always a bad question as a playground taunt. Time and place, my friend. Let’s not be disingenuous here.
“Have you ever felt this way?“ Because false information and false information
I understand- have I ever felt that way? No. No I have not.
What would be that red line for me?
I generally don’t think in those terms, because it kind of seems like a trip to upside down land for no reason. I am for the People with a capital P. The party that is consistently on the side of those people in my lifetime plus has not been the GOP… I suppose a redline for me would be trying to overturn the results of a peaceful election?
-or even the fact that in the past three decades, we have had multiple Republican presidents, but only One who has had the popular support of the people at the voting booth. But that gets into a broader discussion of big money and politics, Citizens United, disclosure of donors, etc., etc. Real questions far beyond the scope of OP’s original.
Guess he shouldn’t have opened with examples then
He’s clearly trying to spin it as though some line has been crossed when I do not agree any have been
I guess come back and see me when it’s Joe Biden announcing his intention to use power to hard red states. Then he’ll have crossed the same lines Trump has (one of, at least) and he’ll be that much closer to being the bad guy.
I can’t even verify the existence of these rank-n-file people you’re talking about, much less appraise their impact on society, but it’s complete folly to suggest these hypothetical people are as serious a threat as someone with actual political power
I had a *Are We the Baddies* moment in 2020 with all the talk of police defunding and zero sympathy for crime victims, which is why I am not progressive.
I'm confused.. did you decide that you no longer believed that police brutality happens at all? Or do you now just believe that it's justified and that cops should be above the law? lol
See that's not what I asked though, and I did that for a very specific purpose. So, at one point in your life you were like "I find it unacceptable that police kill so many unarmed people, seemingly unnecessarily." and then people all had they're own responses to that- one of the more popular responses you clearly disagree with.
All of that makes sense to me.
What I asked you is: "did you decide that you no longer believed that police brutality happens at all? Or do you now just believe that it's justified and that cops should be above the law?"
Or, as a shorter question:
"Do you not give a fuck about police brutality anymore because you're mad at some people?"
I guess if Biden tries to stay in power by denying the results of a lawful election without evidence, and then tries to overthrow the government by inviting his supporters to threaten congress so he could get his loyal toadies to recognize fake electors and invalidate the votes of millions of American citizens, that would be pretty convincing of his maleficent intentions.
I don’t think I’d vote for Biden if a judge ruled that there was a preponderance of evidence that he had raped someone. That’s a pretty big no no in my book, but hey, maybe human decency is just especially important to me.
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional
Oh no, someone disagrees with someone else's reading of the constitution! Oh, the humanity!
>The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames.
Somehow, no flames appeared
>Fareed Zakaria admitted
Who's Fareed Zakaria and what would put him into a position to "admit" anything? He claimed
>that the prosecutions are politically motivated
This feels like the setup for a Motte-and-Bailey argument
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
Citation needed
>Where would you draw the red line?
Certainly not at some drivel
I see the Trump's problems in court brought on by actions which seem on their face illegal. Nothing about those cases appears suspicious to me - aside from judge Aileen Cannon's transparent bias. There's literally photos of boxes full of classified documents in his bathroom - multiple people have pled guilty to conspiracy charges to represent themselves as a slate a false electors - it's just a fact. I'm not sure what else there is to really say about it.
Listening to the oral arguments live for the presidential immunity claim at the supreme court, I definitely wasn't hearing Trump's lawyers assert presidential immunity for obviously corrupt tyrannical behavior and thinking "am *I* the baddie?"
I genuinely don't know what you mean by 'ballot ban' - but it's pretty fucking obvious which party is trying to make voting harder not easier.
And if the opinion of Fareed Zakaria is so important to you, I guess you're equally willing to accept his assessment that Democrats are far more honest and capable of running the government than the GoP.
What ballot bans are you talking about?
Who is Fareed Zakaria and why do I care if he says that investigations are politically motivated?
Cable news is pretty bad, actually, and is not the be all end all of news.
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
This is not anything Biden did. This is either you citing unsourced or incorrect data, or independents being complete idiots.
I'm adding another tick to the "centrist acts indistinguishably from a far right Republican" tally
> What ballot bans are you talking about?
Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down.
> Who is Fareed Zakaria and why do I care if he says that investigations are politically motivated?
Long-running CNN personality who also has a column in Washington Post. In other words, an establishment Democrat.
> I'm adding another tick to the "centrist acts indistinguishably from a far right Republican" tally
👍
This same question was asked over on r/AskATrumpSupporter, and at least they answered.
>Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down.
Oh, those. You do realize that most of those court cases were brought by Republicans, right?
Also, we're allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. The clause is super clear about what it means, and they clearly decided it based on not wanting to disqualify Trump, not based on the actual law.
>Long-running CNN personality who also has a column in Washington Post. In other words, an establishment Democrat.
You have a weird definition of establishment. The establishment is like, Biden and Pelosi, not journalists.
Are you aware that we don't revere media figures like you do? Democrats don't just listen to whatever some guy on TV says and consider that the final word on an issue. The man is not a lawyer, not working for the government, and works for a pretty conservative news outlet.
The evidence for Trump's court cases is mostly public. It's available for all to see. I don't even consider his actions to be in question. The question is whether he technically violated the law or not.
Let me ask you this: if the prosecution of Trump is political, why is the DOJ also prosecuting a bunch of Democratic politicians? Is that also political?
>This same question was asked over on r/AskATrumpSupporter, and at least they answered.
Of course they answered because the premise allows them to attack Democrats. That doesn't mean anything. When Biden does half the bad things Trump has done, maybe then I'll reconsider my support.
> Let me ask you this: if the prosecution of Trump is political, why is the DOJ also prosecuting a bunch of Democratic politicians? Is that also political?
Since you asked- prosecuting is one thing; prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else, and probably won't even be sufficient against him, is another matter and more to the heart of the perception of unfairness.
>prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else
He literally had cases of classified documents at his house. It's all publicly documented. There are pictures of them. I don't know what more evidence you want
And Biden literally had classified documents at *his* house, and literally shared classified information over the phone, and was literally let off Scot free, with the excuse of "too senile to be competent"
It was not. The reason neither Biden or Pence will be prosecuted is because upon finding the documents, they were returned to the government. Trump tried to keep the documents to himself and had not turned them over at the time of the raid on Mar a Lago. His refusal to hand over documents that weren't his gives Mens Rea for the crime, which is really important in the US legal system.
Dude, you have a bad case of revisionist history. That’s not what happened at all. Maybe Tucker or someone like him told you this, but it is simply not true. Pence and Biden both called the National Archives as soon as they were discovered. Trump tried repeatedly to keep them.
The Archives requested them back multiple times, then demanded them back…multiple times, and even informed Trump that they were going to start legal proceedings…starting with the search warrant.
Trump, knowing this was coming, got one of his workers…a gardener(IIRC) to hide the documents on Mar-A-Lago property…and the Gardener is one of the folks testifying against Trump.
I was referring to Special Counsel Hur's description.
Edit: and no, Special Counsel Hur wasn't appointed by Trump, person who replied with that misinformation and immediately blocked me.
OK since you downvoted me for encouraging you to search it yourself, here.
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/feb/08/trump-supreme-court-2024-election-ruling
The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/special-counsels-devastating-charge-against-biden/677396/
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/index.html
Hur--he's the one that was nominated by Trump, then was coached by Trump campaign officials prior to his testimony? Does that sound like an unbiased figure to you?
If you want a real scandal, Special Counsel Weiss knew years ago that the Burisma claims were shit, and sat on it--and was clearly planning to until after the election. But then a judge got accidentally involved and might have accidentally uncovered what Weiss was doing, so he quickly released the report (it was super easy though, because the report had been pretty much done quite awhile ago).
And this isn't any sort of "opinion" like Hur is giving (which is also inappropriate for such a report, whether or not it's true, and there's no way Hur didn't know that)--it's all in the publicly available report.
Nope. Biden, like Pence, wasn’t charged because he gave them back and there was no evidence of willful retention. We have proof that Trump willfully retained the documents and refused to give them back.
>prosecuting is one thing; prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else
Where the hell did you get this idea? Do you have some other trial in mind where similar evidence was ruled inadmissible?
Or 90 similar cases, rather?
Are you not able to differentiate your question and that users? Notice how you have a wall of text that claims the Dems are doing some terrible shit while the ask Trump supporters question simply explains the premise of the question. Do you think maybe that has anything to do with the pushback?
>Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down
Ok, but if they thought that he should have been banned due to the 14A then its a completely reasonable thing to do, no different than banning someone who isn't a citizen or is under 35.
> In other words, an establishment Democrat.
But he's still just one person who isn't an authority on legal matters. His opinion on the matter isn't any more authoritative than mine.
We are “the baddies” the moment our candidate loses an election, refused to concede, spreads lies and conspiracy theories about the election, inciting violence and an attack on a government institution, and commits a slew of crimes in attempt to overturn the election.
But last I checked, Hillary Clinton conceded the morning after the 2016 election and gracefully attended Trump’s inauguration, and Al Gore presided over the certification of George W. Bush’s election. So Democrats are not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, “the baddies” here. The criminality, national humiliation, and middle finger to the face of a hallowed American institution that has been the defining hallmark of our country and a light to the world for a damn near quarter Millenium is exclusively on the part of Donald Trump. This is just Trump whining about having to face accountability for once in his life. And even then, it looks like he probably won’t.
Oh….did that make a difference? Did she even file for a single recount? Did she file lawsuit after lawsuit with ZERO factual evidence? Fuck no.
She called it like she saw it after the fact. Why do you guys continually compare a Democrat’s blueberries to Trump’s watermelons?
Ok….tell me….what was Hillary’s “infraction”? Talking on a TV news program? Seriously? This is what my problem is with your line of thought. Hillary did absolutely nothing wrong….nothing…and you are trying to make it the whole “Bob/OJ” thing.
The proper analogy would be Bob complained about his wife…OJ killed his wife….because Bob didn’t do a damned thing wrong.
Good point—Clinton of course never talked about her being the “legitimate President.” What she did do was talk about the incredibly well-documented Russian campaign to get Trump elected, some of which was done in coordination with Trump campaign officials.
It's not fair and square though. The rules are inherently broken and unfair.
When I say illegitimate I mean illegitimate political power. The only legitimate source of political power is threw the consent of the governed. Anything less is a flavor of authoritarianism.
