Yep. I don't particularly care in any negative sense, not disapproving or anything. It's... exceedingly clear that Hunter's prosecution was a political witch-hunt seeking any leverage to be had,...
Yep. I don't particularly care in any negative sense, not disapproving or anything. It's... exceedingly clear that Hunter's prosecution was a political witch-hunt seeking any leverage to be had, and not the legal system seeking actual justice.
When the GOP points at this and casts aspersions and blame, it will just be another hypocrisy added to a mountain of hypocrisies.
Not only that, but Trump pardoned his own daughter's father in law (Jared Kusher's father). I don't see how they can say one is OK and the other isn't.
Not only that, but Trump pardoned his own daughter's father in law (Jared Kusher's father). I don't see how they can say one is OK and the other isn't.
It should not. What does matter is that Hunter was basically railroaded. My understanding, from memory so some details may be slightly incorrect: He was charged for something that few have been,...
It should not.
What does matter is that Hunter was basically railroaded. My understanding, from memory so some details may be slightly incorrect:
He was charged for something that few have been, even after paying the taxes, which for others has led to the charges being dropped. He also had a plea deal that the DOJ agreed to, but a Republican appointed (Trump?) judge denied against the protestation of the prosecutors.
Also, I have no doubt that the republicans taking over would have contributed to prosecute him unfairly for political reasons.
For this reason I don’t fault Biden for the pardon. Pardons are meant to undo unjust sentences, which this was.
I mean, I guess you can be mad about this (we're not really the mad police, be mad about what you want) but shouldn't you also be mad about how Republicans targeted Hunter Biden specifically...
I mean, I guess you can be mad about this (we're not really the mad police, be mad about what you want) but shouldn't you also be mad about how Republicans targeted Hunter Biden specifically because he was a Democratic politician's son, for crimes that are rarely prosecuted in this manner? Especially considering that the charges are ones that Republicans would typically fight against?
Hunter Biden is a fuckup, but like most fuckups, prison time isn't going to help anything.
I am mad that he was needlessly targeted. I’m also mad that Biden said explicitly he would not do this. I’m further mad at many past pardons. I’m quite mad at the “justice system for you and...
I am mad that he was needlessly targeted. I’m also mad that Biden said explicitly he would not do this. I’m further mad at many past pardons. I’m quite mad at the “justice system for you and justice system for us” this whole farce has highlighted.
And no, you’re not the mad police and yet all over this topic is the implication that you’re GOP or a moron if you dare to take issue with what is objectively the president lying about getting involved in the trial of his son.
Genuine q: If he meant it when he said it, and then changed his mind in the face of new information, is that lying? Because I don't think he lied. I think he made a new decision. He broke his...
Genuine q:
If he meant it when he said it, and then changed his mind in the face of new information, is that lying? Because I don't think he lied. I think he made a new decision. He broke his promise I suppose, but I don't think that makes the words retroactively a lie. If one didn't believe his initial statements from jump, I could see thinking he was lying.
I'm not saying you should be ok with it; just curious where that lies for you because it's fundamentally the difference between him and half the shit Trump says for me.
The sole restraint on politicians used to be public will. Good faith. Integrity. The desire of our 'leaders' to act in good faith, with integrity. To display honor and decorum. Not even legality,...
The sole restraint on politicians used to be public will. Good faith. Integrity. The desire of our 'leaders' to act in good faith, with integrity. To display honor and decorum. Not even legality, just good faith and public confidence. If you didn't "technically" break the law, you still lost your political career just from the appearance of impropriety.
That's not the case now. Hasn't been for a long, long, long time. Everyone knows it. This isn't news. What does it do? Erode confidence in the rule of law. Which has brought us to this point. Not Biden's pardon, but what's widely expected to begin happening after 20 Jan 25.
If everyone involved was acting in good faith, with honor and integrity, then Biden's action (pardoning, literally granting a Get Out Of Jail card to a family member, solely for reasons of advantaging his family member) would be shocking, a travesty, and worthy of extreme scorn.
Except we're so, so, so far past that point. Nixon got fucking pardoned and that was apparently okay. Regan didn't go down for Iran-Contra. Bush Jr didn't go down for actual war crimes when he (or his administration) lied about WMDs as an excuse to invade. Trump wasn't convicted, (pick whichever of his trials you want; he walked out of all of them, certainly the ones that he should have gone to jail for).
A sitting president did everything except explicitly say "storm the capital and hand me dictatorial power." He said pretty much everything else, but he didn't spell it out like a grade schooler. What's been the result?
Most people decide along party lines. If they're Right, they dismiss it as no big deal. If they're Left, pretty outraged. Center, mostly just sees it as the usual business of politics.
That's erosion of the rule of law in action. The citizens allowing corruption to continue. It's been building for about sixty or so years, accelerated in the 80s when Regan dismantled unions and wealth taxes to unleash the full power of the Rich to keep and use their money, hit the Fast and Furious nitro boost in the 90s when Gingrich unveiled his "just win baby" modern political doctrine, and went airborne in the 10s with MAGA and Trump not even bothering to come up with some "story that'll sell" when they do illegal and corrupt shit.
We are headed for hell. Biden pardoning Biden isn't even going to be a footnote in history. And a footnote is probably the best case scenario for how it'll get mentioned, if it is at all. Unless MAGA succeeds in rolling out the dictatorship.
Then it'll be plastered big and proud, screamed from the rafters.
The irony that proclaiming it as corruption proves the corruption has truly taken over and we've fallen as a country will be utterly lost on those gleefully proclaiming it. They'll just keep insisting they're right and that means they get to have power because dictators rule. Literally.
It's disingenuous and naive to look at Biden pardoning his son and trying to argue that "destroys" the integrity of the process. There hasn't been integrity for a very long time. We're headed for civil revolt one way or another. Biden pardoning his son is just an example of everyone for themselves. Because that's what happens when war starts; you're on your own.
I don't care about what trump says in this instance. The nuance doesn't matter to me. This is one of a thousand examples of how little anything a politician says means. Oh he changed his mind?...
I don't care about what trump says in this instance.
The nuance doesn't matter to me. This is one of a thousand examples of how little anything a politician says means.
Oh he changed his mind? Really? Like the entire democratic party changed its mind when Hilary didn't win, or when the entire Republican party changed its mind when Trump did win?
If you cannot live with the consequences, don't make promises. Especially when you're fucking with the, yes, already fucked and soon to get worse, justice system.
If he couldn't see this outcome, then great, he's incompetent as well as inconsistent, and it'd be nice to have anyone to vote for who isn't hiding behind both, or just a complete fucking lunatic.
Hey, I understand you're passionate but this came off a bit aggro to me. I wasn't suggesting you should care about Trump's words here, that was my making a differentiation to illustrate my...
Hey, I understand you're passionate but this came off a bit aggro to me. I wasn't suggesting you should care about Trump's words here, that was my making a differentiation to illustrate my thoughts.
I'll take your answer as "whether it's lying or not doesn't matter to you" and move on.
I would recommend thinking of it like this; when Biden said he would not do this, he believed that the justice system was working and that the actions taken would be fair and equitable. When that...
I would recommend thinking of it like this; when Biden said he would not do this, he believed that the justice system was working and that the actions taken would be fair and equitable. When that turned out to not be remotely true, he changed his mind. I don't think it is a lie so much as it is Biden losing his faith in the justice system, which is, honestly, fair. The American Justice system is broken.
It is also alarming that Trump pardoned 237 people - most of them cronies who were complicit in crimes committed on his behalf - and Biden has pardoned 26. But the heat on Biden is way worse than the heat that was on Trump. I guess it's difficult to compare, since Trump did so many bad things that using his powers to help his cronies doesn't even really register.
I also recognize that "the other guy did it, so it's okay that this guy did it" is not a great defence, but watching the decline of civilization happen is exhausting. As issues go, this one seems like it is pretty close to a non-issue in the grand scheme of things, because this isn't really going to change Biden's legacy, it's not really going to give much ammunition to Trump's base, and the political fallout is minimal. So while I don't think being upset about this makes someone "GOP or a moron", I think that it's not a particularly worthwhile thing to be upset about.
I am well aware that's how it is. This is not a good thing. As I've already said in another comment, don't say shit if you can't live with it. It was dumb of him to even say he wouldn't get...
I would recommend thinking of it like this; when Biden said he would not do this, he believed that the justice system was working and that the actions taken would be fair and equitable. When that turned out to not be remotely true, he changed his mind
I am well aware that's how it is. This is not a good thing. As I've already said in another comment, don't say shit if you can't live with it. It was dumb of him to even say he wouldn't get involved, because it was also obvious that he was going to if he lost.
"the heat on biden vs trump" is not relevant to me. I can't control that. I can't make people care more about the idiots and criminals trump pardoned. All I can say is yes, I think it is absolutely outrageous that Biden did this, and several other things along the line of this entire judicial farce, and it's extra outrageous the amount of "but trump..." being used to cover it.
The justice system should be no one's play thing, and watching politicians double and triple down on it, from any side, for any reason, is abhorrent.
This is probably the thing I find most disagreeable; I think that people make mistakes and admitting and rectifying mistakes is an important thing for an adult to be able to do. I do agree that...
don't say shit if you can't live with it
This is probably the thing I find most disagreeable; I think that people make mistakes and admitting and rectifying mistakes is an important thing for an adult to be able to do. I do agree that Biden should never have said that he wouldn't get involved - that was the mistake. I think the pardon itself is not one. I don't necessarily begrudge the man his belief that things would work out and a pardon wouldn't be warranted.
The thing that makes me lean towards understanding is if the person being pardoned wasn't Joe Biden's son, I would agree with this pardon. I think that was happening to Hunter Biden was a miscarriage of justice. I think the original stance that Joe Biden had - to not issue a pardon - was mistaken. I do not think he should be made to follow through on his mistaken statement. Moreover, I think that we can probably all agree that sticking to what was said only because it was what was said and there's no take-backs would be a terrible system. That's why there are appeals, multiple decisions, etc.
It's also really hard to not say "But Trump..." in this, since it's the Trumpers that started this vindictive mess. Trump and his cronies targeted Hunter Biden and did so solely to cause pain to Joe Biden. They did it to put him in a difficult position, to get him to look bad. And he did so, and it's understandable, but it's also especially egregious because the action that he took that looks bad, which he was caused to do by the actions of the Trump Team, are things that the Trump Team has done more and worse.
The action he took does not look bad. It only looks bad when credulous marks keep talking about how it looks bad, which is why the press keeps harping on it and not the couple hundred + pardons of...
The action he took does not look bad. It only looks bad when credulous marks keep talking about how it looks bad, which is why the press keeps harping on it and not the couple hundred + pardons of various rich donors and assorted pedophiles Donald Trump has pardoned.
