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.
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
>I still haven't figured out how he's profiting from Trump Accounts yet
I would guess that he could have been paid in many various ways (TrumpCoins anyone) by financial institution(s) that were set to benefit from the accounts. Have the trump crypto companies followed all of the KYC laws?
I don't understand why people keep using things like this as their examples.
JFK met with Khrushchev. Bush Senior and Reagan had regular contact with Gorbachev. It's not weird for heads of state to talk to each other.
What's weird is for Trump to be paying tax dollars to cancel energy projects because he doesn't like windmills or using the FCC to investigate media outlets who criticize him.
There are plenty of good examples to use that it makes no sense to resort to evidence-free innuendo.
> President Donald Trump’s special envoy broke with long-standing protocol by not employing his own interpreter during three high-level meetings with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, opting instead to rely on translators from the Kremlin, a U.S. official and two Western officials with knowledge of the talks told NBC News.
This seems like the same class of complaining about something ridiculous. If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? What advantage would that have compared with lying to you in Russian and having it translated accurately?
I think we're worried about the Trump administration lying about what they talked to the Russians about. A translator with loyalty to the USA might request what they heard.
Which is an even more fanciful conspiracy theory since the objection was Trump not bringing his own translator, a person he could otherwise personally select for their loyalty to him.
> Only Mr. Trump, who has alternately contradicted his own narrative of what was said and complained about a lack of fair coverage from a meeting only four people witnessed, could permit Ms. Gross to tell anyone about what she heard. The White House has not said whether Mr. Trump has asked her to do that.
You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device or the ability to remember the words he used and have them translated by someone else later? And if he did think that, wouldn't that be an advantage to the US of doing it that way, to capitalize on the chance he lets his guard down? And if he did let his guard down and Trump failed to capitalize on it, what disadvantage would the US suffer from that compared with the situation where he knows there is a US translator in the room and doesn't say it to begin with?
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.
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.
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
Let's not pretend: we haven't had an anti-crime president in a while.
I was once brainwashed and my thinking was, "If only 'my' side could take control, this country would be utopia." 15+ years later, here are some truths I've realized:
- It sounds conspiratorial to say, "they want us to absolutely hate each other because that's the only way the party keeps going for the corrupt politicians", but when you think about it, it's 100% true. We may disagree on abortion, but do we disagree on preserving our great nature, lakes, rivers, and the purity of our environment? No. We all agree that is something good. Yet, federal, state, and local governments sell out our communal beauty for filthy lucre.
- We all agree that instead of unnecessary wars, that money could instead be put towards infrastructure, development, healthcare, education, creating more opportunity for the next generation. Instead, the status quo never changes regardless of which party is in office.
- We all agree that our food should not poison us. Yet government makes it basically illegal to raise livestock and grow produce and sell it to your neighbors. Big pesticide agriculture for the win. The peasants must eat glyphosate.
- We all agree that our country and its benefits must be primarily for its citizens. Yet politicians insist on handouts to grow their voter base while our people are homeless, replete with mental health problems, and struggling.
- We are all anti-abuse-of-authority, yet our politicians foment extreme ideological views like "Support all law enforcement" or "Defund the police" instead of simply reforming law enforcement in ways that make sense like getting rid of qualified immunity, making it illegal for an officer to serve in another county or state when terminated for misconduct.
I could go on, but our problem in America is systemic. We could completely transform this country if we just put our disagreements on pause for 5-years and solely focused on those that we agree on.
This urge to defend the indefensible and “both sides” the most corrupt administration in American history is exactly the problem. Go take a look in the mirror.
Worth noting that the commenter you're replying to is only LARPing as a centrist. The comment history of his other (now-banned) accounts are directly at odds with some of the "truths" he claims to have realized.
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.
> 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.
> You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that
It would have sent the message its sender (and his supporters) intended to send. Instead, both sides got a convenient totem. Luigi's supporters get to pretend he was effective. The billionaire class got to consolidate power here and there by pretending he was more than a one off, and by pretending he was competent.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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
When you view it through the lens of Graft First, everything makes sense. All the seeming stupidity, ineptitude, and hypocrisy is just to make a buck.
Governing doesn't even appear to be an afterthought.
I still haven't figured out how he's profiting from Trump Accounts yet. Kick backs I suppose.
The stupidity and ineptitude is still real. These are a gang of nepo-babies who have mastered the art of failing up.
>I still haven't figured out how he's profiting from Trump Accounts yet
I would guess that he could have been paid in many various ways (TrumpCoins anyone) by financial institution(s) that were set to benefit from the accounts. Have the trump crypto companies followed all of the KYC laws?
don't forget Trump's 90 minute call w/ Putin on the 4th of July a few days ago
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/05/europe/putin-trump-call-indep...
or that time multiple US congressmen were forced to spend the 4th in Moscow
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/395719-gop-senators-visi...
I don't understand why people keep using things like this as their examples.
JFK met with Khrushchev. Bush Senior and Reagan had regular contact with Gorbachev. It's not weird for heads of state to talk to each other.