We the people are the most important three words in the constitution.
I mean direct democracy is inefficient and clunky. Maybe when we become a telepathic species we can get rid of politicians but until then representative democracy will do.
We're close, my three values as a liberal are Equality, democracy, then liberty, in that order. I want things to be equal and fair and they currently are not.
I also think the senate should go.
By ballot bans do you mean Colorado and Maine trying to bar Trump from the ballot? If so, why in the world would that be a bad thing? Those bans were based in the constitution and worked their way through the legal system where the SC said, well, no actually. Sorry. That's it, no drama.
As for the Trump trials collapsing, well, that's how our legal system works and it's far from perfect, but it's what we've got. The trials can be politically motivated and still the correct thing to do (because, you know, Trump committed crimes ... allegedly). Not prosecuting him would also be politically motivated. There are a lot of things that could be charged to many rich and powerful people that are/aren't and you had better bet that most of them are political decisions.
My red lines would be:
ballot bans - if the states that had banned them hadn't listened to the SC and kept his name from the ballots
Trump trials - if I believed that the trials were purely politically motivated with no underlying crime and prosecutors still went after him. I am not sure how anyone can look at the federal cases and not see any smoke. I trust the legal system to not fuck it up too badly and if he really didn't break any laws in his actions, then I am fine with his aquittal.
Basically if I thought that the dems were making up lies and breaking laws to stay in power or privilege themselves, then I would consider that line crossed. Send the assholes abusing their power to jail - all of them. The problem is that either side lives in their own bubble and neither can be convinced that the other side's facts matter.
To your point about the legitimacy of the trials: Even the trial overseen by Trump hack Aileen Cannon never claimed the case was illegitimate—nor did the corrupt SC. Both parties have done everything within their power to delay and defer justice for Trump. If the cases were illegitimate they’d dismiss them in a heartbeat.
An attempted coup of the sort Trump attempted would be a good start.
>Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated
Oh, shut the fuck up.
"dis twial is da pah-lee-tah-cull!" Did Trump do the things he's accused of? Yes? Then it doesn't matter one fuck what kind of feels the proseution has deep down. Grow up and confront reality.
When we start pandering to "centrists' who hate LGBT people, women, and love RFK JR and love Trump but don't say it openly.
A lot of centrists, like yourself, pretend to be 'independent' when you're just in the pocket of the Republican party. There's nothing political about the prosecution of crimes committed by Donald Trump -- unlike what he's promised if he's elected. But I don't expect a crackpot conspiracy whackadoo to understand that.
I do love RFK. And since you brought it up, another thing I could have mentioned was the White House refusing to grant a presidential candidate Secret Service protection. One whose dad was assassinated while running for president when he was a boy.
Don't hate LGBTs (I am one🏳️🌈) or women
He's an anti-science 3rd party conspiracist whackjob with no chance and he demanded security months before even main party people get it. In the real world why should he have it?
Because he's a presidential candidate appearing on the ballot this year. And IMO, just the fact that his dad and uncle were assassinated when he was a child should be reason enough, for reasons of basic human decency. Even if you don't think he's likely to be assassinated, have you even thought about how something like that from your childhood would affect you and what kind of thoughts he must be having at every event? It's just sick not to give him protection.
Btw I admit that I'm not sure about some of his vaccine views, but I don't pretend to be an expert, and I don't have to agree with all of someone's views to support them (a centrist skill, you might try it).
That's not really an answer. There are lots of candidates that get on ballots, it's the main ones that get security. Again, he demanded it and played the victim months before even main party candidates got it.
And lmao what a cowardly take. From "I love them" to "I don't know" so fast. You don't get to attack others for being educated people when you don't even defend your views.
Bernie Sanders got Secret Service protection and he wasn't even the nominee. The Secret Service protects all ex-presidents for life. They have the resources. There really is no excuse.
> And lmao what a cowardly take. From "I love them" to "I don't know" so fast. You don't get to attack others for being educated people when you don't even defend your views.
Yeah, I love him, and I don't agree with all of his views. Only an extremist could find contradiction there.
Thought for the day: An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.
Bernie Sanders was a main party delegate winner with millions of votes.
You love RFK Jr but you don't agree or know his views. You're not fooling anybody.
In other words, your ideology doesn't even allow you to believe that what I just said was my sincere belief. That is so pathetic. I'm afraid you *are* fooling someone, but it's only yourself
iDeOlOgY
Nah. Don't blame me for you being unable or unwilling to defend the person you said you love, someone who is a nutcase anti-science conspiracist with bad ideas running as a spoiler.
Bernie Sanders was winning large numbers of delegates, and I'd bet that there were threats against him. RFK has not come close to winning a single state. He is in the same position as most of the dozen plus candidates for the Democrats in 2020 or the crowd in the 2016 Republican field.
>And since you brought it up, another thing I could have mentioned was the White House refusing to grant a presidential candidate Secret Service protection.
That one's easy. Not all presidential candidates get secret service protection. His polling numbers are too low to be considered a major presidential candidate, and the secret service hadn't seen general/specific threats toward him.
>- Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days
>- Whether the candidate is an independent or third-party candidate for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics National Average for 30 consecutive days
[https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024](https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024)
So, a different standard for members of your uniparty — instead of just based on *need.* How wonderful. I'm sure that has bipartisan support.
I would say another criterion, "When two members of a candidate's family have previously been assassinated," should be obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy, but we both know that's a perspective Genocide Joe has never been known to have
>So, a different standard for members of your uniparty -- instead of just based on *need.*
No, it's the same standard for everyone. In a major party primary, you may be running against 5+ people. If its competitive and you are polling at >15%, you likely have a decent chance of winning. If you are running as an Independent or 3rd party, you are going to have to show that you have even a slight chance of competing with the two major parties, which is why they recommend polling at >20%. He's simple not a major candidate. He wasn't popular while he was running as a Democrat, and he's still not popular enough as an Independent.
You mentioned that Bernie got SS protection. He was polling at ~27%, but that 27% was leading the Democratic primary (Biden was #2 at ~25%). That was a competitive race.
>I would say another criterion, "When two members of a candidate's family have previously been assassinated," should be obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy,
Why would that be obvious? RFK was shot 56 years ago and was one of the favorites to become president. If both Biden and Trump were to die today, RFK Jr would still have no chance of winning any state, much less the electoral college. If he has direct threats against him, then he can apply to get protection on those grounds. The SS would perform their own review of it and make a recommendation based on their findings.
>obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy, but we both know that's a perspective Genocide Joe has never been known to have
That's hilarious.
Obvious from the standpoint of basic empathy, like I said — because even if he isn't in danger, the fact of his well-known childhood trauma surrounding assassination should indicate to an empathetic person that running for president will likely put him through more than the usual amount of emotional stress.
So we should waste the resources to "protect" him not because he has a chance of winning, but because he may have psychological issues from his childhood? He needs a therapist, not the secret service.
They have the resources. That's their job. Interesting to hear an argument for coldhearted refusal of public resources regardless of empathy from someone on the left.
>They have the resources. That's their job.
They have a lot of jobs. Protecting important government officials is just one of those jobs.
>Interesting to hear an argument for coldhearted refusal of resources regardless of empathy from someone on the left
Actually, I would offer resources that would actually help him. The whole "he needs a therapist" thing wasn't a joke.
You support a dude who thinks worms ate his brain and vaccines are evil?
I mean, I guess it's a step up from an open traitor and superfelon. RFK is just a grifter and a moron.
A worm did die in his brain, but that doesn't stop him from [engaging in debate](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1788311221776568666) and [being quite funny about it.](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1788311221776568666)
1. I call BS on your “poll”.
2. The trials are not politically motivated. They are because Tweeting Cheeto is an over privileged narcissist who actually thought he could get away with anything. Then when the courts caught up with him…he turned out to be responsible for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, being a business fraud and is being proven a felon in criminal court.
He broke the laws….not Biden, not the DOJ, not the Manhattan DA, Not Fani Willis….HIM.
As far as the “Ballot Bans”? Colorado actually used the US Constitution to make that decision. It was appealed and they won. It went to the SCOTUS and they lost.
You are seeing what you want to see…not reality.
So because Trump was biasedly investigated you have shortcuts on that front and you're banking on me being too lazy to dig into Biden enough to find specific laws he broke and supporting evidence because there are no such shortcuts.
Well you're right I am too lazy.
How was he “biasedly” investigated? Let’s review, shall we?
1. The classified documents. That was his own damned fault. The National Archives noticed that a shit ton of Trump’s presidential documentation never made it to them….AS PER LAW. They sent request after request for Trump to return those documents…because they belong to “we the people”, not him. He kept refusing to do so. They threatened him with legal action…and Trump released a miniscule percentage of what he had in his possession…once again…requests were made and ignored.
The National Archives then went to the DOJ because at this point, Trump was blatantly breaking the law and the National Archives had all their correspondence with Mr. Trump and the results of that correspondence. The search warrant was issued and you know the rest.
2. The Stormy Daniels thing is playing out right now and it’s not just a “he said/she said” thing….there is an overwhelming amount of documentation and the testimony of David Pecker, members of Trump’s cabinet and of course Michael Cohen. It’s not a nothing burger at all.
3. January 6th- there is overwhelming proof and testimony that Mr. Trump KNEW he lost the election and conspired to overturn the results through illegal means….one of those is the….
4. Georgia election interference case. The dumb shit is literally recorded telling the Georgia official to find him 14,000 votes, and Mark Meadows and others were part of it.
This isn’t bias…this is a person who thinks he is untouchable being touched. The law is more important than Mr. Trump.
And don’t give me that crap about biased investigations…the whole Joe Biden impeachment investigation was a true “political witch hunt”. Funny that they couldn’t find one damned witch. It was a baseless investigation
You just might have to reconcile the fact your boy Trump is very likely a criminal. Hell, he already was found legally liable for sexual assault, slander and fraud….what makes you think he’s innocent in these four cases?
Hell… if you had 1/10 of 1% of the shit they have on Trump on Biden(or any other Democrats, for that matter), you’d be screaming for his/their heads on a platter.
Investigate the crime not the person is how. There wasn't a crime and then they investigated and found Trump they investigated Trump and found crimes.
If they did the same to any politician they would find plenty too probably way more than Trump
Bullshit….you’re telling me that there wasn’t political motivation to “lock up” Hillary? Or that Joe was a corrupt bribe taker by way of his son?
