Hacker News Reader

That's why norms exist. Most previous presidents never would have had this problem in the first place because they would never suggest using US troops on citizens in the first place. If they needed to do something that even approached violating a norm, then they would go out of their way to affirm that they still supported the norm and to explain their actions. Obama was given more benefit of the doubt partially because he mostly followed norms.

By going out of his way to flout norms, Trump has brought this sort of mistrust and criticism on himself. Therefore, it's not really reasonable for his supporters to complain about it, it's exactly what they signed up for. Remember that Republicans style themselves as the party of personal responsibility.

The question: "Wait, who is threatening to use the US military against US citizens?"

The answer: Numerous examples of Trump threatening to use the US military against US citizens

The retort: He didn't explain exactly how he would do it, so it's not a threat.

> This is like someone saying "If I find out you stole my bike, I will come to your house and take it back" and people saying "oh my god, doesn't he know murder is illegal? you can't go into someone's house and kill them just because they stole from you!"

No, it's like someone saying I'm going to steal your bike, then you tell other people they said they're going to steal your bike, then someone else defends them arguing they didn't say how they were going to steal your bike so stop saying they said they're going to steal your bike.

When Obama threatened the same, he was given the benefit of the doubt?

Example? I was drunk for the entire administration. I don’t doubt he said some stupid shit, but I doubt he then doubled down and escalated consistently afterwards, with unquestioning support from his constituents.

> Trump makes a comment and the media (and HN) assume he's breaking law before he's even done anything.

Because he keeps breaking the law. Repeatedly. The better part of term in office this year has been spent violating the constitution, and lets not forget he's a convicted felon despite all the effort put towards making him immune from the law.

You are failing the first law of HN, where you have to assume the worst possible form of any action when it refers to Trump.

Four years of this TDS is going to be exhausting.

We have years of experience with Trump already. At this point assuming that he will be cruel, irresponsible, corrupt, and vindictive is justified.

So was Biden. And with Alzheimers and unknown people actually running the government.

I don't see the comparison you are trying to make. Biden defined his entire political persona around centrism, bipartisanship, moderation, etc. He certainly made major mistakes (e.g. mismanaging the Afghan pullout, running for reelection); however, he didn't really display the cruelty or intolerance of different ways of life that is a core part of Trump's brand.

I mean, that might be how he defined his persona, but I don't think it's borne out by the facts. I think there was quite a lot of intolerance of anybody that didn't fit in with the left wing view of culture war issues espoused by his government.

He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.

Didn’t those “political persecutions” end up with actual criminal convictions for fraud by an independent jury?

"independent jury". It was in New York. What do you think would happen if Biden or Hillary were tried by a jury in Florida or Texas?

Did voir dire not apply?

> He also oversaw numerous prosecutions of his political opponent, solely designed to stop him running.

Odd conclusion. Why would you think solely? Are you familiar with the evidence in the documents case?

In the documents case, Trump clearly violated the law, based on evidence now in the public record. National security documents he was not entitled to were handled illegally, in ways that others have been prosecuted and convicted for. In really, really bad and scary ways, like nuclear-level secrets in an unlocked closet ways. With pictures. And videos. In the place he lets random foreign enemy political figures AND THEIR SECURITY STAFF run around.

The predominant reason someone like Biden or Bush doesn’t get prosecuted is because they don’t do this shit. Second, because of norms, they transparently cooperate when they make mistakes. Even still, Trump was handled with kid gloves. The documents prosecution took years and was ultimately a massive waste of time.

So if the sole reason was to disadvantage Trump, wasn’t it real dumb? Wouldn’t a more reasonable motivation be that the hundreds of elite law enforcement agents were doing their jobs / protect the country from a clear and present national security threat?

>>The predominant reason someone like Biden or Bush doesn’t get prosecuted is because they don’t do this shit.

Biden mishandled secret documents but escaped prosecution by being mentally unfit. He kept them in his garage, I believe.

Bill Clinton hid secret documents in his sock drawer.

Hillary had her secret email server with classified information on.

“this shit” was not a referent to mishandling classified material.

It was a referent to Trump having thousands of documents, including nuclear secrets and other SCIF material.

Please provide evidence of any of these other people doing it with nuclear secrets.

Please provide evidence of these other people risking national security by giving access to their sock drawers or email servers. Trump lets anyone into Mar A Lago. Anyone including known Chinese spies: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/759906611/chinese-woman-who-b...

Here’s a convenient wikipedia article summarizing sources and showing you pictures of what Trump did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago

You honestly think these behaviors are equivalent or comparable severity?

Biden had SCIF material.

I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't let just anyone into the rooms where the secret documents were. You realise Mar a Lago is a 17 acre country club, right? It's not a 3 bedroom house.

And if you think Gmail is secure you need to read up on the DNC email leak.

You followed up with more accusations without evidence, so I’ll stop engaging after this.

But to your point about where they were, that would be a public bathroom amongst others: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/heres-where-donald-t...

So yeah. I do think he completely and openly abused our country and everything it stands for, by letting anyone into those rooms, exactly as you implied. We know for a fact that ONE Chinese spy has been caught. I linked it already. So for all the other spies that weren’t caught - including Israeli, German, Russian, etc - they know exactly what Trump had. It’s a shame we don’t.

My assumption is that he wasn’t prosecuted for treason because the documents weren’t actually valuable. Classified doesn’t mean important, just that we obey laws about it.

Indeed. And the world did not end and soldiers did not fire on US citizens. Americans experienced it and his support grew.

Hanlon's razor is reserved for people who don't demonstrate malice on a daily basis. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve the scourge of the certainty. I'm sure you can go back through your comments, find several instance where you've said something similar, and it later turned out the concerns were completely justified.

Edit: Didn't even have to go back a month: "The Project 2025 that he disavowed? Do you want trying arguing with facts rather than some evil figment of your imagination?" Of course, it was already ridiculous making that argument a month ago, and I'm sure you'll still say that's a figment of everyone's imaginations.

I think this is what people call the Mandela Effect. Below is an actual video in a presidential debate of Trump saying he had nothing to do with Project 2025, and yet you claim he never said that:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-i-have-nothing-t...

Please try and find some facts to argue with.

> Please try and find some facts to argue with.

Why don’t you start first and show us all how it’s done?

I did not claim he never said it. I’m claiming that it was an obvious lie. If words are the only thing that matters when judging a persons intentions, then that must apply to every person equally or else you’re objectively biased. But you already know that.

Trump is deranged.