back
97 comments
The administration seems to be pro-crime, which is very problematic.
Given that the President is a convicted felon who maintains that what he did was fine, and that he has pardoned thousands of unrepentant criminals, and that the vast majority of his party enthusiastically endorsed all this, I would say "pro-crime" is an understatement.
_strongly_ pro-crime
on a daily basis the current US president commits treason against the people of the united states, which im pretty sure even presidential immunity doesnt protect against. Just one of the shady dealings with foreign monarchies, laudering their bribes directly to the president thru billion dollar purchases of worthless crypto "assets" ala world liberty financial; should land the president and his entire family in capital punishment
Strong for crime, strong for the causes of crime.
Crime maxxxing
This admin is pro-money. Anything and everything can be bought. Pardons, contracts, legal outcomes, you name it. Bribe trump and he'll do whatever you ask.
Pro rich people crimes. They remain very much against poor people who break the law.
I don't think this quite captures it. The "Dual State" concept seems much more on point. https://www.thefunsinthefight.com/p/welcome-to-the-dual-stat...
It's even more nuanced than that. Vaguely, there are 3 caste buckets:

- A privileged state - for the rich and powerful to get away with crimes

- A normative state - for ordinary people whom experience more prosecutions

- A prerogative state - for poor and enemies whom experience arbitrary injustice and persecution for infractions or made-up crimes

Let's be honest, poor people in general.
> They remain very much against poor people who break the law.

Plenty of those pardoned for their acts on Jan 6.

People with the time/money/energy to travel to DC for such things are not poor. They may claim poverty but the fact they made the trip, more often than not, evidences substantial disposable time/income.
To be poor is a crime.
You know, I wasn't raised poor but I was mentally ill from the very beginning, and somehow I always identified/sympathized with the poor more than anyone else; perhaps I aspired or expected to be poor, and poor is what I became.

When you're poor, you can't help but be immersed in rebellion and discontent. Every song on the radio, every free TV show, every buddy at the dive bar is talking trash about your leadership and the powers that be. There was never any way for me to avoid the voices that hated everything I stood for, from the beginning, and basically being immersed in rebellion led me to intense self-hatred and a losing/denial of my own identity, as if I ever had it.

And that's really problematic for the poor of today, who can get really immersed in global geopolitics, and exposed to all sorts of social media glurge, and being poor, they cannot really find escape from the "free to consume" media at every turn, and so the poor tend to be couch-potatoes who are fed by the television sets and YouTube and Facebook feeds, and eventually most of us drown in lies, and fake news, and bitter rebellion against every authority.

Trump Inc is a white-collar crime family which is why he pardons every white-collar crime they can find

BTW you know those classified records he took to Mar-a-lago that almost put him in prison?

They were all the records about his family businesses, it's documented, they were unique investigation records and he was trying to end all investigations

being pro-crime is being pro-american, now.
Every administration caters to its donors.
I mean, _kinda_? This kind of reflexive both-sides-ism works to obfuscate the _huge_ difference in scale, _and_ the occasional, small-but-real attempts of mostly democrats to do something about it.

Now, if the democrats had more big donors than republicans, maybe they wouldn't? But that's a counterfactual that we can't know. But we do know that Bush 1 vetoed a soft money limit passed mostly by democrats, and that Clinton pushed for one, but didn't get it done.

McCain-Feingold passed the Senate with 48 out of 50 D votes (96%), and 11 of 38 R votes (29%) (and one I (100%)), the House with 198 of 210 D (94%), and house, 41 out of 217 R (19%), 1 out of 2 I (50%). Then it was a mostly R appointed Supreme Court that gutted it. Then a _more_ R appointed court that has continued to whittle it down.

For all that the Democrats don't go far enough, there is a _huge_ difference between the parties on this.

damn, maybe we should limit how much people can donate? oh, that already exists, just not for corporations? cool. cool cool cool.
Only if you support Trump. Americans seem to have no spine or ego so bow down to your god emperor I suppose.
Many average Russians and Americans share the features of indoctrinated learned helplessness. They live on their knees and are unwilling to face reality because their lifestyle and/or salary may depend on it.
> criminal case against Abbott Laboratories over contaminated baby formula

In Communist China they would be shot

They also disappear you for selling books critical of the Party, so it's a two edged katana.

