People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his place.
[When I read the title I was not sure whether to agree or disagree, but the rationale and arguments in the text are very valid imo.]
People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his place.
[…]
Biden’s detractors argue that his use of the pardon for Hunter somehow cedes the mythical “high ground” to Trump and clears the way for him to pardon the January 6 terrorists.
Fundamentally, these pundits are committing the same mistake that has plagued American media for at least a decade: demanding that Democrats play by a set of rules that Republicans have long rejected. And I am tired of it.
[…]
Trump will have all the power soon, and we don’t have to guess how he’ll use the pardon power, because he’s already used it for his own, corrupt ends. You know what’s “worse” and more corrupt than pardoning your family members? Pardoning your criminal coconspirators. That’s what Trump did […] the list of Trump’s pardons from his first term […]includes his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who lied for Trump to the FBI; former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, who lied for Trump to the Robert Mueller investigation; lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan, who lied to Mueller; dirty trickster Roger Stone, who literally tampered with witnesses; and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was engaged in an international conspiracy to obstruct justice and commit tax fraud.
[The article goes on with some more ‘Trump pardons’.]
The problem I’m supposed to care about is that Democrats have abandoned some ephemeral high ground that would have allowed them to object to Trump’s pardons of terrorists. Who are these people who think that bitching from a slightly elevated position is more effective at restraining raw political and military power? Do they also think there are magical bears out there who shit rainbows and that we can overcome authoritarian regimes with the power of friendship?
If institutionalists would really like to have an institutional solution to the problem, I have one: The pardon power is anachronistic bullshit and should be stricken from the Constitution.
[…]
Presidents (and governors) should not have the power to overturn convictions based on their feelings. If the justice system gets it wrong (as it does all the time), there should be a process freely and equally available to all to reverse convictions, without needing to have special access to the thought bubbles of the most powerful political figure in the land.
[…]
People need to stop asking Democrats to play by different rules than Republicans, and they for sure need to stop asking Biden to be a worse father than any of us would be in his situation.
This is a good pardon. Trump’s pardons were bad and will be again. If you can’t spot the difference between pardoning your son who was persecuted because of your job versus pardoning your criminal coconspirators or pardoning terrorists who attacked the Capitol at your request, you should take your head out of your ass.
The question is not whether it’s personal gain. The question is whether pardoning someone after unjust prosecution is reasonable, and it is.
I also agree that he should be doing more, but nobody seriously expected he’d magically change on this topic, after all these decades in national politics.
I literally just explained what “the question” is and yet you respond with a straw man. I am telling you right now I do not care if his actions are reasonable. I care if he only takes them to protect himself.
The media is making this about respectability politics, and if it’s “reasonable”. No one I know in real life or that I follow/speak with online cares that it was done. Only that he did it and stopped there. Kinda feels like you didn’t read my comment?
Also, I would suggest that considering he said he wouldn’t do it, it’s relatively reasonable to hold him to his word. If he thought it was unjust prosecution he should have said as much before the pardon, instead of insisting he believes in our judicial system up until the last second. If you want to bring up that there was a plea deal that was changed, I will gladly remind you that unjust prosecution and unjust sentencing are different things.
I don’t know what you mean by magically changing on this topic? He did change on this topic by going against his stated intention?
Regardless, this whole thing stinks of “the only moral abortion is my abortion”. Plenty of people are unjustly prosecuted and sentenced and I would love to have seen him take this opportunity to at least remind people of judicial capture and that we have to stay vigilant to protect people from the harms that may come from that. But no he just said my son only. As though just that one person is suffering due to political stunts.
I know he doesn’t actually care about Gaza or kids in cages, or people going hungry, but it would have been nice to get something from the guy while he’s a lame duck making decisions that are politically unpopular, but since we’re not related I guess not.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
The question is not whether it’s personal gain. The question is whether pardoning someone after unjust prosecution is reasonable, and it is.
I also agree that he should be doing more, but nobody seriously expected he’d magically change on this topic, after all these decades in national politics.
I literally just explained what “the question” is and yet you respond with a straw man. I am telling you right now I do not care if his actions are reasonable. I care if he only takes them to protect himself.
The media is making this about respectability politics, and if it’s “reasonable”. No one I know in real life or that I follow/speak with online cares that it was done. Only that he did it and stopped there. Kinda feels like you didn’t read my comment?
Also, I would suggest that considering he said he wouldn’t do it, it’s relatively reasonable to hold him to his word. If he thought it was unjust prosecution he should have said as much before the pardon, instead of insisting he believes in our judicial system up until the last second. If you want to bring up that there was a plea deal that was changed, I will gladly remind you that unjust prosecution and unjust sentencing are different things.
I don’t know what you mean by magically changing on this topic? He did change on this topic by going against his stated intention?
Regardless, this whole thing stinks of “the only moral abortion is my abortion”. Plenty of people are unjustly prosecuted and sentenced and I would love to have seen him take this opportunity to at least remind people of judicial capture and that we have to stay vigilant to protect people from the harms that may come from that. But no he just said my son only. As though just that one person is suffering due to political stunts.
I know he doesn’t actually care about Gaza or kids in cages, or people going hungry, but it would have been nice to get something from the guy while he’s a lame duck making decisions that are politically unpopular, but since we’re not related I guess not.