So NAFTA negotiators signed a confidentiality deal to prevent leaks during the negotiation. Governments can only share information internally (with other government officials), or externally with stakeholders (say Soft Lumber Companies or Dairy Farmers) they consult with.
This agreement expires four years after negotiations are done, or long enough that each country will go through one election each without knowing the complete details of how this issue was handled.
I see the need for this (Read Trump) but disappointed as taking the public's opinion out of such an important deal doesn't fit well with a democratic state like the 3 involved, especially since only one country of the 3 ran on a platform to renegotiate it.
I also hope they attached a fine to the deal if anyone goes on Twitter and breaks it. Like a swear jar where the proceeds go to buy a shared wall or something.
I thought Americans didn't do sarcasm?! Or is that irony?
I find cultures that do not develop irony deliberately develop it instead, well, ironically incidentally. Lack of thought about satire and irony tends to cause beliefs to be questioned less, so contradictions are less likely to be noticed.
I agree with @semiticgod , why aren't moderates more emphasized, since more people ultimately agree with them? Both sides (gah!) are guilty of demonizing the other side, and it's getting a bit absurd.
When women complain about being harassed on the street, we are admonished to simply talk back to our harassers. When we are beaten up or killed for talking back, people wonder why we provoked our assailants. When we are harassed or assaulted by someone in the public eye, we are presumed to be merely seeking publicity if we come forward. If we decide to speak out only when other women have done so first, then we must be lying, because why didn’t we mention this earlier?
I remember hearing each of these arguments at one time or another. And you just can't win when there's a double standard against you.
So many likes and so many agree. Such a touching unity! Now, tell me please, how is it different from a man to be harassed? What? You can not even imagine a perfectly white man, some book worm (not a bodybuilder, not a fighter, a regular city boy) being harassed on the streets? And - no, not necessarily by any kind of minority gang either. Well, I can. Nobody expects a woman to fight back (literally), but man is still expected to do so, to be able to defend himself. If he does not - he is a weakling not worth listening, if he does - he will be much more likely heavily beaten or killed (just another pointless fight between men, obviously). Harassment and reaction to it is no different for anyone - no matter of gender, skin color or sexual orientation. Different people will be accused of attention whoring and laughed at for different reasons, but they will no matter who they are. Yet, instead of fighting mistreating itself, we are rallied to fight a particular mistreating of women/black/gay/whatever. Why?!
Nobody is fighting for human rights, for equality. No, the fight is always for rights for one group only. Only one - my - group is suffering, others are privileged. Segregation in it's best.
@Mirandel You raise a very good point, that overall, it is very much true for everyone . In this case it seems like that particular author was just speaking of her thoughts regarding what a woman faces. I hear ya though (I think). To be honest I don't have to think to hard to imagine your example, as when I was much younger I experienced somewhat similar events first hand. ----- Both sexes seem to have a cultural and social bias almost 'built in' regarding the other at times. Things are changing somewhat but have a long way to go obviously. As a man I have felt the pull of that very bias to fight many a time. I have also seen what years of buying into this can do to both sexes. It gets even harder with rubberneckers standing around watching one. It even gets in the way of our daily conflict management in a one on one situation (of many types, even with spouses alone). TV and movies, especially in the past have gone right along with this, reinforcing it more, even for someone NOT having experienced it. Seems like things and issues are divided up into separate issues more to... not sure, but maybe to focus on, test, measure, etc. or to expose problems that are not always the easiest to get everyone to be aware of. At least, that seems to have been the way when it comes to the various laws. We have general equal rights in the workplace but ALSO have laws made at one time or another that go the extra mile for ageism, sexism, racism, etc. Not that a law fixes it, for darn sure on that. I believe it is often these cultural and social biases that are hardest for people to overcome on a wide scale. It certainly is an issue in politics. We do often tend to go this route, of dividing everything up into neat boxes, or assigning a priority lvl to issues, when part of a greater issue or cause overall. I ask because in conflict management and resolution, while we look at an overall approach, we also research various problems in detail and somewhat separate, in order to learn what needs to be incorporated and mended into that overall approach. Not a one size fits all but more of a 'make sure I have every tool in the shed' approach when called on.
Sometimes I feel my groups (I have a few at my age now) are often called out, and it bugs me in a way I think that might be at least somewhat similar to how @Mirandel felt about this.