I am firmly in the camp of approving of Joe Biden's action here, but I think that saying this does not look bad is pretty hard to defend. I'm not credulous nor a mark, but: he said frequently and...
I am firmly in the camp of approving of Joe Biden's action here, but I think that saying this does not look bad is pretty hard to defend. I'm not credulous nor a mark, but:
he said frequently and repeatedly that he would not pardon his son
then he pardoned his son
Whatever happened between 1 and 2 are important but it comes back to an important issue; it is really easy to frame what happened here as "Joe Biden lied", which is bad enough on its own. When you add in that he lied while doing something that rewards his family member, then, yes, no matter what your affiliation, it looks bad. I don't think anyone has to be a "credulous mark" to be upset about it, and I think heightening the rhetoric about it is exactly why @Eji1700 (and others) has a legitimate complaint when they feel like people are saying "you’re GOP or a moron if you dare to take issue".
I'm (probably) opting out of this conversation after this, but this kind of polemic rhetoric is a problem. People aren't stupid just because they disagree with your position. People aren't marks because they're upset that a president went back on his position.
I frankly don’t really care if people want to feel offended about being called out for being suckers. The fact is there is a reason this becomes a topic of conversation that people go on and on...
I frankly don’t really care if people want to feel offended about being called out for being suckers. The fact is there is a reason this becomes a topic of conversation that people go on and on about and not a single one of Trump’s 250 or so pardons of actual criminals isn’t. It’s because the media knows they can drive a bunch of discourse by carping on minor Democratic offenses as if it’s the end of the world and they get a lot of mileage out of people who are precious about rectitude and norms for their own sakes clutching their pearls. The pattern is obvious and the fact that people keep falling for it is what makes them marks. It serves no public interest to be this concerned over matters of optics for only one party, especially when everyone who is paying attention knows it’s solely a matter of optics and not substance. It’s almost always optics and not substance because if anyone cared about substance we wouldn’t be both sidesing this crap at all.
Republicans keep structuring the game to set these situations up, shit like the Hunter Biden laptop was specifically dredged up to create such a situation. Even you will admit the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit since you’re saying it looks bad rather than saying it is bad. And yet you’re still talking about it, and not talking about Trump’s pardon of Kushner.
So no, saying people are being stupid when they’re being stupid isn’t the problem. People jumping on the opportunity to “tut tut” over complete nonsense because the media has served it up as the outrage of the day is the problem. If people want to get in their feelings about being called out on being suckers, that’s a separate problem.
It’s less “their team did it, so it’s OK”, more “their team did it, and they were fine with it then, so they aren’t allowed to be mad about it”. The raging hypocrisy invalidates their take on the...
It’s less “their team did it, so it’s OK”, more “their team did it, and they were fine with it then, so they aren’t allowed to be mad about it”. The raging hypocrisy invalidates their take on the matter, but that’s orthogonal to whether the opinion they’re expressing has merit if held consistently. cc @unkz, who was asking a similar question below.
On that note, I don’t personally like it at all, but I do think it was unfortunately the right call. A president pardoning their family member is a wild conflict of interest and in a sane system should be a major ethical violation - but this is no longer a sane system, the rule of law isn’t looking so solid right now, and leaving a prominent family member exposed in that situation would be naive weakness rather than principled strength.
And yes, I really, really fucking hate that it’s come to this kind of decision.
What are you upset about? Presidents are allowed to pardon people, even hardened criminals if they choose. In this case he chose to pardon his son to protect him from continued harassment over...
What are you upset about? Presidents are allowed to pardon people, even hardened criminals if they choose.
In this case he chose to pardon his son to protect him from continued harassment over minor and seldom enforced charges that were trumped up to serve a politically motivated witch hunt against him.
And, TBH, I don’t think Joe Biden owes this country shit after what he was put through and the despicable ogre of a man it elected just to spite him. None of this shit matters anymore and people getting mad about it are just being useful chumps for media outrage mongers. This sort of “muh norms and propriety” fixation is the only reason investigations on Trump got slow rolled and he isn’t rotting in a prison cell right now. These are stupid norms that rely on credulous marks pretending cynical abuse of political processes might be sincere out of some misguided belief that we have to keep an open mind that maybe people who have declared us their enemies might be honest this time. Who benefits from maintaining these norms if it repeatedly fails to constrain the vilest people we have in politics and only punishes the honest ones?
Yep no one anywhere ever has been upset legitimately about things that are legal that probably shouldn't be or are a heavy abuse of questionable edge cases.
What are you upset about? Presidents are allowed to pardon people, even hardened criminals if they choose.
Yep no one anywhere ever has been upset legitimately about things that are legal that probably shouldn't be or are a heavy abuse of questionable edge cases.
How is it a “heavy abuse of questionable edge cases” to pardon a guy being subjected to a politically motivated harassment campaign by Republicans because they don’t like his dad and want to...
How is it a “heavy abuse of questionable edge cases” to pardon a guy being subjected to a politically motivated harassment campaign by Republicans because they don’t like his dad and want to punish him for the crime of being a Democrat? This is the opposite of questionable. It is the least questionable use of the pardon power ever to deploy it in order to stop a witch hunt.
Yes. I don't personally agree, but so long as you were also mad 4 years ago (or would have been, had you heard of it at the time), you're logically consistent, and it seems like a reasonable...
Yes. I don't personally agree, but so long as you were also mad 4 years ago (or would have been, had you heard of it at the time), you're logically consistent, and it seems like a reasonable opinion to hold
Probably a hot take on tildes, but I don't think presidential pardons based on personal discretion should be a thing. It's far too abusable. It literally circumvents the justice system, and if you...
Probably a hot take on tildes, but I don't think presidential pardons based on personal discretion should be a thing. It's far too abusable. It literally circumvents the justice system, and if you or a loved one was in prison for something that someone more well connected had gotten wiped away by a penstroke, how would you feel? This is a principled stance and has nothing to do with Biden, jr or senior, specifically. Trump already abused that power and will probably abuse it again in the future.
I just really don't like any system that puts some people above the law.
If the American justice system is so fucked that these special powers are needed, you might as well make the office of president into one entirely dedicated to issuing pardons. I guarantee there's thousands of far worse cases that go unresolved because nobody important gave a damn, or even knew about them.
I think it's a sensible take that plenty of people here would support. In a rules based order, these things would matter. In today's theatrical, vibe based rage farm, they just don't.
I think it's a sensible take that plenty of people here would support. In a rules based order, these things would matter. In today's theatrical, vibe based rage farm, they just don't.
Definitely agreed. It's a concept that should not belong in a democracy, but to a dictatorial state. The US is a flawed democracy as of a 2016 though and each year it's either not moving or going...
Definitely agreed. It's a concept that should not belong in a democracy, but to a dictatorial state. The US is a flawed democracy as of a 2016 though and each year it's either not moving or going in the wrong direction - not that that necessarily has that much to do with this in particular, but I'm sure the presidential powers as a whole does not do it favours on that list
Not directed at you, smoontjes, but I hate those lists. Putting america as a flawed democracy and Greece as a full democracy (for example) reveals the absurdity, IMO. Separately, you might be...
Not directed at you, smoontjes, but I hate those lists. Putting america as a flawed democracy and Greece as a full democracy (for example) reveals the absurdity, IMO.
Separately, you might be interested to hear the original rationale for the presidential pardon authority, which is formally granted by the US's constitution. (If I recall correctly you're danish.)
It's from an ultra-conservative source, but it's a good steelman of the argument for the existence of the pardon authority:
Yip, I'm Danish! Fair enough about that list. I definitely wouldn't rely on it too much either. Would you also say that it doesn't work even just as a rule of thumb? I get that it stems from the...
Yip, I'm Danish! Fair enough about that list. I definitely wouldn't rely on it too much either. Would you also say that it doesn't work even just as a rule of thumb?
I get that it stems from the constitution but I still don't think it's a democratic concept in any way. I only read the first 3 paragraphs introduction, but I can understand that it's part of the idea of checks and balances. An idea I can only applaud but the problem is that it assumed the president is a moral person who acts in good faith - assumptions that we saw the consequences of from from 2017. The article was also written in 2012 so I wonder what the author would say now, having seen what Trumpism is like.
This is an interesting question and I'm honestly not sure. It's not like this type of list is completely without merit in that I think it's useful to assess what states are doing, but on the other...
Would you also say that it doesn't work even just as a rule of thumb?
This is an interesting question and I'm honestly not sure. It's not like this type of list is completely without merit in that I think it's useful to assess what states are doing, but on the other hand I think that the labels are unhelpful at best and much more likely to be counterproductive. They're just so subjective. Many European states near at the top of the list include restrictions on civil liberties that seem nearly draconian compared to the United States (e.g. restrictions on hate speech in Germany, restrictions not just on guns but on pocket knives in Great Britain, head scarf bans in France, and so on). Australia passed laws mandating backdoors and is trying to get better at enforcing them. All of these countries were labeled "fully democratic."
I'm not saying that makes them undemocratic - just that it exposes the silliness of the "full democracy" vs "flawed democracy" paradigm.
I only read the first 3 paragraphs introduction, but I can understand that it's part of the idea of checks and balances. An idea I can only applaud but the problem is that it assumed the president is a moral person who acts in good faith - assumptions that we saw the consequences of from from 2017. The article was also written in 2012 so I wonder what the author would say now, having seen what Trumpism is like.
I wouldn't say any of the restrictions you mention are related to democracy per se, as long as they were agreed to freely by the population and upheld consistently by the government? That's not a...
I wouldn't say any of the restrictions you mention are related to democracy per se, as long as they were agreed to freely by the population and upheld consistently by the government?
That's not a value judgment in either direction on the importance of those things or what I personally think of them, or even a suggestion that I think the democracy index is correct (I honestly haven't looked deeply enough to have a reasonable opinion either way on that one!), but I don't know if they would - or even should - affect the rankings.
Fair - I mention it because civil liberties is one of the 5 metrics the democracy index in question purports to measure. I don't disagree and I'd argue that your points are more ammunition against...
Fair - I mention it because civil liberties is one of the 5 metrics the democracy index in question purports to measure. I don't disagree and I'd argue that your points are more ammunition against so-called democracy indicies.
I wouldn't call it draconic to have hate speech laws. Nor to ban carrying knives - you can still carry one if it has a purpose for your work for example. Plus, the UK has a lot of attacks by...
I wouldn't call it draconic to have hate speech laws. Nor to ban carrying knives - you can still carry one if it has a purpose for your work for example. Plus, the UK has a lot of attacks by terrorists who wield knives. The French ban is not on hijab, but on full-face coverings like niqabs and I feel that ban is reasonable because there's practically no way those women willingly choose to cover their faces. There's no way that they aren't forced to by their fathers or husbands. France does have a ban on hijab/headscarves in sports and schools though, and that one is definitely draconic, totally agree (edit: apparently the school ban counts for every ostentatious religious display but I'm sure it's a lot less enforced if someone wears a crucifix necklace for example)
All modesty laws are cultural and relatively arbitrary. The only reasons we cover our buttcheeks, chests, feet, etc. is cultural/societal expectations/laws and personal comfort. It's weird to me...
