Reblogged:The Impotence of 'Owning' Trump

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Over at Sp!ked, Jenny Holland offers the kind of level-headed assessment of the legally dubious Trump hush money verdict that is impossible to get from American media, which is almost all blindly angry at Trump, or blindly loyal to him:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (Image by CmdrDan, via Wikimedia Commons, license.)

The media elites [of the left] have vastly misjudged the public mood here. The legal hounding of Trump is only making his base more committed to him. Ever the showman, Trump wasted no time in turning this miscarriage of justice into an opportunity to bolster his brand, which has now expanded to include the beloved American archetypes of outlaw and folk hero. Immediately after the verdict was announced, Trump's fundraising website crashed, apparently due to an influx of donations.

Clearly, it will take more than a few trumped-up charges to dull Trump's appeal. America's political and media classes have been waging a covert war on working-class citizens for decades now. But convicting on the flimsiest of charges a man who is popular among millions of working Americans has brought that war out into the open. 'If they can get Trump', I can hear blue-collar men and women across the nation saying to each other right now, 'they can get anyone'.

Earlier, Holland notes that "there are plenty of legitimate reasons not to want [Trump] anywhere near the White House again."

Among these are the legitimate prosecutions the Democrats should have taken up years ago, and which will now be undermined if they ever see the light of day in time to make a difference.

I guess you could say The libs owned Trump on this one, the same way he "owned" them while he was President.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[Boydstun]

It is not only the "media elites [of the left]" that have turned their intelligence against Trump. Didn't you hear about his reception at the Libertarian Party national convention last month?

The article at Spiked launches with "the Trump show trial", and that hardly portends a "level-headed assessment."

It has indeed taken a while for we the intellectuals to absorb how really vulnerable to con men were the members of the lowest third of our high school class and how far the love of America as a democratic republic under its rule of law empowered by the Constitution was not in their hearts. After the Nazi's took over Poland, they wiped out the intelligensia. No, Trump and his third are not Nazi's, even if that politician panders to such groups in America for votes and violence. Trump and his third are just the anti-intellectual proto-fascists, just as George Wallace and his following in the 1968 presidential election. Anti-intellectualism was part of why Rand called them proto-fascists (not that they would know or take the trouble to find out what the proto part means).

It is obscene, moreover, to identify Trump's supporters with the American working class. Some of my friends who are Trump supporters are working class, but most of my friends who are the latter are not the former. Intellectuals are often working class; I worked for seven years in unskilled labor at my start. My friends who are Trump supporters are only that way because for now they think that is the only way to stand for the Republican Party against the Democratic at the top level in the coming election.

Edited June 3, 2024 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

Speaking for the bottom third, I am working class and supported Trump in 16 because I saw him as anti-establishment, the establishment being the environment of rot in all the 'institutions' produced and apologized for by the intelligentsia. I despise the the two party 'tradition' and was glad to see Trump manipulate the system to garner support, he bulled(politically) his way into the Republicans. I'm anti-DC, anti-further encroachment of federal power.

I was 'agnostic' toward Trump as a personality prior to his announced candidacy for 2016, I was aware of who he was but for the most part my impression was that of blowhard publicity hound. But his rhetoric sounded like if he got in , he'd be a push back against the 'real' 'proto' fascism of the ever burgeoning federal monster that was destroying the Republic. When he popularity increased I started to become aware of his past public statements about his views on US government and policy from as far back as the 1980's and was surprised at how his then current views were stilled aligned, to my surprise whether or not you agreed with his views he at least was consistent, he wasn't 'joking' or pandering he was expressing his positions.

How ignorant is it for some to actually give credence to some convoluted idea , right out of the gate, that Trump was a puppet of Putin? It is laughable on it's face , the idea that the number two or three 'guy' in the 'world' orchestrated for another 'guy' to be seated as the indisputable number ONE 'guy' and somehow the new number one would be beholden and controlled by the other is ridiculous and not a very studied understanding of power. It's been an ever increasing shit show since and yeah because of Trump ,lol.

[Boydstun]

@tadmjones One accomplishment of the Trump administration was that they had the EPA stop on those methane emission rules for coal-fired power plants. I agreed with stopping that. I am very doubtful that global environmental challenges are a proper function of US government, although, so far as I know, no constitutional challenges to such function of the US government has been brought to court and I doubt the challenge would get a concurring ear from any Justice on the Supreme Court. Anyway, I liked the move against those methane-emission administrative EPA rules. That move was standard Republican Party position, of course, not something distinctive to the positions of Mr. Trump.