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
My concentration is bout out to pasture lately, hopefully this is somewhat coherent and on topic.
So NAFTA negotiators signed a confidentiality deal to prevent leaks during the negotiation. Governments can only share information internally (with other government officials), or externally with stakeholders (say Soft Lumber Companies or Dairy Farmers) they consult with.
This agreement expires four years after negotiations are done, or long enough that each country will go through one election each without knowing the complete details of how this issue was handled.
I see the need for this (Read Trump) but disappointed as taking the public's opinion out of such an important deal doesn't fit well with a democratic state like the 3 involved, especially since only one country of the 3 ran on a platform to renegotiate it.
I also hope they attached a fine to the deal if anyone goes on Twitter and breaks it. Like a swear jar where the proceeds go to buy a shared wall or something.
As I've mentioned before Trump's all about secrets. He's had his staffer volunteers during campaign sign non-disclosure and non disparage paperwork for life. His Afghanistan policy is "nevermind the details, I'm not going to tell you."
He wants no one to discuss him unless they are saying good things about him. So the truth is not an option.
That he wants to hide NAFTA renegotiation is not a shock. He just wants to claim he won and that the president of Mexico said (according to Trump) it's a "beautiful deal" and he'll claim the PM of Canada said "I can't believe how wonderful and fair Trump is" and in front of his gullible rally crowds he'll claim to have won the most one sided deal in history and it's better than Obama's deals.
the substantial far right is too small to win on its own.
The conservative right-wing is even smaller. Don't be fooled. The only reason, and I mean the ONLY reason, Donald Trump won the presidency was because he ran on a populist platform. The fact that he would later on in office morph into Bush II on steroids is beside the point; the days of conservatives on conservative platforms winning national elections in the west are completely over.
The point is that Reaganism is completely dead. Young people just aren't conservative. At all. The conservative base is bleeding voters.
The only right-wing/left-wing dialectic at all interesting to the current and next generation of voters is populism/progressivism (which will heavily correlate with rural/urban).
The idea that rich people should be able to make as much as they want, pay the same amount of taxes, have government protections, wield powerful lobby groups, etc, is profoundly unpopular. Just as the idea of war, nation building, free-trade, etc, are all unpopular ideas heavily condemned by populists.
On the flip side, liberalism is on borrowed time as well. Ideas such as privilege theory, reverse-racism, liberation/identity politics, SJWism, healthcare reform instead of nationalization, globalism, etc, are all incredibly unpopular ideas, and despite the fact that liberals wish to believe otherwise.
On the right it's going to be populism (including nationalism), and on the left it's going to be progressivism (including socialism and the far-left). This is the future...Europe made this very same transition a decade ago.
He was JUST confirmed recently (in June). Oddly enough, he seems to be the only major Trump appointee who isn't wholly unqualified for what they are doing, or trying to destroy their agency from within. Let's see how he does, no reason to heap praise on him just yet, but at least he doesn't seem to be an Arabian horse breeder:
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
Obviously, I think it makes situation far worse. You need example? Here. Since we are on the game forums let's look at something close to the house. Remember that Voice Actors strike? VA were trying to get money from game companies and sympathy from the public. Not sure about companies (judging but complete silence on the matter - nothing major was won) but public they lost for sure. Why? They used the same tactic that article did - usurping general problem, as if they were the only one suffering from it. They literally tell things like "We are overworking and underpaid!" - Boo-hoo, who is not? Raze the hand someone who does not feel this way! Or "There are plenty of artists who work less but get much more" - Oh, cry me a river! What a shocking news! Someone gets more than me! And best of all "We are not stopping others from fighting for their rights" - Oh, really? How kind of you. So, why exactly should those "others" care about you then?
Just a one tiny example but this is what happens when people care about only their tiny group. It's like having a leaking pipe with hundreds of holes, but instead of replacing the pipe insisting of patching one little hole above your head.