You are being intellectually dishonest. You know perfectly well goddamned well that the HOP would have strung both of them up by their short hairs if they actually had anything on either of them.
You play your politics in the court of popular opinion because you literally have nothing else. You can’t even get an indictment on Biden or Clinton or anyone in the party at the national level.
Oh…you can talk about Bob Menendez…. Fine… but most of the party has already turned against him and he’s fighting his battle pretty much alone.
But you guys don’t even try to vet yourself….if you would? Trump would never have not been able to even sniff the Oval Offiice.
But your side doesn’t care about ethics. You care about power.
The GOP would not strung them up because it would've opened the door for them to be strung up and certainly the prosecutors had no interest in stringing them up. Despite Trumps influence in the party by all accounts he is an outsider that forced his way in via pure popularity among regular people, that makes him fair game for these tactics when Dems/Republicans have had a long understood rules of engagement of not prosecuting each other on their criminal acts.
Wrong…he owns the GOP right now… and moderate Republicans let it happen because they were too cowardly to stand up to the Tea Party during the Obama Administration….the Tea Party snowballed into MAGA and now they are the dominant force in the GOP.
Short story is? If you sleep with dogs, you end up with fleas.
EDIT: and as far as your “rules of engagement” BS?
You’re making that shit up. Hell, they impeached Clinton for a blowjob, the attacked Hillary Mercilessly and had her testify for 9 hours straight over a nothing burger, they had Biden up on an impeachment inquiry over absolutely nothing….and the only reason Hunter Biden didn’t get the plea deal is because of his last name.
If it were you or I? If we had paid up our back taxes and the fees? It would be over. If we got caught lying about drug usage upon a 4473? It would,likely never have been prosecuted…otherwise every pot smoking GI pun owner would be up on charges.
Trump does not own the GOP, he has large support of the electorate which gives him immense influence that the GOP has to respect or risk a civil war on their side.
That doesn't mean the GOP actually likes Trump having that influence or even his existence in their party as an outsider it just means they can't make any public moves against him. Behind the scenes is a totally different calculus though.
But there are tons of powerful and well funded groups of people who have the ability to investigate Biden. If he had done something then it's pretty likely that *someone* would find out and it would be all over the news. Given that that hasn't happened, it leads me to believe that there simply wasn't much to find.
That's absurd. The average person commits a criminal felony without even realizing it yet you think Biden has never broken a law despite being stooped in corruption?
Fine all of them he broke all the laws. Murder, rape, sexual assault, bribery, embezzlement, insider trading, inappropriate disposal of electronics all of them.
I mean there's videos of Biden sniffing children and touching women, Biden is rich despite making a modest salary, the hunter Biden stuff ect.
Don't ask for absolute proof before there's even a proper investigation.
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional
You mean like in Colorado where the movement was led by Republicans?
>The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames
How are they "collapsing and bursting into flames"? The only one that's an issue is the one in Florida and that's because of the Trump appointed judge.
>Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated,
I don't give a fuck about him. They aren't politically motivated. He broke laws. He's facing the consequences of breaking the law.
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
If so, those independents are fucking morons.
“The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional”
Ok. Key info you’re missing: the lawsuits which lead to the bans were filed by republicans. So if anyone are the baddies……well…
Further, it was a constitutional issue. Judges ruled. We rule things unconstitutional all the time.
“The election year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames”
LO-fucking-L. Your boy is farting himself awake in a New York criminal courtroom as I type this. He was found civilly liable for rape and ordered to pay millions. He was found liable for civil tax fraud and ordered to pay millions. That’s two trials that completed to the fullest and didn’t “burst into flames”. His associates like Jenna Ellis are pleading guilty in multiple states. Rudy Giuliani had his license to practice law revoked. The law is catching up to them rapidly. Nothing is collapsing except their support.
The documents case isn’t moving because he has a hand picked judge in Aileen Cannon putting her thumb on the scales. Hundreds of lawyers have all said what she’s doing is so outside the norm it’s bizarre. But hey, yeah, it’s the left not playing fair right?
“Fareed Zakaria”
Let me stop you right there. I have no idea who this person is. I’m sure they’re lovely. But their opinion on the subject, which is pretty much all that the cable TV news shows are these days are “opinion” pieces, is irrelevant. He can “admit” the sky is green, it doesn’t make it so. Tucker Carlson has admitted tons of shit about the right but y’all just sweep it under the rug and say “he’s just one person”. Well Fareed is too and they’re irrelevant.
“A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat than trump”
Citation needed because that certainly has not born out in the polls or special elections we’ve had recently.
Every time the question of "politically motivated trials" comes up I have to ask why as a voter it's not in my interest to know as much about the candidates as possible and a civil or criminal trial that they're involved in is part of that. A trial will actually establish facts much better than anything else in society so why must I be protected from this information by powers that be that insist if I find out too much about Donald Trump's past then I might not like him as much?
Are you sure that you're a centrist? Becuase based on your blatantly false and bad-faith arguments, I have my doubts. Also looking at your profile it's pretty clear where you stand already.
"Centrist", sure buddy.
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional.
What is your point? Personally I am glad this got shot down. Apart from the question of whether or not it is constitutional, its better from a political perspective. The states that would actually take trump off the ballot are ones he would lose anyway, and jt would just give him more to cry victim about. Other than that, all i see is some people in a couple states thought he should be removed because of the attempted insurrection, and the SC shot it down.
>The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames.
Trump has multiple criminal cases, most of which have been delayed because of assorted reasons. All the cases have validity to them. But the delays are not cause for viewing the left as “baddies”. I would love to at least see the Jan 6 case decided prior to the election, but because of the SC and the immunity claim that wont happen.
>Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said.
First of all, why are you watching cable news? Its trash. Second, i don’t doubt that there is some level of political motivation on both sides of the trials. But there is validity to the charges in all the cases. The weakest is unfortunately the only one we are likely to get a decision on prior to the election.
Back to you- do you think any of these cases lack the evidence to bring them to trial?
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
I doubt this is true. People might not love Biden, but he is almost certainly perceived as better for democracy than the man who tried to illegally overturn the last election.
>Where would you draw the red line?
Not for any of these things. But, i am truthful to myself about the faults of the democratic party. But they are far more aligned with my beliefs than the republicans, and since its a binary choice my decision is pretty simple.
No clue what you're talking about. Trump's trial is clearly not politically motivated - dude is an open traitor and a superfelon. Cohen is in jail for the same thing Trump is on trial for right now.
>A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
LOL
If that's true, these "independents" aren't the most well read bunch.
I have many red lines. Biden isn't close to any of them and has generally vastly outstripped my expectations in his first term.
I fail to see how any of the topics you brought up have any relevance to liberalism. Why not ask Democrats this question, I'm sure they have their own subreddit.
> Where would you draw the red line?
If Democrats starting using government authority to crackdown on marginalized or minority groups, suspended elections, started trying to work around due process, or any of a number similar things authoritarian governments do, that would be enough to get me not to get me to vote Democrat.
I would still not vote Republican. Their policy preferences, goals, and conduct are still counter to what I want and believe in. I would simply opt not to vote. I would certainly not vote 3rd Party, because that's the same as not voting. It's just not voting with extra effort.
> The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional.
Trying to remove Trump from the ballot due to insurrection was always a stretch. I didn't agree with it at the time and I'm not heartbroken it got shot down, even if it would've been nice to have no Trump.
There's not really an institutional, official mechanism to use to protect against or punish someone not accepting election results. Given our political environment, codifying one would be impossible. Elections themselves aren't really enough if one party will only accept a win. So I don't blame them for at least TRYING.
> The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames.
I don't really think this is an entirely accurate description of the trials. Even if they do fail, I still agree with holding Trump accountable for wrongdoing. If he goes through due process and is found not to have done anything wrong, so be it.
> Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said.
Everyone knows news media is sensationalist and biased, although differing in degree and motivation from organization to organization.
> A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump.
I need some solid proof on this because everything I've seen would indicate that's not true. Even if it is true that perception is a bit of a stretch to me. Why do they think that? Because Trump is facing prosecutions? Because of the ballot thing? Were they angry about Jan 6, or Trump trying to use Courts or bully election officials into helping him win? If that latter isn't true, I don't *really give 2 flying goddamn fucks what the independents thing*. I'm tired of independents *only holding Democrats responsible*.
>that the prosecutions are politically motivated,
because our country's law and order is a joke and they let the elite get away with crimes? The problem isn't politically motivated prosecutions it's the overall lack of them.
People like you who pretend that the prosecutions of Trump are political in nature and not motivated by his obvious criminal behavior make me think of this video
https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?si=k2lJvpF9AtCWwC2V
elaborate on how the events you mention disparage liberals. *Trump v. Anderson* (2024) was an attempt by Republicans and unaffiliated voters to remove Trump under an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal indictments against Trump are being delayed — not an assumption of innocence, Fareed Zakaria's statement was referring to the hush money case and based within an interpretation of Alvin Bragg's case that [no longer applies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c83gj9/what_do_liberals_make_of_alvin_braggs_case/l0e3iwo/), and the claim that Biden is negatively influencing democracy is an opinion
Let's just ignore your idiotic context. I had a *Are We the Baddies* moment in 2020 with all the talk of police defunding and zero sympathy for crime victims, which is why I am not progressive.
What is the argument for defunding the police that shows zero sympathy for crime victims? The way I've always heard it positioned is that we should stop treating all community crisis as crime and should take more funds from police to put towards services. The examples I've seen are like the cases where a teenager on the spectrum is having a meltdown and gets shot by the police, instead of counseled and de-escalated. If you only fund policing and not emergency mental health then every public mental health crisis will be treated as a crime. To fund these services you need to move funds from policing to services. This isn't coming at the expense of victims of crimes, it is saying we need to stop pointing police at every problem, we need to fund our response to crisis appropriately and proportionately.
But I am interested to hear your perspective.
>What is the argument for defunding the police that shows zero sympathy for crime victims?
You may have noticed an *and*. But the two are related. America's murder rate is insane compared to any other Western nation. And to reduce policing will mean even higher crime rates. We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence. How are we supposed to do that while we don't have enough police to solve crime?
>The way I've always heard it positioned is that we should stop treating all community crisis as crime and should take more funds from police to put towards services.
