|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 02 2024 23:59 Impervious wrote:
On the other side, Trump may have been convicted of 34 crimes, but it's basically just 34 instances of the same crime. And if he had used personal funds instead of campaign funds it would have been legal. It was incredibly stupid of him, but equally the trial was really overblown. It was also a political circus.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. It's the opposite of what you said. Michael Cohen was even convicted for an excessive campaign contribution because paying off Stormy Daniels was considered a benefit to Trump's campaign. The Trump campaign could have paid Stormy, reported it, and it would have been legal. It's the attempt to cover it up (falsifying records) that made it illegal. I've heard a lot of people get this wrong and I think it's because using donor money to pay off your whore sounds more unethical than using your personal funds through your lawyer so they assume that's what he did wrong. I think the average person would be unable to articulate what Trump did that was illegal and to be honest I'm not even entirely sure I have it right here.
|
On December 03 2024 05:35 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 05:18 Vivax wrote:On December 02 2024 23:49 KT_Elwood wrote:
Biden needs to absolutely trash the "guardrails".
Naturalize all Undocumented people and given them false papertrail.
Gift an ICBM armed submarine to Selesnkiy (1 Warhead for moscow, 1 wahread for Mar-A-Lago, 1 Warhead for St. Petersburg, 1 Warhead for Trump Tower, 1 Warhead for moscow.. )
Make banks shred documentation of student loan... and medical debt.
You can‘t just erase debt. Someone‘s got to pay for it. If it‘s the tax payer‘s it wouldn‘t be fair to others who also had to pay off loans. Increasing public funding for higher education or lowering its cost works. But that‘s sOciAliSm I guess you didn't even dignify the more outrageous suggestions from that post with a response lol. It literally talks about pointing american-made nuclear weapons at New York and Florida. As someone who passed through NYC a few hours ago, I care a bit more about New York, but still.
I stopped considering that part at gift a nuclear submarine tbh. The whole debt part might be serious.
It‘s not like we‘re trying to avoid nuclear ww3 while someone tries to expand their border.
|
United States24751 Posts
Also the U.S. has been trying to sell nuclear-powered submarines and tech (without nuclear weapons) to Australia and it's proving to be a generation-long effort... the idea of just gifting a nuclear sub, complete with nuclear weapons, is so far beyond feasible that it becomes funny.
|
On December 03 2024 05:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 23:59 Impervious wrote:
On the other side, Trump may have been convicted of 34 crimes, but it's basically just 34 instances of the same crime. And if he had used personal funds instead of campaign funds it would have been legal. It was incredibly stupid of him, but equally the trial was really overblown. It was also a political circus. I'm pretty sure that's wrong. It's the opposite of what you said. Michael Cohen was even convicted for an excessive campaign contribution because paying off Stormy Daniels was considered a benefit to Trump's campaign. The Trump campaign could have paid Stormy, reported it, and it would have been legal. It's the attempt to cover it up (falsifying records) that made it illegal. I've heard a lot of people get this wrong and I think it's because using donor money to pay off your whore sounds more unethical than using your personal funds through your lawyer so they assume that's what he did wrong. I think the average person would be unable to articulate what Trump did that was illegal and to be honest I'm not even entirely sure I have it right here.
I believe that would have worked too. I'm sure there are many other ways they could have done this legally too. Paying off someone is legal. The way they did it to avoid scrutiny is what turned it into a campaign finance violation. It was stupid. Stupid doesn't usually lead to 34 criminal convictions like this.
EDIT - And, honestly, it's far from the first stupid thing Trump and co. have done. Given his history it won't be the last. And it's also far from the worst thing he has done too. The entire case was definitely a political circus.....
The documents case was atrocious in comparison. If you or I had a single document improperly in our possession with a clearance level requirement to view like the ones stored in that bathroom, and with people like Kid Rock bragging about looking at them when meeting with Trump, we'd might end up never being heard from again after taking a nice, long, government funded trip to Cuba..... Not only did Trump get a pass by not being thrown immediately in jail until it was sorted out through the legal system (which is the bare minimum treatment anyone else would get), but now it'll be dropped and he'll never face any consequences for it. The level of irresponsibility he showed regarding the documents should have completely removed any possibility of him being a viable candidate for either party, but here we are.....
|
On December 03 2024 06:20 micronesia wrote:
Also the U.S. has been trying to sell nuclear-powered submarines and tech (without nuclear weapons) to Australia and it's proving to be a generation-long effort... the idea of just gifting a nuclear sub, complete with nuclear weapons, is so far beyond feasible that it becomes funny.