The French ban is not on hijab, but on full-face coverings like niqabs and I feel that ban is reasonable because there's practically no way those women willingly choose to cover their faces. There's no way that they aren't forced to by their fathers or husbands. France does have a ban on hijab/headscarves in sports and schools though, and that one is definitely draconic, totally agree.
All modesty laws are cultural and relatively arbitrary. The only reasons we cover our buttcheeks, chests, feet, etc. is cultural/societal expectations/laws and personal comfort. It's weird to me to insist that one culture's default setting is normal and the rest are not.
Is it patriarchal and oppressive to require it? Sure. So are most school dress codes, which, as you note, France also does. But if someone chooses it because it's what they're used to and they feel comfortable with it? IDGAF.
In contrast, if there's that level of abuse happening, the niqab is not the thing to focus on, nor as others mentioned, the solution to the abuse. It might force some change, but I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do.
And in response you’re going to further restrict the kind of clothes they can wear? Would you object to a women who wears a hat or a hood and a mask for social anxiety reasons?
And in response you’re going to further restrict the kind of clothes they can wear?
Would you object to a women who wears a hat or a hood and a mask for social anxiety reasons?
That's not what I said. It's not an objective fact of course. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but I simply do not believe that many, if any at all, would choose to wear a niqab. It's...
That's not what I said.
It's not an objective fact of course. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but I simply do not believe that many, if any at all, would choose to wear a niqab. It's about choice and I do not believe that they have a choice - and then it wouldn't be a restriction.
Indeed, in contrast with the pervasive view that women are forced to wear the niqab by domineering men in their families, many of the Canadian women noted that their fathers or husbands opposed their niqabs and would have preferred that they not wear it (Bakht 2020, p. 23; Clarke 2013, p. 42). This perspective coincides almost identically with niqab-wearing women in Europe.27 The in-depth testimonies in the United Kingdom revealed that when parental pressure had been applied, it was always to convince daughters to remove the veil (Bouteldja 2014, p. 131). Though the niqab is often perceived as reflecting and reproducing hierarchical power structures, and this apparent compulsion is used as the primary basis for niqab bans, in fact most of the responses from niqab-wearing women in the seven countries where women’s voices have been studied undermine this assumption.
Mehreen said that her husband would prefer that she not wear the niqab because “you know he ends up getting the weird looks. And it’s automatic. [They assume] he’s making me do it” (Bakht 2020, p. 23). Similarly, Zareen’s family was very concerned about her wearing the niqab during one of the controversial Canadian debates. “I know like my family was under stress, too. They were concerned, at that time. People were [telling my husband], like make your wife… [take off the niqab. He said,] she has made up [her] mind… and she will not listen to me!” (Bakht 2020, p. 23).
Lynda Clarke points to a narrative of a woman in France being forced by her abusive husband and in-laws to wear a niqab (Clarke 2013, p. 61). Eva Brems also cites a Belgian case of a woman who had been forced to wear the niqab (Brems et al. 2014, p. 84). The rarity of these cases seems to reinforce rather than discredit the general finding that women typically choose to wear the niqab. Canadian women interviewed said that they did not know of a woman who had been coerced into wearing the niqab. In Denmark, women were irritated by the suggestion that they are forced by their husbands to wear niqab (Østergaard et al. 2014, p. 42). If parental or familial pressure was present, it was typically applied to persuade women not to wear or to remove the niqab (Bouteldja 2014, p. 131).28 Two Canadian women stated that when they began wearing the niqab, they hid it from family members, knowing that their parents would not approve (Bakht 2020, p. 26). In France, many young women also initially wore the niqab secretly for fear of parental disapproval (Bouteldja 2014, p. 132). One woman made wearing the niqab a prerequisite to agreeing to marry a potential suitor (Bakht 2020, p. 26).29
Why does your belief override their own personal belief about what they can and can’t wear? Are you not trying to enforce your own beliefs on that of non-consenting women in this case? It’s their...
Why does your belief override their own personal belief about what they can and can’t wear? Are you not trying to enforce your own beliefs on that of non-consenting women in this case? It’s their body, their clothes, I think they should be able to determine what they wear for themselves.
That is still not what I'm saying. I'm arguing that it is not their own personal belief. That I don't believe that it could possibly be. I don't think our discussion is productive so I'll read...
That is still not what I'm saying. I'm arguing that it is not their own personal belief. That I don't believe that it could possibly be.
I don't think our discussion is productive so I'll read your response if you do reply but won't engage any further if that's okay
How can anyone but themselves know if it’s their personal belief? Do you even come from an Islamic culture? You’re claiming to know more about them than they know about themselves, which seems...
How can anyone but themselves know if it’s their personal belief? Do you even come from an Islamic culture? You’re claiming to know more about them than they know about themselves, which seems patronizing at best.
As a default, Islamic women believe in their personal autonomy. Your belief that they do not have such is you forcing your own beliefs on them.
While I agree here, I think it's deliberately ignoring the weaponization of hate speech laws to crush legitimate criticism and protest, along with their being applied very unequally across the...
I wouldn't call it draconic to have hate speech laws.
While I agree here, I think it's deliberately ignoring the weaponization of hate speech laws to crush legitimate criticism and protest, along with their being applied very unequally across the population. Germany's hate speech laws are particularly strict for understandable reasons, but they are increasingly used to target politically vulnerable populations rather than white Germans.
That's something very few people who will tell you very eagerly, often vehemently, that some kinds of content and speech "should be restricted" ever seem to realize, or recognize. Namely, how such...
That's something very few people who will tell you very eagerly, often vehemently, that some kinds of content and speech "should be restricted" ever seem to realize, or recognize. Namely, how such a law or authority to do it does not, in any way, assure or guarantee it will be used in "the right" way.
The folks who want to run around, online or in person, restricting speech will always tell you it's for a great reason. A good one. A moral and kind and civilized one. "They're saying horrible stuff; they should be made to stop right now." And all manner of variations on that simple theme. It's always "they're saying things I disagree with."
They'll disagree with it morally. It's always morals at the end of the day. They'll say "my morality teaches this (speech) is wrong, and thus should NOT BE ALLOWED." And they'll be quite eager to hand over authority to someone who is then empowered to squash that speech. Simply because it's "immoral."
Morality is relative, flexible, changing, and subject to both interpretation and abuse. Many of the same people, today for example, who want online portals to monitor for and censor speech they find immoral (a lot of conservative viewpoints fall into these categories lately) fail to see how the exact same arguments they use to advocate for how and why that speech should be so treated apply in reverse to their speech, their viewpoints, completely without alteration.
It only depends on what the empowered person decides. They could decide to "support" your morality with that power, or they could decided to use it against you by squashing yours and allowing your opponents' speech to persist.
Power is abused. That's the nature of power. That's why we call it power. It gives authority and ability, especially when that power is given to government, which has already gone about arranging society to give itself overriding power in the first place.
Do I agree with many, if any, conservative viewpoints? No, I really don't. Especially not extreme ones, the positions that are particularly 'inflammatory' such as regressive religious practices and views that advocate for their being forced upon the broad populace.
But that should be a societal debate to settle, not something we decide to allow government, or a corporation, to Bigfoot us about. Sure it sounds great when Bigfoot is on your side. What happens when it's not? When the people who make the call to slam that Bigfoot down to censor and criminalize speech are doing it in ways you disagree with?
It's a power too dangerous to allow government, a corporation, or even society at large to have. If society wants to engage in vigorous debate amongst itself about what's 'right' or 'wrong', that's healthy.
The act of people arguing (especially disagreeing) with one another over these concepts is a leavening factor. It moderates and illuminates the positions, exposes people to concepts, offers them a chance (even if they don't realize it) to think and consider. Creates opportunities to push back and change minds. It allows society to grow.
Allowing any Bigfoot, government or corporate, even your local Home Owner's Association President, the ability to inflict absolute penalties and removal of speech solely on their decision alone ... that is beyond dangerous. It's abusive, and it will be abused. It always has been.
And yet you still see people so eager to hand that power over. To normalize the ability for a Bigfoot to roll in against a person's wishes and declare "you're saying things we've decided you shouldn't, come with us or we'll use force."
Even the Left is blind to this. Blind to how they're usually caught up in self-righteous congratulations over their own moral superiority. How they're so eager to criminalize differing viewpoints to offer advantage to their own.
Humans will abuse anything. If you made a rule that said "everyone who attends a birthday party must bring a present" I guarantee people would abuse it. They'd make up extra birthdays, they'd get themselves invited to an enemy's birthday and give cruel or traumatizing presents, who knows? Saying humans look for and exploit loopholes is the same as saying humans breathe.
Giving the power to control speech over is basically giving the power to control thought away. It sounds great when the thoughts being controlled aren't yours, and further, belong to people you hate.
What happens when they have that power, and control your thoughts? Or just control you?
Free Speech can be abused, but it's safer than normalizing censorship. Which is always abused.
Haven't seen anything about that myself. The only cases I've seen has been for neo-Nazis or those on the extreme far-right preaching death or deportation on those not "aryan"
Haven't seen anything about that myself. The only cases I've seen has been for neo-Nazis or those on the extreme far-right preaching death or deportation on those not "aryan"
There was a thread on Tildes earlier this year about a woman being prosecuted under hate speech laws for saying "From the river to the sea" at a protest (and she's not alone - different German...
There was a thread on Tildes earlier this year about a woman being prosecuted under hate speech laws for saying "From the river to the sea" at a protest (and she's not alone - different German courts have held differently on whether this phrase constitutes hate speech, which indicates multiple prosecutions like this have occurred). The fact that these prosecutions occur but the AfD are allowed to continue to operate as a political party is more than enough evidence for me that these laws are not enforced equally.
To be fair, that slogan used to belong to basically only Hamas. And it used to mean that it should all be Palestine and Israelis should be killed or deported. It has completely changed its meaning...
To be fair, that slogan used to belong to basically only Hamas. And it used to mean that it should all be Palestine and Israelis should be killed or deported. It has completely changed its meaning to become something vaguely along the lines of being an anti-apartheid and pro human rights statement (as far as I know). As for AfD, they have had several cases against their members
I think you're giving the German government more credit than they're due here. In any case, I think the example I gave is sufficient to establish that German hate speech laws are not just used...
I think you're giving the German government more credit than they're due here. In any case, I think the example I gave is sufficient to establish that German hate speech laws are not just used against neo-Nazis.
But their husbands and fathers aren't just going to go "oh well" and let those women go out in less restrictive dress, they're going to prevent those women from going out at all. This law isn't...