Another standard Republican move by Pres. Trump was to appoint anti-abortionists as Justices to the US Supreme Court.

In one way, Pres. Trump acted like a Democrat. In April of 2017, both chambers of the Congress were Republican. When the final hammered-out compromise budget arrived on the desk of the President for signature, it was a budget in the red. He should have sent it back to the House and told Ryan to keep all the proportions the same, but lower the amounts of expenditure allowed for each area so as to bring total expenditure even with expected revenues. That would have been of great historical importance for our country, for the good of our country, which has the federal government running with budgets in the red, big red, for the last 23 years. But the opportunity passed.

Yesterday, I studied the positions being put forth by the three remaining Democratic Primary candidates for the House from my area. Only one even mentioned the word "inflation", and she's the one I'll vote for for the nomination. The incumbent is a Republican, and he says nothing about or for his positions. He just puts out yard signs that includes Trump's name after his, and of course, we can assume that that Representative, being Republican, is an anti-abortionist in the law, since the Republicans still cave to the old "moral majority" faction, whose founder Jerry Falwell and his Liberty University (which is neither) is based in this town.

Edited June 3, 2024 by Boydstun

[DavidOdden]

6 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I'm anti-DC, anti-further encroachment of federal power.

I am a bit puzzled over this focus on federal power. “Power” is about potential action, and superficially it might seem like a good idea for the federal government to not have the potential to do things. Power is wielded by many levels of government – city, county, state, not to mention special-purpose districts like fire and school districts. Since you led with your opposition to federal power and did not lead with an opposition to governmental violation of rights, I take it that you consider it to be more of a threat to human existence for the federal government to have this potential, than it is for states to have it. I just don’t understand why you would want 50 or more disparate governments wielding that power in different ways, rather than to have a single unified power-wielder over the same area. This smacks of classical Luddite anti-capitalist thinking that bigger is necessarily evil, the kind of thinking that underlies anti-trust laws which are some of the most evil laws in the world.

If we take seriously the idea that a single set of laws created and enforced by a national government is bad, then we ought to question the existence of the United States as a political entity, and we should dissolve the union in favor of a cluster of 50 or so states. In fact, Washington state should probably split into two, Western Washington and Eastern Washington, similar splits in Illinois (upstate and downstate) would be motivated.

As far as I can see, the real problem is not who has the power, it is what the various governments are actually able to do. The states are not exactly famous for protecting individual rights. The primary difference between states rests in which rights are most at risk, such as the right to be gay, to have an abortion, to purchase a firearm, move around, or the right to run a profitable business. Since federal law is supreme, a federal determination to violate or protect rights precludes the state option to do the opposite, the position that states should wield power rather than the feds would have to be based on the premise that states are more protective of individual rights – and I just do not see any reason to think that is the case.

[tadmjones]

All 50 states have written constitutions and presumably have been instituted on the premises of protecting individual rights and the federal powers were theoretically instituted to 'make sure' the individual states did work to protect their citizens from rights violations.

Given the jurisdiction of the federal govt it poses a greater overall threat to individual rights. Eg all employers no matter the state are required to withhold wage earner property before receipt.

[necrovore]

On 6/3/2024 at 4:15 PM, DavidOdden said:

I am a bit puzzled over this focus on federal power. “Power” is about potential action, and superficially it might seem like a good idea for the federal government to not have the potential to do things.

Ayn Rand wrote a little about "power-lust," for example that "Power-lust is a weed that only grows in the abandoned lot of a vacant mind."

Power-lust is lust after a specific type of power and not just "potential action" or work divided by time (the physics definition) etc.

The specific type of power she had in mind is the power of coercion. This is exactly the type of power that the government has too much of and that the power-lusters lust after.

The power-lusters want to be able to use such power whimsically (which makes them tyrants over everyone else).

However, they are often willing to cook up complex and sophisticated rationalizations for such usages. These rationalizations can fill volumes and can be the basis of numerous PhD theses and so forth. For example I've read that over 100 PhDs work for the Federal Reserve, determining how to regulate the economy by maintaining price controls on interest rates and other things. (And of course if you want to get rid of such price controls entirely, you are throwing away the hundreds of volumes of books they've written, and saying that their PhDs are worthless, and that all the Federal grants funding them were wrong, so you must be some kind of anti-intellectual.)