There‘s too many sharks in Australia for a nuclear submarine to be cost-effective.
In addition, a single spider could take out the crew.
|
I am trying the Sergey Lawrow approach to comedy.
![[image loading]](https://www.fr.de/assets/images/27/876/27876543-sergej-lawrow-verleiht-den-ultimaten-der-russischen-regierung-mit-seiner-mimik-nachdruck-2lN6WL4AiPec.jpg)
|
On December 03 2024 04:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 03:05 Azuzu wrote:On December 02 2024 22:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
Everyone should be hugely against this.
Its pure hypocrisy, and its using one's power for personal gain, which is a form of corruption (by my definition of corruption anyway) - although clearly not in law.
There's really no defending it.
The Democrats just cede more ground to Trump and give him more options to do whatever the hell he wants when in power.
Again, Trump has already shown he has no qualms pardoning whoever he fancies, norms be damned. Including family. Hunter was targeted as a sort of boogeyman by Republicans despite committing fairly minor crimes. They would never, ever let him rest and would continue an eternal investigation against him purely because of who he is politically. Nothing would ever be enough until he was convicted of treason. From that perspective, I don't have any problem with the pardon. The fact that our criminal justice system can be weaponized by politicians is absolutely a flaw and it's a shame other people will not get the same respite but the degree of targeting Hunter received is absolutely next level. I'm not sure "Well Trump did it" is quite the argument ending insight you seem to think it is. We all know Trump did it. We all argued against this behaviour from Trump. I personally argued against Trump doing because I think it is wrong, not because he's on the other team. Its amazing how people's perception allow them to justify things. Let's try out some hypotheticals: Putin pardons his friend who is being accused of corruption by Putin's opposition or whatever's left of it. What is your opinion? Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has pardoned his son who is accused of killing a journalist with information on him, what is your opinion? Trump pardon's his son after the Dems accuse him of being part of organising Jan. 6. What is your opinion? Is your first instinct to try and justify any of these hypothetical pardons the way you have justified Biden's?
My position is not "Well Trump did it". My position is this does nothing to embolden or cover for Trumps past or future pardons. Trump has done and will continue doing whatever he wants. Trump was not punished electorally for these positions. The electorate is not calling for pardon reform.
I believe that we absolutely should close the gaps in how our executive power is unchecked through pardon reform. Something would need to take it's place likely and I would absolutely entertain the possibilities if there were any.
Happy to try your questions:
1. Putin's opposition has no political power to imprison someone. If Putin pardons someone, it was on his authority to punish them in the first place. There's not even a semblance of justice in an authoritarian dictatorship.
2. Same as above.
3. It will entirely depend on the circumstances. Is the punishment in line with the other people who have attempted to overthrow the government? Is the conviction politically motivated and influenced by powerful adversaries? Did the Democrats sentence him to life while everyone else involved gets 2 years probation?
My position is that the pardon stands on it's own and I largely agree with Biden's statement on the matter as a correct usage of a pardon.
Here's a couple questions for you that got me to my perspective:
Do you believe that media coverage and political pressure from the highest levels of government can influence a criminal conviction or sentencing in the US?
Do you believe the sentencing Hunter Biden has recieved are typical for someone else who has committed those crimes or targeted because of his relation to Joe?
Do you believe that Republicans will let the existing punishments stand as final or are they going to pressure for more charges for political gain?
|
I hear a lot of 'But now the Democrats can't take the high road" in the news, and they are right.
But did anyone actually care?
I think the evidence is that the American electorate clearly doesn't give a shit anyway.
|
On December 03 2024 07:38 KT_Elwood wrote:I am trying the Sergey Lawrow approach to comedy.
That‘s the face of someone who hates his job.
Don‘t ask me how I know that.
|
Hunter Biden would not have been prosecuted if he was Joe Schmoe. At the same time Trump would not have been prosecuted for some hush money payments from years ago if he were retired and chilling at Mar-A-Lago and not running for President. For a while Hunter's prosecution and Joe's promise to not pardon him allowed Dems to pretend that they just cared about enforcing the law no matter the defendant and the hush money trial had nothing to do with politics. They would have been happy to make Hunter the sacrificial lamb to create parity in the use of lawfare if it meant they could take Trump down. Now Trump got off without sentencing so Dems might as well drop the charade and let Hunter get off too.
|
Canada11382 Posts
On December 03 2024 04:36 Introvert wrote:
People are also forgetting his guilty plea on failing to pay 1.4 million in taxes. I thought people were against the rich not paying up? The elder Biden didn't just pardon him for the gun crime, it was everything in a long time period.