I feel that ban is reasonable because there's practically no way those women willingly choose to cover their faces. There's no way that they aren't forced to by their fathers or husbands.
But their husbands and fathers aren't just going to go "oh well" and let those women go out in less restrictive dress, they're going to prevent those women from going out at all. This law isn't actually helping anyone.
They may let them out of the house in a niqab if the women are allowed to wear niqabs, and then those women can build support networks and may be able to get out of that situation. Not likely, but...
They may let them out of the house in a niqab if the women are allowed to wear niqabs, and then those women can build support networks and may be able to get out of that situation. Not likely, but there's a better chance than if they aren't allowed out of the house at all.
A lot of people already jumped in to argue with you here, so I'll just say that it's soooo European to say "our restrictions on civil liberties are common-sense regulations, American restrictions...
A lot of people already jumped in to argue with you here, so I'll just say that it's soooo European to say "our restrictions on civil liberties are common-sense regulations, American restrictions (on e.g. abortion) are fascist overreach."
I'm kinda in disagreement with smoontjes in the wider argument but to your statement... yes, they are, unironically. They are qualitatively different. You can't reduce them all to "a government...
Exemplary
I'm kinda in disagreement with smoontjes in the wider argument but to your statement... yes, they are, unironically. They are qualitatively different. You can't reduce them all to "a government restriction" and call it bad. Uses of government power have moral value in both purpose and effect and there is a difference between good ones and bad ones! (And we do have bad ones in Europe too!)
Tbh good. I think Biden is right that it was politically motivated and I genuinely don't care about Hunter's drug habit or laptop and I think it makes sense to protect his family from the harassment.
Tbh good. I think Biden is right that it was politically motivated and I genuinely don't care about Hunter's drug habit or laptop and I think it makes sense to protect his family from the harassment.
It was such a weak thing for Republicans to hang their hats on and, when compared to the January 6 fiasco among others, it was plain to see that they were inflating the Hunter Biden thing to seem...
It was such a weak thing for Republicans to hang their hats on and, when compared to the January 6 fiasco among others, it was plain to see that they were inflating the Hunter Biden thing to seem far bigger than it was.
I don't know how members of that party can sleep at night
It's all so ugly. On one hand, the accounts that I've read seem to agree Biden's son was targeted and pursued in a way that doesn't match what would typically happen in these cases. Biden probably...
It's all so ugly.
On one hand, the accounts that I've read seem to agree Biden's son was targeted and pursued in a way that doesn't match what would typically happen in these cases. Biden probably realized that his son wasn't going to get anything resembling fair treatment and decided that the right wasn't going to give him an ounce of credit no matter what he did. Truth be told, they just don't care. The left kept trying to "go high" when Republicans went low, and we kept losing. What's the point in playing by rules they refuse to follow?
On the other hand, I think this really does give the loonies a bunch of ammo and it's going to be weaponized for years to come. It also points out the stark contrast between the two tiers of our justice system. There are plenty of kids sitting in cells for this exact thing - but sadly for them, their fathers weren't in politics.
I'm feeling pretty down. I've been reading some old Jon Ronson books again. When I first read them years ago, I thought they were fun because the extremists he would write about and interview were way on the fringes. They were nuts and it was obvious to everyone... Right? White Supremacists and fascists would never have popular media outlets or hold political offices in this country again... It was absurd to think otherwise. But Ronson was onto something. I think he saw first-hand how primed America was for these people to take charge. I think he knew they were dangerous and he was watching up close for the last 30 years as they slowly grabbed more and more power, becoming mainstream. It's so sad and scary.
Whether Biden did the right thing or not - as a father or as a president - I think this is at least an indicator that things aren't going well. Another warning of the lows we have reached.
From what I understand, the crimes Hunter Biden were convicted of are rarely, if ever prosecuted by themselves, at least, not at the scale that Hunter committed them. They're more typically...
From what I understand, the crimes Hunter Biden were convicted of are rarely, if ever prosecuted by themselves, at least, not at the scale that Hunter committed them. They're more typically "add-on" charges that are easy to convict.
Kind of like how they got Al Capone on tax evasion. It's easy to prove that someone lied on a federal form, or that they didn't pay enough taxes.
I don't even care about this part honestly. If it's not this, then they'll just make up don't other Boogeyman to yell about. Reality doesn't mean anything to them
I think this really does give the loonies a bunch of ammo and it's going to be weaponized for years to come
I don't even care about this part honestly. If it's not this, then they'll just make up don't other Boogeyman to yell about. Reality doesn't mean anything to them
But this doesn't give them ammo. There's this odd dynamic at play that is born out of one side playing by decorum and rules, while the other side is happy to throw any rule out the window if it...
But this doesn't give them ammo. There's this odd dynamic at play that is born out of one side playing by decorum and rules, while the other side is happy to throw any rule out the window if it stands in their way. This has not unlocked new ground for Republicans. They've already seen Trump pardon Kushner, Manifort, Flynn, et.al. It's very cult like in that they're only interested in words when it lends them a thin veneer of legitimacy, but are happy to ignore those same words when they are inconvenient. Just because there are new words to pull from ("Biden did X"), doesn't mean it's made a damn bit of difference. We must stop thinking like this if we want to remove a dictator supporting party from power.
I feel angry about this, for two reasons at least. First, he said he wouldn’t do it, and now he has. Politicians lie and reverse course all the time, but it still hurts when the reason seems to...
I feel angry about this, for two reasons at least. First, he said he wouldn’t do it, and now he has. Politicians lie and reverse course all the time, but it still hurts when the reason seems to benefit themself or just a select, privileged few. Second, this is going to enhance the narrative that there is no meaningful difference between the parties, and many will legitimately ask, “why bother?” A more consequential example of this is the arms sale Biden just approved to Israel. I cannot imagine any legitmate basis for what is happening in Gaza; any public support for that from leadership serves to highlight the value gap between myself and people like me and our potential leaders. And again, without any meaningful alternative, it’s tempting to simply drop out.
Re the pardon, I think it was dumb for Biden to officially say that he wouldn't pardon Hunter. I don't know what he hoped to gain. I can only speak for myself, but I have watched Trump double and...
Exemplary
Re the pardon, I think it was dumb for Biden to officially say that he wouldn't pardon Hunter. I don't know what he hoped to gain.
I can only speak for myself, but I have watched Trump double and triple down on being focused on revenge and retribution and punishing enemies once he takes office. Hunter is in the line of fire and Trump and his staff cannot be trusted to be reasonable or proportional in what they will do next.
I am waiting to see whether Biden uses the pardon power to protect journalists or politicians or FBI staff or the attorneys who worked on Trump's cases. Trump has signaled that there will be prosecutions and legal risk for all of these groups of people.
This was actually my first thought when I saw this headline. The details of the case almost don't matter, Trump et al would absolutely go after him just because they've already set him up as a target.
Hunter is in the line of fire and Trump and his staff cannot be trusted to be reasonable or proportional in what they will do next.
This was actually my first thought when I saw this headline. The details of the case almost don't matter, Trump et al would absolutely go after him just because they've already set him up as a target.
as @boxer_dogs_dance pointed out, that's also true for a lot of other people. If we don't see them pardoned as well, this makes Biden and Co. smell badly, and that stink will transfer to Kamala...
as @boxer_dogs_dance pointed out, that's also true for a lot of other people. If we don't see them pardoned as well, this makes Biden and Co. smell badly, and that stink will transfer to Kamala and any dem associated. FWIW, I've smelled this smell from the DNC since at least 2016.
It's possible that there will be more pardons, but unlike other folks, Hunter's case was in progress vs being a potential threat in the future. I think the fact that this is the same "stink" since...
It's possible that there will be more pardons, but unlike other folks, Hunter's case was in progress vs being a potential threat in the future.
I think the fact that this is the same "stink" since 2016 means that it doesn't matter and I'd probably have done the same. I respected his principled stance at the time, but I don't blame him for deciding, in the face of Trump, to change his mind. I don't think he'd have done it with a different GOP candidate winning.
I could be wrong though. He's pardoning the right sort of person - stupid low level crimes - would love him to do more than just his son, rather than less.
I'm not so sure this is true. Hunter did commit actual crimes, so there is some merit in going after him. What other dems have committed actual crimes? To me, if Biden pardons people who haven't...
I'm not so sure this is true. Hunter did commit actual crimes, so there is some merit in going after him. What other dems have committed actual crimes?
To me, if Biden pardons people who haven't done anything just to spare them from baseless investigations and harassment, it only legitimizes right-wing conspiracies of criminal behavior.
With the right wing journalists poised to spin up outrage over any Biden choice, it's a tough choice. I haven't got time to dig for examples this morning but Trump has repeatedly publicly said...
With the right wing journalists poised to spin up outrage over any Biden choice, it's a tough choice.
I haven't got time to dig for examples this morning but Trump has repeatedly publicly said that he is going to use the FBI and the justice department attorneys to take revenge. This like many things Trump does and says, is different to what presidencies in the US have done in the past.
My understanding of the pardon power (as a non expert attorney) is that it is quite broad. Especially when it comes to journalists, I feel for people who took action under a set of rules they understood and relied on and now Trump is flipping over the game board and threatening to go after them personally.
If Trump decides to act on his narcissistic need for revenge as a way to demonstrate his dictatorial power (and thus inflate his sense of self and superiority), pardoning any of those likely...
If Trump decides to act on his narcissistic need for revenge as a way to demonstrate his dictatorial power (and thus inflate his sense of self and superiority), pardoning any of those likely targets only really does one thing of consequence.
It would force Trump and MAGA to say the quiet part out loud.
So, with that in mind, while I think pardoning anyone who's a likely Trump target is probably useless and futile as a way to "protect" them, it would protect the nation. In that it would force Project25 to go hot, use live rounds, and actually act as dictators.
A lot of his revenge targets are state level though. Sure he might want to fabricate bullshit to punish a list of DOJ staffers or something similar, fire them, arrest them, show-sham trial prosecute them, but there's a number of state level actions he's had to sit through. New York in particular.
He can't act against them openly without violating rule of law. He'd have to go live and roll troops to arrest those judges, jurors, attorneys, plaintiffs, and so on. They're not part of the federal system. If he wants to target them, he has to go hot to do so.
It'll come down to how serious they are about saying the dictator part out loud. Are they just waving the bloody flag for their base, rabble-rabbling themselves to feel better? Or are they serious and do want to remove rule of law?
In the process of getting a diagnosis for a fairly serious medical condition, I learned a saying from doctors. 'The disease will declare itself'. The confusing stages don't for the most part last...
In the process of getting a diagnosis for a fairly serious medical condition, I learned a saying from doctors. 'The disease will declare itself'. The confusing stages don't for the most part last forever.
