582 stories

Accountability, Crime, and Punishment

1 Share

This question came in from the Ask Teri tab:

I’m wondering if, in the next administration, it would be better to let Trump and the others off the hook or prosecute to them? 

I understand the need to get on with the business of running, putting back, and healing the nation, but the alternative, doing nothing, seems so wrong and incentivizes future presidents to do the same or worse!

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the question, and the acknowledgment that punishing Trump may come with a price. This similar question came from Twitter:

Notice the either/ or form of this question: Either prison or Trump gets off the hook. In fact, “accountability” and “goes to prison” are not the same. We can have one without the other.

I. Accountability

Trump can be held accountable:

  • through civil actions
  • through criminal prosecutions.
  • in his capacity as an individual,
  • as part of the Trump Org
  • as part of another entity (such as the Trump campaign)

These are further divided into state and federal remedies. Any of the above can be brought under state or federal law.

For example, New York Attorney General sued the Trump Foundation (a charity) for willful self-dealing. To take another example: E. Jean Carrol’s lawsuit against Trump in which she is trying to get a sample of his DNA to prove that he raped her. A third example: the lawsuits against Trump alleging emoluments clause violations.

It seems axiomatic to me that anyone who earns or takes money illegally should have to return that money. One way for this to happens is through an audit of Trump’s financial records, which can be subpoenaed when he is out of office. Trump should have to return illegally-gotten funds with interest. He should also have to repay his back taxes.

In addition to a large tax bill coming due, and astronomical legal fees he will incur after the election, reporting shows that Trump will have to pay back $900 million in loans beginning in early 2021. The Trumps have been milking the presidency for millions, but it’s likely they’re so deep in debt that the money disappears into loan and interest payments.

The Turmps live in a bubble of debt. That bubble is very likely to pop.

One reason Trump’s cult loves him is that they think he’s a Strongman, a winner, a success. The measure of Trump’s success has been his wealth, or, rather, the trappings of wealth.

What if it’s gone? What if the Trumps have no cash pouring through their hands? What if they can no longer live a lavish lifestyle. Imagine Ivanka Trump living in a three bedroom tract house in, say, Mississippi. They will not be able to present themselves as ‘winners’ smart enough to game the system.

The Trumps will be losers. If they are losers, it’s harder to play the victim.

Any time Trump has been on the verge of financial ruin, someone bailed him out. First, his father bailed him out, then the Russians, and most recently, people trying to curry favor with the U.S. president.

Trump’s situation reminds me of that song from Aladdin:

🎵 Gotta keep,
One jump ahead of the bread line
one swing ahead of the sword
I steal only what I can’t afford
and that’s everything 🎵

🎵One jump ahead of the lawmen🎵

Unless Trump can get a lucrative right-wing media business up and running quickly, very large bills will come due soon and Trump will not be able to pay.

If you’re thinking, “Lawsuits take such a long time! Who wants to wait that long?” I have news for you: Getting criminal convictions is harder than winning a civil case.

Standards of proof

Criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil actions generally require only a preponderance of the evidence. Think of preponderance of the evidence as: there a 51% chance he’s guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is almost 100% certain.

So it’s easier to prove civil cases against Trump. That’s why, for example, O.J. Simpson was able to beat the criminal charge for murder but lost in the civil trial for wrongful death (and was ordered to pay $25 million in damages). The prosecutors had a higher standard of proof. Criminal trials are treated differently.

Civil v. Criminal

Civil suits are usually about compensation for injuries or damages. If you hurt someone, you have to compensate them. If you cause an accident, you pay the costs. If you take something that doesn’t belong to you, you have to give it back. Civil suits often result in the redistribution of property and money.

Criminal prosecutions are about punishment.

(There can also be restitution: A person convicted of a crime can be forced to provide restitution to victims, or return money, but mostly criminal prosecutions are about punishment.)

Punishment is the intentional infliction of pain on another human being.

In the case of the criminal justice system, the state is inflicting the pain. So we are talking about serious stuff.

Criminal trials of prominent individuals are more likely to turn into circuses because more is at stake. In a civil trial a person stands to lose money or property. In a criminal trial, a person stands to lose his or her liberty, and maybe even his or her life.

The following discussion does not mean that I think Trump won’t face criminal liability, or that he shouldn’t face criminal liability. My intention is to explode some of the myths so that we can stay grounded.
* * *
MYTH #1: If we punish Trump we will dissuade future politicians from doing the same thing.