Didn't Hunter Biden already pay back his taxes via Morris?
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 03 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:
Hunter Biden would not have been prosecuted if he was Joe Schmoe. At the same time Trump would not have been prosecuted for some hush money payments from years ago if he were retired and chilling at Mar-A-Lago and not running for President. For a while Hunter's prosecution and Joe's promise to not pardon him allowed Dems to pretend that they just cared about enforcing the law no matter the defendant and the hush money trial had nothing to do with politics. They would have been happy to make Hunter the sacrificial lamb to create parity in the use of lawfare if it meant they could take Trump down. Now Trump got off without sentencing so Dems might as well drop the charade and let Hunter get off too.
Atypically cynical of you, albeit I think it’s very much on the money.
Frankly I never particularly cared for the Stormy Daniels hush money case, felt very much a stretch and a technicality rather than a particularly egregious crime.
But with further investigation of things I would consider actually egregious seemingly off the table now, may as well pardon Hunter Biden eh?
I think it speaks to a wider problem where folks get out the microscope and go for prosecutions that have a political component that Joe or Jane Public wouldn’t face, there’s a tit-for-tat and then it switches over into no appetite, or ability to prosecute things that clearly should be
|
On December 03 2024 08:44 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 04:36 Introvert wrote:
People are also forgetting his guilty plea on failing to pay 1.4 million in taxes. I thought people were against the rich not paying up? The elder Biden didn't just pardon him for the gun crime, it was everything in a long time period. Didn't Hunter Biden already pay back his taxes via Morris?
I don't recall if he paid them, but there was an ongoing case thst he was also due to be sentenced for. He's getting out of that as well. The prosecutor in the gun case I think it was, tried to give him a sweetheart deal until the judge called them out on it. How Biden can go around claiming the prosecution of his son by his own justice department was a miscarriage of justice is wild, does he think Garland's justice department is politicized against him?
|
On December 02 2024 23:23 Gahlo wrote:
The case against Hunter is entirely bunk. The only thing that resulted of it is MTG getting wank material.
You guys realize the Republicans say the EXACT same thing about the Trump lawsuits right?
You guys realize how all of this breaks down public trust in even the very belief in rule of law in this country right?
I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now. They are retroactively justifying ALL of the Whataboutisms that Republicans have been running with over the last 8 years.
|
On December 03 2024 11:38 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2024 23:23 Gahlo wrote:
The case against Hunter is entirely bunk. The only thing that resulted of it is MTG getting wank material. You guys realize the Republicans say the EXACT same thing about the Trump lawsuits right? You guys realize how all of this breaks down public trust in even the very belief in rule of law in this country right? I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now. They are retroactively justifying ALL of the Whataboutisms that Republicans have been running with over the last 8 years.
We just had a referendum on rule of law, decorum, norms, and sanity and all of those things lost. The electorate doesn't care.
I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now either. They lost the election hugely and are still peddling the same nonsense that if Democrats just keep on maintaining norms, they can really stick it to those Republicans. In fact they need to maintain decorum even harder! That'll show 'em.
I see so little engagement about whether the pardon is actually morally the right thing to do, and tons of Democrats willing to jump down Biden's throat about the optics of it.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 03 2024 12:06 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 11:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 23:23 Gahlo wrote:
The case against Hunter is entirely bunk. The only thing that resulted of it is MTG getting wank material. You guys realize the Republicans say the EXACT same thing about the Trump lawsuits right? You guys realize how all of this breaks down public trust in even the very belief in rule of law in this country right? I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now. They are retroactively justifying ALL of the Whataboutisms that Republicans have been running with over the last 8 years. We just had a referendum on rule of law, decorum, norms, and sanity and all of those things lost. The electorate doesn't care. I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now either. They lost the election hugely and are still peddling the same nonsense that if Democrats just keep on maintaining norms, they can really stick it to those Republicans. In fact they need to maintain decorum even harder! That'll show 'em. I see so little engagement about whether the pardon is actually morally the right thing to do, and tons of Democrats willing to jump down Biden's throat about the optics of it.
