Does this mean that you disagree with the characterization of this pardon as a “flagrant disregard for the rule of law in this country”?
Does this mean that you think “The side that likes cops won the election” is an example of “hyperbole”? That seems so self-evidently wrong that I think I must be missing some nuance here. Could you elaborate please?
Nope. Trump has repeatedly shown his disdain for “so called judges”. This is just more of the same.
I assume you implied that the left, being the losing side of this election, is the one that does not like cops.
Did I get that wrong?
One reason why pardons could be (and some were indeed) political is that the pardons took place usually at the end of the presidency. When all the political capital was already spent.
The expectation was indeed that since the power of the president could be checked by congress and the courts that then the power of the pardon could not be abused.
It is being abused now and while it is ok to complain to the president, there is also the fact that the people should demand congress and the courts to do their jobs. In the meantime we should let the party controlling congress that protecting the president in practice means that they are the rascals now, and they should be thrown out until there is a congress that does their job.
Trump is becoming the president that thinks that becoming bankrupt in the political capital front has no consequences like with his businesses.
They’re generally less pro-police than the right. Is that really news to you? I thought everyone understood that, like “Which side is more supportive of gun control?” The answers ought to be obvious to even a casual observer of American politics.
So when Trump acts in full accordance with the supreme law of the land, this demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rule of law in this country? But the left doesn’t have a hyperbole problem. Ooooookay then…
Regards,
Shodan
If you really believe this is true, I would appreciate it if you would go beyond this and explain why. If this were the pit, I wouldn’t be wagging my cyber-finger at you like this, but this is presumably a serious thread.
If you define “pro-police” like many conservatives do, then yes, the right in the US is more “pro-police”. If you define it like I do – that is, I favor the policies that are the most likely, by my judgment, to result in improved safety for police officers, improved police-community relations, improved law enforcement results, and the like, over the long term, then the left in the US is far more “pro-police”.
It isn’t news to me that this is the line of reasoning the right continually uses to cloud the issue. Just like your addition of gun control. A subject that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
The left likes cops just fine. What the left objects to are bad cops and authoritarians that encourage bad cops to exercise extra-judicial practices.
Apparently, the side that likes bad cops won the election.
I have three questions for you:
-
How do you think the police themselves define “pro-police”; more in line with the view of many conservatives, or yourself?
-
Do you think they generally favor policies that they believe will result in improved officer safety or not?
-
Do you think you have more expertise /insight into what actions are likely to result in improved officer safety than the average cop, or less?
Something can be technically true according to the letter of the law and yet still violate the spirit in which the law was written. More to the point, a civilized and lawful society hopefully doesn’t use rely on the law as a moral compass. The people who write out a constitution are limited to the extent of the problems and conflicts that they are able to foresee. Almost all presidents make occasionally controversial pardons, but very few presidents that I know of have pardon someone preemptively like this, and the one example that comes to mind, Ford pardoning Nixon, had at least a meaningful rationale behind it, and has actually been judged favorably by some who might have been inclined to criticize it at the time.
It would be civic-minded of if you could just take off your partisan blinders for a moment and actually see what this pardon represents, which is an egregious example of contempt for the rule of law. I know of plenty of examples where presidents have pardoned people for crimes but I know of no example where a sitting president has pardoned someone for thumbing his nose at the judiciary. That a sitting president would do that and show utter disregard for court orders is unprecedented.
The question i was responding to was “Is this pardon really the end of our system of government as we know it?” No, it seems obvious to me that it is not. I don’t know how much more explanation that view requires. Do you think it is, and it’s so self-evident that it is “the end of our system of government as we know it” that you’re bewildered how anyone could reach a different conclusion?
(bolding mine) Tell it brother! It’s not just you.
Somehow, they seem to have failed to communicate that message clearly and convincingly to the police themselves.
Pretty much all of them. Here are a few:
The President you’re defending openly advocates rough treatment of suspects by police and just unreservedly pardoned a man guilty of far worse than merely bumping a few heads on car doors. He and his administration have worked to minimize the power of the Judicial branch of the federal government, repeatedly insisting that the Executive branch should be supreme and that judgments he did not personally like should be overridden. So I think on those bases alone it’s fair to say that justice isn’t a priority next to personal power no matter how you define it. Add to that his fascination with political strongmen such as Putin, Hussein and Erdogan and “rule of law” starts to become “rule of man” very quickly.
It’s also worth noting that the “side that likes cops” is far more in favour of excusing police abuses including shootings of innocent people and, despite a willingness to excoriate unions in general as corrupt organizations, goes very quiet when it comes to police unions.
Oh, and three more words for you: “LOCK HER UP!”
Could & should. Not the same things and the left is not the side making the distinction.
Well poisoning, false equivalence and projection in the same short paragraph. Very efficient.
Meanwhile, your own partisan blinders allow you to pretend that because the Republicans spent eight years blindly opposing everything Obama did regardless of merit the Democrats must be doing the same.
Well, related to this it was reported that Trump did ask Sessions to drop the case against Arpaio early on, Sessions said no (and now we know of another reason to give points to Sessions, and less to Trump). As the attorney when Obama was president told reporters about the number of times Obama approached him to drop a case, he told the reporters that the number of times that took place was Zero.
So, no, the reality is that you are depending on right wing media that is spinning like crazy in a continuous attempt at making the anomaly to be “normal”.