r/complaints

Right before the midterms where trump is terrified Democrats will be voted in and start prosecuting him.

The literal wording, "IRS could not audit Trump's tax returns filed before Monday or ‌any ⁠matters that were raised or could have been raised."

And this is Trump settling with his former defense attorney... Oh I mean current Attorney General of the Department of Justice that Trump himself appointed.

No judge was involved.

That's not suspicious at allllll.

MAGA YOU CORRUPT TRAITORS

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlement-tax-returns-audit

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-irs-settlement-forever-bars-audits-into-tax-claims-trump-his-family-2026-05-19/

It's the "art of the deal", with himself.

The defining characteristic of modern MAGA politics increasingly appears not to be ideology but contradiction itself. Loyalty rises and falls not according to principle, consistency, or policy, but according to proximity to a single figure and whatever position happens to be useful in the moment. Figures once praised become traitors overnight. Behaviour once mocked becomes acceptable when performed by the right person. Policies once condemned become noble when wearing a different jersey. Political movements built upon values can survive disagreement. Movements built upon personality eventually consume their own logic.

That contradiction carries a cost beyond elections or policy disputes because it corrodes the very idea of discourse. Productive discussion requires at least a shared commitment to standards. Facts should matter. Principles should remain recognisable from one day to the next. Arguments should survive contact with consistency. Yet communities often find themselves exhausted by participants whose positions seem to shift according to tribal instinct rather than coherent belief. Discussion becomes less an exchange of ideas and more an endless exercise in chasing moving goalposts across the field.

Online communities therefore face an uncomfortable question. Their purpose is not merely unrestricted noise but the cultivation of spaces where people can actually communicate. Moderation exists to preserve conversation, not bury it. When any movement or faction repeatedly rewards bad faith engagement, outrage, and perpetual antagonism, communities eventually begin asking whether preserving discourse sometimes requires drawing firmer boundaries. A room filled with smoke eventually stops being a place for conversation and becomes a place people quietly abandon.

Their inevitable reply is almost ritualistic. Accusations of censorship will arrive immediately, accompanied by solemn lectures about free speech and open dialogue. Yet the principle suddenly becomes negotiable when criticism is directed at Trump himself. The same voices that invoke liberty as sacred often applaud threats against networks, journalists, comedians, or critics who dare mock or challenge him. The contradiction is difficult to ignore. What appears to be desired is not a robust culture of free expression but a one way arrangement in which outrage flows outward and criticism is prohibited from returning. Free speech, in that framework, ceases to be a principle and becomes a shield for grievance. Communities eventually recognise that dynamic for what it is: not discourse, but a corrosive force that rewards hostility while treating empathy, consistency, and reason as adversaries rather than virtues.

The irony is almost impossible to miss. Many conservative online spaces openly defend banning dissenting voices as a means of preserving ideological purity and shielding themselves from what they describe as hostile outside influence. They frame exclusion as protection when they do it, then recast it as oppression when other communities enforce their own standards. By their own logic, communities possess the right to define the culture they wish to cultivate. If one genuinely believes in treating others as one wishes to be treated, then the precedent being established is remarkably straightforward: spaces curate themselves, and others may choose to do exactly the same.

In the end, the argument is not fundamentally about left versus right, nor about suppressing disagreement. Communities survive through shared standards, good faith engagement, and a basic commitment to coherence. When contradiction becomes identity, grievance becomes currency, and discourse becomes a vehicle for perpetual hostility, people inevitably begin withdrawing from the conversation itself. Every community has the right to decide whether it wishes to cultivate discussion or merely host endless chaos. A space cannot remain healthy if its loudest participants treat dialogue as conquest rather than communication. Eventually the question ceases to be whether disruption should be tolerated. It becomes whether discourse itself can survive if it is not defended.

If communities permit perpetual bad faith and corrosive antagonism to metastasise unchecked, they risk surrendering the very conditions that make discourse possible. The choice, therefore, is not complicated but singular: preserve the republic of conversation, or watch it collapse beneath the weight of its own tolerated decay.

This agreement must be treated with the contempt it deserves. There is no permanence. It was not agreed by a court or in law.

If another Congress cannot undo it, a change of administration must. There is absolutely no way that Trump, his family and his companies should be effectively tax exempt forever. If Trump can walk away from international agreements signed by the US, the US can walk away from this fake settlement.

Every year not investigated during his term must be investigated with the finest of combs under a new administration. Every MAGA that takes money from the slush fund must be forced to pay it back, with penal levels of interest, set at the minimal equivalent of student loan repayment rates.

Elon Musk's baby mama reveals that he used "space technology" in the 2024 election and implies that he STOLE it for Donald Trump.

This deserves a full federal investigation by Democrats...

"In October, Elon tells me that he is ready to release his, in his words 'anomaly in the matrix' And I am like, oh, like, who's that? And he says that he has 10,000 lasers in space, referring to his satellites," said Ashley St. Clair, one of the many women whom Musk has impregnated and then promptly began treating like dirt.

"I say, because I am like, rather uncomfortable, and I know the gravity of what he's trying to tell me right now. I say, 'Wow, finally, a focus on the Jewish vote. He keeps going," she continued. "And he says, you know, this is not something on, this is not a piece that they'll see on the chessboard."

"And I straight up tell him, I say, I would ask more, but I really don't want to be deposed, to which he says, very wise," she added.

The implication here is clearly that Musk was doing something illegal and that St. Clair wanted plausible deniability.

"Shortly after that, you know, he's involved with AmericaPAC and all of this other stuff, and he's sending me some internal data from AmericaPAC, real time delta vote metrics," recounted St. Clair. "And I am just like, how the f*ck do you have this sort of data? You don't get this from door knocking, because one of my first jobs in politics was in campaigns and cleaning up this bad data from door knocking, because the vendors that AmericaPAC is using at this point is a vendor that hires Craigslist crackheads for door knocking. And I wish I was exaggerating there, but I'm not."

St. Clair said that she now recognizes that she "caused harm" with her "rhetoric" when she was leaning into being a far-right persona, but claimed that she only ever wanted what's "best" for America. Clearly, she feels that she can no longer in good conscience remain silent on 2024.

"And one thing is I have always, always hated big tech," she said. "So then to have arguably the most powerful man in the world, who is sending me things about, you know, using his space technology in the election. I should also say that I have all of this backed up with many people with explicit instructions, should anything happen to me, okay."

"But this was something that I was internally wrestling with, while publicly not really showing that I was having any of these internal ethical conflicts with myself regarding this information," she went on.

"And then on election night itself, Elon, you know, left Mar-a-Lago early. I was at Mar-a-Lago and he told me, he told me over text, he's like, 'Yeah, I knew hours ago that Trump won. My team has the best real-time data anywhere,'" said St. Clair.

"First of all, how the f*ck do you have real-time data on elections?" she continued. "How do you have real-time data? I could not understand that. I don't know that I ever will. I just, I saw some shit, guys. Like, I saw some shit and I'm fighting really hard to keep my voice because I saw shit that impacts everyone. And if I was self-interested, I have been offered the self-interested deal to shut up and not talk about anything. But what I can tell you is I've not been offered certain deals just because I know that he's weird."

"Okay. I saw some shit," she concluded.

This woman must be immediately subpoenaed to testify before Congress under oath about the "shit" that she saw. If Elon Musk — who spent $291 million to help Republicans win during the 2024 cycle — really used his technology to illegally interfere in our elections, he must be prosecuted and imprisoned. And if any votes were tampered with, the election must be overturned!

Please like and share to demand a full investigation!