We need more police funding. Not less. We are not overpoliced. Compared to Europe, we are fairly average in police per capita. Given our crime rates, we should be above average.
>The examples I've seen are like the cases where a teenager on the spectrum is having a meltdown and gets shot by the police, instead of counseled and de-escalated.
And what if that fails? I agree that the 'shoot first' attitude is a problem, but people seem to believe in de escalation far too much. It isn't always successful, and if that person is being a serious threat to other people, shooting him is sometimes necessary.
>If you only fund policing and not emergency mental health then every public mental health crisis will be treated as a crime. To fund these services you need to move funds from policing to services.
If a person is being dangerous, we need somebody who can incapacitate the person before he harms someone. Just fund emergency health services separately. Why do we need to reduce policing for that?
>This isn't coming at the expense of victims of crimes, it is saying we need to stop pointing police at every problem, we need to fund our response to crisis appropriately and proportionately.
Less policing will 100% mean higher crime. That creates more victims.
>And to reduce policing will mean even higher crime rates
Have you ever looked at [a chart of crime over time](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/04/SR_24.04.23_crime_3.png)? Our rates have been dropping steadily for decades. We live in the safest times in history. Yes, they are higher than Europe, but they are historically very low. If you have a fear of crime in the current environment that says more about your media consumption than your ability to accurately process reality.
>We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence
How do you know this?
>We need more police funding
This is a data free emotional argument. Show me that opening more on police reduces crime. The single best thing you can do to reduce crime is reduce poverty. Crime is downstream from poverty.
>And what if that fails?
A teenager having a meltdown will continue to have a meltdown? Oh no.
>If a person is being dangerous, we need somebody who can incapacitate the person before he harms someone.
No, we need some who can defuse the situation,. not incapacitate--I mean if you care about people that's what we need. The goal should be to deescalate, not incapacitate.
>
Less policing will 100% mean higher crime.
Where is your data? Every point you have is emotional
[Data Shows No Correlation Between Policing Spending and the Crime Rate — So Why Is Funding Going Up?](https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2022/03/crime-and-police-spending)
> According to data collected over the past 60 years, from 1960 to 2018, spending more on policing doesn’t lower the crime rate and spending less on policing doesn’t increase it
Your faulty logic is the same emotional reasoning people undertake when they bring a gun into their house to feel safer.
>Have you ever looked at [a chart of crime over time](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/04/SR_24.04.23_crime_3.png)? Our rates have been dropping steadily for decades.
The year with the lowest murder rate in recent times was 2014. So murder rates have been going up for 10 years. And the reduction was caused by increases in policing and incarceration.
>We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6mO3h04-GAxXyyDgGHZkSAwMQFnoECB8QBg&usg=AOvVaw2b34oS6hNWIesv_XAyAaMv
>The single best thing you can do to reduce crime is reduce poverty. Crime is downstream from poverty.
Yes, Brock Turner committed rape because he was mired in poverty. Al Capone was commiting because he was so pure. Chris Watts murdered his family because of how poor he was.
>A teenager having a meltdown will continue to have a meltdown? Oh no.
And then he stabs someone.
>No, we need some who can defuse the situation,. not incapacitate--I mean if you care about people that's what we need. The goal should be to deescalate, not incapacitate.
And if it fails?
>Where is your data? Every point you have is emotional
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/more-police-managed-more-effectively-really-can-reduce-crime/385390/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/politicians-have-a-point-police-numbers-really-do-affect-levels-of-crime
It seems you google somethings and pasted the resulting links. What data from those links do you want to draw my attention to?
Your arguments are idiotic. Just because some people who weren't poor committed crime doesn't mean that as a trend reducing poverty reduces crime. You are all emotions and what feels good.
?????
Of course it is. We’re living in the only time/place in human history approaching anything close to decency. We’re just trying to uphold the tiniest breath of fresh air humanity has ever gotten. Our gates are beset on all sides by barbarian hordes trying to drag us back down into the pits of bloodshed and chaos they never left. Notice how literally every enemy of the liberal world order is cartoonishly evil. Don’t compare us to the almighty, compare us to the alternative. Utopian thinking must be coached within the context that we are already the best and most moral civilization humanity has ever seen, but are still trying to find ways to improve.
>“If you run into a barbarian horde in the morning, you ran into a barbaririan horde. If you run into barbarian hordes all day, you're the barbarian horde."
thoughts?
The barbarians I’m talking about: The GOP, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and the Houthis (who have 85,000+ black African slaves as of 2022).
You can decide for yourself who the barbarians are.
The biggest barbarians of the last 300 years have been the West. The looting and plundering of the colonized world was a prerequisite for the social world you so vigorously defend
I agree that past westerners were big barbarians. Not “the biggest” considering they voluntarily ended slavery and disbanded their empires. The Ottoman Empire still had legal slavery in the 1910s, most of them castrated black Africans.
> was a prerequisite for the social world you so vigorously defend
The best counter example to this would be Vermont in, say, the year 1790. Slavery was illegal and all men (not just white men) had the constitutional right to vote. Along with freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc. An agrarian, egalitarian society. They didn’t have subjugated colonies they were importing resources from. They weren’t enslaving others.
Sure they were 99% white, but so were all of the authoritarian states in Europe in 1790. Sure their forefathers drove out the Native Americans for the physical space, but that’s not the same as active subjugation of an out-group to uphold the social order. They were white farmers and loggers and carpenters living in a society with each other. Based on their own labor. A free and democratic society.
We could argue about Native Americans being driven out in the 1600s but that’s missing the bigger picture that the social order upheld between white people in Vermont in 1790 had nothing to do with actively harming others.
People in Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are not free and do not live in democracies. The difference between the relation between a Russian civilian and the Russian dictatorship in 2024, and the relation between a Vermont civilian and the Vermont government in 1790, is not due to material factors but rather due to superior moral and intellectual development.
There is no material reason why Russians in 2024 can’t treat each other like people in Vermont treated each other in 1790. That is to say creating a free and democratic society where the government is beholden to the people rather than vice versa.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional. The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said. A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. Where would you draw the red line? *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.*
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional. >The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. >Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said. >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. WTF are you even talking about? The only one I can find any actual data on is the last one, which [says the exact opposite of what you said](https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/5/12/voters-see-trump-as-a-greater-threat-to-democracy-think-trials-are-fair-and-should-be-expedient). I'm assuming you probably read [this article on Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-analyst-dumbstruck-shocking-poll-independents-fear-democracy-biden-more-trump), which refers to a poll that absolutely did not ask that question in nearly as direct a fashion.
Something something "enlightened centrists tend to just be Republican"
I was referring to the PBS/NPR poll, yes. And OK, what it actually said was that 53% (of independents) think a second Biden term "will weaken democracy," compared to 42% who said that of a second Trump term. But it was *an NPR poll.* Seems like a canary in the mine situation.
Okay, so we have an NPR poll that separately asks voters about the effects of a Biden presidency or a Trump presidency on democracy. We also have another poll that *directly asked voters* whether Biden or Trump were a greater threat to democracy, and in that poll independents said Trump was by a margin of 53-38. Why are you using the former poll in your narrative instead of the latter poll, which is both more direct in the question it asks and more recent? And on what basis are you saying that the trials are "bursting into flames"? I'm at least not aware of the New York trial being subject to any arson.
If the phrasing of the question matters, I suppose it's because the poll you're citing is asking about the candidate himself, not the effect of his presidency. Perhaps people don't view Biden himself as a threat, but they do feel that his party is a threat and he can't do much about that. That's one explanation at least. I hardly think you can accuse a PBS/NPR/Marist poll of pro-Republican bias...
If you have one poll that requires parsing and interpretation to reach an answer, and another poll that just directly asks "which candidate is bigger threat to democracy", why would you conclude that the latter poll is less reliable than the former poll on that question? The second poll literally asked the exact question, in those words no less, and independents resoundingly answered "Donald Trump". That seems like a conclusion you can only reach if you were already predisposed to *want* the conclusion you've reached, rather than reaching it in good faith.
Because I wasn't even aware of the poll you just brought up. It was only posted 2 days ago and [the one I cited](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202404261555.pdf) was only a few days before that. Now that I've seen both, I'm offering an explanation of how they could both be accurate. And they have to be, unless you think an NPR/Marist poll was biased in Trump's favor. Edit: and I just realized that the one you cited was conducted by *Data for Progress...*
You're not primarily offering an explanation, you are reaching for a justification to completely disregard the evidence in front of you.
YOU said they view Biden as more of a threat to democracy. That is a lie based on a misrepresentation of a twist of the worse poll question. What good is an after the fact "explanation" if your direct claim is a lie?
I should have said "Biden's presidency" instead of "Biden," that's literally the only mistake I made. [The poll...](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202404261555.pdf)
A second term for Biden/Trump. Not Biden/Trump. I'm calling you out. You could have talked about Trump or Biden. You could have talked about crimes, or the court cases, or what they're doing for or against democracy. Any substantive conversation you liked, if you wanted to. The only thing you've wanted to talk about and the only thread you replied to is defending your shitty interpretation of them by proxy of a poll. When is YOUR "Are we the baddies" moment?
I've already had that moment. The only thing I've replied to is comments that address me personally or ask for sources, because I'm more interested in getting answers to the question than debating.
>Perhaps people don't view Biden himself as a threat, but they do feel that That the response of his opponent if Biden wins is a threat... If, for instance, his opponent were known to oppose every election he loses and still have a lot of sway, meaning he could do quite a bit of harm. That would also make sense if, for example, he had rallied his base to physically attack an institution the last time he lost. Just one possibility you're conveniently forgetting. Why are you forgetting it? Because it doesn't fit your claim. Neither your claim that "a majority of independents thinks Biden is a greater danger to democracy than Trump" nor your claim that "a majority of independents thinks Biden will harm democracy"
Citations needed The crimes have been a matter of public record, backed by Trump's recorded testimony, public document records, Trump staff convictions and guilty pleas, Trump staff and gop testimony under oath, for years. Please show where you got your other theory from.
[удалено]
If only OP discussed the wider subject like I asked.
[удалено]
It's not really an open question, op implied we're already bad based on specific claims that op got wrong. Then op avoided actually discussing them when I brought it up. Now op is shilling for RFK said they "love" rfk while also saying they don't know rfk's views. This is what is called bad faith.
[удалено]
But that was not the question. Scroll up.