Certain norms are worth preserving regardless. Additionally if you say something like, I don’t know ‘I’m not going to pardon Hunter Biden’ and you go to do so, well it sends a certain message.
Democrat voters also seem to care more about such things, they’re not Trump cultists and this kind of move just further disenfranchises a certain demographic who actually value principles
|
United States24751 Posts
On December 03 2024 12:29 WombaT wrote:
Certain norms are worth preserving regardless. Additionally if you say something like, I don’t know ‘I’m not going to pardon Hunter Biden’ and you go to do so, well it sends a certain message.
Perhaps Trump's recent re-election was such a big deal that it changed the rules of the game, thus causing democrats to reconsider what actions to take. "We won't go for any field goals" --> "Field goals are now worth 20 points, touchdowns are worth 3" --> "Kick it".
Again, I'm not certain that somehow justifies Joe Biden's actions, but the idea that they said they wouldn't do something before the election and therefore they shouldn't do it now is more-so an optics concern than a moral one. Evolve or die.
|
United States43401 Posts
On December 03 2024 12:06 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 11:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 23:23 Gahlo wrote:
The case against Hunter is entirely bunk. The only thing that resulted of it is MTG getting wank material. You guys realize the Republicans say the EXACT same thing about the Trump lawsuits right? You guys realize how all of this breaks down public trust in even the very belief in rule of law in this country right? I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now. They are retroactively justifying ALL of the Whataboutisms that Republicans have been running with over the last 8 years. We just had a referendum on rule of law, decorum, norms, and sanity and all of those things lost. The electorate doesn't care. I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now either. They lost the election hugely and are still peddling the same nonsense that if Democrats just keep on maintaining norms, they can really stick it to those Republicans. In fact they need to maintain decorum even harder! That'll show 'em. I see so little engagement about whether the pardon is actually morally the right thing to do, and tons of Democrats willing to jump down Biden's throat about the optics of it.
You’re not wrong.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 03 2024 12:46 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 12:29 WombaT wrote:
Certain norms are worth preserving regardless. Additionally if you say something like, I don’t know ‘I’m not going to pardon Hunter Biden’ and you go to do so, well it sends a certain message.
Perhaps Trump's recent re-election was such a big deal that it changed the rules of the game, thus causing democrats to reconsider what actions to take. "We won't go for any field goals" --> "Field goals are now worth 20 points, touchdowns are worth 3" --> "Kick it". Again, I'm not certain that somehow justifies Joe Biden's actions, but the idea that they said they wouldn't do something before the election and therefore they shouldn't do it now is more-so an optics concern than a moral one. Evolve or die.
If norms are out the window there are much more popular things they could do in this lame duck phase than that.
|
On December 03 2024 12:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2024 12:06 Azuzu wrote:On December 03 2024 11:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 02 2024 23:23 Gahlo wrote:
The case against Hunter is entirely bunk. The only thing that resulted of it is MTG getting wank material. You guys realize the Republicans say the EXACT same thing about the Trump lawsuits right? You guys realize how all of this breaks down public trust in even the very belief in rule of law in this country right? I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now. They are retroactively justifying ALL of the Whataboutisms that Republicans have been running with over the last 8 years. We just had a referendum on rule of law, decorum, norms, and sanity and all of those things lost. The electorate doesn't care. I can't believe the level of cognitive dissonance Democrats are having on this topic right now either. They lost the election hugely and are still peddling the same nonsense that if Democrats just keep on maintaining norms, they can really stick it to those Republicans. In fact they need to maintain decorum even harder! That'll show 'em. I see so little engagement about whether the pardon is actually morally the right thing to do, and tons of Democrats willing to jump down Biden's throat about the optics of it. Certain norms are worth preserving regardless. Additionally if you say something like, I don’t know ‘I’m not going to pardon Hunter Biden’ and you go to do so, well it sends a certain message. Democrat voters also seem to care more about such things, they’re not Trump cultists and this kind of move just further disenfranchises a certain demographic who actually value principles
Exactly.
Just keep alienating the liberal base Democrats, because it's working SO well for you in the general elections.
The next time the Democrats want to pretend like they occupy some kind of moral high ground and it doesn't move the electorate even the tiniest bit and they can't figure out why, shit like this is why. No one believes the Democrats are any better than the Republicans are, they're just better at virtue signaling that they care about stuff like this when they actually don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
