u/Punchy-Yogurt

In democratic systems, there is often tension between moving on from a divisive political era and pursuing accountability for alleged misconduct that occurred during that era.

On one hand, investigations or prosecutions of political figures can be seen by supporters as partisan retaliation, especially when the country is already polarized. On the other hand, avoiding accountability because it is politically divisive may weaken the rule of law and create incentives for future abuses of power.

How should a democracy distinguish between ordinary political disagreement, abuse of power, and conduct that may require legal consequences?

What forms of accountability are most appropriate after a controversial presidency: criminal prosecution where evidence supports it, civil liability, congressional investigations, professional sanctions, disqualification from office, truth-and-reconciliation-style processes, electoral consequences, or historical judgment?

And how should voters evaluate political parties or movements that later distance themselves from a controversial leader while also opposing investigations or legal consequences related to that leader’s conduct?

I’m interested in this as a general democratic problem, not only as a question about one person or one party.

I’m interested in a broader question about political and legal accountability after the Trump era.

At some point after Trump, it seems likely that many conservatives will try to argue that Trump was an aberration, that the country should “move on.” What are the political implications of that?

there is a separate issue from the political: alleged or proven lawbreaking.

If a president, campaign, party officials, lawyers, media figures, state officials, or outside organizers participated in conduct that may have violated the law — for example around election interference, fake electors, abuse of power, monetary corruption, then how should voters evaluate later attempts to distance from Trump? While also opposing legal consequences for that conduct?

On one hand, democracies should avoid criminalizing ordinary politics or using prosecution as partisan revenge. On the other hand, if serious political lawbreaking is treated as something the country should simply “move on” from, doesn’t that create incentives for future abuse?

So where is the line?

Can a party credibly separate itself from a leader it nominated, defended, and organized around if it also resists legal accountability for the conduct that made that era dangerous?

What kinds of accountability are appropriate in this situation: criminal prosecution where evidence supports it, civil liability, professional sanctions for lawyers, congressional investigations and more?

I’m not asking whether ordinary Trump voters should be punished for supporting him. They should not. I’m asking how a rule-of-law democracy should distinguish between normal political disagreement, political enabling, and actual lawbreaking by powerful political actors.

I’m trying to better understand how other ppl assess the long-term record of conservative policy in the United States, especially when looking at major events like

the Iraq War
2008 financial crisis
COVID-era health policy
tax cuts, deregulation, deficits
inflation, energy prices
broader questions about institutional trust

Critics of modern conservatism often argue that conservative economic approaches like tax cuts weighted toward higher earners, deregulation, reduced social spending, privatization, aggressive foreign policy, the resurgence of aggressive conservative legal constitutional interpretation, all have contributed to inequality, financial instability, public debt, and weakened public institutions.

Supporters, on the other hand, often argue that conservative economics promotes growth, investment, entrepreneurship, energy independence, fiscal discipline, and resistance to what they see as inefficient or overreaching government programs.

My question is:

What is the strongest argument that conservative economic policy has produced positive outcomes for the country? What would be the top three accomplishments?

And how do supporters of conservative economics respond to the argument that recent Republican administrations have often ended in major economic or institutional crises?

I’m especially interested in answers that engage with both sides of the issue rather than just defending one party or attacking the other.

Hey folks, so I recently got into DWTS and blazed thru all the available seasons on Hulu/Disney, and went looking for some older seasons. I found dispersed episodes here and there and had the best luck on a certain european platform, and want to share the playlists I've assembled, but also don't want it to get shut down.

How hot is this sub? would it catch the eye of the network? Do they care? Do you all care? do you want to see the old seasons or have you been there and done that? Help me decide if and how to share.