Power-lust is why the American Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of government, by saying that government power could be used only for certain specific purposes and no others.

Of course nowadays the courts are willing to entertain rationalizations on the grounds that the government sometimes has "interests" in achieving certain goals, so that the limits of government power are "not absolute." That's one reason why the country is in trouble.

[DavidOdden]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

All 50 states have written constitutions and presumably have been instituted on the premises of protecting individual rights and the federal powers were theoretically instituted to 'make sure' the individual states did work to protect their citizens from rights violations.

State constitutions are generally worse than the federal constitution in protecting individual rights, for example by mandating various services to be provided by the state government such as education, roads, hospitals, fire departments; and of course the taxes “necessary” to provide these benefits. The myriad property taxes are state taxes. The massive infringement of individual rights known as covid-lockdown was implemented at the state level which often authorizes the governor to impose the equivalent of martial law if he declares an emergency. In many states, water is deemed in the constitution to be community property thus subject to the whims of the legislature and the lower bureaucrats, not to be bought and sold. In contrast to the US Constitution which is very hard to amend, state constitution amendment is only slightly more difficult than passing an ordinary law (making state constitutions similar to the constitution of India, an ever evolving and sprawling weed).

So, no, state constitutions were decidedly not designed to protect individual rights, they were designed to partially mimic individual rights protected by the US constitution (e.g. First and Second amendment rights), and otherwise they carve out special powers that the federal government does not have.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Given the jurisdiction of the federal govt it poses a greater overall threat to individual rights. Eg all employers no matter the state are required to withhold wage earner property before receipt.

This is also true at the state level. The federal government does not mandate withholding of state or city taxes, it is the state or city whose constitution and laws mandate withholding of taxes.

Given the jurisdiction of the federal government, it poses less of a threat to individual rights than state government. It is vastly easier to enact state laws violating rights than it is at the federal level, because there are way fewer individuals required to be persuaded to vote for that law. On average, you have to persuade 90 people to pass a state law,

compared to 259 for a federal law. Any rights-violating law has to pass a much higher level of scrutiny at the federal level because the class of federal powers is a subset of state powers, except for a very few matters. The federal government has the right and responsibility to defend the nation against foreign attack – a right and proper restriction I argue (you may set forth your case for the dissolution of the union, if you disagree). It also has the sole power to regulate entry into the US, again a proper limit (states are notorious violators of individual rights when it comes to admission into the US). And finally, laws pertaining to trade between states cannot be at the level of the state – otherwise, states would impose protective tariffs on out of state imports.

I just do not see any case for states as being more protective of individual rights rather than less protective.

[DavidOdden]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

Power-lust is why the American Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of government, by saying that government power could be used only for certain specific purposes and no others.

This is true when speaking of federal power, however we also know that they felt is was proper for the individual states to wield essentially unlimited power to violate individual rights, until nearly a century in, the courts held that states cannot violate certain rights protected by the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers failed to appreciate the equivalent evil of state government power.

[tadmjones]

The rights violation doesn't stem from government generating tax revenue, the violation is the principle of withholding which is federally mandated.

[necrovore]

31 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

The Founding Fathers failed to appreciate the equivalent evil of state government power.

I don't think they failed to appreciate it, but I think they compromised, because they could not have passed a constitution without the support of the states.

This compromise meant tolerating contradictions, and later led to a civil war, and probably will again.

I suppose one reason people are more tolerant of states infringing rights is that people are free to move to another state. Unfortunately some states are contemplating "exit taxes" to prevent this (or to prevent it from doing any good).

Moving to another country is much more difficult, in general, and some of those difficulties have been artificially created by the Federal government itself.

Edited June 5, 2024 by necrovore

[The Laws of Biology]