Punishing Trump or even Trump coming to a bad end (as long as he remains a hero in the eyes of his followers) will not break up the Trump Cult or dissuade future fascists. Twenty-first-century fascists like Putin didn’t look at Hitler and Mussolini and say, “Gee, they came to bad ends. We should give up our right-wing extremist views.” They read philosophers like Ivan Ilyin and figured out how to do the fascists act better. They came up with the new, improved twenty-first-century version.

Fascism is not going to dissolve because Trump gets punished. The right-wing is not going to say, “Oh goodness, we better play nice or the prosecutors will get us.”

In fact, punishing Trump will allow him to play the victim and might anger and fire up the Qanon people. Fox is an outrage stoking machine. Punishing Trump may play right into the hands of the right wing outrage machine.

Fact: Deterrence doesn’t work.

Research shows that using punishment as a deterrent and imposing stiff punishments does not reduce or deter crime. Deterrence assumes criminal actors are rational; often they’re not. People take chances. If a person is desperate or mentally ill; if he is sure he won’t get caught or doesn’t care if he gets caught deterrence doesn’t work.

If a person is disobeying a law deliberately because he or she doesn’t believe the laws should be there, deterrence will not work.

Refusing to obey laws that are perceived as unjust has a long tradition. Susan B. Anthony was proud of her felony conviction. (She was found guilty of voting when women were not permitted.) Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because he didn’t want his taxes to fund what he considered an immoral war. I still remember this story told by my high school civics teacher: Emerson went to visit Thoreau in jail. Emerson said, “Henry, what are you doing in there?’ Thoreau said, “Ralph, the question is: What you doing out there?”

Before the Civil War, abolitionists regularly violated what they considered unjust and immoral laws. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent time in jail.

Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, George Papadopolous, are all considered heroes by America’s far right wing despite their convictions (or guilty pleas). The ones who remain loyal to Trump are considered heroes. Those like Michael Cohen are not.

My point: If people look to Trump as a hero, imprisoning him (punishing him) will not change their minds. Because punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain, he will present himself as a martyr.

In particular, deterrence doesn’t work against elected officials who campaign on a promise to break laws.

Let’s take this hypothetical situation:

Political Party A, which believes in a tightly regulated society, has control of the government for a few decades. Party A regulates industries and banks with a view to creating fairness. They mandate that all people have health insurance and wear helmets while riding motorcycles. They outlaw things like manipulating markets and fixing prices. They regulate industries to reduce toxins and harm to the environment.

Political Party B believes that government regulations are evil. They campaign on a promise to get rid of all such regulations and dismantle the agencies that enforce them.

Political Party B wins by a landslide. The elected officials immediately disregard the laws. The task of dismantling the laws will take years. They don’t wait. They ignore the laws.

Before Political Party B can finish dismantling the agencies and regulations, they lose the next election.

Party A comes to power.

Should Party A put the members of Party B who broke the laws into jail?

See the problem? (I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be put in jail. I’m saying that punishment doesn’t work as a deterrent in this case. The party members in jail will see themselves as victims of an unfair government. They’ll regroup and attack again.)

Another hypothetical. Candidate A runs for office on a promise that he will disregard the laws and do as he pleases. He wins the election. When Candidate A is voted out of office, should he be punished for doing what he promised to do while campaigning?

Most people follow the laws because they want to. For normal people, the threat of getting caught and exposed as a lawbreaker is enough to keep them in line.

Story: One time my very law-abiding husband realized he was on the light rail without his ticket, which he’d forgotten at home. The rule that all passengers must carry a valid ticket was enforced by random checks. At random intervals, a law enforcement officer would come through the car and asked to see tickets. The idea of not having his ticket and being exposed in front of his fellow commuters so horrified my husband that he jumped off at the next stop to purchase a ticket.

Okay, so what about the homeless people who got on the train without tickets? What do you do with them? Fine them? (They have no money.) Jail them? (Dumb idea. Putting them in jail won’t solve the problem that caused them to get on the train without a ticket.)

Aside: This post should have been called Fun With Criminal Law. See how interesting these issues are? Among the most important questions affecting our society are in the area of criminal law.

MYTH #2: If Trump doesn’t go to prison, it means rule of law failed.