What's weird is for Trump to be paying tax dollars to cancel energy projects because he doesn't like windmills or using the FCC to investigate media outlets who criticize him.
There are plenty of good examples to use that it makes no sense to resort to evidence-free innuendo.
Because it's not quite the same; JFK et. al. weren't dumb enough to trust the Russians during those contacts. This administration, though…
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/russia-ukraine-war-trum...
> President Donald Trump’s special envoy broke with long-standing protocol by not employing his own interpreter during three high-level meetings with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, opting instead to rely on translators from the Kremlin, a U.S. official and two Western officials with knowledge of the talks told NBC News.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/427505-trump-put...
> President Trump reportedly met late last year with Russian President Vladimir Putin without a translator or aide from his administration present.
This seems like the same class of complaining about something ridiculous. If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? What advantage would that have compared with lying to you in Russian and having it translated accurately?
I think we're worried about the Trump administration lying about what they talked to the Russians about. A translator with loyalty to the USA might request what they heard.
Which is an even more fanciful conspiracy theory since the objection was Trump not bringing his own translator, a person he could otherwise personally select for their loyalty to him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/trump-putin-i...
> Only Mr. Trump, who has alternately contradicted his own narrative of what was said and complained about a lack of fair coverage from a meeting only four people witnessed, could permit Ms. Gross to tell anyone about what she heard. The White House has not said whether Mr. Trump has asked her to do that.
> If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else?
Why not? The only other person in the room doesn't speak Russian.
You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device or the ability to remember the words he used and have them translated by someone else later? And if he did think that, wouldn't that be an advantage to the US of doing it that way, to capitalize on the chance he lets his guard down? And if he did let his guard down and Trump failed to capitalize on it, what disadvantage would the US suffer from that compared with the situation where he knows there is a US translator in the room and doesn't say it to begin with?
> You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device…
Yes, I absolutely expect that sort of security at such a meeting.
Just because most of critics are brain dead morons doesn’t mean Trump is a great guy or above the same level of scrutiny shown to previous presidents.
Strong for crime, strong for the causes of crime.
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...
Let's be honest, poor people in general.
To be poor is a crime.
> 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.
Quite a few got public defenders, so nah.
Some presumably lived near and didn’t have jobs.
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.
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
Let's not pretend: we haven't had an anti-crime president in a while.
I was once brainwashed and my thinking was, "If only 'my' side could take control, this country would be utopia." 15+ years later, here are some truths I've realized:
- It sounds conspiratorial to say, "they want us to absolutely hate each other because that's the only way the party keeps going for the corrupt politicians", but when you think about it, it's 100% true. We may disagree on abortion, but do we disagree on preserving our great nature, lakes, rivers, and the purity of our environment? No. We all agree that is something good. Yet, federal, state, and local governments sell out our communal beauty for filthy lucre.
- We all agree that instead of unnecessary wars, that money could instead be put towards infrastructure, development, healthcare, education, creating more opportunity for the next generation. Instead, the status quo never changes regardless of which party is in office.
- We all agree that our food should not poison us. Yet government makes it basically illegal to raise livestock and grow produce and sell it to your neighbors. Big pesticide agriculture for the win. The peasants must eat glyphosate.
- We all agree that our country and its benefits must be primarily for its citizens. Yet politicians insist on handouts to grow their voter base while our people are homeless, replete with mental health problems, and struggling.
- We are all anti-abuse-of-authority, yet our politicians foment extreme ideological views like "Support all law enforcement" or "Defund the police" instead of simply reforming law enforcement in ways that make sense like getting rid of qualified immunity, making it illegal for an officer to serve in another county or state when terminated for misconduct.
I could go on, but our problem in America is systemic. We could completely transform this country if we just put our disagreements on pause for 5-years and solely focused on those that we agree on.
This urge to defend the indefensible and “both sides” the most corrupt administration in American history is exactly the problem. Go take a look in the mirror.
Worth noting that the commenter you're replying to is only LARPing as a centrist. The comment history of his other (now-banned) accounts are directly at odds with some of the "truths" he claims to have realized.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=complianceowl
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=owlcompliance
Every administration caters to its donors.
damn, maybe we should limit how much people can donate? oh, that already exists, just not for corporations? cool. cool cool cool.
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.
being pro-crime is being pro-american, now.
"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."
> criminal case against Abbott Laboratories over contaminated baby formula
In Communist China they would be shot
Hey, here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well.
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
Parents could file a class action? RICO? How is this any different from organized crime?
It will take a bit more in general. I don't think we're at the point of Blair Mountain yet, but if things don't change, then it's coming.
> 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.
> You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that
It would have sent the message its sender (and his supporters) intended to send. Instead, both sides got a convenient totem. Luigi's supporters get to pretend he was effective. The billionaire class got to consolidate power here and there by pretending he was more than a one off, and by pretending he was competent.
rarely
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...
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/...
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.
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.
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.
Why not just ship him to CECOT? Official acts bro
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 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.