Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. Did any Trump supporters, for example, criticize the prosecution of James Comey?

>Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants.

In the context of the previous comment, the "non-rabbid" (and probably median) supporter would be someone voting Trump because they think they trust him more on the economy/immigration or whatever. They might be indifferent to his claims that he'll lock up his political opponents, or think that they're actually guilty of something, but that's not the same as being "rabbid" (ie. showing up to rallies and chanting "lock her up").

There's a difference between supporters and "the people who, in a single election, voted for him". The former tend to be pretty rabid and unmovable. Some portion of the voters are less firm in their support.

Right! With a non-fascist politician, what you're describing would be extremely abnormal; the median Biden supporter, Obama supporter, or Bush supporter would routinely take positions their guy didn't agree with even though they supported him overall. But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".

>But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".

You're basing this off... what? You're missing the options of "I'm indifferent about this", or "I don't agree with him on this but still think he's better as a whole than the alternative".

I'm missing "I don't agree with him on this" because I don't hear Trump supporters say that. Trump doesn't allow them to - he thinks it's wrong for anyone to disagree with him and illegal for anyone to try and stop him from doing something he wants to do. Again, the whole context here is that Trump is trying to jail one of his own appointees for failing to enact his preferred monetary policy.

I hear that in a few examples, but they've been variations of "When I voted for Trump to deport migrants, I didn't think that meant my wife".

Usually followed by "... but I'd still vote for him again".

Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I don't think I've seen people on the left yelling about locking Mitch McConnell up, for instance, even if he bears much responsibility for all of this.

>Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents.

I thought they were upset about her emails or whatever?

I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter.

Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.

None of it is about law and order.

>I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter.

From a 10s skim on wikipedia:

>Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping.

I'm not saying those allegations are true, but to claim "none could name a crime" suggests you didn't even try.

>Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.

If you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in..., that has the same air of credibility as him going after Fed governors for mortgage fraud.

It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically.

Whereas everyone thinks that all child rapists should be in prison!

> It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically.

I think the world would be a better place if politicians with access to critical information were held to suitable security requirements under threats of punishment for laxity.

This would absolutely also include Hesgeth inviting a journalist to an airstrike planning meeting on Signal.

And likewise Trump putting boxes full of state secrets in a disused bathroom and on a stage.

The Trump administration are clearly hypocrites, clearly trying to throw the book at everyone else while bemoaning even the slightest consequences for themselves. I wouldn't call for Clinton's arrest, but I will say that anywhere that would arrest her should've given a much more severe punishment to Trump.

Then again, I'm not even American so I genuinely don't actually care if y'all leak state secrets like a basketball net leaks water.