All lawbreakers are not punished. It has never happened, and it will never happen. Prosecutors have discretion about which crimes to investigate, whether to bring charges and which charges to bring. The only possible way to punish all criminal behavior would be to live in a police state and build even more prisons.

In fact, prosecutorial discretion is a pillar of democracy. In autocracies, the leader decides who to prosecute. In a democracy, that power is given to a prosecutor. It’s one of the ways that power is divided. (Among the more shocking things Trump has done is politicize the DOJ, and threaten to use prosecutions as a political weapon.)

In other words, this will not (and should not) happen in a democracy:

When Biden was asked whether he’d want his DOJ to investigate Trump, he gave the correct answer. He said he would appoint an attorney general and leave the decision to the prosecutors.

Rule of law doesn’t fail if every lawbreaker is not punished. That’s not what rule of law means.

Rule of law is a system of government that derives its authority from a code of laws instead of the will of an autocrat. In a rule of law, democratic institutions administer and uphold the law. Democratic institutions include elections and courts.

An autocracy derives its authority from the whims and wishes of the autocrat.

Rule of law fails when authority transfers from a code of laws and democratic institutions to the whims of an autocrat.

There are many people (even Trump critics) who will find the prospect of a former U.S. president in prison garb unseemly. Trump is likely to retain a devoted following who will be furious. The prospect of Trump punished by the government may fire up and energize the far right-wing.

Some people say Trump & pals must all go to jail because poor people (and ethnic minorities) go to jail in disproportionate numbers, so rich white men should too. How about if we stop putting so many poor people & minorities in jail?

I have long been a proponent of criminal justice and prison reform. I believe that our society too heavily relies on the criminal justice system to solve our problems. See these stats (it’s a page from my book, Guilty, Crime, Punishment, and the Changing Face of Justice):

Defund the police really just means stop relying so heavily on the criminal justice system to solve our problems.

While there may be good reasons for Trump to face criminal liability, I don’t believe that the criminal justice system will solve the problems that created Trump.

Tomorrow I’ll do an “ask Teri” post and work through some of the questions you all sent me.

After writing all of this, I decided to make Sections II (punishment) and III (due process) of my book for people to read free:


If you’d like to read, click here.

I think I will turn the comments on for this post.

The book is about the criminal justice system, and was intended for high school. It was originally pitched as a course in criminal law for ninth graders.

Here’s what some reviewers had to say about Guilty? Crime, Punishment, and the Changing Face of Justice

“Kanefield not only allows readers to understand how notions ofright and wrong change over time and across cultures, helping thembegin to understand the complexities of crime and punishment,but she will probably leave them eager to find out more.” —Horn Book Magazine

“This short book is dense with examples and ideas and makes a complicated, somewhat daunting subject more accessible and interesting to a younger audience.” —Booklist

“An easy and informative read, gives basic information about the criminal justice system.” —VOYA

“This book takes a look at the evolution of the American justice system. Kanefield scrutinizes the judicial system by examining current and past crimes.” —School Library Journal

“By following the law school model and exploring actual cases, readers are able to ponder abstract ideas via concrete examples.” —Kirkus Reviews

“An extraordinary book…that could well be mind-blowing to the thoughtful young reader who is ready to move beyond the black-and-white notion that a particular act is wrong simply because it is illegal.” —Richie Partington, Book Blogger

The post Accountability, Crime, and Punishment appeared first on Musing about law, books, and politics.

Read the whole story
1 day ago
Share this story

Criminal Becomes First Person to Break Law Passed Because of His Crimes

1 Comment and 2 Shares

When I give ethics seminars I usually mention the case of Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist who went to prison for defrauding clients. Abramoff pleaded guilty in 2006 to taking at least $25 million from clients, mainly Native American tribes, in one case secretly lobbying against one of the clients he was being paid to lobby for. He also pleaded guilty to bribing dozens of officials, including at least one U.S. representative. Many others were convicted of corruption or bribery in the scandal.

According to Abramoff, he was just sort of pushing the envelope, not doing anything new. (In the clip I show in the seminar, he points out that he “didn’t invent corruption,” which is true but sort of beside the point.) After his shenanigans came to light, Congress amended the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in response, by passing a bill with the entirely serious name of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This was an effort to address some of the loopholes and/or gray areas that Abramoff had exploited, or to make it appear as though they were being addressed, depending on your point of view. Among other things, it imposed additional disclosure requirements on lobbyists and increased various penalties.