A lot of people, myself included see similarities between Trump and MAGA and early stages of past fascist regimes. We are approaching the point where they are going to fish or cut bait. How far we they go? How blatant will they be? Trump can do a lot within the confines of existing executive authority without changing the system, but they seem to want to change the system anyway.
Within the next two years their intentions and plans should become unmistakeable.
The narrative at the time was "they go low, we go high. We don't try to exempt our family and friends from legal process." I hear the comments here and elsewhere that Jr's crimes rarely result in...
hoped to gain
The narrative at the time was "they go low, we go high. We don't try to exempt our family and friends from legal process."
I hear the comments here and elsewhere that Jr's crimes rarely result in custody sanctions, or are rarely brought independently, and that it was politically motivated. That's fine, but the time to make that argument loudly was when prosecutions were ongoing. Also, Sr. could easily have maneuvered the ADA's involved to quietly make it all go away. The stand then, coupled with the reversal now, is really stinky.
Unless, that is, there are many pardons far and wide. As I heard in another forum, Free Leonard Peltier! But given the ongoing support for Israel especially now that there is no political reason (he's a lame duck), I doubt we will see any principled pardons.
Biden should just start blanket pardoning every Democrat. Pardon Obama and Clinton and Harris too. Just to make Republicans mad. In fact, if we really want to get the Q anon idiots frothing he...
Biden should just start blanket pardoning every Democrat. Pardon Obama and Clinton and Harris too. Just to make Republicans mad.
In fact, if we really want to get the Q anon idiots frothing he should issue a very specific pardon to Elon Musk for the crime of implanting a neuralink chip into Donald Trump’s brain to make him lose track of his thoughts mid sentence and look like a moron so he’ll be easier for tech billionaires to manipulate.
I figured it was a matter of the election and trying to hold as much ground in the election as he could. If he wins the election, he could do whatever he wants after that, if he loses, he can do...
Re the pardon, I think it was dumb for Biden to officially say that he wouldn't pardon Hunter. I don't know what he hoped to gain.
I figured it was a matter of the election and trying to hold as much ground in the election as he could. If he wins the election, he could do whatever he wants after that, if he loses, he can do whatever he wants before someone else takes office. But he and advisers probably thought that it mattered to at least some small percentage of voters that he not pardon Hunter. Of course even after he dropped out and handed the election off to Kamala he still was operating under similar constraints.
I am waiting to see whether Biden uses the pardon power to protect journalists or politicians or FBI staff or the attorneys who worked on Trump's cases. Trump has signaled that there will be prosecutions and legal risk for all of these groups of people.
I think it could be useful to do that. It might in some minds support that the Trump cases were partisan, but in the end I'm not sure that really matters because the people who think that way likely aren't going to behave any differently regardless. The fact that they claimed they were partisan before there was any rational basis to claim it means that even if there happens to be some slight case for it later means reality never really had any bearing on what they were going to do anyhow.
I think, instead of dropping out, it would be more fun to help whatever third party you like to have a chance by changing the first past the post voting system in your area. There are quite a few...
I think, instead of dropping out, it would be more fun to help whatever third party you like to have a chance by changing the first past the post voting system in your area.
There are quite a few alternatives gaining steam in some areas, like ranked choice voting.
I don't know your jurisdiction, but you can typically petition for ballot measures to be included. There might even be a movement already in your area that you can help.
That's a great suggestion for folks who, myself included, have time to participate in the process beyond voting. But many folks have busy lives and the best they can offer is their vote. If they...
That's a great suggestion for folks who, myself included, have time to participate in the process beyond voting. But many folks have busy lives and the best they can offer is their vote. If they don't perceive meaninful differences between choices, they will reasonably withdraw. And, quite frankly, this looks like privileged folks protecting their own even to me; I don't blame anyone who walks away from this feeling like there is an unreasonable, and un-American, distance between the leadership elite and regular citizens.
I'd argue the majority of people have time to do something even just writing letters and making phone calls to their elected officials. It's exhausting to watch every 4 years when people who only...
I'd argue the majority of people have time to do something even just writing letters and making phone calls to their elected officials. It's exhausting to watch every 4 years when people who only engage for about 6 months just complain about how the system sucks.
Sure, drop out at that point I suppose? But there's essentially no motivation for those officials to try to keep you at that point.
All this discussion gives me an idea. Let's just add a condition to pardoning: Receiving a pardon automatically disqualifies you from working at any federally-run government office. So no running...
All this discussion gives me an idea. Let's just add a condition to pardoning:
Receiving a pardon automatically disqualifies you from working at any federally-run government office. So no running for federal office, nor working as a staffer or contractor at one. I contemplated "becomes ineligible for a security clearance," but I feel that is excessively overbearing given how broadly those are required for even seemingly mundane things.
It's a simple solution to avoiding major conflicts of interest with minimal impact.
Biden probably made that promise for the same reason liberals have overlooked crooked shit for decades: to maintain "faith in the system." Same reason Johnson &co didn't prosecute Nixon and...
Biden probably made that promise for the same reason liberals have overlooked crooked shit for decades: to maintain "faith in the system." Same reason Johnson &co didn't prosecute Nixon and Kissinger for tanking the Vietnam peace talks, and Carter &co didn't go after Reagan for prolonging the Iran Hostage Crisis. They wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety because our system relies on faith in the rule of law.
At this point it's pretty apparent that faith in the rule of law has been shot for some time, and it wasn't liberals who pulled the trigger. They may have cleaned and loaded the gun and pointed it at the rule of law by inaction and appeasement, but the final use of it is down to the GOP and the electorate who buys their bullshit.
Biden has spent a lifetime serving a corrupt and crumbling system under an unspoken contract that if the system is faithfully upheld, wisdom and justice will prevail. The past six months or so saw his party and nation break that contract, and I wouldn't blame him a whit for telling us all to go fuck ourselves.
Mostly posting this comment hoping someone will rapidly knock the tin foil hat off my head -- does anyone else find the timing of the Israel Hamas cease fire "interesting"?
Mostly posting this comment hoping someone will rapidly knock the tin foil hat off my head -- does anyone else find the timing of the Israel Hamas cease fire "interesting"?
If you think that there’s some quid pro quo between Netanyahu and Trump, yeah. But in general it’s perfectly normal and expected for Israel to do things in response to the politics of the US - if...
If you think that there’s some quid pro quo between Netanyahu and Trump, yeah. But in general it’s perfectly normal and expected for Israel to do things in response to the politics of the US - if they merely thought that a Trump presidency would be favorable to them, so held off from doing things that would help the Biden administration, that’s just normal behavior.
I'm kind of numb to this, to be honest. Pardoning seems wrong, because prosecuting him also seems wrong. His prosecution was nothing more than a witch hunt and retribution for going after Trump....
I'm kind of numb to this, to be honest. Pardoning seems wrong, because prosecuting him also seems wrong. His prosecution was nothing more than a witch hunt and retribution for going after Trump. But I have such little faith in the US government right now that this doesn't even touch the top 100 things that I'm put off by when it comes to what's going on in US politics.
Yep. I don't particularly care in any negative sense, not disapproving or anything. It's... exceedingly clear that Hunter's prosecution was a political witch-hunt seeking any leverage to be had, and not the legal system seeking actual justice.
When the GOP points at this and casts aspersions and blame, it will just be another hypocrisy added to a mountain of hypocrisies.
Not only that, but Trump pardoned his own daughter's father in law (Jared Kusher's father). I don't see how they can say one is OK and the other isn't.
Can’t they both be wrong?
Sure. But then they should also have complained 4 years ago, and I don't remember hearing that from the GOP in 2020.
I feel like this has zero bearing on whether Biden should be doing this or not.
It should not.
What does matter is that Hunter was basically railroaded. My understanding, from memory so some details may be slightly incorrect:
He was charged for something that few have been, even after paying the taxes, which for others has led to the charges being dropped. He also had a plea deal that the DOJ agreed to, but a Republican appointed (Trump?) judge denied against the protestation of the prosecutors.
Also, I have no doubt that the republicans taking over would have contributed to prosecute him unfairly for political reasons.
For this reason I don’t fault Biden for the pardon. Pardons are meant to undo unjust sentences, which this was.
You mean our next ambassador to France?
How about those of us who are trying to think about this beyond a “well if their team did it” mindset. Can we be upset?
I mean, I guess you can be mad about this (we're not really the mad police, be mad about what you want) but shouldn't you also be mad about how Republicans targeted Hunter Biden specifically because he was a Democratic politician's son, for crimes that are rarely prosecuted in this manner? Especially considering that the charges are ones that Republicans would typically fight against?
Hunter Biden is a fuckup, but like most fuckups, prison time isn't going to help anything.
I am mad that he was needlessly targeted. I’m also mad that Biden said explicitly he would not do this. I’m further mad at many past pardons. I’m quite mad at the “justice system for you and justice system for us” this whole farce has highlighted.
And no, you’re not the mad police and yet all over this topic is the implication that you’re GOP or a moron if you dare to take issue with what is objectively the president lying about getting involved in the trial of his son.
Genuine q:
If he meant it when he said it, and then changed his mind in the face of new information, is that lying? Because I don't think he lied. I think he made a new decision. He broke his promise I suppose, but I don't think that makes the words retroactively a lie. If one didn't believe his initial statements from jump, I could see thinking he was lying.
I'm not saying you should be ok with it; just curious where that lies for you because it's fundamentally the difference between him and half the shit Trump says for me.
The sole restraint on politicians used to be public will. Good faith. Integrity. The desire of our 'leaders' to act in good faith, with integrity. To display honor and decorum. Not even legality, just good faith and public confidence. If you didn't "technically" break the law, you still lost your political career just from the appearance of impropriety.
That's not the case now. Hasn't been for a long, long, long time. Everyone knows it. This isn't news. What does it do? Erode confidence in the rule of law. Which has brought us to this point. Not Biden's pardon, but what's widely expected to begin happening after 20 Jan 25.
If everyone involved was acting in good faith, with honor and integrity, then Biden's action (pardoning, literally granting a Get Out Of Jail card to a family member, solely for reasons of advantaging his family member) would be shocking, a travesty, and worthy of extreme scorn.
Except we're so, so, so far past that point. Nixon got fucking pardoned and that was apparently okay. Regan didn't go down for Iran-Contra. Bush Jr didn't go down for actual war crimes when he (or his administration) lied about WMDs as an excuse to invade. Trump wasn't convicted, (pick whichever of his trials you want; he walked out of all of them, certainly the ones that he should have gone to jail for).
A sitting president did everything except explicitly say "storm the capital and hand me dictatorial power." He said pretty much everything else, but he didn't spell it out like a grade schooler. What's been the result?
Most people decide along party lines. If they're Right, they dismiss it as no big deal. If they're Left, pretty outraged. Center, mostly just sees it as the usual business of politics.
