politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My hope of hopes is that this triggers a challenge and redefinition (and limitation) of presidential pardon powers.
Buuuutt… I am not confident things would go in any way toward that direction. Probably the opposite. I can imagine it being redefined to some legally egregious bullshit, as is the custom of these times.
Trump is gonna wind up with a stamp that reads “Presidential Pardon” and uses it with the abandon of a 3-year-old with a sticker book. He’s going to have a line of donors, stamping foreheads like it’s his own Ash Wednesday.
Braindead take of the day.
Trump plans to wield the DOJ as a weapon.
You want to give custody of the former president's son to Trump's DOJ?
It'll be another perfect phone call.
"Hey, Joe, we have your son..."
This has fuck all to do with the merits of the case or the interests of justice. This is a national security move.
It would be a reckless dereliction of loyalty to the country for Biden not to issue this pardon, given what it very likely to come.
I have so many thoughts.
Well, first - I posted this yesterday, so it can’t possibly be the brain dead take of the day.
And second, my comment is a sardonic statement that discusses the need for reform of how the U.S. does presidential pardons. It pivots to imply the Supreme Court will do the exact wrong thing if someone sued about this, and implies Trump will imitate the Catholic Church, re: forgiving sins. It makes no mention of the DOJ, nor my thoughts of how Trump plans to use it, or even whether I think this pardon is valid.
So, if you’re going to incorrectly insult me, could you at least stay on topic?
But, but isn’t Hunter an example of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?
No, it is fucking not. It is an example of the Republican Party weaponizing the media and grabbing any lever they can get their hands on, be it congressional investigations or friendly DA’s, to create a primetime cable TV media circus in much the same fashion they weaponized the media against Hillary before Trump had political aspirations, and even against her husband in the 90’s. If it was merely the DOJ being weaponized, Hunter Biden’s dick pics wouldn’t have been shown to congress. The DOJ is secondary. If the DOJ was primary, we’d never hear about the trial, and it wouldn’t go on for years in full view of the press.
So, no. But it’s close enough that if you didn’t lead with an insult, I’d just shrug it off.
And what would Trump need with Biden so much that keeping his son as a political prisoner would come in handy?
Joe is out of politics. I’m pretty sure most people forgot he was president until yesterday. Yeah, yeah, currently at the wheel, but after he gets on that Amtrak in January, he’s out. I honestly don’t know how he could be of any help or support to the republicans. Maybe they could put him on stage as a set piece somewhere, but then he’s just a sad old man that reminds everyone that the Republican Party will throw your kid in jail, but we already fucking knew that because of the migrant kids in dog kennels.
And third - while I don’t disagree that the DOJ will be used punitively, you don’t seem like the kind of person I’d publicly agree with.
You lead with an insult because you can’t interact with humans normally. Following, what’s the point of the insult? Is there merit to it? Do you prove that whatever you think you read was “the braindead [sic] take” of yesterday? It looks like you switch topics and talk about something I didn’t discuss.
Which really seems more like you just have thoughts you want to share and cannot find an appropriate way to bring them up.
Fuck, dude. If you’re going to try to fight the good fight, could you do better in how you go about it?
Finally.
You’ll note I’ve not expressed thoughts about Hunter. Honestly, I don’t have clear thoughts on the matter. I think we should uphold rule of law. But I also think that’s bullshit given how inequitably the law is applied. I think that Hunter is a victim. Lots of parts of his story seem very much like other forces were involved than only his own bad choices. And I wouldn’t want Hunter in prison for a crime that rarely sees prison.
My ‘best’ thought about Hunter right now is that I think Joe should have waited until sentencing to see if the punishment was in line with other convictions of this type. If it was, then let the skewed and politicized rule of law prevail, and if it’s not, then step in.
Irrespective of this news story, but perhaps because of it, we may see a legal review of presidential pardon powers., and I welcome that.
Which is what the entirety of my first comment was about. Pardon powers are yet another area of the U.S. government that mostly runs on the honor system, and that is clearly not adequate anymore, lest we see a scenario as heinous as the joke scenario I outlined.
No one has any fucking nuance anymore, and must always “win” everything at any cost, up to and including completely disregarding morals and legal conventions, and that’s why every law, every email, and every online comment has to be a damned novel, full of definitions, trapping edge cases, and strict prognostications, because someone, somewhere, has got to be ‘that guy’ and ruin the fun.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-suggests-hunter-biden-death-penalty-1234786435/