Abramoff was released from prison in 2010, saying that he was now committed to fighting corruption. Not everyone was convinced. “Booking Jack Abramoff to speak on political reform is like hiring Bernie Madoff to host a seminar on smart and prudent investing,” one skeptic said at the time. O ye of little faith!

Well, ye were right this time.

According to the New York Times, in June of this year Abramoff became the first person charged with violating the amended Lobbying Disclosure Act. Which, as I mentioned, had been amended because of his own crooked lobbying.

It appears that after permanently solving the corruption problem, Abramoff decided to get involved with a company that planned to develop and manage a new cryptocurrency called “AML Bitcoin” and hoped to raise up to $100 million from selling it. Selling cryptocurrency (which I understand is like actual currency, but crypto) is not fraudulent in and of itself, I guess, but it is illegal to make false claims and promises about it. That’s what Abramoff did, according to the government. Actually, according to Abramoff too, because he pleaded guilty to the wire-fraud charge in July.

But especially relevant here, because it’s funnier, is that Abramoff was also charged with, and pleaded guilty to, violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 2017. He had been working on behalf of an unnamed entity in California that was advocating for changes in federal law and policy regarding marijuana, and met with at least one member of Congress to discuss the matter. He also seems to have done similar work for a “business person seeking to fund certain lobbying efforts” who in fact turned out to be an FBI agent. But you can’t do these things legally without registering as a lobbyist, which Abramoff did not do.

Could Abramoff simply have been unaware of the requirement? Unlikely, the government suggested, alleging that “ABRAMOFF was aware of the obligations to register as a lobbyist in part because Congress amended provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 2007 in part as a reaction to ABRAMOFF’s past conduct as a lobbyist.”

I don’t know if there’s another case of someone being the first person to break a law that was passed because of his previous crimes, but that too seems unlikely. Of course, it may be even more unlikely that Abramoff is actually the first person to break this law in the 13 years since it was amended. But he is at least the first one to get caught. Unless he gets pardoned—which of course is entirely possible—he faces another five years in prison. After which, he will definitely be turning over a new leaf. Again.

Read the whole story
3 days ago
Dog bites man.
Share this story

The Scalzi Endorsement: Joe Biden

6 Comments and 8 Shares
A picture of Joe Biden and the phrase

Original photo of Joe Biden by Gage Skidmore, used under Creative Commons license.

Inasmuch as I have, in fact, already voted for Joe Biden, I think it’s both safe and reasonable to come out and endorse the man to be President of the United States. I also think it’s reasonable to point out that this endorsement will not precisely be the most fulsome and ringing endorsement that I have ever given to a candidate for president, even as I acknowledge and recognize that voting for Joe Biden might have been the most important vote for president that I have ever made, or might ever make. Welcome to 2020, folks. What a fucking mess it is.

To be clear: Joe Biden will (probably) do fine as president. He wasn’t my first choice, or my second choice for that matter, but he picked my first choice to be his Vice President, so that’s all right. Biden is a career politician and in his 78 years has made some exceedingly questionable choices, from casual plagiarism to how he handled Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. He has a bit of a tin ear and he is prone to gaffes, some but not all of which can be ascribed to navigating around a stutter. Also, he’s also shown that he can roll with changes and can, when necessary, read a room. He understands the job he’s trying to get, and he really does understand it’s not all about him. He’s your basic pol: Mostly competent, mostly a man of the people, mostly someone who when you look at him, your basic reaction is, well, okay, fine, he can probably do that job.

This is what I mean by not a ringing endorsement! Joe Biden does not set me afire with political passion. He in himself does not strike me as an epochal candidate, the way Barack Obama was, or Hillary Clinton might have been as the first woman president. He’s old, white, middlin’ and middle of the road. Certain sitcom characters aside, he does not inspire fervor in anyone. Even the character assassination of him from the foamy right lacks real passion, in no small part because he is old, white, middlin’ and middle of the road, and not, say, a black man, or a woman. No one expects greatness from Joe Biden. They expect adequate competence. He’ll probably be fine is the mantra here.

And he will, again, probably do fine! He’ll be just fine. His administration will be just fine, full of smart, competent people who will also do just fine, not a revolution but maybe some decent, solid steps forward to where we as a nation need to be. His fuckups will keep the Sunday talk show people employed but normal people won’t have to care much. A Biden administration will probably not consume every waking moment of your day with an existential dread about what awful racist shit it’s up to now, and how it might undermine the basic fucking fabric of American society.