1. Because some of the government officials, who made the decision to prosecute Mr. Trump for making false representations on government forms regarding the "hush money" paid to his past extramarital sex partners, are members of the Democratic Party, Mr. Trump and his supporters allege that there was necessarily a Democratic Party conspiracy to charge him with crimes that he (Mr. Trump) either did not commit or which were crimes of such minor significance that in most cases no criminal charges would have been brought.
2. But, beyond the fact that the some of the prosecutorial decision makers were Democrats, there is no evidence of a conspiracy. 
3. So, in effect, the allegation is of a Democrat conspiracy is truly just a mystical "conspiracy theory."
4. For a moral and logical person, there can be no legal or moral presumption that ALL members of the Democratic Party are corrupt, and that all their actions are corrupt.
5. Yet that seems to the logical premise of the argument being made by Mr. Trump and by his supporters.
6. A logical comparison seems in order: During his former presidency, Mr. Trump openly admitted to applying financial pressure (in the form of military hardware assistance) to the president of Ukraine in order to get the president of Ukraine to announce that he was opening an investigation into criminal wrongdoing by Joe Biden, who was then expected to be Mr. Trump's main rival in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  
7. So, while there is no evidence of Democrats engaging in corrupt acts to dictate partisan actions by the government of the State of New York, there is plain and abundant evidence of President Trump engaging in a corrupt act in order to dictate partisan actions by the government of Ukraine.
8. Apparently, it was only due the moral integrity of the president of Ukraine that no baseless investigation into Joe Biden in Ukraine was ever announced. 
9. Isn't illogical for supporters of Mr. Trump to condemn, without evidence, Democrat officials of the State of New York for supposed partisan corruption of courts of New York, when supporters of Mr. Trump all gave their complete approval of Mr. Trump's well-documented and undeniable attempted partisan corruption of the courts of Ukraine?
10. I don't believe that Ayn Rand would approve of a political double standard in which morals, logic, reason do not apply to all persons equally.

 

Edited June 8, 2024 by The Laws of Biology
Fixing some minor typos

[tadmjones]

[Boydstun]

@tadmjones I don't understand what point(s) you are meaning to convey by the photo. Could you write your meaning?

Your photo reminded me of our own experience in trying to visit the Capitol a dozen years ago. You needed to go down some steps outdoors to an underground place (probably the room shown in your photo) where you would wait in line to, as I recall, get a ticket for a time at which you could enter. We had specifically wanted to see the hall that has all the statues. But my husband was not healthy enough to withstand that long and strenuous entry process, so we did not initiate it. I couldn't help thinking years later when the delusional congregation (mostly White and male) was busting their way in on 6 January 2021: "Hey, that's not how you enter the Capitol!" 

It was easy and streamlined to get into the Library of Congress. We got turned away in our first attempt because I had a pocketknife in my pocket. But we returned the following day, without the knife, and everything was smooth.

[tadmjones]

17 hours ago, The Laws of Biology said:

1. Because some of the government officials, who made the decision to prosecute Mr. Trump for making false representations on government forms regarding the "hush money" paid to his past extramarital sex partners, are members of the Democratic Party, Mr. Trump and his supporters allege that there was necessarily a Democratic Party conspiracy to charge him with crimes that he (Mr. Trump) either did not commit or which were crimes of such minor significance that in most cases no criminal charges would have been brought.
2. But, beyond the fact that the some of the prosecutorial decision makers were Democrats, there is no evidence of a conspiracy. 
3. So, in effect, the allegation is of a Democrat conspiracy is truly just a mystical "conspiracy theory."
4. For a moral and logical person, there can be no legal or moral presumption that ALL members of the Democratic Party are corrupt, and that all their actions are corrupt.
5. Yet that seems to the logical premise of the argument being made by Mr. Trump and by his supporters.
6. A logical comparison seems in order: During his former presidency, Mr. Trump openly admitted to applying financial pressure (in the form of military hardware assistance) to the president of Ukraine in order to get the president of Ukraine to announce that he was opening an investigation into criminal wrongdoing by Joe Biden, who was then expected to be Mr. Trump's main rival in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  
7. So, while there is no evidence of Democrats engaging in corrupt acts to dictate partisan actions by the government of the State of New York, there is plain and abundant evidence of President Trump engaging in a corrupt act in order to dictate partisan actions by the government of Ukraine.
8. Apparently, it was only due the moral integrity of the president of Ukraine that no baseless investigation into Joe Biden in Ukraine was ever announced. 
9. Isn't illogical for supporters of Mr. Trump to condemn, without evidence, Democrat officials of the State of New York for supposed partisan corruption of courts of New York, when supporters of Mr. Trump all gave their complete approval of Mr. Trump's well-documented and undeniable attempted partisan corruption of the courts of Ukraine?
10. I don't believe that Ayn Rand would approve of a political double standard in which morals, logic, reason do not apply to all persons equally.