That's erosion of the rule of law in action. The citizens allowing corruption to continue. It's been building for about sixty or so years, accelerated in the 80s when Regan dismantled unions and wealth taxes to unleash the full power of the Rich to keep and use their money, hit the Fast and Furious nitro boost in the 90s when Gingrich unveiled his "just win baby" modern political doctrine, and went airborne in the 10s with MAGA and Trump not even bothering to come up with some "story that'll sell" when they do illegal and corrupt shit.
We are headed for hell. Biden pardoning Biden isn't even going to be a footnote in history. And a footnote is probably the best case scenario for how it'll get mentioned, if it is at all. Unless MAGA succeeds in rolling out the dictatorship.
Then it'll be plastered big and proud, screamed from the rafters.
The irony that proclaiming it as corruption proves the corruption has truly taken over and we've fallen as a country will be utterly lost on those gleefully proclaiming it. They'll just keep insisting they're right and that means they get to have power because dictators rule. Literally.
It's disingenuous and naive to look at Biden pardoning his son and trying to argue that "destroys" the integrity of the process. There hasn't been integrity for a very long time. We're headed for civil revolt one way or another. Biden pardoning his son is just an example of everyone for themselves. Because that's what happens when war starts; you're on your own.
Oh he changed his mind? Really? Like the entire democratic party changed its mind when Hilary didn't win, or when the entire Republican party changed its mind when Trump did win?
If you cannot live with the consequences, don't make promises. Especially when you're fucking with the, yes, already fucked and soon to get worse, justice system.
If he couldn't see this outcome, then great, he's incompetent as well as inconsistent, and it'd be nice to have anyone to vote for who isn't hiding behind both, or just a complete fucking lunatic.
Hey, I understand you're passionate but this came off a bit aggro to me. I wasn't suggesting you should care about Trump's words here, that was my making a differentiation to illustrate my thoughts.
I'll take your answer as "whether it's lying or not doesn't matter to you" and move on.
I would recommend thinking of it like this; when Biden said he would not do this, he believed that the justice system was working and that the actions taken would be fair and equitable. When that turned out to not be remotely true, he changed his mind. I don't think it is a lie so much as it is Biden losing his faith in the justice system, which is, honestly, fair. The American Justice system is broken.
It is also alarming that Trump pardoned 237 people - most of them cronies who were complicit in crimes committed on his behalf - and Biden has pardoned 26. But the heat on Biden is way worse than the heat that was on Trump. I guess it's difficult to compare, since Trump did so many bad things that using his powers to help his cronies doesn't even really register.
I also recognize that "the other guy did it, so it's okay that this guy did it" is not a great defence, but watching the decline of civilization happen is exhausting. As issues go, this one seems like it is pretty close to a non-issue in the grand scheme of things, because this isn't really going to change Biden's legacy, it's not really going to give much ammunition to Trump's base, and the political fallout is minimal. So while I don't think being upset about this makes someone "GOP or a moron", I think that it's not a particularly worthwhile thing to be upset about.
I am well aware that's how it is. This is not a good thing. As I've already said in another comment, don't say shit if you can't live with it. It was dumb of him to even say he wouldn't get involved, because it was also obvious that he was going to if he lost.
"the heat on biden vs trump" is not relevant to me. I can't control that. I can't make people care more about the idiots and criminals trump pardoned. All I can say is yes, I think it is absolutely outrageous that Biden did this, and several other things along the line of this entire judicial farce, and it's extra outrageous the amount of "but trump..." being used to cover it.
The justice system should be no one's play thing, and watching politicians double and triple down on it, from any side, for any reason, is abhorrent.
This is probably the thing I find most disagreeable; I think that people make mistakes and admitting and rectifying mistakes is an important thing for an adult to be able to do. I do agree that Biden should never have said that he wouldn't get involved - that was the mistake. I think the pardon itself is not one. I don't necessarily begrudge the man his belief that things would work out and a pardon wouldn't be warranted.
The thing that makes me lean towards understanding is if the person being pardoned wasn't Joe Biden's son, I would agree with this pardon. I think that was happening to Hunter Biden was a miscarriage of justice. I think the original stance that Joe Biden had - to not issue a pardon - was mistaken. I do not think he should be made to follow through on his mistaken statement. Moreover, I think that we can probably all agree that sticking to what was said only because it was what was said and there's no take-backs would be a terrible system. That's why there are appeals, multiple decisions, etc.
It's also really hard to not say "But Trump..." in this, since it's the Trumpers that started this vindictive mess. Trump and his cronies targeted Hunter Biden and did so solely to cause pain to Joe Biden. They did it to put him in a difficult position, to get him to look bad. And he did so, and it's understandable, but it's also especially egregious because the action that he took that looks bad, which he was caused to do by the actions of the Trump Team, are things that the Trump Team has done more and worse.
The action he took does not look bad. It only looks bad when credulous marks keep talking about how it looks bad, which is why the press keeps harping on it and not the couple hundred + pardons of various rich donors and assorted pedophiles Donald Trump has pardoned.
I am firmly in the camp of approving of Joe Biden's action here, but I think that saying this does not look bad is pretty hard to defend. I'm not credulous nor a mark, but:
Whatever happened between 1 and 2 are important but it comes back to an important issue; it is really easy to frame what happened here as "Joe Biden lied", which is bad enough on its own. When you add in that he lied while doing something that rewards his family member, then, yes, no matter what your affiliation, it looks bad. I don't think anyone has to be a "credulous mark" to be upset about it, and I think heightening the rhetoric about it is exactly why @Eji1700 (and others) has a legitimate complaint when they feel like people are saying "you’re GOP or a moron if you dare to take issue".
I'm (probably) opting out of this conversation after this, but this kind of polemic rhetoric is a problem. People aren't stupid just because they disagree with your position. People aren't marks because they're upset that a president went back on his position.
I frankly don’t really care if people want to feel offended about being called out for being suckers. The fact is there is a reason this becomes a topic of conversation that people go on and on about and not a single one of Trump’s 250 or so pardons of actual criminals isn’t. It’s because the media knows they can drive a bunch of discourse by carping on minor Democratic offenses as if it’s the end of the world and they get a lot of mileage out of people who are precious about rectitude and norms for their own sakes clutching their pearls. The pattern is obvious and the fact that people keep falling for it is what makes them marks. It serves no public interest to be this concerned over matters of optics for only one party, especially when everyone who is paying attention knows it’s solely a matter of optics and not substance. It’s almost always optics and not substance because if anyone cared about substance we wouldn’t be both sidesing this crap at all.
Republicans keep structuring the game to set these situations up, shit like the Hunter Biden laptop was specifically dredged up to create such a situation. Even you will admit the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit since you’re saying it looks bad rather than saying it is bad. And yet you’re still talking about it, and not talking about Trump’s pardon of Kushner.
So no, saying people are being stupid when they’re being stupid isn’t the problem. People jumping on the opportunity to “tut tut” over complete nonsense because the media has served it up as the outrage of the day is the problem. If people want to get in their feelings about being called out on being suckers, that’s a separate problem.
It’s less “their team did it, so it’s OK”, more “their team did it, and they were fine with it then, so they aren’t allowed to be mad about it”. The raging hypocrisy invalidates their take on the matter, but that’s orthogonal to whether the opinion they’re expressing has merit if held consistently. cc @unkz, who was asking a similar question below.
On that note, I don’t personally like it at all, but I do think it was unfortunately the right call. A president pardoning their family member is a wild conflict of interest and in a sane system should be a major ethical violation - but this is no longer a sane system, the rule of law isn’t looking so solid right now, and leaving a prominent family member exposed in that situation would be naive weakness rather than principled strength.
And yes, I really, really fucking hate that it’s come to this kind of decision.
Thank you for wording this better than I could.
What are you upset about? Presidents are allowed to pardon people, even hardened criminals if they choose.
In this case he chose to pardon his son to protect him from continued harassment over minor and seldom enforced charges that were trumped up to serve a politically motivated witch hunt against him.
And, TBH, I don’t think Joe Biden owes this country shit after what he was put through and the despicable ogre of a man it elected just to spite him. None of this shit matters anymore and people getting mad about it are just being useful chumps for media outrage mongers. This sort of “muh norms and propriety” fixation is the only reason investigations on Trump got slow rolled and he isn’t rotting in a prison cell right now. These are stupid norms that rely on credulous marks pretending cynical abuse of political processes might be sincere out of some misguided belief that we have to keep an open mind that maybe people who have declared us their enemies might be honest this time. Who benefits from maintaining these norms if it repeatedly fails to constrain the vilest people we have in politics and only punishes the honest ones?
Yep no one anywhere ever has been upset legitimately about things that are legal that probably shouldn't be or are a heavy abuse of questionable edge cases.
How is it a “heavy abuse of questionable edge cases” to pardon a guy being subjected to a politically motivated harassment campaign by Republicans because they don’t like his dad and want to punish him for the crime of being a Democrat? This is the opposite of questionable. It is the least questionable use of the pardon power ever to deploy it in order to stop a witch hunt.
Yes. I don't personally agree, but so long as you were also mad 4 years ago (or would have been, had you heard of it at the time), you're logically consistent, and it seems like a reasonable opinion to hold
Agree. The pearl-clutching ITT is ridiculous.
Probably a hot take on tildes, but I don't think presidential pardons based on personal discretion should be a thing. It's far too abusable. It literally circumvents the justice system, and if you or a loved one was in prison for something that someone more well connected had gotten wiped away by a penstroke, how would you feel? This is a principled stance and has nothing to do with Biden, jr or senior, specifically. Trump already abused that power and will probably abuse it again in the future.
I just really don't like any system that puts some people above the law.
If the American justice system is so fucked that these special powers are needed, you might as well make the office of president into one entirely dedicated to issuing pardons. I guarantee there's thousands of far worse cases that go unresolved because nobody important gave a damn, or even knew about them.
I think it's a sensible take that plenty of people here would support. In a rules based order, these things would matter. In today's theatrical, vibe based rage farm, they just don't.
Definitely agreed. It's a concept that should not belong in a democracy, but to a dictatorial state. The US is a flawed democracy as of a 2016 though and each year it's either not moving or going in the wrong direction - not that that necessarily has that much to do with this in particular, but I'm sure the presidential powers as a whole does not do it favours on that list
Not directed at you, smoontjes, but I hate those lists. Putting america as a flawed democracy and Greece as a full democracy (for example) reveals the absurdity, IMO.
Separately, you might be interested to hear the original rationale for the presidential pardon authority, which is formally granted by the US's constitution. (If I recall correctly you're danish.)
It's from an ultra-conservative source, but it's a good steelman of the argument for the existence of the pardon authority:
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/federalist-conception-the-pardon-power
Yip, I'm Danish! Fair enough about that list. I definitely wouldn't rely on it too much either. Would you also say that it doesn't work even just as a rule of thumb?