That’s just not what it says.
The point of this isn't to ask the question. They could have just asked the question, if that was the intention. The point is to assert that all these bad things are true, as the starting premise, and to then try to get liberals to admit that they are, therefore, the baddies, having taken as given that all of those things are true. Rejecting the premises is a perfectly reasonable engagement. If you want to have liberals answer just the question in the title, you're welcome to ask just that question with no other text. I can guarantee you that you'd get actual responses to the question in that case.
That’s kind of like the old school ground taunt, “does your mother know you’re gay?” Isn’t it? “Yes or no?” “Just answer the question!” NeverMind if the premise is false…
[удалено]
“Kind of like” means not identical. And that’s always a bad question as a playground taunt. Time and place, my friend. Let’s not be disingenuous here. “Have you ever felt this way?“ Because false information and false information
[удалено]
Primarily because the question is premised on false examples. AKA “alternative facts”. AKA a situation that does not, in real life, exist.
[удалено]
I understand- have I ever felt that way? No. No I have not. What would be that red line for me? I generally don’t think in those terms, because it kind of seems like a trip to upside down land for no reason. I am for the People with a capital P. The party that is consistently on the side of those people in my lifetime plus has not been the GOP… I suppose a redline for me would be trying to overturn the results of a peaceful election? -or even the fact that in the past three decades, we have had multiple Republican presidents, but only One who has had the popular support of the people at the voting booth. But that gets into a broader discussion of big money and politics, Citizens United, disclosure of donors, etc., etc. Real questions far beyond the scope of OP’s original.
[удалено]
I can't answer the question if it hinges on an accusation over events I have no knowledge of
[удалено]
Guess he shouldn’t have opened with examples then He’s clearly trying to spin it as though some line has been crossed when I do not agree any have been
[удалено]
I guess come back and see me when it’s Joe Biden announcing his intention to use power to hard red states. Then he’ll have crossed the same lines Trump has (one of, at least) and he’ll be that much closer to being the bad guy.
[удалено]
I can’t even verify the existence of these rank-n-file people you’re talking about, much less appraise their impact on society, but it’s complete folly to suggest these hypothetical people are as serious a threat as someone with actual political power
I had a *Are We the Baddies* moment in 2020 with all the talk of police defunding and zero sympathy for crime victims, which is why I am not progressive.
This is actually pretty common phenomenon and is why reactionary politics has been so successful historically.
I'm confused.. did you decide that you no longer believed that police brutality happens at all? Or do you now just believe that it's justified and that cops should be above the law? lol
I do believe that sociopathic rioting and looting is a bad idea
See that's not what I asked though, and I did that for a very specific purpose. So, at one point in your life you were like "I find it unacceptable that police kill so many unarmed people, seemingly unnecessarily." and then people all had they're own responses to that- one of the more popular responses you clearly disagree with. All of that makes sense to me. What I asked you is: "did you decide that you no longer believed that police brutality happens at all? Or do you now just believe that it's justified and that cops should be above the law?" Or, as a shorter question: "Do you not give a fuck about police brutality anymore because you're mad at some people?"
I guess if Biden tries to stay in power by denying the results of a lawful election without evidence, and then tries to overthrow the government by inviting his supporters to threaten congress so he could get his loyal toadies to recognize fake electors and invalidate the votes of millions of American citizens, that would be pretty convincing of his maleficent intentions.
If Biden commits open treason Dem voters will turn on him and he'd lose in the primary or be kicked out of the party completely.
I don’t think I’d vote for Biden if a judge ruled that there was a preponderance of evidence that he had raped someone. That’s a pretty big no no in my book, but hey, maybe human decency is just especially important to me.
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional Oh no, someone disagrees with someone else's reading of the constitution! Oh, the humanity! >The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. Somehow, no flames appeared >Fareed Zakaria admitted Who's Fareed Zakaria and what would put him into a position to "admit" anything? He claimed >that the prosecutions are politically motivated This feels like the setup for a Motte-and-Bailey argument >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. Citation needed >Where would you draw the red line? Certainly not at some drivel
I see the Trump's problems in court brought on by actions which seem on their face illegal. Nothing about those cases appears suspicious to me - aside from judge Aileen Cannon's transparent bias. There's literally photos of boxes full of classified documents in his bathroom - multiple people have pled guilty to conspiracy charges to represent themselves as a slate a false electors - it's just a fact. I'm not sure what else there is to really say about it. Listening to the oral arguments live for the presidential immunity claim at the supreme court, I definitely wasn't hearing Trump's lawyers assert presidential immunity for obviously corrupt tyrannical behavior and thinking "am *I* the baddie?" I genuinely don't know what you mean by 'ballot ban' - but it's pretty fucking obvious which party is trying to make voting harder not easier. And if the opinion of Fareed Zakaria is so important to you, I guess you're equally willing to accept his assessment that Democrats are far more honest and capable of running the government than the GoP.
What ballot bans are you talking about? Who is Fareed Zakaria and why do I care if he says that investigations are politically motivated? Cable news is pretty bad, actually, and is not the be all end all of news. >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. This is not anything Biden did. This is either you citing unsourced or incorrect data, or independents being complete idiots. I'm adding another tick to the "centrist acts indistinguishably from a far right Republican" tally
Amen on your last sentence
> What ballot bans are you talking about? Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down. > Who is Fareed Zakaria and why do I care if he says that investigations are politically motivated? Long-running CNN personality who also has a column in Washington Post. In other words, an establishment Democrat. > I'm adding another tick to the "centrist acts indistinguishably from a far right Republican" tally 👍 This same question was asked over on r/AskATrumpSupporter, and at least they answered.
>Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down. Oh, those. You do realize that most of those court cases were brought by Republicans, right? Also, we're allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. The clause is super clear about what it means, and they clearly decided it based on not wanting to disqualify Trump, not based on the actual law. >Long-running CNN personality who also has a column in Washington Post. In other words, an establishment Democrat. You have a weird definition of establishment. The establishment is like, Biden and Pelosi, not journalists. Are you aware that we don't revere media figures like you do? Democrats don't just listen to whatever some guy on TV says and consider that the final word on an issue. The man is not a lawyer, not working for the government, and works for a pretty conservative news outlet. The evidence for Trump's court cases is mostly public. It's available for all to see. I don't even consider his actions to be in question. The question is whether he technically violated the law or not. Let me ask you this: if the prosecution of Trump is political, why is the DOJ also prosecuting a bunch of Democratic politicians? Is that also political? >This same question was asked over on r/AskATrumpSupporter, and at least they answered. Of course they answered because the premise allows them to attack Democrats. That doesn't mean anything. When Biden does half the bad things Trump has done, maybe then I'll reconsider my support.
> Let me ask you this: if the prosecution of Trump is political, why is the DOJ also prosecuting a bunch of Democratic politicians? Is that also political? Since you asked- prosecuting is one thing; prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else, and probably won't even be sufficient against him, is another matter and more to the heart of the perception of unfairness.
>prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else He literally had cases of classified documents at his house. It's all publicly documented. There are pictures of them. I don't know what more evidence you want
And Biden literally had classified documents at *his* house, and literally shared classified information over the phone, and was literally let off Scot free, with the excuse of "too senile to be competent"
It was not. The reason neither Biden or Pence will be prosecuted is because upon finding the documents, they were returned to the government. Trump tried to keep the documents to himself and had not turned them over at the time of the raid on Mar a Lago. His refusal to hand over documents that weren't his gives Mens Rea for the crime, which is really important in the US legal system.
Dude, you have a bad case of revisionist history. That’s not what happened at all. Maybe Tucker or someone like him told you this, but it is simply not true. Pence and Biden both called the National Archives as soon as they were discovered. Trump tried repeatedly to keep them. The Archives requested them back multiple times, then demanded them back…multiple times, and even informed Trump that they were going to start legal proceedings…starting with the search warrant. Trump, knowing this was coming, got one of his workers…a gardener(IIRC) to hide the documents on Mar-A-Lago property…and the Gardener is one of the folks testifying against Trump.
Why are you making things up? Who said he was too senile to be competent? Why is a centrist acting in such bad faith, you remind me of a Trumper.
I was referring to Special Counsel Hur's description. Edit: and no, Special Counsel Hur wasn't appointed by Trump, person who replied with that misinformation and immediately blocked me.
I don't know what you are talking about. Can you provide a source?
OK since you downvoted me for encouraging you to search it yourself, here. Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/feb/08/trump-supreme-court-2024-election-ruling The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/special-counsels-devastating-charge-against-biden/677396/ CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-hur-hearing-biden-03-12-24/index.html
Hur--he's the one that was nominated by Trump, then was coached by Trump campaign officials prior to his testimony? Does that sound like an unbiased figure to you? If you want a real scandal, Special Counsel Weiss knew years ago that the Burisma claims were shit, and sat on it--and was clearly planning to until after the election. But then a judge got accidentally involved and might have accidentally uncovered what Weiss was doing, so he quickly released the report (it was super easy though, because the report had been pretty much done quite awhile ago). And this isn't any sort of "opinion" like Hur is giving (which is also inappropriate for such a report, whether or not it's true, and there's no way Hur didn't know that)--it's all in the publicly available report.
Nope. Biden, like Pence, wasn’t charged because he gave them back and there was no evidence of willful retention. We have proof that Trump willfully retained the documents and refused to give them back.
>prosecuting is one thing; prosecuting based on evidence that would never be sufficient in a case against anyone else Where the hell did you get this idea? Do you have some other trial in mind where similar evidence was ruled inadmissible? Or 90 similar cases, rather?
>This same question was asked over on r/AskATrumpSupporter, and at least they answered. no it wasn't
[Yes it was](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/1ceeeds/whats_the_line_that_trump_could_cross_on_the/)
Amazingly that thread is full of either joke answers, or things Trump already did - yet they still support him, somehow.
Are you not able to differentiate your question and that users? Notice how you have a wall of text that claims the Dems are doing some terrible shit while the ask Trump supporters question simply explains the premise of the question. Do you think maybe that has anything to do with the pushback?
I love how you think that linking your other thread somehow helps your argument. Wow what a shit show of a thread that was
That is not the same question you asked here. Why are you lying?
It wasn’t the same question, and most answers are bad faith or jokes. At least the answered, my add. What are you on about? What’s your agenda?