 

An NY court awarded a judgement against Trump for $80+ million in a defamation suit that ultimately was orchestrated by changing statute of limitations by the state legislature, a legislative change that came about by lobbying efforts of the 'winner' of the defamation suit. They opened a window allowing sexual assault victims to bring suits  after statute of limitations had passed , but allowed for the window to expire with in a year.

A ranking member of the DoJ left their position and 'ended' up in Bragg's office as lead prosecutor in the 'government form case', a novel prosecution to say the least. NDA's aren't illegal, but somehow you can make them felonies, the 34 felonies were for each record of the accounting in Trump's books , ie 1 charge for one check, 1 charge for that stub and another for the entry in a ledger ect ect to add up to 34.

NY AG brought a case against Trump for which there was no victim. A private company decided to loan Trump money the loan was repaid. The court found Trump guilty of fraud and then proceeded to level an unconstitutional penalty.

Biden withheld $1 billion in direct aid to Ukraine until they fired a government official , an official that even Obama's administration, aside from Biden personally, did not consider to be in need of removal. But he was removed and the funds were released. Trump was impeached for trying to bring that to light.

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by tadmjones

[tadmjones]

Stephen

I posted the photo to show how laughable it is to suggest there is no evidence of, only there is  some kind of imaginary partisan conspiracy writ large. 

Marxist ideology is the vehicle that weds the partisan bloc. How do you not believe your own lying eyes?

[The Laws of Biology]

1. My primary concern is philosophical, not political. 
2. I find it strange and surprising that so many people, who repeatedly and publicly assert their own dedication to moral principles, do not hesitate to apply moral principles with a political double standard.  
3. Mr. Trump and Trump supporters condemn Mr. Biden and the Democrat Party for carrying out the partisan corruption of the New York State criminal justice system.
4. But Mr. Trump and his supporter found (and still find) nothing objectionable whatsoever when Mr. Trump clearly attempted to carry out the partisan corruption of the Ukrainian criminal justice system.
5. In the end, everyone is morally free to support whichever party or candidate that they perceive as promising the most good or the least evil. 
6. But does anyone have the moral right to systematically apply a political double standard regarding moral principles?
7. When the public sees leaders applying a political double standard, doesn't that breed and spread cynicism about philosophy, about reason, about logical, and about moral principles?
8. A is A and Man is Man seem applicable to this matter. Also: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[tadmjones]

In the Ukraine 'thing', Trump was using the power of the office to obtain evidence of a former official using the same power for personal gain. As POTUS he wanted another state to cooperate in uncovering and possibly correcting a passed act of corruption in the exercise of executive power, the aid was delayed to 'force' a 'quid pro quo', the aid was released ultimately without the 'quo'. Are all things commensurate between gooses and drakes ?

[Boydstun]

@tadmjones wrote:

"I posted the photo to show how laughable it is to suggest there is no evidence of, only there is  some kind of imaginary partisan conspiracy writ large. 

"Marxist ideology is the vehicle that weds the partisan bloc. How do you not believe your own lying eyes?"

That the trial judge in the Hunter Biden case was appointed by Pres. Trump is no evidence that the trial is the result of a conspiracy of the former President, reactionary MAGA folk, and Republican racist outfits like Proud Boys. Evidence would be specific acts—with dates, hours, locations, and communication methods—of coordination to a certain result: such as was shown in the recent trial convicting former President Trump of NY crimes, Mr. Trump being a party to the conspiracy.

The existence of blocs is no showing of coordination by the bloc for every outcome consistent with their common views and aims. "Marxist ideology", by the way, is wide of the mark for what holds a Democratic bloc together. In the right things they support, such as not allowing coerced prayers or racial discrimination in public schools, it is more plausible that the interest is in individual freedom and interracial respect and equality than promoting atheism and material equality consistent with Marxism.

In the wrong things they support, such as anti-exploitation of nature and regulation of markets, their resistance to capitalism can be not only through disbelief in the rightness of profit-taking, but in belief in the mixed economy, which has been in place during the most productive-per-capita and most well-to-do economies in human history, and belief in winning support of unions (where there ARE some heads running on Marxism) to get themselves re-elected. And belief that many votes are available from the anti-human quarter of environmentalism.

Human welfare is a good thing, I should underscore, notwithstanding the negative valence that came over the term "welfare" (as in governmental welfare programs) across the decades. Behind the human welfare programs supported in common by members of the Democratic bloc, I suggest, the root is not Marxism, but altruism. For fifty years, libertarians have stressed the big difference between voluntary charity and forced charity. To no avail. Democrats and indeed the American public in general make the slide, without a blink, from voluntary acts helping the less fortunate to forced ones by law.