Which, oh, hey, brings us to Donald Trump, the monumental fuck-up who is currently president, and who, as I write this, is careening through the White House, pumped up on steroids and experimental drugs, shedding viruses like a white cat sheds on a black shirt, and is thinking that lurching out of a hospital to wantonly infect others somehow projects strength, not sociopathy.

He is, literally, the worst. After four years, I don’t feel I need to break out all the reasons that he is the worst, although to lightly gloss, it’s to do with the corruption, the white supremacy, the self-dealing, the incompetence and the fact that 210,000 Americans (so far!) have died from a viral pandemic that Trump even literally today, as it infects his own body, wants to pretend is not that big of a deal, and choses to do nothing useful about. The worst! The worst president in living memory for certain.

(Of all time? It’s a fight! James Buchanan actually broke the country so he might be the least competent president, and Andrew Jackson is pretty much the platonic ideal of a genocidal asshole, so he might be the worst human to be president. But Trump comes a close second in both categories! So he might be the worst president of all time simply on points. But even if Buchanan or Jackson (or Andrew Johnson, who was no treat either, or Warren G. Harding, I mean, shit, we really do elect some awful people to the gig) squeak by, again, no one alive has seen a worse president. No one alive has seen one so willfully unprepared for the job, one so disinterested in the job, one so ignorant of its scope, or one so unconcerned how all of that will affect those who have to suffer his administration, staffed as it is with incompetents and grifters because saner and smarter people either would have nothing to do with it, or left when they realized that Trump wanted sycophants, not useful advisors.)

The United States is not a better place for having Trump as president. The world is certainly not a better place. Most Americans are not better off now than they were four years ago. As much as Trump and his proudly ignorant, proudly racist and proudly angry supporters would like to suggest otherwise, a whole lot of the blame for all of that can be laid squarely at Trump’s door. Trump had no plan to be president — he didn’t want to be president, he just wanted attention — and he has no plan on what to do for another four years as president. He doesn’t want to be president now; he just doesn’t want to be branded a loser, and he doesn’t want to be on the hook for the hundreds of millions of dollars in personal loans coming due in the next few years. His presidency was born of grift and desperation, with a heavy dollop of white supremacy that history, I assure you, will find unforgivable.

Trump did not deserve to be president, does not deserve the job now, and certainly does not deserve another four years of it. Given the prospect of another four years of literally the worst president in living memory and possibly of all time, almost anyone the Democrats could have nominated would have had my vote in the general election. This was a done deal as of November 9, 2016, because it was pretty clear to me how bad the next four years were going to be, nor was I wrong. It makes no sense to deny that for the 2020 election, I was going to vote against Trump far more than I was going to vote for whomever the Democrats offered up.

Four years ago, I don’t think I was expecting that would be Biden, who will come into the White House as the oldest person to be elected to the job. I honestly believed that he figured he missed his shot, would write a memoir and then fade out. Surprise! Here we are, and here is Biden, and here is the 2020 election.

It is, to be clear, the most consequential of the nine presidential elections I have to date voted in. We get to decide whether we will get four more years of corruption, of white supremacy, of self-dealing and of, literally, plague… or at least four years of not all of that. Four years of probably decent, probably unremarkable governance, by and from people who mostly know what they’re doing and mostly want to be useful when they do it, headed up by Joe Biden.

I’m not at all certain America will ever recover fully from four more years of Donald Trump. I’m very certain we can survive, and perhaps even thrive, with at least four years of Joe Biden.

So yes, Joe Biden, all right, fine, you’ll do. You got my vote. I hope you will get the vote of the majority of Americans, and (critically, due to our fucked-up system of choosing presidents) enough of the votes in each of the fifty US states to get you well above 270 electoral votes.

And more than that, I actively endorse you for president and encourage everyone to vote for you, so you can be a calm, unflashy, quiet, competent president who allows us all to fucking not have to concentrate on what terrible, awful, undemocratic and unamerican thing you are doing today, just because you want to and the people you surround yourself with are too ignorant and too corrupt to stop you.

Please be a perfectly fine president, Joe Biden. I need sleep. And so does everyone else. Thanks.