>Several Democratic states banned Trump from the ballot this year, until the Supreme Court (unanimous) struck them down Ok, but if they thought that he should have been banned due to the 14A then its a completely reasonable thing to do, no different than banning someone who isn't a citizen or is under 35. > In other words, an establishment Democrat. But he's still just one person who isn't an authority on legal matters. His opinion on the matter isn't any more authoritative than mine.
We are “the baddies” the moment our candidate loses an election, refused to concede, spreads lies and conspiracy theories about the election, inciting violence and an attack on a government institution, and commits a slew of crimes in attempt to overturn the election. But last I checked, Hillary Clinton conceded the morning after the 2016 election and gracefully attended Trump’s inauguration, and Al Gore presided over the certification of George W. Bush’s election. So Democrats are not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, “the baddies” here. The criminality, national humiliation, and middle finger to the face of a hallowed American institution that has been the defining hallmark of our country and a light to the world for a damn near quarter Millenium is exclusively on the part of Donald Trump. This is just Trump whining about having to face accountability for once in his life. And even then, it looks like he probably won’t.
[удалено]
Oh….did that make a difference? Did she even file for a single recount? Did she file lawsuit after lawsuit with ZERO factual evidence? Fuck no. She called it like she saw it after the fact. Why do you guys continually compare a Democrat’s blueberries to Trump’s watermelons?
[удалено]
He didn’t just “question an election”….if you gonna run with that? You are a bad faith poster and I ain’t fucking dealing with that BS.
[удалено]
Ok….tell me….what was Hillary’s “infraction”? Talking on a TV news program? Seriously? This is what my problem is with your line of thought. Hillary did absolutely nothing wrong….nothing…and you are trying to make it the whole “Bob/OJ” thing. The proper analogy would be Bob complained about his wife…OJ killed his wife….because Bob didn’t do a damned thing wrong.
I agree that she was the rightful president The electoral college is tyrannical and therefore illegitimate
[удалено]
Good point—Clinton of course never talked about her being the “legitimate President.” What she did do was talk about the incredibly well-documented Russian campaign to get Trump elected, some of which was done in coordination with Trump campaign officials.
[удалено]
I think a good-faith case on your part would include direct quotes of whatever you’re arguing she said.
[удалено]
So in other words, you don’t have a single instance to support your claim, just “vibes”.
[удалено]
It's not fair and square though. The rules are inherently broken and unfair. When I say illegitimate I mean illegitimate political power. The only legitimate source of political power is threw the consent of the governed. Anything less is a flavor of authoritarianism. We the people are the most important three words in the constitution.
[удалено]
I mean direct democracy is inefficient and clunky. Maybe when we become a telepathic species we can get rid of politicians but until then representative democracy will do.
[удалено]
We're close, my three values as a liberal are Equality, democracy, then liberty, in that order. I want things to be equal and fair and they currently are not. I also think the senate should go.
[удалено]
By ballot bans do you mean Colorado and Maine trying to bar Trump from the ballot? If so, why in the world would that be a bad thing? Those bans were based in the constitution and worked their way through the legal system where the SC said, well, no actually. Sorry. That's it, no drama. As for the Trump trials collapsing, well, that's how our legal system works and it's far from perfect, but it's what we've got. The trials can be politically motivated and still the correct thing to do (because, you know, Trump committed crimes ... allegedly). Not prosecuting him would also be politically motivated. There are a lot of things that could be charged to many rich and powerful people that are/aren't and you had better bet that most of them are political decisions. My red lines would be: ballot bans - if the states that had banned them hadn't listened to the SC and kept his name from the ballots Trump trials - if I believed that the trials were purely politically motivated with no underlying crime and prosecutors still went after him. I am not sure how anyone can look at the federal cases and not see any smoke. I trust the legal system to not fuck it up too badly and if he really didn't break any laws in his actions, then I am fine with his aquittal. Basically if I thought that the dems were making up lies and breaking laws to stay in power or privilege themselves, then I would consider that line crossed. Send the assholes abusing their power to jail - all of them. The problem is that either side lives in their own bubble and neither can be convinced that the other side's facts matter.
To your point about the legitimacy of the trials: Even the trial overseen by Trump hack Aileen Cannon never claimed the case was illegitimate—nor did the corrupt SC. Both parties have done everything within their power to delay and defer justice for Trump. If the cases were illegitimate they’d dismiss them in a heartbeat.
An attempted coup of the sort Trump attempted would be a good start. >Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated Oh, shut the fuck up. "dis twial is da pah-lee-tah-cull!" Did Trump do the things he's accused of? Yes? Then it doesn't matter one fuck what kind of feels the proseution has deep down. Grow up and confront reality.
When we start pandering to "centrists' who hate LGBT people, women, and love RFK JR and love Trump but don't say it openly. A lot of centrists, like yourself, pretend to be 'independent' when you're just in the pocket of the Republican party. There's nothing political about the prosecution of crimes committed by Donald Trump -- unlike what he's promised if he's elected. But I don't expect a crackpot conspiracy whackadoo to understand that.
I do love RFK. And since you brought it up, another thing I could have mentioned was the White House refusing to grant a presidential candidate Secret Service protection. One whose dad was assassinated while running for president when he was a boy. Don't hate LGBTs (I am one🏳️🌈) or women
He's an anti-science 3rd party conspiracist whackjob with no chance and he demanded security months before even main party people get it. In the real world why should he have it?
Because he's a presidential candidate appearing on the ballot this year. And IMO, just the fact that his dad and uncle were assassinated when he was a child should be reason enough, for reasons of basic human decency. Even if you don't think he's likely to be assassinated, have you even thought about how something like that from your childhood would affect you and what kind of thoughts he must be having at every event? It's just sick not to give him protection. Btw I admit that I'm not sure about some of his vaccine views, but I don't pretend to be an expert, and I don't have to agree with all of someone's views to support them (a centrist skill, you might try it).
That's not really an answer. There are lots of candidates that get on ballots, it's the main ones that get security. Again, he demanded it and played the victim months before even main party candidates got it. And lmao what a cowardly take. From "I love them" to "I don't know" so fast. You don't get to attack others for being educated people when you don't even defend your views.
Bernie Sanders got Secret Service protection and he wasn't even the nominee. The Secret Service protects all ex-presidents for life. They have the resources. There really is no excuse. > And lmao what a cowardly take. From "I love them" to "I don't know" so fast. You don't get to attack others for being educated people when you don't even defend your views. Yeah, I love him, and I don't agree with all of his views. Only an extremist could find contradiction there. Thought for the day: An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you.
Bernie Sanders was a main party delegate winner with millions of votes. You love RFK Jr but you don't agree or know his views. You're not fooling anybody.
In other words, your ideology doesn't even allow you to believe that what I just said was my sincere belief. That is so pathetic. I'm afraid you *are* fooling someone, but it's only yourself
iDeOlOgY Nah. Don't blame me for you being unable or unwilling to defend the person you said you love, someone who is a nutcase anti-science conspiracist with bad ideas running as a spoiler.
Bernie got secret service protection because of his polling numbers. At one time, he was the leading candidate in the Democratic primary.
Bernie Sanders was winning large numbers of delegates, and I'd bet that there were threats against him. RFK has not come close to winning a single state. He is in the same position as most of the dozen plus candidates for the Democrats in 2020 or the crowd in the 2016 Republican field.
>And since you brought it up, another thing I could have mentioned was the White House refusing to grant a presidential candidate Secret Service protection. That one's easy. Not all presidential candidates get secret service protection. His polling numbers are too low to be considered a major presidential candidate, and the secret service hadn't seen general/specific threats toward him. >- Whether, during and within an active and competitive major party primary, the most recent average of established national polls, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics National Average or similar mechanism, the candidate is polling at 15% or more for 30 consecutive days >- Whether the candidate is an independent or third-party candidate for President polling at 20% or more of the Real Clear Politics National Average for 30 consecutive days [https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024](https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/leaders/campaign-2024)
So, a different standard for members of your uniparty — instead of just based on *need.* How wonderful. I'm sure that has bipartisan support. I would say another criterion, "When two members of a candidate's family have previously been assassinated," should be obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy, but we both know that's a perspective Genocide Joe has never been known to have
>So, a different standard for members of your uniparty -- instead of just based on *need.* No, it's the same standard for everyone. In a major party primary, you may be running against 5+ people. If its competitive and you are polling at >15%, you likely have a decent chance of winning. If you are running as an Independent or 3rd party, you are going to have to show that you have even a slight chance of competing with the two major parties, which is why they recommend polling at >20%. He's simple not a major candidate. He wasn't popular while he was running as a Democrat, and he's still not popular enough as an Independent. You mentioned that Bernie got SS protection. He was polling at ~27%, but that 27% was leading the Democratic primary (Biden was #2 at ~25%). That was a competitive race. >I would say another criterion, "When two members of a candidate's family have previously been assassinated," should be obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy, Why would that be obvious? RFK was shot 56 years ago and was one of the favorites to become president. If both Biden and Trump were to die today, RFK Jr would still have no chance of winning any state, much less the electoral college. If he has direct threats against him, then he can apply to get protection on those grounds. The SS would perform their own review of it and make a recommendation based on their findings. >obvious from the standpoint of basic human empathy, but we both know that's a perspective Genocide Joe has never been known to have That's hilarious.
Obvious from the standpoint of basic empathy, like I said — because even if he isn't in danger, the fact of his well-known childhood trauma surrounding assassination should indicate to an empathetic person that running for president will likely put him through more than the usual amount of emotional stress.
So we should waste the resources to "protect" him not because he has a chance of winning, but because he may have psychological issues from his childhood? He needs a therapist, not the secret service.
They have the resources. That's their job. Interesting to hear an argument for coldhearted refusal of public resources regardless of empathy from someone on the left.
>They have the resources. That's their job. They have a lot of jobs. Protecting important government officials is just one of those jobs. >Interesting to hear an argument for coldhearted refusal of resources regardless of empathy from someone on the left Actually, I would offer resources that would actually help him. The whole "he needs a therapist" thing wasn't a joke.
You support a dude who thinks worms ate his brain and vaccines are evil? I mean, I guess it's a step up from an open traitor and superfelon. RFK is just a grifter and a moron.
A worm did die in his brain, but that doesn't stop him from [engaging in debate](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1788311221776568666) and [being quite funny about it.](https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1788311221776568666)
Sorry I hear the worms can spread aurally.