Edited June 9, 2024 by Boydstun

[The Laws of Biology]

1. For a long time in American history, I think it was a point of pride of American leaders that they did not practice a political double standard regarding the application of moral principles. 
2. I think one sees this stance clearly in men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan. 
3. Now, it seems like in the last 9 years or so, we've entered a new era of the absolute politicalization of everything, such as was present in the infamous Bolshevik government and in the infamous National Socialist government.
4. The Black Lives Matter movement was based on the falsehood that Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. was the victim of a racist attack by a police office. In fact, all the evidence shows that Michael Brown assaulted the police officer just a few minutes after having assaulted a convenience store owner.
5. The Obama Birth Certificate controversy was a falsehood invented and spread entirely for partisan purposes. 
6. Will American culture ever return to a state in which applying a political double standard regarding moral principles is viewed by leaders of both parties as dishonorable, unreasonable, illogical, and shameful?

[tadmjones]

The Proud Boys is a western chauvinist drinking club.

[The Laws of Biology]

1. Because the philosophy of reason promoted by Ayn Rand so strongly promotes Capitalism, many philosophically ill-informed people assume that Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason has a Darwinian code of ethics (or non-ethics) in which (to quote Coach Vince Lombardi), "Winning isn't everything; it is the only thing."
2. But of course, the ethics (or lack of ethics) stated in Coach Lombardi's famous quote are NOT the ethics of the philosophy of reason promoted by Ayn Rand.
3. "Winning at all costs" and "No holds barred" and "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't trying" are not reasonable and not moral according to Ayn Rand.
4. Though it is not widely known outside of Objectivist circles, the philosophy of reason promoted by Ayn Rand is profoundly moral and ethical. Such a philosophy requires a dedication to self-discipline of the mind and speech.
5. "A is A" and "Man is Man" requires personal self-discipline to apply moral standards in a consistent and non-contradictory way for all persons, without exception. 
6. Ayn Rand made negative judgments about President Ronald Reagan, despite the fact that he was, in general, a supporter of Capitalism and limited government. I think this is because Ayn Rand put a priority on philosophy over partisan politics. 
7. Nothing is more anti-reason and anti-philosophical than the use of moral principles to politically wound and defeat one's political rivals, while refusing to apply the same moral principles in passing judgment on oneself and on one's political allies. 
8. Will American ever return to the commitment to philosophical and moral integrity seen generally among the Founding Fathers?

Edited June 9, 2024 by The Laws of Biology
Added an example to illustrate the point

[tadmjones]

BLM started in response to the Trayvon Martin case , after George Zimmerman's acquittal, by self described activists trained in Marxist activism.

Edited June 9, 2024 by tadmjones

[The Laws of Biology]

A TEST TO DETECT A POLITICAL DOUBLE STANDARD

1. I propose a thought experiment to detect a political double standard in the application of moral principles:
2. Take any political scandal or controversy and simply replace the name of the accused person with a person from the other political party or other racial identify group.
3. For example, regarding the 2 impeachments of President Donald Trump, replace the name Donald Trump with the name Joe Biden or the name Hillary Clinton. Then what would be the moral and legal judgment of Mr. Trump and his supporters concerning these matters?
4. Or regarding the presently ongoing criminal trial of Hunter Biden (son of Joe Biden), replace the name Hunter Biden with then name Eric Trump (son of Donald Trump). Then what would be the moral and legal judgment of Mr. Trump and his supporters concerning this matter?
5. If, on Jan. 6, 2021, Democrat voters and activists had broken into the White House, had physically attacked Secret Service agents, and had set up a gallows for Mr. Trump, would Mr. Trump and his supporters call those rioters "political prisoners" after they were arrested and convicted and imprisoned?
6. Imagine if the Michael Brown who was shot and killed in Ferguson has been a white teenager and the police officer who shot him had been a black man. Then what would be the moral and legal judgment of leftist activists concerning this matter?
7. Will America ever come out of its present era of the Bolshevik-like politicalization of absolutely everything--the politicalization of even reason and of the mind itself?

Edited June 9, 2024 by The Laws of Biology
Fixing grammar error

[tadmjones]

4,5 and 6 aren't political situations they are criminal. Impeachment is by definition a political act.