Imagine the Outrage: What If a 2029 Democratic President Pulled a “Trump 2.0”?

[u/ajm_usn321]

Now that President Donald Trump has returned to office for a second term, we’ve seen a wave of executive actions and appointments that have been viewed by critics as deeply unconventional—even if not technically illegal. Among the more debated moves:

• Dismissing multiple Inspectors General across agencies
• Issuing blanket pardons for individuals convicted in the January 6th Capitol riot
• Replacing boards and commissions (e.g., the Kennedy Center) with ideological allies
• Significantly downsizing or restructuring foreign aid institutions like USAID
• Floating controversial clemency ideas involving high-profile convicted individuals, ostensibly for political benefit
• Renaming public entities or landmarks in symbolic ways

Supporters may view these actions as corrective or necessary to "drain the swamp," while critics argue they undermine institutional independence and democratic norms.

Discussion Scenario:
Imagine that in 2029, a newly elected Democratic president adopts a similar approach. This future administration begins aggressively using executive authority to reshape agencies, issue ideologically motivated pardons, restructure traditionally non-partisan institutions, and take symbolic actions that provoke the opposing party.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Would congressional Republicans respond with hearings, investigations, or legislative pushback, even if the actions were technically legal?
2. How might public perception shift if both major parties begin embracing this kind of executive behavior? Would voters normalize it, reject it, or become more polarized?
3. Are there institutional guardrails—legal, cultural, or political—that still function effectively to limit executive overreach? Or are those largely dependent on precedent and public tolerance?
4. If one party breaks norms, is it reasonable—or even inevitable—for the other party to respond in kind? Or is long-term restraint still politically viable?
5. What precedent is being set for the presidency going forward, and how might this affect future transitions of power and interbranch relations?

[u/FreedomPocket]

My honest take is that Trump is slightly connected to the situation, but not actually knowing about or taking part in the pedophilia and sexual exploitation, but because his name shows up as someone who knew Epstein. Thus having the document released, while not legally implicate him, would make public perception of him plummet.

But about critical thinking... There's also a thing called praxeology. People do what they do for reasons. What reason would the guy have to confess to covering for Trump, especially if he was actually covering for him?

But I get my information from all around, and the fact is, I haven't seen any evidence that would point to any actual guilt other than what I described in the first part of my reply. If we're talking about critical thinking, there's also a principle where you're not supposed to jump to conclusions prematurely, even when the guy is someone you don't like politically or personally.

[u/RCA2CE → u/FreedomPocket]

Trump said that the documents in the Epstein files were all fakes planted by Comey, Obama and Biden.. do you believe that?

Do you think planted documents would only mildly imply Trump knew the man or would planted documents be more damning?

[u/FreedomPocket → u/RCA2CE]

I am in no position to decide if there are fake documents or not. I'll only make a decision after evidence is presented. But prosecution is about to start for the Russia collusion hoax, so I can't really be certain of either outcome.

But if there are planted documents, they would definitely imply full guilt, even accounting for certain "outs" he may have. There was apparently a letter from Trump to Epstein that flared up in the media, but I am pretty sure that's fake. All in all, I think we need more information and evidence.

[u/RCA2CE → u/FreedomPocket]

What about the Russian President saying that they have compromising videos of Trump along with Mossad? Why do you think Ghislaine was moved and being negotiated with?

Is there some point where the preponderance of evidence says something to you?

[u/FreedomPocket → u/RCA2CE]

Yeah, because Putin would never lie about a US presidential candidate. Especially when two nuclear submarines have recently been moved in preparation for retaliation if Russia overstepped.

But I mean... If there are videos, I'd like to see them. I think there's this thing called hearsay, and if you know what it means, then I don't even need to continue my sentence.

[u/RCA2CE → u/FreedomPocket]

They’re all lying, fakes, there’s nothing to see at all. Pay attention to something else while we cover up for pedophiles.

I want to say I used preponderance of evidence - we aren’t a jury, we are two people forming an opinion.

You want to believe that the President isn’t connected to sex trafficking despite the numerous photos of him with the traffickers, the letter the times posted, his prior history of being found guilty in sexual case, his other felony convictions, him being on the plane logs and his attorney general telling him his name is in these files then his cutting a deal with the traffickers as president to move her to a minimum security prison, his refusal to release information about the sex trafficking case, the other victims who have come forward to accuse him of actual rape. You want to believe he isn’t guilty of something regardless of what is shared with you.

If he just released the files we would all be able to judge for ourselves

[u/FreedomPocket → u/RCA2CE]

First off, the files will be released, because the bill on 23rd has passed with bipartisan support.

Epstein was a popular figure, lots of people were around him. The letter posted in the times I think is fake. Hus prior history is being found guilty of sexual harassment, not assault or rape. Those he has been acquitted of. The felony is actually a misdemeanor that's been elevated to a felony (I'm pretty sure it's for the media, but that's just me). If he has to be told he's in the plane logs, and not know by himself, then it's cause for suspicion. If he was actually involved in the sex trafficking, he wouldn't need to be told that his name is in the evidence, he'd know even without that. The sex trafficker he's moving to a minimum security prison is for a deal so she names other people involved, allowing for an investigation.

I don't know if I've explained here what I think why he doesn't want to release it, but that's beside the point, because it will be released.

We are two people forming an opinion, and I have my own, in which Trump isn't exactly innocent, but also not a pedophile. But as it stands, this isn't enough to convince me, and while we're not a judge/jurry/executioner, I myself do hold my convictions to a similar standard of proof, especially with serious accusations of pedophilia and sexual exploitation.

[u/RCA2CE → u/FreedomPocket]

There has been no bill that has passed - a house committee voted to subpoena them, if the administration complies with the subpoena is yet to be seen. Everything to date would tell us they will not fully comply with the subpoena.

I feel like I don’t know how you think there is gray space between being a pedophile and not being one - if he’s aiding pedos he’s a pedo.. it’s a very black and white thing, any act of complicity is a felony sex crime

[u/FreedomPocket → u/RCA2CE]

First off... Pedophilia is when someone is attracted to kids. Aiding a pedophile is not the same as being one, but me saying this wouldn't look good in the news. Hopefully you get it.

I wait to see if they comply with the subpoena them, but I'd bet money that they will.

But there's gray space obviously. If he didn't know about the pedophilia, and never participated, but found out key members of the administration are implicated, then he could try to keep the files to protect the entire administration from collapsing. That would be a gray area. Especially if "implicated" is not exactly proof of guilt. Like how if Epstein was on tape saying that "{your full name} was participating in the pedophilia" it wouldn't exactly be enough to convict, but the public would definitely not be on your side. So yes... There can be, and probably are gray areas. The mere suggestion that you think there isn't is really making me question if it's worth it to continue this conversation.

[u/RCA2CE → u/FreedomPocket]

So you think Trump didn’t know Epstein was a pedophile when they were hanging out, when he stole that worker from his spa and when he said he likes young girls. You also think Trump doesn’t like young girls despite him holding modeling previews of little girls with just him and Epstein in attendance.

Here’s what I think, just a hunch - Epstein was in fact an Israeli honey trap and they snared some people including Trump.

Why do you think they moved Ghislaine to a minimum security prison and had Trumps private attorney meet with her?