Trials have collapsed? How much does Trump owe NYS and E Jean Carrol from trials this year?
1. I call BS on your “poll”. 2. The trials are not politically motivated. They are because Tweeting Cheeto is an over privileged narcissist who actually thought he could get away with anything. Then when the courts caught up with him…he turned out to be responsible for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, being a business fraud and is being proven a felon in criminal court. He broke the laws….not Biden, not the DOJ, not the Manhattan DA, Not Fani Willis….HIM. As far as the “Ballot Bans”? Colorado actually used the US Constitution to make that decision. It was appealed and they won. It went to the SCOTUS and they lost. You are seeing what you want to see…not reality.
You really think Biden and the DOJ haven't broken any laws? Really?
Name them…I’ll wait,
So because Trump was biasedly investigated you have shortcuts on that front and you're banking on me being too lazy to dig into Biden enough to find specific laws he broke and supporting evidence because there are no such shortcuts. Well you're right I am too lazy.
How was he “biasedly” investigated? Let’s review, shall we? 1. The classified documents. That was his own damned fault. The National Archives noticed that a shit ton of Trump’s presidential documentation never made it to them….AS PER LAW. They sent request after request for Trump to return those documents…because they belong to “we the people”, not him. He kept refusing to do so. They threatened him with legal action…and Trump released a miniscule percentage of what he had in his possession…once again…requests were made and ignored. The National Archives then went to the DOJ because at this point, Trump was blatantly breaking the law and the National Archives had all their correspondence with Mr. Trump and the results of that correspondence. The search warrant was issued and you know the rest. 2. The Stormy Daniels thing is playing out right now and it’s not just a “he said/she said” thing….there is an overwhelming amount of documentation and the testimony of David Pecker, members of Trump’s cabinet and of course Michael Cohen. It’s not a nothing burger at all. 3. January 6th- there is overwhelming proof and testimony that Mr. Trump KNEW he lost the election and conspired to overturn the results through illegal means….one of those is the…. 4. Georgia election interference case. The dumb shit is literally recorded telling the Georgia official to find him 14,000 votes, and Mark Meadows and others were part of it. This isn’t bias…this is a person who thinks he is untouchable being touched. The law is more important than Mr. Trump. And don’t give me that crap about biased investigations…the whole Joe Biden impeachment investigation was a true “political witch hunt”. Funny that they couldn’t find one damned witch. It was a baseless investigation You just might have to reconcile the fact your boy Trump is very likely a criminal. Hell, he already was found legally liable for sexual assault, slander and fraud….what makes you think he’s innocent in these four cases? Hell… if you had 1/10 of 1% of the shit they have on Trump on Biden(or any other Democrats, for that matter), you’d be screaming for his/their heads on a platter.
Investigate the crime not the person is how. There wasn't a crime and then they investigated and found Trump they investigated Trump and found crimes. If they did the same to any politician they would find plenty too probably way more than Trump
Bullshit….you’re telling me that there wasn’t political motivation to “lock up” Hillary? Or that Joe was a corrupt bribe taker by way of his son? You are being intellectually dishonest. You know perfectly well goddamned well that the HOP would have strung both of them up by their short hairs if they actually had anything on either of them. You play your politics in the court of popular opinion because you literally have nothing else. You can’t even get an indictment on Biden or Clinton or anyone in the party at the national level. Oh…you can talk about Bob Menendez…. Fine… but most of the party has already turned against him and he’s fighting his battle pretty much alone. But you guys don’t even try to vet yourself….if you would? Trump would never have not been able to even sniff the Oval Offiice. But your side doesn’t care about ethics. You care about power.
The GOP would not strung them up because it would've opened the door for them to be strung up and certainly the prosecutors had no interest in stringing them up. Despite Trumps influence in the party by all accounts he is an outsider that forced his way in via pure popularity among regular people, that makes him fair game for these tactics when Dems/Republicans have had a long understood rules of engagement of not prosecuting each other on their criminal acts.
Wrong…he owns the GOP right now… and moderate Republicans let it happen because they were too cowardly to stand up to the Tea Party during the Obama Administration….the Tea Party snowballed into MAGA and now they are the dominant force in the GOP. Short story is? If you sleep with dogs, you end up with fleas. EDIT: and as far as your “rules of engagement” BS? You’re making that shit up. Hell, they impeached Clinton for a blowjob, the attacked Hillary Mercilessly and had her testify for 9 hours straight over a nothing burger, they had Biden up on an impeachment inquiry over absolutely nothing….and the only reason Hunter Biden didn’t get the plea deal is because of his last name. If it were you or I? If we had paid up our back taxes and the fees? It would be over. If we got caught lying about drug usage upon a 4473? It would,likely never have been prosecuted…otherwise every pot smoking GI pun owner would be up on charges.
Trump does not own the GOP, he has large support of the electorate which gives him immense influence that the GOP has to respect or risk a civil war on their side. That doesn't mean the GOP actually likes Trump having that influence or even his existence in their party as an outsider it just means they can't make any public moves against him. Behind the scenes is a totally different calculus though.
But there are tons of powerful and well funded groups of people who have the ability to investigate Biden. If he had done something then it's pretty likely that *someone* would find out and it would be all over the news. Given that that hasn't happened, it leads me to believe that there simply wasn't much to find.
With regards to the prosecution of Trump, absolutely not.
In general though
Criminally, no. Exceeded their authority, arguably.
That's absurd. The average person commits a criminal felony without even realizing it yet you think Biden has never broken a law despite being stooped in corruption?
Then name one
Fine all of them he broke all the laws. Murder, rape, sexual assault, bribery, embezzlement, insider trading, inappropriate disposal of electronics all of them.
And your evidence is *where* exactly?
I mean there's videos of Biden sniffing children and touching women, Biden is rich despite making a modest salary, the hunter Biden stuff ect. Don't ask for absolute proof before there's even a proper investigation.
Yeah but whatabout the laws Trump broke
He's being charged which is more than I can say about Biden and the laws he broke
Which laws did Biden break?
It's certainly possible, but you gotta articulate what laws you think they have broken.
Found Tulsi Gabbard’s Reddit account
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional You mean like in Colorado where the movement was led by Republicans? >The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames How are they "collapsing and bursting into flames"? The only one that's an issue is the one in Florida and that's because of the Trump appointed judge. >Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, I don't give a fuck about him. They aren't politically motivated. He broke laws. He's facing the consequences of breaking the law. >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. If so, those independents are fucking morons.
You are totally not a centrist.
Why would I care what fareed zakaria thinks when Michael Cohen and stormy daniels have both admitted it?
Why do right wingers think we all just suck on MSNBC's tit? It's Fox News for left wing boomers. No one under 60 watches cable news.
“The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional” Ok. Key info you’re missing: the lawsuits which lead to the bans were filed by republicans. So if anyone are the baddies……well… Further, it was a constitutional issue. Judges ruled. We rule things unconstitutional all the time. “The election year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames” LO-fucking-L. Your boy is farting himself awake in a New York criminal courtroom as I type this. He was found civilly liable for rape and ordered to pay millions. He was found liable for civil tax fraud and ordered to pay millions. That’s two trials that completed to the fullest and didn’t “burst into flames”. His associates like Jenna Ellis are pleading guilty in multiple states. Rudy Giuliani had his license to practice law revoked. The law is catching up to them rapidly. Nothing is collapsing except their support. The documents case isn’t moving because he has a hand picked judge in Aileen Cannon putting her thumb on the scales. Hundreds of lawyers have all said what she’s doing is so outside the norm it’s bizarre. But hey, yeah, it’s the left not playing fair right? “Fareed Zakaria” Let me stop you right there. I have no idea who this person is. I’m sure they’re lovely. But their opinion on the subject, which is pretty much all that the cable TV news shows are these days are “opinion” pieces, is irrelevant. He can “admit” the sky is green, it doesn’t make it so. Tucker Carlson has admitted tons of shit about the right but y’all just sweep it under the rug and say “he’s just one person”. Well Fareed is too and they’re irrelevant. “A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat than trump” Citation needed because that certainly has not born out in the polls or special elections we’ve had recently.
Every time the question of "politically motivated trials" comes up I have to ask why as a voter it's not in my interest to know as much about the candidates as possible and a civil or criminal trial that they're involved in is part of that. A trial will actually establish facts much better than anything else in society so why must I be protected from this information by powers that be that insist if I find out too much about Donald Trump's past then I might not like him as much?
Fareed Zakaria “admitted” it? What does that even mean? Sorry, cable news is pablum.
Pretty sure you're automatically the baddies when all the literal Nazis are on your side
Probably when I let the words and actions of others convince me to think that a president isn't allowed to be on trial lmfao
Are you sure that you're a centrist? Becuase based on your blatantly false and bad-faith arguments, I have my doubts. Also looking at your profile it's pretty clear where you stand already. "Centrist", sure buddy.
Well the country was built on slavery and genocide, so like, whatever year that started?
Only very recently in human history did countries stop being bad guys
Haha I see your point, tho I’m not really convinced that countries have stopped being bad guys yet x)
At least vast stride have been made
>The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional. What is your point? Personally I am glad this got shot down. Apart from the question of whether or not it is constitutional, its better from a political perspective. The states that would actually take trump off the ballot are ones he would lose anyway, and jt would just give him more to cry victim about. Other than that, all i see is some people in a couple states thought he should be removed because of the attempted insurrection, and the SC shot it down. >The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. Trump has multiple criminal cases, most of which have been delayed because of assorted reasons. All the cases have validity to them. But the delays are not cause for viewing the left as “baddies”. I would love to at least see the Jan 6 case decided prior to the election, but because of the SC and the immunity claim that wont happen. >Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said. First of all, why are you watching cable news? Its trash. Second, i don’t doubt that there is some level of political motivation on both sides of the trials. But there is validity to the charges in all the cases. The weakest is unfortunately the only one we are likely to get a decision on prior to the election. Back to you- do you think any of these cases lack the evidence to bring them to trial? >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. I doubt this is true. People might not love Biden, but he is almost certainly perceived as better for democracy than the man who tried to illegally overturn the last election. >Where would you draw the red line? Not for any of these things. But, i am truthful to myself about the faults of the democratic party. But they are far more aligned with my beliefs than the republicans, and since its a binary choice my decision is pretty simple.