Many people here speculated that Trump's transgender ban was just another 24-hour fake controversy that wasn't actually going to take place. They were wrong. This is unconscionable. And anyone who is FOR this should have the balls to tell a transgender solider so to their face, and sign up for the service themselves. Otherwise their argument is hollow, and motivated by nothing but fear and hate. Here again is why bigotry is so easy to sell. You take the transgender community, a small group already, very marginalized in society to being with. Since most people aren't transgender, and, unlike in the case of gay citizens, most people may not actually know someone who is transgender. Thus, most Americans won't give a shit, because it isn't them, and isn't anyone they know. When everything else is going wrong, authoritarians will ALWAYS find a minority group for the populace at large to fear and scapegoat. But the fact is, any transgender citizen who is currently in the military, or who are willing to serve even now, have more bravery on a Tuesday morning in one pinky finger than anyone who opposes them doing so will be able to muster in their entire pathetic lives.
And....Jesus Christ Almighty, he just pardoned Joe Arpaio. This son of a bitch. Law and order my ass. Any Republican who ever talks about "law and order" again can go fly a kite. Seriously. And keep in mind, he is doing all this LITERALLY under the cover of a Category 4 Hurricane so it gets buried. Again, you'll recall that I said 2 weeks ago this was going to happen as a olive branch to white supremacists, the white nationalists, and the militia and anti-immigrant movement. I was 100% correct.
Let's review, shall we?? If you are transgender and willing to die for your country, Trump just said to go f**k yourself. If you are a convicted criminal racist Sheriff who simply refused to recognize the authority of the judicial branch of government, Trump hands you a get out of jail free card. That's what just happened the last few hours. And that is the message that has been sent across the country. And the main problem isn't Trump. It's the 1/3 of the country that thinks this is absolutely wonderful. This is what fascism looks like in it's infancy. It's not coming. It's here. This country is now being run by the opinions Trump sees on FOX News, Bretibart and InfoWars. If you think that ends well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Someone else just made a great point that I saw: Pardoning Arpaio today makes the pardons he will surely issue to either his associates, family members, or himself down the road seem more normal. Just something a President does. No President issues pardons of this magnitude at this point in his term, certainly not to someone who hasn't even been sentenced yet.
So many likes and so many agree. Such a touching unity! Now, tell me please, how is it different from a man to be harassed?
*sigh*
You had to be that guy, didn't you?
As a personal anecdote, as a mid-30s age male, I have never in my adult life been concerned with locking my apartment door when I'm home, parking in a dark parking lot, or walking anywhere in town at night by myself. Every girlfriend I have ever had would be at a bare minimum nervous, or outright terrified in any of those scenarios.
I'm disgusted with the Arpaio pardon. BTW by pardoning Arpaio Trump has "broke" the pardon. Normally, there are all kinds of rules and norms for who can be pardoned and among other things minimum 5 yrs in jail prior to being considered for a pardon.
Arpaio never served a day in jail and he willfully ignored federal judges and the law. So Trump decided to try and break the Judicial branch.
I think we have to take it seriously now how a few weeks ago Trump was rumored to be questioning whether he can pardon himself and his family.
Here's the dojs website for an idea of the normal process for a pardon request-
I'm disgusted with the Arpaio pardon. BTW by pardoning Arpaio Trump has "broke" the pardon. Normally, there are all kinds of rules and norms for who can be pardoned and among other things minimum 5 yrs in jail prior to being considered for a pardon.
Arpaio never served a day in jail and he willfully ignored federal judges and the law. So Trump decided to try and break the Judicial branch.
I think we have to take it seriously now how a few weeks ago Trump was rumored to be questioning whether he can pardon himself and his family.
Everyone should have been taking that seriously the moment he stepped into office. The fact is this: Donald Trump is now treating the United States of America like his personal play-toy. He believes it is his, and that he will do what he wants with it, when he wants. He is not constrained by anyone because the GOP wants their tax cuts, and it does not matter WHAT he does. Does Trump have the POWER to pardon Arpaio?? Yeah, of course. But this is what Joe Arpaio did: his officers were pulling over Hispanic residents simply because they were Hispanic while trying to find illegal immigrants (this is the EXACT scenario I always describe, in which this type of law enforcement CANNOT be done without infringing on the rights of legal citizens of this country). A judge ORDERED him to stop, and he ignored the judge. He was then found guilty of criminal contempt. There is no disputing this. That is what happened and why he needed the pardon in the first place. The kicker?? The maximum sentence here would have been 6 months. The fact that he issued a pardon in a case where the penalty is almost insignificant tells you it was about one thing and one thing only, which is appealing to his bigoted base. If you support the pardon of Joe Arpaio, you are someone who supports pulling over Hispanic drivers based on the color of their skin, and you are also in favor of local law enforcement officials IGNORING judicial orders. End of story. There is no straddling the fence on this issue. Flashback to 2012:
Exactly. Former Sheriff Joe was on Faux News a couple days ago with this dire warning that "if they can come for me, they can come for you!".