I get that it stems from the constitution but I still don't think it's a democratic concept in any way. I only read the first 3 paragraphs introduction, but I can understand that it's part of the idea of checks and balances. An idea I can only applaud but the problem is that it assumed the president is a moral person who acts in good faith - assumptions that we saw the consequences of from from 2017. The article was also written in 2012 so I wonder what the author would say now, having seen what Trumpism is like.
This is an interesting question and I'm honestly not sure. It's not like this type of list is completely without merit in that I think it's useful to assess what states are doing, but on the other hand I think that the labels are unhelpful at best and much more likely to be counterproductive. They're just so subjective. Many European states near at the top of the list include restrictions on civil liberties that seem nearly draconian compared to the United States (e.g. restrictions on hate speech in Germany, restrictions not just on guns but on pocket knives in Great Britain, head scarf bans in France, and so on). Australia passed laws mandating backdoors and is trying to get better at enforcing them. All of these countries were labeled "fully democratic."
I'm not saying that makes them undemocratic - just that it exposes the silliness of the "full democracy" vs "flawed democracy" paradigm.
Very fair points.
I wouldn't say any of the restrictions you mention are related to democracy per se, as long as they were agreed to freely by the population and upheld consistently by the government?
That's not a value judgment in either direction on the importance of those things or what I personally think of them, or even a suggestion that I think the democracy index is correct (I honestly haven't looked deeply enough to have a reasonable opinion either way on that one!), but I don't know if they would - or even should - affect the rankings.
Fair - I mention it because civil liberties is one of the 5 metrics the democracy index in question purports to measure. I don't disagree and I'd argue that your points are more ammunition against so-called democracy indicies.
Got you, that makes sense.
I wouldn't call it draconic to have hate speech laws. Nor to ban carrying knives - you can still carry one if it has a purpose for your work for example. Plus, the UK has a lot of attacks by terrorists who wield knives. The French ban is not on hijab, but on full-face coverings like niqabs and I feel that ban is reasonable because there's practically no way those women willingly choose to cover their faces. There's no way that they aren't forced to by their fathers or husbands. France does have a ban on hijab/headscarves in sports and schools though, and that one is definitely draconic, totally agree (edit: apparently the school ban counts for every ostentatious religious display but I'm sure it's a lot less enforced if someone wears a crucifix necklace for example)
All modesty laws are cultural and relatively arbitrary. The only reasons we cover our buttcheeks, chests, feet, etc. is cultural/societal expectations/laws and personal comfort. It's weird to me to insist that one culture's default setting is normal and the rest are not.
Is it patriarchal and oppressive to require it? Sure. So are most school dress codes, which, as you note, France also does. But if someone chooses it because it's what they're used to and they feel comfortable with it? IDGAF.
In contrast, if there's that level of abuse happening, the niqab is not the thing to focus on, nor as others mentioned, the solution to the abuse. It might force some change, but I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do.
Why not?
Because the women wearing those are highly likely to be from very oppressive and patriarchal families.
And in response you’re going to further restrict the kind of clothes they can wear?
Would you object to a women who wears a hat or a hood and a mask for social anxiety reasons?
That's not what I said.
It's not an objective fact of course. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it, but I simply do not believe that many, if any at all, would choose to wear a niqab. It's about choice and I do not believe that they have a choice - and then it wouldn't be a restriction.
Either these women are lying, or there are at least some women who choose to wear the niqab.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/4/361
Why does your belief override their own personal belief about what they can and can’t wear? Are you not trying to enforce your own beliefs on that of non-consenting women in this case? It’s their body, their clothes, I think they should be able to determine what they wear for themselves.
That is still not what I'm saying. I'm arguing that it is not their own personal belief. That I don't believe that it could possibly be.
I don't think our discussion is productive so I'll read your response if you do reply but won't engage any further if that's okay
How can anyone but themselves know if it’s their personal belief? Do you even come from an Islamic culture? You’re claiming to know more about them than they know about themselves, which seems patronizing at best.
As a default, Islamic women believe in their personal autonomy. Your belief that they do not have such is you forcing your own beliefs on them.
This seems like pretty circular reasoning to me.
Schrödinger's face covering
While I agree here, I think it's deliberately ignoring the weaponization of hate speech laws to crush legitimate criticism and protest, along with their being applied very unequally across the population. Germany's hate speech laws are particularly strict for understandable reasons, but they are increasingly used to target politically vulnerable populations rather than white Germans.
That's something very few people who will tell you very eagerly, often vehemently, that some kinds of content and speech "should be restricted" ever seem to realize, or recognize. Namely, how such a law or authority to do it does not, in any way, assure or guarantee it will be used in "the right" way.
The folks who want to run around, online or in person, restricting speech will always tell you it's for a great reason. A good one. A moral and kind and civilized one. "They're saying horrible stuff; they should be made to stop right now." And all manner of variations on that simple theme. It's always "they're saying things I disagree with."
They'll disagree with it morally. It's always morals at the end of the day. They'll say "my morality teaches this (speech) is wrong, and thus should NOT BE ALLOWED." And they'll be quite eager to hand over authority to someone who is then empowered to squash that speech. Simply because it's "immoral."
Morality is relative, flexible, changing, and subject to both interpretation and abuse. Many of the same people, today for example, who want online portals to monitor for and censor speech they find immoral (a lot of conservative viewpoints fall into these categories lately) fail to see how the exact same arguments they use to advocate for how and why that speech should be so treated apply in reverse to their speech, their viewpoints, completely without alteration.
It only depends on what the empowered person decides. They could decide to "support" your morality with that power, or they could decided to use it against you by squashing yours and allowing your opponents' speech to persist.
Power is abused. That's the nature of power. That's why we call it power. It gives authority and ability, especially when that power is given to government, which has already gone about arranging society to give itself overriding power in the first place.
Do I agree with many, if any, conservative viewpoints? No, I really don't. Especially not extreme ones, the positions that are particularly 'inflammatory' such as regressive religious practices and views that advocate for their being forced upon the broad populace.
But that should be a societal debate to settle, not something we decide to allow government, or a corporation, to Bigfoot us about. Sure it sounds great when Bigfoot is on your side. What happens when it's not? When the people who make the call to slam that Bigfoot down to censor and criminalize speech are doing it in ways you disagree with?
It's a power too dangerous to allow government, a corporation, or even society at large to have. If society wants to engage in vigorous debate amongst itself about what's 'right' or 'wrong', that's healthy.
The act of people arguing (especially disagreeing) with one another over these concepts is a leavening factor. It moderates and illuminates the positions, exposes people to concepts, offers them a chance (even if they don't realize it) to think and consider. Creates opportunities to push back and change minds. It allows society to grow.
Allowing any Bigfoot, government or corporate, even your local Home Owner's Association President, the ability to inflict absolute penalties and removal of speech solely on their decision alone ... that is beyond dangerous. It's abusive, and it will be abused. It always has been.
And yet you still see people so eager to hand that power over. To normalize the ability for a Bigfoot to roll in against a person's wishes and declare "you're saying things we've decided you shouldn't, come with us or we'll use force."
Even the Left is blind to this. Blind to how they're usually caught up in self-righteous congratulations over their own moral superiority. How they're so eager to criminalize differing viewpoints to offer advantage to their own.
Humans will abuse anything. If you made a rule that said "everyone who attends a birthday party must bring a present" I guarantee people would abuse it. They'd make up extra birthdays, they'd get themselves invited to an enemy's birthday and give cruel or traumatizing presents, who knows? Saying humans look for and exploit loopholes is the same as saying humans breathe.
Giving the power to control speech over is basically giving the power to control thought away. It sounds great when the thoughts being controlled aren't yours, and further, belong to people you hate.
What happens when they have that power, and control your thoughts? Or just control you?
Free Speech can be abused, but it's safer than normalizing censorship. Which is always abused.
Haven't seen anything about that myself. The only cases I've seen has been for neo-Nazis or those on the extreme far-right preaching death or deportation on those not "aryan"
There was a thread on Tildes earlier this year about a woman being prosecuted under hate speech laws for saying "From the river to the sea" at a protest (and she's not alone - different German courts have held differently on whether this phrase constitutes hate speech, which indicates multiple prosecutions like this have occurred). The fact that these prosecutions occur but the AfD are allowed to continue to operate as a political party is more than enough evidence for me that these laws are not enforced equally.
To be fair, that slogan used to belong to basically only Hamas. And it used to mean that it should all be Palestine and Israelis should be killed or deported. It has completely changed its meaning to become something vaguely along the lines of being an anti-apartheid and pro human rights statement (as far as I know). As for AfD, they have had several cases against their members
I think you're giving the German government more credit than they're due here. In any case, I think the example I gave is sufficient to establish that German hate speech laws are not just used against neo-Nazis.
But their husbands and fathers aren't just going to go "oh well" and let those women go out in less restrictive dress, they're going to prevent those women from going out at all. This law isn't actually helping anyone.
That's a good point but if they are going to imprison women against their will then no amount of lawmaking will fix it
They may let them out of the house in a niqab if the women are allowed to wear niqabs, and then those women can build support networks and may be able to get out of that situation. Not likely, but there's a better chance than if they aren't allowed out of the house at all.
True, yeah you're probably right. Anti-immigration and especially anti-muslim policies are almost always populism too.
A lot of people already jumped in to argue with you here, so I'll just say that it's soooo European to say "our restrictions on civil liberties are common-sense regulations, American restrictions (on e.g. abortion) are fascist overreach."
; )
I'm kinda in disagreement with smoontjes in the wider argument but to your statement... yes, they are, unironically. They are qualitatively different. You can't reduce them all to "a government restriction" and call it bad. Uses of government power have moral value in both purpose and effect and there is a difference between good ones and bad ones! (And we do have bad ones in Europe too!)
Tbh good. I think Biden is right that it was politically motivated and I genuinely don't care about Hunter's drug habit or laptop and I think it makes sense to protect his family from the harassment.
It was such a weak thing for Republicans to hang their hats on and, when compared to the January 6 fiasco among others, it was plain to see that they were inflating the Hunter Biden thing to seem far bigger than it was.
I don't know how members of that party can sleep at night
It's all so ugly.
On one hand, the accounts that I've read seem to agree Biden's son was targeted and pursued in a way that doesn't match what would typically happen in these cases. Biden probably realized that his son wasn't going to get anything resembling fair treatment and decided that the right wasn't going to give him an ounce of credit no matter what he did. Truth be told, they just don't care. The left kept trying to "go high" when Republicans went low, and we kept losing. What's the point in playing by rules they refuse to follow?
On the other hand, I think this really does give the loonies a bunch of ammo and it's going to be weaponized for years to come. It also points out the stark contrast between the two tiers of our justice system. There are plenty of kids sitting in cells for this exact thing - but sadly for them, their fathers weren't in politics.