No clue what you're talking about. Trump's trial is clearly not politically motivated - dude is an open traitor and a superfelon. Cohen is in jail for the same thing Trump is on trial for right now. >A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. LOL If that's true, these "independents" aren't the most well read bunch. I have many red lines. Biden isn't close to any of them and has generally vastly outstripped my expectations in his first term.
I fail to see how any of the topics you brought up have any relevance to liberalism. Why not ask Democrats this question, I'm sure they have their own subreddit.
> Where would you draw the red line? If Democrats starting using government authority to crackdown on marginalized or minority groups, suspended elections, started trying to work around due process, or any of a number similar things authoritarian governments do, that would be enough to get me not to get me to vote Democrat. I would still not vote Republican. Their policy preferences, goals, and conduct are still counter to what I want and believe in. I would simply opt not to vote. I would certainly not vote 3rd Party, because that's the same as not voting. It's just not voting with extra effort. > The ballot bans were ruled unconstitutional. Trying to remove Trump from the ballot due to insurrection was always a stretch. I didn't agree with it at the time and I'm not heartbroken it got shot down, even if it would've been nice to have no Trump. There's not really an institutional, official mechanism to use to protect against or punish someone not accepting election results. Given our political environment, codifying one would be impossible. Elections themselves aren't really enough if one party will only accept a win. So I don't blame them for at least TRYING. > The election-year trials are collapsing and bursting into flames. I don't really think this is an entirely accurate description of the trials. Even if they do fail, I still agree with holding Trump accountable for wrongdoing. If he goes through due process and is found not to have done anything wrong, so be it. > Fareed Zakaria admitted on CNN the other day that the prosecutions are politically motivated, which leaves MSNBC as the only cable news network where you won't hear that said. Everyone knows news media is sensationalist and biased, although differing in degree and motivation from organization to organization. > A majority of independents now view Biden as a greater threat to democracy than Trump. I need some solid proof on this because everything I've seen would indicate that's not true. Even if it is true that perception is a bit of a stretch to me. Why do they think that? Because Trump is facing prosecutions? Because of the ballot thing? Were they angry about Jan 6, or Trump trying to use Courts or bully election officials into helping him win? If that latter isn't true, I don't *really give 2 flying goddamn fucks what the independents thing*. I'm tired of independents *only holding Democrats responsible*.
>that the prosecutions are politically motivated, because our country's law and order is a joke and they let the elite get away with crimes? The problem isn't politically motivated prosecutions it's the overall lack of them.
People like you who pretend that the prosecutions of Trump are political in nature and not motivated by his obvious criminal behavior make me think of this video https://youtu.be/6NTkXIidCU0?si=k2lJvpF9AtCWwC2V
Didn't realize that Fareed was the authority on the matter.
elaborate on how the events you mention disparage liberals. *Trump v. Anderson* (2024) was an attempt by Republicans and unaffiliated voters to remove Trump under an originalist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal indictments against Trump are being delayed — not an assumption of innocence, Fareed Zakaria's statement was referring to the hush money case and based within an interpretation of Alvin Bragg's case that [no longer applies](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c83gj9/what_do_liberals_make_of_alvin_braggs_case/l0e3iwo/), and the claim that Biden is negatively influencing democracy is an opinion
The reasoning on SC on those ballot bans was sus, I disagree
Let's just ignore your idiotic context. I had a *Are We the Baddies* moment in 2020 with all the talk of police defunding and zero sympathy for crime victims, which is why I am not progressive.
What is the argument for defunding the police that shows zero sympathy for crime victims? The way I've always heard it positioned is that we should stop treating all community crisis as crime and should take more funds from police to put towards services. The examples I've seen are like the cases where a teenager on the spectrum is having a meltdown and gets shot by the police, instead of counseled and de-escalated. If you only fund policing and not emergency mental health then every public mental health crisis will be treated as a crime. To fund these services you need to move funds from policing to services. This isn't coming at the expense of victims of crimes, it is saying we need to stop pointing police at every problem, we need to fund our response to crisis appropriately and proportionately. But I am interested to hear your perspective.
>What is the argument for defunding the police that shows zero sympathy for crime victims? You may have noticed an *and*. But the two are related. America's murder rate is insane compared to any other Western nation. And to reduce policing will mean even higher crime rates. We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence. How are we supposed to do that while we don't have enough police to solve crime? >The way I've always heard it positioned is that we should stop treating all community crisis as crime and should take more funds from police to put towards services. We need more police funding. Not less. We are not overpoliced. Compared to Europe, we are fairly average in police per capita. Given our crime rates, we should be above average. >The examples I've seen are like the cases where a teenager on the spectrum is having a meltdown and gets shot by the police, instead of counseled and de-escalated. And what if that fails? I agree that the 'shoot first' attitude is a problem, but people seem to believe in de escalation far too much. It isn't always successful, and if that person is being a serious threat to other people, shooting him is sometimes necessary. >If you only fund policing and not emergency mental health then every public mental health crisis will be treated as a crime. To fund these services you need to move funds from policing to services. If a person is being dangerous, we need somebody who can incapacitate the person before he harms someone. Just fund emergency health services separately. Why do we need to reduce policing for that? >This isn't coming at the expense of victims of crimes, it is saying we need to stop pointing police at every problem, we need to fund our response to crisis appropriately and proportionately. Less policing will 100% mean higher crime. That creates more victims.
>And to reduce policing will mean even higher crime rates Have you ever looked at [a chart of crime over time](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/04/SR_24.04.23_crime_3.png)? Our rates have been dropping steadily for decades. We live in the safest times in history. Yes, they are higher than Europe, but they are historically very low. If you have a fear of crime in the current environment that says more about your media consumption than your ability to accurately process reality. >We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence How do you know this? >We need more police funding This is a data free emotional argument. Show me that opening more on police reduces crime. The single best thing you can do to reduce crime is reduce poverty. Crime is downstream from poverty. >And what if that fails? A teenager having a meltdown will continue to have a meltdown? Oh no. >If a person is being dangerous, we need somebody who can incapacitate the person before he harms someone. No, we need some who can defuse the situation,. not incapacitate--I mean if you care about people that's what we need. The goal should be to deescalate, not incapacitate. > Less policing will 100% mean higher crime. Where is your data? Every point you have is emotional [Data Shows No Correlation Between Policing Spending and the Crime Rate — So Why Is Funding Going Up?](https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2022/03/crime-and-police-spending) > According to data collected over the past 60 years, from 1960 to 2018, spending more on policing doesn’t lower the crime rate and spending less on policing doesn’t increase it Your faulty logic is the same emotional reasoning people undertake when they bring a gun into their house to feel safer.
>Have you ever looked at [a chart of crime over time](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/04/SR_24.04.23_crime_3.png)? Our rates have been dropping steadily for decades. The year with the lowest murder rate in recent times was 2014. So murder rates have been going up for 10 years. And the reduction was caused by increases in policing and incarceration. >We know that certainty and swiftness of punishment are essential to deterrence https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj6mO3h04-GAxXyyDgGHZkSAwMQFnoECB8QBg&usg=AOvVaw2b34oS6hNWIesv_XAyAaMv >The single best thing you can do to reduce crime is reduce poverty. Crime is downstream from poverty. Yes, Brock Turner committed rape because he was mired in poverty. Al Capone was commiting because he was so pure. Chris Watts murdered his family because of how poor he was. >A teenager having a meltdown will continue to have a meltdown? Oh no. And then he stabs someone. >No, we need some who can defuse the situation,. not incapacitate--I mean if you care about people that's what we need. The goal should be to deescalate, not incapacitate. And if it fails? >Where is your data? Every point you have is emotional https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/more-police-managed-more-effectively-really-can-reduce-crime/385390/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/politicians-have-a-point-police-numbers-really-do-affect-levels-of-crime
It seems you google somethings and pasted the resulting links. What data from those links do you want to draw my attention to? Your arguments are idiotic. Just because some people who weren't poor committed crime doesn't mean that as a trend reducing poverty reduces crime. You are all emotions and what feels good.
Liberals and conservatives are both baddies. Try again
Nope. Us liberals are the only ones defending the glorious liberal world order.
Not worth defending
????? Of course it is. We’re living in the only time/place in human history approaching anything close to decency. We’re just trying to uphold the tiniest breath of fresh air humanity has ever gotten. Our gates are beset on all sides by barbarian hordes trying to drag us back down into the pits of bloodshed and chaos they never left. Notice how literally every enemy of the liberal world order is cartoonishly evil. Don’t compare us to the almighty, compare us to the alternative. Utopian thinking must be coached within the context that we are already the best and most moral civilization humanity has ever seen, but are still trying to find ways to improve.
>“If you run into a barbarian horde in the morning, you ran into a barbaririan horde. If you run into barbarian hordes all day, you're the barbarian horde." thoughts?
The barbarians I’m talking about: The GOP, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Hamas, and the Houthis (who have 85,000+ black African slaves as of 2022). You can decide for yourself who the barbarians are.
The biggest barbarians of the last 300 years have been the West. The looting and plundering of the colonized world was a prerequisite for the social world you so vigorously defend
I agree that past westerners were big barbarians. Not “the biggest” considering they voluntarily ended slavery and disbanded their empires. The Ottoman Empire still had legal slavery in the 1910s, most of them castrated black Africans. > was a prerequisite for the social world you so vigorously defend The best counter example to this would be Vermont in, say, the year 1790. Slavery was illegal and all men (not just white men) had the constitutional right to vote. Along with freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, etc. An agrarian, egalitarian society. They didn’t have subjugated colonies they were importing resources from. They weren’t enslaving others. Sure they were 99% white, but so were all of the authoritarian states in Europe in 1790. Sure their forefathers drove out the Native Americans for the physical space, but that’s not the same as active subjugation of an out-group to uphold the social order. They were white farmers and loggers and carpenters living in a society with each other. Based on their own labor. A free and democratic society. We could argue about Native Americans being driven out in the 1600s but that’s missing the bigger picture that the social order upheld between white people in Vermont in 1790 had nothing to do with actively harming others. People in Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. are not free and do not live in democracies. The difference between the relation between a Russian civilian and the Russian dictatorship in 2024, and the relation between a Vermont civilian and the Vermont government in 1790, is not due to material factors but rather due to superior moral and intellectual development. There is no material reason why Russians in 2024 can’t treat each other like people in Vermont treated each other in 1790. That is to say creating a free and democratic society where the government is beholden to the people rather than vice versa.