George Orwell on MAGA and the Trump-Slaves....

I haven't read BNW in a while, so I'm fuzzy on the details. A entity that places
pleasure and hedonism as important things has more in common with contemporary
America than one that is a totalitarian nightmare, though I don't think the former
is much more accurate than the latter. It's better for people to follow their own
desires than an entity that severely restricts and limits those desires and forces people
to act against them. I don't see either possibility coming to fruition. I'd  have to read
BNW again, but preliminarily I find 1984 to be better as a novel than BNW.

 

BNW = Brave New World...

The part you are choosing to treat as meaningless, is that they DID commit crimes. We are not talking innocent people here.

And you don't seem to have an issue with that.

The only part you don't like is that they are being held accountable for their crimes, when others, who you believe had equal crimes, were not.

All those indictments of Donald? Those are based on enough evidence to get a grand jury to vote to pursue prosecution. If they had no evidence, so too, their would be no prosecutions.

So as I said, to you, the crimes are irrelevant, it's only the perceived putative part that you focus on.

And if you don't care about the crimes themselves, then I cannot believe your opinion is anything but partisan in nature.

Freon

I didn’t expect Eric Holder to go to prison, if that’s what you’re saying.

You are very directly making the argument that if you commit a crime (including something like jaywalking or driving one mile per hour over the speed limit), then the punishment can vary wildly between different parties and it doesn’t matter.

That’s just a literal request that administrations weaponize the justice system against their opposition.

Logically. And that’s not a surprise to me.

If Trump wins, and starts locking up Democrat elites for driving 56 mph in a 55 mph, will your argument remain consistent? I doubt it. But that’s literally your argument.

No. My argument is that you don't care about the crimes themselves, you care about the degree of punishment, and that it is being (in your opinion) unfairly leveraged against people you like.

You SHOULD be upset that these people broke the law. But you aren't. That part you completely ignore. That's why you compare their crimes to jaywalking and speeding, both crimes that barely deserve a consequence.

My argument is that it is possible that these people are merely getting their consequences because they are criminals.

I'm not sure why so many criminals are attracted to, and hired by, Donald. I'm not sure why you are ok with that.

My core theory is that to obtain power and make the country the way you want, you will do ANYTHING. There is no person you won't support and vote for. No crime you will not ignore. No shame you will not tolerate.

I've heard of this type of fervor for a leader in countries like Nazi Germany, Italy's Mussolini, and many others in history. But I never believed I would see it in the USA in my lifetime.

You have opened my eyes.

Freon

Now you’re saying there are some things that are crimes and misdemeanors that don’t deserve much of a consequence after mocking me for saying that other crimes don’t deserve much of a consequence? And that I should just care that a crime was committed regardless of the punishment?


That’s bananas. Even for you.

And I didn’t expect Eric Holder to go to prison for contempt of Congress. And he didn’t get punished.

And I was fine with that.

So I’m consistent, and the current administration is weaponizing the justice system.

That’s obvious. You just like it, so it’s ok.

You support criminals because they promise to make the country that way you want.

That's also obvious.

I don't. I believe in the rule of law, and I am happy to apply to ANYONE who breaks it.

Freon

You have just as many lawyers on your side as the other does AND you have the SCOTUS. No group is better positioned to (and is actually implementing right now) the weaponization of government than the far right.

Problem is, you don't have any evidence. That darned evidence!

Or your lawyers are crap.

Your argument is that you DO have evidence that those you've mentioned broke laws, but something is preventing them from being indicted. What, exactly? I've yet to hear of any attempts to indict, so what are you basing this opinion on?

They did try to impeach Biden a couple of times, but again, that darned lack of evidence got in the way.

You see what you choose to see. What you want to see. But you are not basing your views on evidence, and I am.

When you have evidence on your side, it's pretty easy to see who the criminals are. You wouldn't know.

Freon

Novels  written to make a political point often sacrifice things like character to make that point,
which weakens  them to some degree as novels. I think Orwell comes out better in this respect
than Huxley, though  both books are worth a second read. No doubt that 1984 is better known
than BNW.