— JS

Read the whole story
15 days ago
"His administration will be just fine, full of smart, competent people who will also do just fine..." What a day we live in to look forward to this.
Denver, CO
15 days ago
And more than that, I actively endorse [Joe Biden] for president and encourage everyone to vote for you, so you can be a calm, unflashy, quiet, competent president who allows us all to fucking not have to concentrate on what terrible, awful, undemocratic and unamerican thing you are doing today, just because you want to and the people you surround yourself with are too ignorant and too corrupt to stop you.
Share this story
4 public comments
11 days ago
14 days ago
Just Biden time until 2028.
14 days ago
"So yes, Joe Biden, all right, fine, you’ll do. You got my vote. I hope you will get the vote of the majority of Americans, and (critically, due to our fucked-up system of choosing presidents) enough of the votes in each of the fifty US states to get you well above 270 electoral votes.

And more than that, I actively endorse you for president and encourage everyone to vote for you, so you can be a calm, unflashy, quiet, competent president who allows us all to fucking not have to concentrate on what terrible, awful, undemocratic and unamerican thing you are doing today, just because you want to and the people you surround yourself with are too ignorant and too corrupt to stop you."
Greater Bostonia
15 days ago
"Good enough" is, quite literally, good enough.
Columbia, MD

A Reminder to Ohioans: Last Day to Register to Vote

1 Comment

I’ll repost my tweet about it here:

Also, it’s the last day to register to vote if you live in:

•Hawaii (allows same day registration on Election Day)
•South Carolina

So if you’re in one of those states and you haven’t yet registered to vote, there is literally no time like the present.

Also, while you’re registering, make a plan to vote and vote early if you can, to avoid the rush and/or attempts to keep you from casting your vote. I will be voting early myself! Tomorrow, most likely, I’ll be going to the Darke County Board of Elections and voting there. Early voting starts at 8am! And after, I’m getting donuts.

(And if you’re in a state/US territory that isn’t closing up registration today — register today anyway. Why not? It’s a thing you can do! Check to see if your state allows you to register online here.)

— JS

Read the whole story
16 days ago
Share this story

Grossly Overqualified

1 Comment and 4 Shares

don't try this at home

Read the whole story
23 days ago
"Good day prospective employer, I am both smarter than a hatful of periwinkles and prettier than two bags of smashed assholes. Fail to employ me at your own risk."
18 days ago
Share this story

The President Is a White Supremacist. And So Are You if You Support Him.

3 Comments and 11 Shares

Last night in a debate with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, Donald Trump, the actual President of these United States, not only declined to condemn white supremacy, he gave an order to an openly white supremacist group on national television. Here’s the quote and the video:

Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what. Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.

Stand by. Somebody’s gotta do something about antifa and the left. Proud Boy members knew exactly what Trump was telling them — it’s as plain as day. (I’ve grown weary of pointing out the parallels to Nazism and Italian fascism, so I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader in this case. The answer may involve shirt colors.)

We’ve long passed the point at which everyone should understand in no uncertain terms that Trump is an authoritarian, racist, white supremacist (among other things). Hell, this is what many of his supporters like about him. But it should also be clear to his supporters, all of his supporters (especially the ones who hold their nose and support him because of Christian values or fiscal policy or abortion), that by voting for this man knowing what we all clearly know about him, you are a white supremacist. Period. I understand the perfect candidate doesn’t exist and that our system of voting requires us to compromise some of our values in order to support progress towards bigger goals, but good luck explaining that you voted for an actual white supremacist to your grandchildren someday (if you can stomach telling them the truth). Some values cannot be compromised.

Tags: 2020 election   Donald Trump   politics   racism   video
Read the whole story
18 days ago
The President Is a White Supremacist. And So Are You if You Support Him.
19 days ago
Share this story
2 public comments
19 days ago
This. I've tried, in vain, to find a charitable explanation for why people support Trump. Turns out that lots of people respond to dog whistle hate speech, and none of those people have an excuse for voluntarily picking that side. Either you're stupid, or a racist. At least one of these is true.
Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth
19 days ago
Very large inclusive or on that venn diagram
19 days ago
Since mid-2016, I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who doesn't meet at least one.
21 days ago
Spot on from Jason.
Charlottesville, Virginia
17 days ago
repair lg microwave in tehran : https://service-bartar.org/lg-microwave-repair/
Next Page of Stories