This is all well and good, but I doubt they'll get anything past Trump.

It's just gridlock for the next two years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 21 hours ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (5 children)

    I know you were. Doesn't change what I said.

    You seemed to agree with me that prosecution in this environment isn't realistic and that you wanted investigations for when it can be. I shared a website highlighting that there is a commitment by the incoming head of the oversight committee to perform those investigations. It's going to happen.

    I don't see why you're concerned with a politician politicking and trying to give soundbytes saying that he wants to focus on something with broader appeal across both parties to the media. This guy wants to be speaker and needs both parties to support him right now. Has no bearing on what the oversight committee will do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago (4 children)

    I know you were. Doesn’t change what I said.

    I am not trying to change your mind here; I am simply pointing that there are conflicting "announcements" and I have no trust the Democrats will hold anyone accountable.

    ...It’s going to happen.

    It did not happen with Obama after Bush Jr nor with Biden after Orange Turd 1.0, why are you so sure it will happen this time?

    I don’t see why you’re concerned with a politician politicking and trying to give soundbytes saying that he wants to focus on something with broader appeal across both parties to the media.

    Again because that scenario has been in play before and they never hold anyone accountable. Obama may have just been "politicking" when he said "let bygones be bygones" but that ended up being the policy of his admin re ALL of the Bush era corruption and now here we are

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 20 hours ago (3 children)

    Not having trust is warranted, I've said elsewhere that they've not done anything to earn it.

    However you seem to be ignoring that investigations did happen during both of those Presidencies and there were criminal charges brought as a result. There is proof of people involved being held accountable that you could go and read about if you cared to. Corruption scandals involving Halliburton and Blackwater during the Bush era also did result in prosecution, as did various investigations during Biden's term. Both Epstein and Maxwell were arrested, with the latter being tried and convicted.

    I'll concede that I can't be certain that an investigation will actually take place and shouldn't have said that, however history has shown that these investigations do routinely happen by this committee.

    I'll also concede that minor politicians, staffers, and private sector participants were primarily the ones that had charges brought against them, not Presidents. But you're exaggerating when you say there is never accountability and that AGs during Democratic Presidencies don't prosecute criminal charges around corruption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago (2 children)

    Yes, of course I am exaggerating; but surely you can see my point. There is nowhere near enough accountability for all the corruption that goes around.

    Pretending jailing George Santos while letting trump go without any punishment after 34 convictions is just laughable.

    If we need 100 gallons of rain today and we get 10 drops, you would not blame me for saying "it has not rained at all"... it is an exaggeration, it is technically incorrect, but it carries the idea that we are nowhere near close to what we need.

    I would argue that we are at a point now where, giving credit for charging a minor staffer while letting anyone of importance go completely unscathed is akin to trying take credit for putting a bandaid on someone that fell face first into a wood chipper

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago (1 child)

    I hope you know I'm agreeing with you. I want to see change too and it's why I advocate for people to reach out to their representatives right now. We are already hearing reporting of hundreds if not thousands of calls per day asking reps to not back current Dem leaders.

    Change can't happen if we refuse to acknowledge the the systems in play and how different parts of the government function, which is where I started with all this.

    More than anything I want engaged people to continue to be engaged but meaningfully and with purpose. Simply being upset over lack of progress or the speed of it happening aren't enough, despite our desire for that to be true.

    There are millions of dollars and hundreds of legal experts involved in plans to dismantle the parts of government they don't agree with and they talk about it loudly. They celebrate their wins, regardless of how small or even true they are, loudly, and the uninformed notice. By refusing to acknowledge the small wins or even the path to this being realistic, you build no message of support to chase bigger wins. It actually does the opposite - you crush interest in change and in action, both because it builds a perception that there is no political win large enough to satisfy and because others will also hear this lack of celebration as a lack of outcome.

    This is why I've spent all this time replying. We agree on it not being enough and that something must be done. We agree that this group of leaders hasn't earned trust. Where we disagree is in how it is being framed. Change of this magnitude needs to snowball. Win people over with quick wins within their political control and continue to press forward for more, with renewed support from the electorate.

    Change of this magnitude will require sustained support over time to be successful and it doesn't happen if we won't even acknowledge when things did go right, however small it may be to start.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment