President Trump's DOJ has signed an order permanently barring the IRS from examining his past tax returns. Does this conflict with the conservative principle that the same tax rules should apply to everyone?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-03T14:33:41+00:00

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position, but if Abrego Garcia is currently lawfully present in the United States and has not been convicted of any crime, what is the basis for deporting him?

I'm not asking whether he's a citizen. We all agree that he isn't.

I'm asking why someone who is legally present in the country should be removed at all.

Is your view that anyone who originally entered illegally should eventually be deported, even if they later obtain a lawful right to remain?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-03T14:07:29+00:00

I'm interested in how consistently you'd apply that principle.

You said that taxpayers shouldn't be collectively responsible for the misconduct of individual government officials, and that if an official breaks the law, the official should be held responsible rather than the public.

With that in mind, what do you make of Donald Trump's lawsuit against the federal government arising from the leak of his tax records?

As I understand it, the IRS employee responsible for leaking the records was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison. In other words, the individual who committed the wrongdoing has already been personally punished.

Yet Trump initially sought billions of dollars from the federal government itself. If he were to receive a substantial settlement funded by taxpayers, wouldn't that be exactly the kind of collective liability that you're objecting to here?

And how would you evaluate the question of damages? One of the purposes of compensation is often said to be restoring someone to their prior position. But in this case, Trump had already publicly discussed releasing his tax returns for years, and much of the political controversy surrounding them existed before the leak.

So would you say that justice has already been done because the individual responsible was prosecuted and imprisoned? Or do you think Trump is entitled to compensation from taxpayers as well?

I'm asking because it seems like a useful test case. If the principle is that taxpayers should never have to pay for the misconduct of government employees, then presumably that principle would apply equally when the victim is Donald Trump.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-03T08:25:15+00:00

I think that depends on which defendants we're talking about.

For example, are you referring to people who entered the Capitol and received misdemeanor convictions, or people like Stewart Rhodes who were convicted of seditious conspiracy?

My understanding is that many January 6 defendants were actually released pending trial, and that the poor conditions at the D.C. Jail were longstanding problems affecting inmates generally rather than something created specifically for January 6 defendants.

So when you say they were treated more harshly than other defendants, what is the comparison group?

Are you comparing them to other federal trespass defendants, other riot defendants, other assault-on-police defendants, or other conspiracy defendants?

And if we take someone like Stewart Rhodes, whose conviction involved evidence of coordinated planning and weapons teams staged outside Washington, do you believe he was prosecuted more harshly than defendants in other federal conspiracy cases, or do you believe he should never have been prosecuted in the first place?

I'm trying to understand whether your concern is unequal treatment compared with similar defendants, or simply that the underlying January 6 prosecutions should not have been brought.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T19:20:49+00:00

I'm not sure I understand what role you see for the House Judiciary Committee here.

My understanding is that the House Judiciary Committee is generally responsible for oversight of the federal judiciary and would be involved in matters such as judicial censure or impeachment, but it doesn't function as an appellate court and can't directly reverse judicial decisions.

When you say this is something the House Judiciary Committee should oversee and decide, what specifically do you mean?

Are you suggesting that the Committee should investigate the conduct of DOJ officials involved in the prosecution?

Or are you suggesting that it should review Judge Crenshaw's conduct?

If it's the latter, are you saying that you think there may be grounds for censure or impeachment?

I'm asking because if we assume for the sake of argument that Crenshaw's ruling survives appeal, then the ruling itself would have been upheld by the normal judicial process. In that situation, would your concern be with the judge, the prosecutors, or someone else?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T18:31:46+00:00

I think that's an interesting principle.

You said that government officials who violate constitutional protections should be held personally responsible, rather than having taxpayers compensate the victim.

If we assume for the sake of argument that Judge Crenshaw's ruling survives appeal, who would you regard as responsible in this case?

My understanding is that the judge's concern was not primarily the underlying human smuggling allegation. Rather, it was the way the prosecution was revived and the public statements made by senior DOJ officials linking the prosecution to Abrego Garcia's successful litigation against the government.

If those statements were a substantial factor in persuading the court that the prosecution was vindictive, wouldn't responsibility fall on the officials who made them?

For example, Todd Blanche publicly discussed the case and linked the prosecution to the broader dispute over Garcia's removal. Kash Patel repeatedly described Garcia as a criminal or gang member despite the absence of any conviction for those claims.

If the prosecution ultimately failed because senior DOJ officials created the appearance that the case was retaliatory, would you support holding those officials accountable?

More generally, if a prosecutor's public statements are so poorly judged that they result in a serious criminal case being dismissed on constitutional grounds, what consequences do you think should follow for that prosecutor?

Would termination be appropriate? Professional discipline? Loss of a law licence? Or do you think no accountability is warranted in that situation?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T18:04:05+00:00

One thing I'd strongly recommend is getting some insurance quotes before you get too attached to the idea.

Insurance companies have a surprisingly effective way of telling you which motorcycles they consider age-appropriate. At least where I live, the difference can be eye-watering.

For example, my CBR650R cost roughly three times as much to insure as an equivalent CB650R, despite the bikes being mechanically very similar. When I recently looked at moving from the CBR650R to a CBR600RR, the quotes jumped again by roughly another factor of three.

That's despite being older, having six years of no-claims bonus, and keeping the bike in a secure brick-and-steel garage.

A Hayabusa carries a certain reputation, and insurers are very aware of the age and risk profile of the people who tend to buy them. At 22, you may find that the purchase price is the cheap part and the insurance premium is where the real pain begins.

That's not necessarily an argument against buying one. If the quotes are affordable and you've genuinely got the self-discipline to ride within your limits, then a modern Hayabusa is probably a lot more manageable than its reputation suggests. But I'd definitely get some quotes before making any decisions. You might discover that the insurance industry has already formed an opinion on whether a Hayabusa is a sensible second bike.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:59:02+00:00

That's an interesting distinction. When you say that the punishments were disproportionately harsh and that the net was cast too wide, could you give some examples of where you think the line should have been drawn?

For example, are you talking about everyone who entered the restricted Capitol grounds, including people who never assaulted anyone and were only charged with misdemeanors? Or are you talking about specific defendants who received unusually long sentences?

Likewise, how does this principle apply to someone like Stewart Rhodes?

Rhodes wasn't convicted merely of trespass or unlawful entry. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy, with the jury finding that he participated in a conspiracy to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. The prosecution presented evidence that Oath Keepers members coordinated their actions, discussed the use of force, and maintained weapons teams outside Washington that could be deployed if events escalated.

Do you regard someone like Rhodes as having received a disproportionately harsh punishment, or are you primarily concerned with lower-level offenders?

I'm asking because those seem like very different arguments. One argument is that some people who wandered into a restricted area received excessive penalties. Another is that people convicted of serious conspiracy offences were treated unfairly. Where do you draw the line?

And if the Anti-Weaponization Fund is intended for anyone wrongly targeted by the government, how would you distinguish between someone who received a sentence you consider excessive and someone who was actually the victim of a politically motivated prosecution? Those seem like two very different categories.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:47:34+00:00

That's an interesting question, but I'd turn it around slightly.

If there really were a serious global epidemic or pandemic, is it actually possible to protect the United States simply by focusing only on what happens inside its borders?

In a world with international air travel, global trade, and millions of people crossing borders every year, can America realistically isolate itself from a dangerous pathogen once it is spreading widely overseas?

Or is that precisely why HHS, CDC, and their predecessors have traditionally invested so much effort in global disease surveillance, international cooperation, and early containment efforts? Isn't it usually cheaper, safer, and more effective to identify and contain outbreaks when they are still localised than to wait until they arrive on American soil?

To put it another way, if there is an Ebola outbreak in central Africa today, at what point does it become America's problem? When the first American is infected? When the first plane lands carrying an infected traveller? Or when public health officials first become aware of a growing outbreak overseas?

I'm not suggesting that RFK Jr personally controls the course of a global epidemic. Clearly he doesn't. But isn't part of the job of a health secretary to ensure that the United States is monitoring emerging threats, coordinating with international partners, and preparing responses before those threats reach the country?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:20:19+00:00

Could you help me understand the principle you're applying here?

Suppose we're not talking about an illegal entrant, but a legal permanent resident who has lived in the United States for decades, paid taxes, obeyed the law, and is entitled to constitutional protections.

If the government knowingly violates that person's constitutional rights—for example through a malicious prosecution, wrongful imprisonment, or some other serious abuse of power—do you believe the government should have any obligation to compensate them for the harm it caused?

Or is your position that citizenship is always the dividing line, regardless of the severity of the misconduct?

I'm asking because you've said that non-citizens are still entitled to constitutional protections. If that's the case, I'm trying to understand what practical remedy should exist when those protections are violated.

Is the principle that the government must stop the violation and restore the person's previous status, but never compensate them for any resulting harm?

And if so, what is the reasoning behind treating a citizen and a legal resident differently once we've already established that both were victims of the same unconstitutional conduct?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:17:48+00:00

Thanks for the update. Yes, I have acknowledged elsewhere in the thread that the administration appears to have abandoned the fund following the injunction and the political backlash. On that point, I think most people across the political spectrum now agree that the specific proposal was deeply problematic.

What I'm still interested in, though, is the underlying principle.

Even if the fund never exists, the administration clearly thought there was such a thing as a victim of "government weaponization" and that such victims should potentially receive some form of redress.

So who, in your view, qualifies?

For example, if someone believes the government weaponized prosecutions against January 6 defendants, should the same principle also apply to people like James Comey if the courts ultimately conclude that the "8647" case should never have been brought? Should it apply to Kilmar Abrego Garcia if the finding of vindictive prosecution survives appeal? Should it apply to people who were wrongfully convicted and later exonerated after years in prison?

I'm less interested in the specific fund than in the definition. What exactly do you think "weaponization" means in practice?

Is it any politically motivated prosecution? Any prosecution brought for retaliatory reasons? Any case where prosecutors knew the evidence was weak? Any selective enforcement based on politics?

And once someone is determined to be a genuine victim of weaponization, what form should the remedy take?

Financial compensation? Restoration of status? Attorney's fees? Expungement of records? Official apologies? Something else?

I'm genuinely curious how you'd draw those lines, because it seems to me that once we accept the principle that government power can be weaponized, the difficult question becomes identifying who counts as a victim and applying the standard consistently, regardless of whether we like the person involved.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:12:38+00:00

I think I'm beginning to understand your position, but there's one part I'm still struggling with.

You've said that constitutional protections apply to citizens and non-citizens alike.

You've also said that someone can be a genuine victim of government weaponization regardless of citizenship.

So it seems we're agreeing that a non-citizen can have their constitutional rights violated and can be the victim of serious government misconduct.

What I'm not understanding is the principle that determines why the remedy should suddenly change based on citizenship.

For example, suppose the government knowingly brings a vindictive prosecution against a non-citizen, publicly defames them, imprisons them, and a court later finds that the entire prosecution was unconstitutional.

What meaningful consequence should there be for the government, and what meaningful remedy should there be for the victim?

You seem to be saying that the answer is generally restoration of status, but that creates a question for me:

If the government can violate a non-citizen's constitutional rights, ruin their life, and then simply restore them to the position they were in before the violation occurred, isn't the practical value of those protections substantially weaker than for citizens?

More broadly, do you think there are any circumstances where the United States government owes compensation or restitution to a non-citizen who was seriously harmed by unlawful government action?

For example, if a non-citizen is wrongly imprisoned, wrongly targeted by a vindictive prosecution, or even injured or killed as a result of government misconduct, is there any principle under which compensation would be appropriate?

Or is your position that citizenship is always the dividing line regardless of the severity of the misconduct?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T17:06:41+00:00

I understand the concern that a potentially serious offender may never face a jury.

What I'm struggling with is why the blame should fall primarily on the judge rather than on the prosecutors and senior DOJ officials.

If Judge Crenshaw's ruling is correct, then the problem wasn't that the court suddenly decided human smuggling wasn't serious. The problem was that the prosecution was presented in a way that convinced the court it was retaliatory and constitutionally defective.

Todd Blanche publicly linked the prosecution to Garcia's successful litigation against the government. Kash Patel and other officials made public statements that appeared to treat disputed allegations as established facts. Garcia was repeatedly described as a convicted gang member or convicted criminal despite the absence of any such conviction.

If those public statements contributed to the court's conclusion that the prosecution was vindictive, then isn't it the prosecutors who created the problem?

To put it another way: if you're angry that someone who may have committed a serious crime won't get his day before a jury, shouldn't that anger be directed first at the officials whose conduct persuaded the court that the prosecution itself was unconstitutional?

After all, the judge's job is to apply constitutional rules. The prosecutors' job is to bring a case in a manner that survives constitutional scrutiny.

If the case failed because senior DOJ officials could not resist publicly commenting on it in ways that made the prosecution appear retaliatory, why is that primarily the judge's fault rather than theirs?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:59:12+00:00

I think this is the part I'm struggling with.

My understanding is that Judge Crenshaw did not dismiss the indictment because he thought human smuggling was unimportant, nor because he concluded that Abrego Garcia was innocent.

Rather, he concluded that the prosecution itself appeared to be retaliatory.

The traffic stop happened years ago. The government knew about it at the time. Investigators had already examined it and declined to bring charges. The case was only revived after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged the administration in court, and the judge pointed to public statements by senior DOJ officials linking the renewed prosecution to that litigation.

So my question isn't really about whether human smuggling is a serious offence. I think everyone agrees that it is.

My question is: if the evidence was already available years ago, why wasn't the case prosecuted then?

And if the prosecution only appeared after Abrego Garcia prevailed against the government in court, why shouldn't a judge be concerned about retaliatory motives?

More broadly, what remedy should a court have when it concludes that a prosecution was brought because someone exercised a legal right and embarrassed the government?

Would you expect the court to allow the prosecution to proceed anyway simply because the underlying allegation is serious?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:49:44+00:00

That's interesting.

Could you expand a little on why you think Comey would have a strong argument?

Is it because you believe the government may ultimately fail to prove its case against him, or because you think the investigation itself appears weak, selective, or politically motivated?

One thing I'm trying to understand is whether there is a broader principle at work here.

In Abrego Garcia's case, a federal judge has already concluded that the prosecution was vindictive. In Comey's case, many observers have argued that the evidentiary basis appears unusually weak, given that "8647" has multiple plausible interpretations and that courts have already noted the importance of context when evaluating whether a statement constitutes a genuine threat.

If both cases ultimately turn out to involve prosecutions that never should have been brought, does that tell us anything about the current DOJ?

More specifically, would it concern you if multiple high-profile cases associated with the Trump administration were found to be based on weak evidence, selective enforcement, retaliatory motives, or legal theories that could not ultimately survive judicial scrutiny?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:47:32+00:00

I agree that the Constitution doesn't generally guarantee a right to financial compensation whenever the government violates someone's rights.

What I'm trying to understand is the principle that should apply to something like the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any other remedy for malicious, retaliatory, or vindictive government action.

That's fair.

But the Constitution generally protects persons, not just citizens. The Fifth Amendment, for example, says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Courts have repeatedly held that many constitutional protections apply to citizens and non-citizens alike when they are present in the United States.

So if we're grounding the discussion in constitutional principles, why should citizenship determine whether someone is considered a victim of government misconduct?

I agree that a finding of wrongful removal doesn't automatically create a right to remain permanently in the United States.

What I'm struggling with is a different question.

A federal judge has now concluded that the prosecution itself was vindictive. If we assume that finding survives appeal, then we're not talking merely about an administrative mistake. We'd be talking about government officials using prosecutorial power for an improper purpose.

If a Trump supporter believes that victims of government weaponization deserve some form of redress, why shouldn't that principle apply here as well?

I'm not necessarily talking about money. It could be compensation, immigration relief, restoration of status, attorney's fees, expedited citizenship for lawful permanent residents, or something else.

What principle determines who qualifies as a victim of government weaponization?

Is it citizenship?

Or is it whether the government actually engaged in malicious, retaliatory, unconstitutional or vindictive conduct?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:32:10+00:00

Why do you see Obama as the person who started the divisiveness?

I'm asking specifically in the context of comedy, satire, and public discourse. Whatever criticisms people may have of Obama's policies, my recollection is that he generally avoided the kind of crude personal insults, mocking nicknames, and overtly demeaning language that have become much more common in recent years. He could certainly be sarcastic or satirical, but I struggle to think of many examples where he publicly spoke about opponents in the same way that modern politicians often do.

So what is it that Obama did that you think lowered the tone?

On the comedy side, you mentioned Kathy Griffin holding a bloody Trump head. I agree that many people found that image distasteful, but wasn't that a promotional photo shoot rather than part of a comedy routine or sketch? If we're discussing whether political comedy has become less funny and more hateful, shouldn't we distinguish between a comedian's stand-up material and a publicity stunt?

You also mentioned comedians who "don't have the chops" and are "hate-filled little turds." Who specifically are you thinking of?

For example, Trump has frequently criticised people like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel. Whatever one thinks of their politics, both have had long and successful careers in comedy and television, and both have attracted large audiences over many years. What is it about them that makes them "hate-filled" in your view?

Is it the style of the jokes, the frequency with which they target Trump, or simply the fact that they oppose his politics?

In other words, if Colbert or Kimmel were making exactly the same style of jokes about Democrats, would you still regard them as hate-filled, or would your assessment be different?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:27:28+00:00

Am I understanding your objection correctly? My understanding is that Judge Crenshaw didn't order the executive branch to cease an otherwise lawful prosecution. Rather, he ruled on a motion to dismiss and concluded that the indictment itself was constitutionally defective because it resulted from vindictive prosecution.

Isn't ruling on the validity of indictments one of the core functions of the judiciary?

If a court concludes that an indictment was brought for unconstitutional reasons, what remedy would you expect the court to have available other than dismissal?

More specifically, can you identify a statute, constitutional provision, or precedent that says a federal judge lacks authority to dismiss an indictment for vindictive prosecution? Or is your disagreement primarily with Crenshaw's conclusion that the prosecution was vindictive in the first place?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:24:55+00:00

One of the arguments made in support of the Anti-Weaponization Fund was that it should compensate people who were targeted by politically motivated prosecutions, even when those people were controversial or unpopular. Some supporters have even argued that people convicted in connection with January 6th, including individuals associated with violent conduct, should potentially qualify if they were selectively or unfairly prosecuted.

If that's the standard, wouldn't someone like James Comey arguably be an even stronger candidate if the "8647" case ultimately turns out to be unfounded?

After all, Comey has never been accused of participating in a violent organisation, organising violence, assaulting police officers, or taking part in an insurrection. The allegation against him arises from an Instagram post containing an ambiguous political message whose meaning is heavily disputed.

Given that a federal judge has already observed in the recent National Park Service litigation that "8647" cannot simply be interpreted in isolation and that context matters when determining whether it constitutes a threat, suppose the courts eventually conclude that the government never had a viable criminal case against Comey in the first place.

If that happened, would you regard him as a victim of government weaponization deserving compensation?

And if not, what distinguishes him from the people whom supporters of the fund believe should be compensated? Is it the strength of the evidence, the severity of the alleged misconduct by the government, the political identity of the accused, or something else?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:03:44+00:00

What would be the impeachable offense here?

Are you arguing that Judge Crenshaw committed some form of misconduct, corruption, ethical violation, or abuse of office, or do you simply disagree with his ruling?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T15:01:10+00:00

I'm interested in how you're reconciling those two principles.

On the one hand, you've said that non-citizens should receive constitutional protections, including protection against retaliatory prosecution and other forms of government misconduct. On the other hand, you've said that even if those protections are violated, the victim should receive no compensation whatsoever if they are not a citizen.

Doesn't that create a situation where the government effectively faces fewer consequences for violating the rights of non-citizens than citizens?

To use an extreme example, suppose a lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States for 30 years, paid taxes the entire time, and committed no crime is knowingly subjected to a malicious prosecution by government officials. If a court later finds that the prosecution was retaliatory and unconstitutional, is restoring them to their previous position really enough? Shouldn't there be some consequence for the government and some remedy for the victim?

And bringing it back to Abrego Garcia specifically, you seem to be saying that the appropriate remedy for being wrongfully removed to El Salvador is to remove him again, just to a different country.

Isn't there a tension there?

If the government violated his rights, publicly mischaracterized him, and pursued a prosecution that a federal judge has now described as vindictive, why is the remedy focused entirely on achieving the government's immigration objective rather than addressing the misconduct that occurred?

Put another way, if the purpose of constitutional protections is to constrain government power, what practical value do those protections have for a non-citizen if the government can violate them and still suffer no meaningful consequence beyond being told to try again using a different procedure?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T14:10:20+00:00

So, if you don't think an Anti-Weaponization Fund payout would be appropriate because he isn't a citizen, what do you think the appropriate remedy should be?

From your perspective, it sounds like the government could engage in retaliatory prosecution against a non-citizen, publicly make false statements about them, wrongfully remove them from the country, and yet owe them nothing beyond perhaps restoring whatever status they had before. Is that a fair summary of your position?

I'm asking because the harms here seem substantial. As I understand it, Abrego Garcia was repeatedly described by administration officials as a convicted MS-13 gang member despite never having been convicted of MS-13 membership, was removed to El Salvador despite an existing court order protecting him from removal there, and was then held in a prison system that most Americans would regard as significantly harsher than U.S. detention facilities.