Ex-HK bookseller Lam Wing-kee, detained by China in 2015, dies in Taiwan at 70

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/g-s1-131904/ex-hk-bookseller-...

Yes, and so does trump's America.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jun/...

Hey, here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well.
Here in America, if you or I get shot, a detective gets assigned the case along with 30 other cases on their desk. When a CEO gets shot, the largest city assigns an unlimited number of police to the case to find the person...
not by the state, however. important distinction.
Now that justice by official channels is closed, one wonders if a grieving parent will seek it out by unofficial means
rarely
> here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well

No, they don't. The UnitedHealth dude who got shot had a CEO title, but Thompson was ultimately a middle manager.

The actual CEO of UnitedHealth Group–the one who signs off on its financial statements and fields quarterly calls–and the billionaire owners were fine. Which explains, in part, why nothing changed after the shooting.

You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that. The individual players have the incentives created for them by the system. To change it you need to change the game, not the players.
That depends on whether the baby formula was destined for the domestic market to nourish good Chinese babies, or whether it was destined for export to the foreigners, right?
Ironically, it's not just the ineffectuallity of the DOJ (intentional, in that case), it's the ineffectuality of the political competition, the Democratic Party, to hold the GOP accountable.

The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula. That should be repeated by the Dems from now until the end of time. Everyone should associate Trump and the GOP with it.

But as always, the Dems will not make Trump and the GOP pay any price, no matter how awful events are (and this one is hardly the worst), and so why would they stop doing these things?

Part of the duty of the political competition is to hold the other party responsible. It is also very obvious and basic self-interest.

Yea things like this make more sense when you model the Democratic Party mostly as controlled opposition for the actual uniparty outside of a handful of instances
Yup. Once you realize neither party actually cares about any of the top debated political issues (individuals do, but the party doesn't) but they thrust them in everyone's face day in and day out BEACUSE the country is divided neatly in half and they are emotionally charged: abortions, LGBT rights, gun control.

Let the plebs wear themselves out so money can be extracted and power can be used without any fuss.

The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity, stymieing Democratic attempts at holding him accountable for crimes he was accused of in his first presidency. Holding him accountable this time would require some workaround for the Supreme Court.
That is legal accountability. I am talking about political accountability: When Trump or the GOP do something awful, the Democrats are unable to score points on it. In the reverse situation, the GOP is very good at it.

When the GOP screws up, they should be losing votes and reputation. The Dems have failed to do that.

Why not just ship him to CECOT? Official acts bro
>The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it

All the Dems have to do is kick the DEI/woke, open borders, etc. contingent out of their party and "cashing in" will commence.

All Dems have to do is abandon their principles and priorities, and conservatives will like them. I don't think that will work.

> open borders

You tip yourself off as someone consuming political propaganda. Nobody of any prominence or influence in the Democratic Party advocates or has advocated for 'open borders'. The only place I hear that is from people who watch Fox News, etc.

>All Dems have to do is abandon their principles and priorities, and conservatives will like them.

All Dems have to do is abandon their hatred of Whites and males, and [insert groups] will like them.

>You tip yourself off as someone consuming political propaganda. Nobody of any prominence or influence in the Democratic Party advocates or has advocated for 'open borders'.

Facts are not "political propaganda". Look at the numbers of border crossings and illegal immigrant apprehensions between Trump and Biden. Biden and those who supported him were advocating for open borders with their actions.

This is just more than a little fucked up... I think we've "limited" liability way too much in terms of corporations... it's the investors that are meant to be protected, executives and board members are not meant to be immune. And I do think in the worst cases, the death penalty should be on the table.

edit: to be clear, IMO, corporate power is an expression of govt power, which should be minimized.

At some point the broad strokes of libertarianism became exactly what we expected.

Naked corruption and public harm, without consequences.

I'm literally talking about libertarian values and that we aren't getting consequences because they aren't followed.

Libertarians aren't generally in favor of limited liability. Read it again, slower.

"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."