Why do you leftist idiots oppose anti-corruption candidates?

Every politician claims they are anti-corruption.
Literally every single one.

 

When did I ever state Trump shouldn't be held accountable?

Do you think its ok for members of congress to continue to post above average trades in the stock market, making millions and millions?

Politicians going to jail or being convicted AFTER their term is served is not 'being held accountable by the parties'. Yes, there are a few instances where a party has removed someone, but its rare.

 

Not particularly fond of anti-corruption candidates, because they are just as likely to be corrupt as anyone else. However, I'm a big fan of the DOJ prosecuting corrupt politicians. After all, the best line of defense against corruption is not "anti-corruption politicians." They've already passed laws making corruption illegal.* With the legal framework there, the best line of defense is a team of professional and independent prosecutors (aka the Deep State) hoping to make their names by winning convictions of the fat cats. Cuellar, Menendez, Trump -- I'm licking my chops anticipating their convictions. And I'm sure their prosecutors are too.

* I will grant OP that there seems to be a hole in Congress' ethics rules that allows them to use insider information to profit in the stock market, and they do still a job a to do in regulating themselves in that area.

 

Kind of like Christians who advertise they are a Christian business. They are the first ones to screw you because they fall back on "We are a Christian company! We would never screw you over!"

 

The entirety of conservative politics is basic Orwellian speak. Spam terms like freedom, Republic, liberty etc for all their organizations and think tanks.

Seriously go do a basic Google search of a random conservative organization or think tank. It's going to have the word 'liberty', 'freedom', 'democracy' or something along those lines.

The sad thing is many right wing leaning people are self aware enough to know this hence they joke about "it's time to spread some freedom to [insert random foreign country the US foreign policy apparatus feels the need to invade] " They know it isn't actually freedom and just the US exercising their might.

This is why it feels impossible to find a right wing person engage in a debate in a sincere manner where they are expressing ideas they sincerely believe in.

 

So, I did a bit of homework, compare and contrast and came to a clearer-head view that surprised me a bit and corrected some of my previous assumptions. Of course, I'm sure people will disagree with my updated views.

First, just the facts:

0- Reagan admitted making mistakes and poor judgment w.r.t Iran Contra
1- There was a special counsel investigation into Iran Contra and the Reagan admin's involvement in it
2- The investigation resulted in prosecution and convictions of key senior aides and members of the Reagan Administration in ~1989, later overturned on valid legal grounds (Congress granting partial immunity for congressional testimony made it impossible for a clean criminal trial without violating their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination -- basically Congress got what it needed but in the process, also sabotaged the criminal trials). There are other convictions that were not overturned (those that didn't have an immunity agreement with Congress).
3- The investigation's final report was highly critical of Reagan, on his deceptive tone that allowed the affair to occur and his unwillingness to be candid with Congress and the American people. However, the investigation did not find evidence supporting indicting Reagan.
4- George H.W. Bush, as he left office in 1992, pardoned 6 others.
5- Reagan was not impeached
6- The Reagan admin's moral rationale for Iran-Contra was: anti-communism (supporting the Contra rebels against the Sandinistas was seen as a way to undermine a communist regime's grip in the region), Hostage release (there was a goal of securing the release of US hostages held by Iran-linked militant groups in Lebanon; the weapons sales to Iran were portrayed as an attempt to establish links with moderate Iranian factions who could help free the hostages - most independent observers rejected this "arms-for-hostages" narrative), National security interest (again, establish link to moderate Iranians, establish strategic leverage with the link)

0- Trump refused to accept any accountability and forcefully denied all wrongdoing related to Russian interference, efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents, etc.
1- There was a special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election
2- The investigation resulted in prosecution and convictions of key aides and former members of the Trump campaign.
3- The Mueller report outlined substantial evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump himself (left it open that he can be indicted)
4- Trump pardoned or commuted those convicted as part of the Mueller's investigation
5- Trump was impeached twice by the House, acquitted by the Senate. Impeached in 2019 for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress (pressuring Ukraine for political purposes). Impeached in 2021 for Incitement of Insurrection
6- The Trump admin's moral rationale for pressuring Ukraine was, to get to the bottom of potential corruption and election meddling issues involving Ukraine. For Jan 6th, it was to challenge the 2020 election result.

My takes

• In both cases, there was some accountability (there were special counsel investigations, prosecution and convictions). Trump also was impeached twice, so in that sense, there was more accountability against Trump. OTOH, the DoJ didn't follow up on the Mueller report to indict him for objection of justice. A wash overall, but there were some accountability esp since he's now facing criminal trials.
• Reagan's moral rationale for Iran-Contra is better. It was done in the interest of the US, though illegal and didn't achieve its goal. It was not done for the direct benefit of Reagan.
• Trump's moral rationale for Jan 6th and holding Ukraine's aid for an investigation into his political rival is against the interest of the US and for the interest of Trump himself.
• Reagan admits mistakes, Trump insists he did nothing wrong. When a person at that power with that level of support admits mistakes, it is easier to forgive and move on. It also helps re-form the traditional line of what NOT to cross - helping future generations from not daring to cross over. On the other hand, when that person admits no wrongdoing and still insists that he was in the right to do it and would do it again, that traditional line is completely broken.
• For these reasons, attempt at accountability is not really the problem here. Both were being held accountable, to various levels of success. The problem is the moral bankruptcy of the line that traditionally we should not allow to cross is not crossed. That's what Trump did, but Reagan did not. The other problem is the system was never designed to hold someone like Trump in check - it depends too much on a "good moral" people doing the right thing. The US justice system was never designed to be speedy enough to effectively hold someone like Trump accountable. IOW, we got a bigger problem than just accountability.

 

You are telling me there is moral justification to find a right wing death squad?

I don't see a moral justification in wrecking poor Soith Americans lives because they don't want their country to turn into a cheap labor factory for Americans profit interests.

Reagan and the right wing think tanks of that era had very bigoted Roosevelt imperialism type views on expressing US might for private corporate interests.

 

Plenty of times you argued against even an attempt to hold Trump accountable because we should just move on.

 

I said it was better. It was wrong and illegal, but it was better because he did what he thought was in the interest of the nation, versus the other guy who did it for his own self-interest.

 

Narcissism can make you believe any action is best for the nation.

Narcissism in believing you can be the only one to save a nation which would be the motivation for Trump.

The narcissism to believe your race, ethnicity, economic might is morally superior to the desires of random South American laborers who don't want their country to turn into a cheap labor factory for American corporate interests is what drove Reagan and the people he surrounded himself with.

 

Don't forget guys this is their "anti corruption" canidate. The guy who's literally being bribed in the open for concessions on drilling regulations. Don't let these dipshits gas light you @K9Texan @tallanvor

 

You still don't have him. Every 3 months there is a smoking gun and he is definitely going to prison. And the idiotic current administration is doing everything in power they can to get him reelected.

 

Sure, but we can make a judgement if it was for the interest of the nation (that doesn’t mean it was BETTER for the nation) vs self interest. The US done many legal things for the interest of the nation at the time that turned our horrible (see Taliban). Decade ago, the US interest was so anti communist we went to war in Vietnam.

 

You just deflected

 

This is why I’m very for the separation of powers, rule of law and independent DOJ. It often means politicians and issues that I favor don’t advance or move fast enough but it is the best check on corruption and concentration of power.