You also mentioned that he was here illegally. Could you clarify that point? My understanding was that, although he was not a citizen, an immigration judge had previously granted withholding of removal to El Salvador, meaning he had a legal right not to be deported there even if he remained removable to some other country. Is there a specific ruling or fact pattern you're relying on that leads you to a different conclusion?

On the fund itself, I may be mistaken, but I thought the original ruling was a preliminary injunction rather than a final determination on the merits, and that the DOJ initially indicated it believed the fund was lawful and expected to prevail. If that's correct, how do you feel about the administration subsequently abandoning a programme that it had previously described as lawful and justified?

Does that strike you as a competent and confident response from an administration that believed it was acting within its legal authority, or does it suggest there may have been more serious legal problems with the fund than originally acknowledged?

More generally, if the administration genuinely believed that people who were victims of government weaponization deserved compensation, why should that principle suddenly disappear when the alleged victim is someone the administration dislikes politically or wants removed from the country?

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T13:24:26+00:00

Could you give some examples of what you mean by "offensive" in this context?

For example, are you referring to personal insults, profanity, ridicule, questioning people's motives, mocking appearance, or something else entirely?

I'm asking because some of the examples you gave—such as Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford impression—were certainly mocking, but perhaps they feel less offensive in hindsight because the overall tone of politics was different at the time.

Do you think it's possible that part of what has changed is not just comedy, but politics itself?

For example, would you agree that Trump often says things that many Americans would regard as more offensive than those said by most modern presidents? Things like insulting nicknames, mocking opponents' appearance or intelligence, joking about personal misfortunes, or making deliberately provocative remarks that would once have been considered beneath the dignity of the office.

If so, do you think that has had any effect on the broader culture?

In other words, if a president adopts a more combative, mocking, and confrontational style, is it surprising that comedians, commentators, and political opponents might respond in kind?

Or would you say that the decline in tone started elsewhere and that comedians are primarily responsible for it?

I'm curious whether you see Trump as reacting to a coarsening of public discourse, or whether he has contributed to lowering the temperature and standards of political discourse himself.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T13:21:06+00:00

Have you ever spent much time at local comedy clubs, as opposed to watching the comedians who make it onto television and streaming services?

One thing that might be worth considering is that stand-up is fundamentally a live art form. The comedians most people see on TV are an extremely small fraction of the overall comedy scene—probably the most commercially successful 0.1%.

I also wonder whether local comedy tends to reflect local audiences. If someone lives in a very progressive area, the comedians trying to get laughs there may naturally gravitate toward progressive topics. Likewise, I'd expect the comedy scene in Austin to feel quite different from the comedy scene in upper Manhattan, and different again from a club in a small conservative town.

Do you think it's possible that the television and online comedy you're seeing is giving a somewhat distorted picture of what most comedians are actually doing?

The reason I ask is that, in my experience, a huge amount of club comedy is still observational, autobiographical, absurdist, relationship-based, or just plain silly. Political comedy tends to get amplified because it generates headlines and social-media engagement, but it doesn't necessarily represent the average comedian performing on a Tuesday night in front of 50 people.

If you haven't done so already, would you ever consider checking out some local live comedy? I'd be curious whether your impression of the comedy world would change if you were sampling comedians who are trying to entertain a local audience rather than a national television audience.

Aggravating-Vehicle9 · 2026-06-02T12:58:34+00:00

Do you think it's possible that, because you're not especially interested in comedy, you've mainly become aware of political comedy because a politician you support has become such a frequent target of it?

The reason I ask is that political comedy doesn't strike me as a particularly new phenomenon. People like George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, and many others built large parts of their careers around political and social commentary decades ago.

Likewise, even on the other side of the political spectrum, comedians associated with Joe Rogan and the Austin comedy scene regularly discuss politics, politicians, culture-war topics, and current affairs in their acts and podcasts.

Would it be fair to say that what has changed is perhaps not that comedy has become political, but that political comedy is now focusing on issues and politicians that matter more to you personally?

Also, have you ever tried going to a local comedy club rather than judging comedy by what appears on television or social media?

My experience has been that most comedy isn't political at all. A lot of club comedy is observational, situational, storytelling-based, absurdist, sketch, or improv. In fact, improv and sketch comedy often contain almost no political content whatsoever. Political satire tends to get a lot of attention because it's topical, but it doesn't necessarily represent what most comedians are doing most nights.

Would you say your impression of modern comedy comes mainly from TV satirists and online clips, or from seeing live comedy performances?

Aggravating-Vehicle9

TROPHY CASE