I'm feeling pretty down. I've been reading some old Jon Ronson books again. When I first read them years ago, I thought they were fun because the extremists he would write about and interview were way on the fringes. They were nuts and it was obvious to everyone... Right? White Supremacists and fascists would never have popular media outlets or hold political offices in this country again... It was absurd to think otherwise. But Ronson was onto something. I think he saw first-hand how primed America was for these people to take charge. I think he knew they were dangerous and he was watching up close for the last 30 years as they slowly grabbed more and more power, becoming mainstream. It's so sad and scary.
Whether Biden did the right thing or not - as a father or as a president - I think this is at least an indicator that things aren't going well. Another warning of the lows we have reached.
From what I understand, the crimes Hunter Biden were convicted of are rarely, if ever prosecuted by themselves, at least, not at the scale that Hunter committed them. They're more typically "add-on" charges that are easy to convict.
Kind of like how they got Al Capone on tax evasion. It's easy to prove that someone lied on a federal form, or that they didn't pay enough taxes.
I don't even care about this part honestly. If it's not this, then they'll just make up don't other Boogeyman to yell about. Reality doesn't mean anything to them
If you're scared of everything, then there's always another bogeyman to yell about.
And they're all out... there *pointing to the window.
That place beyond the tv blasting Fox News that they never turn off.
But this doesn't give them ammo. There's this odd dynamic at play that is born out of one side playing by decorum and rules, while the other side is happy to throw any rule out the window if it stands in their way. This has not unlocked new ground for Republicans. They've already seen Trump pardon Kushner, Manifort, Flynn, et.al. It's very cult like in that they're only interested in words when it lends them a thin veneer of legitimacy, but are happy to ignore those same words when they are inconvenient. Just because there are new words to pull from ("Biden did X"), doesn't mean it's made a damn bit of difference. We must stop thinking like this if we want to remove a dictator supporting party from power.
I feel angry about this, for two reasons at least. First, he said he wouldn’t do it, and now he has. Politicians lie and reverse course all the time, but it still hurts when the reason seems to benefit themself or just a select, privileged few. Second, this is going to enhance the narrative that there is no meaningful difference between the parties, and many will legitimately ask, “why bother?” A more consequential example of this is the arms sale Biden just approved to Israel. I cannot imagine any legitmate basis for what is happening in Gaza; any public support for that from leadership serves to highlight the value gap between myself and people like me and our potential leaders. And again, without any meaningful alternative, it’s tempting to simply drop out.
Re the pardon, I think it was dumb for Biden to officially say that he wouldn't pardon Hunter. I don't know what he hoped to gain.
I can only speak for myself, but I have watched Trump double and triple down on being focused on revenge and retribution and punishing enemies once he takes office. Hunter is in the line of fire and Trump and his staff cannot be trusted to be reasonable or proportional in what they will do next.
I am waiting to see whether Biden uses the pardon power to protect journalists or politicians or FBI staff or the attorneys who worked on Trump's cases. Trump has signaled that there will be prosecutions and legal risk for all of these groups of people.
This was actually my first thought when I saw this headline. The details of the case almost don't matter, Trump et al would absolutely go after him just because they've already set him up as a target.
as @boxer_dogs_dance pointed out, that's also true for a lot of other people. If we don't see them pardoned as well, this makes Biden and Co. smell badly, and that stink will transfer to Kamala and any dem associated. FWIW, I've smelled this smell from the DNC since at least 2016.
It's possible that there will be more pardons, but unlike other folks, Hunter's case was in progress vs being a potential threat in the future.
I think the fact that this is the same "stink" since 2016 means that it doesn't matter and I'd probably have done the same. I respected his principled stance at the time, but I don't blame him for deciding, in the face of Trump, to change his mind. I don't think he'd have done it with a different GOP candidate winning.
I could be wrong though. He's pardoning the right sort of person - stupid low level crimes - would love him to do more than just his son, rather than less.
I'm not so sure this is true. Hunter did commit actual crimes, so there is some merit in going after him. What other dems have committed actual crimes?
To me, if Biden pardons people who haven't done anything just to spare them from baseless investigations and harassment, it only legitimizes right-wing conspiracies of criminal behavior.
With the right wing journalists poised to spin up outrage over any Biden choice, it's a tough choice.
I haven't got time to dig for examples this morning but Trump has repeatedly publicly said that he is going to use the FBI and the justice department attorneys to take revenge. This like many things Trump does and says, is different to what presidencies in the US have done in the past.
My understanding of the pardon power (as a non expert attorney) is that it is quite broad. Especially when it comes to journalists, I feel for people who took action under a set of rules they understood and relied on and now Trump is flipping over the game board and threatening to go after them personally.
If Trump decides to act on his narcissistic need for revenge as a way to demonstrate his dictatorial power (and thus inflate his sense of self and superiority), pardoning any of those likely targets only really does one thing of consequence.
It would force Trump and MAGA to say the quiet part out loud.
So, with that in mind, while I think pardoning anyone who's a likely Trump target is probably useless and futile as a way to "protect" them, it would protect the nation. In that it would force Project25 to go hot, use live rounds, and actually act as dictators.
A lot of his revenge targets are state level though. Sure he might want to fabricate bullshit to punish a list of DOJ staffers or something similar, fire them, arrest them, show-sham trial prosecute them, but there's a number of state level actions he's had to sit through. New York in particular.
He can't act against them openly without violating rule of law. He'd have to go live and roll troops to arrest those judges, jurors, attorneys, plaintiffs, and so on. They're not part of the federal system. If he wants to target them, he has to go hot to do so.
It'll come down to how serious they are about saying the dictator part out loud. Are they just waving the bloody flag for their base, rabble-rabbling themselves to feel better? Or are they serious and do want to remove rule of law?
Hello history, wish you weren't here.
In the process of getting a diagnosis for a fairly serious medical condition, I learned a saying from doctors. 'The disease will declare itself'. The confusing stages don't for the most part last forever.
A lot of people, myself included see similarities between Trump and MAGA and early stages of past fascist regimes. We are approaching the point where they are going to fish or cut bait. How far we they go? How blatant will they be? Trump can do a lot within the confines of existing executive authority without changing the system, but they seem to want to change the system anyway.
Within the next two years their intentions and plans should become unmistakeable.
The narrative at the time was "they go low, we go high. We don't try to exempt our family and friends from legal process."
I hear the comments here and elsewhere that Jr's crimes rarely result in custody sanctions, or are rarely brought independently, and that it was politically motivated. That's fine, but the time to make that argument loudly was when prosecutions were ongoing. Also, Sr. could easily have maneuvered the ADA's involved to quietly make it all go away. The stand then, coupled with the reversal now, is really stinky.
Unless, that is, there are many pardons far and wide. As I heard in another forum, Free Leonard Peltier! But given the ongoing support for Israel especially now that there is no political reason (he's a lame duck), I doubt we will see any principled pardons.
Biden should just start blanket pardoning every Democrat. Pardon Obama and Clinton and Harris too. Just to make Republicans mad.
In fact, if we really want to get the Q anon idiots frothing he should issue a very specific pardon to Elon Musk for the crime of implanting a neuralink chip into Donald Trump’s brain to make him lose track of his thoughts mid sentence and look like a moron so he’ll be easier for tech billionaires to manipulate.
I figured it was a matter of the election and trying to hold as much ground in the election as he could. If he wins the election, he could do whatever he wants after that, if he loses, he can do whatever he wants before someone else takes office. But he and advisers probably thought that it mattered to at least some small percentage of voters that he not pardon Hunter. Of course even after he dropped out and handed the election off to Kamala he still was operating under similar constraints.
I think it could be useful to do that. It might in some minds support that the Trump cases were partisan, but in the end I'm not sure that really matters because the people who think that way likely aren't going to behave any differently regardless. The fact that they claimed they were partisan before there was any rational basis to claim it means that even if there happens to be some slight case for it later means reality never really had any bearing on what they were going to do anyhow.
I think, instead of dropping out, it would be more fun to help whatever third party you like to have a chance by changing the first past the post voting system in your area.
There are quite a few alternatives gaining steam in some areas, like ranked choice voting.
I don't know your jurisdiction, but you can typically petition for ballot measures to be included. There might even be a movement already in your area that you can help.
That's a great suggestion for folks who, myself included, have time to participate in the process beyond voting. But many folks have busy lives and the best they can offer is their vote. If they don't perceive meaninful differences between choices, they will reasonably withdraw. And, quite frankly, this looks like privileged folks protecting their own even to me; I don't blame anyone who walks away from this feeling like there is an unreasonable, and un-American, distance between the leadership elite and regular citizens.
I'd argue the majority of people have time to do something even just writing letters and making phone calls to their elected officials. It's exhausting to watch every 4 years when people who only engage for about 6 months just complain about how the system sucks.
Sure, drop out at that point I suppose? But there's essentially no motivation for those officials to try to keep you at that point.
All this discussion gives me an idea. Let's just add a condition to pardoning:
Receiving a pardon automatically disqualifies you from working at any federally-run government office. So no running for federal office, nor working as a staffer or contractor at one. I contemplated "becomes ineligible for a security clearance," but I feel that is excessively overbearing given how broadly those are required for even seemingly mundane things.
It's a simple solution to avoiding major conflicts of interest with minimal impact.
I would support this constitutional amendment
Biden probably made that promise for the same reason liberals have overlooked crooked shit for decades: to maintain "faith in the system." Same reason Johnson &co didn't prosecute Nixon and Kissinger for tanking the Vietnam peace talks, and Carter &co didn't go after Reagan for prolonging the Iran Hostage Crisis. They wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety because our system relies on faith in the rule of law.
At this point it's pretty apparent that faith in the rule of law has been shot for some time, and it wasn't liberals who pulled the trigger. They may have cleaned and loaded the gun and pointed it at the rule of law by inaction and appeasement, but the final use of it is down to the GOP and the electorate who buys their bullshit.
Biden has spent a lifetime serving a corrupt and crumbling system under an unspoken contract that if the system is faithfully upheld, wisdom and justice will prevail. The past six months or so saw his party and nation break that contract, and I wouldn't blame him a whit for telling us all to go fuck ourselves.
Mostly posting this comment hoping someone will rapidly knock the tin foil hat off my head -- does anyone else find the timing of the Israel Hamas cease fire "interesting"?
If you think that there’s some quid pro quo between Netanyahu and Trump, yeah. But in general it’s perfectly normal and expected for Israel to do things in response to the politics of the US - if they merely thought that a Trump presidency would be favorable to them, so held off from doing things that would help the Biden administration, that’s just normal behavior.
I'm kind of numb to this, to be honest. Pardoning seems wrong, because prosecuting him also seems wrong. His prosecution was nothing more than a witch hunt and retribution for going after Trump. But I have such little faith in the US government right now that this doesn't even touch the top 100 things that I'm put off by when it comes to what's going on in US politics.