Yeah no shit Sheriff Joe that's how the law is supposed to work when you break the law. No one is supposed to be above the law. You are supposed to know that as a former law enforcement officer but he was used to just doing whatever he wanted and the law is for everyone else.
How can people praise a fed defying Sheriff out of one side of their mouth while condemning the representatives of sanctuary cities out of the other side of their mouth? The same hypocrisy exists on both sides.
Interpreting the law is not the prerogative of those elected/appointed to enforce the law. You have enforcers and you have interpreters. The balance of powers are clearly separated - no one is a law unto themselves. This is what makes us civilized.
sanctuary cities are a buzz word and they they mean local cops not enforcing federal laws. They don't have to and are not supposed to.
It's like if Trump decided local cops should enforce his war in Afghanistan. It's not their job. That's the federal government's job. But I agree with the rest of your statement.
How can people praise a fed defying Sheriff out of one side of their mouth while condemning the representatives of sanctuary cities out of the other side of their mouth? The same hypocrisy exists on both sides.
Interpreting the law is not the prerogative of those elected/appointed to enforce the law. You have enforcers and you have interpreters. The balance of powers are clearly separated - no one is a law unto themselves. This is what makes us civilized.
No one in any sanctuary city that I know of has defied an explicit court order from a judge, or, as with Arpaio, they would have been found in contempt of court. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Judges HAVE found that Trump's attempt to withhold federal money from so-called "sanctuary cities" violates constitutional principles of federalism. We aren't even talking about the same subject here. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and crescent wrenches. Arapio committed criminal contempt of court because he refused to get his police force to stop deliberately racially profiling Hispanic residents of the community.
The only problem with that is found on the same website, different page, down at the bottom under "§ 1.11 Advisory nature of regulations": "The regulations contained in this part are advisory only and for the internal guidance of Department of Justice personnel. They create no enforceable rights in persons applying for executive clemency, nor do they restrict the authority granted to the President under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution."
This means that all the DoJ rules are things you *should* do as a person applying for clemency or commutation but the President can decide to issue a pardon for anyone convicted of any Federal offense (except treason or impeachment) whenever the mood strikes them.
That is why I have been curious as to why people have been bothering with all the Russiagate investigations. Yes, those things need to be investigated but Trump is just going to start handing out pardons as soon as anyone gets charged with anything. The paperwork is already in place except for the blanks where the charges and the name of the person being pardoned will be input.
I don't like it when someone stacks the deck in their favor. The fact that he got elected means that not only did he stack the deck in his favor, he is also the dealer, the pit boss, and the casino floor manager. We cannot win; we can only wait for shift rotation.
*************
People down along the coast where Harvey hit....well, fellow Texans or not, when you know that a hurricane is coming and you decide to sit it out you are choosing to accept all the consequences which will likely befall you. I have no sympathy for people who choose to stay in the path of a storm which has the potential to destroy all their belongings and/or kill them. If you watched the news at all you knew it was likely to hit four days ago; you should have made your preparations and gotten out yesterday, ahead of the traffic jams. Also, you don't have to wait for some government official to tell you to evacuate. (obviously, the elderly and infirm should have been moved the earliest--"unsympathetic" does not equate to "cruel")
Suppose the truth comes out that many "fine people" in Trump's circles blatantly, explicitly are guilty of working with Russian agents to steal the American Presidency (and launder money and other crimes). Then Trump wants to pardon them because among these people who conspired with Russia are his 'wonderful' Sons and daughter.
One would hope that committing the crime of treason and working with Russia to break American Democracy then pardoning those crimes away and treating them like a joke would be enough to get the Republicans off their "aww gee he's not so bad" butts to impeach the guy.
The American people won't stand for it. Gary Cohn supposedly was so disgusted with Trump after Charlottesville that he drafted his resignation letter. He didn't turn it in but by God he drafted it. Maybe proof of Russia will get some of these lowlifes to realize that sticking with Trump is going to drag them down with him.
Suppose the truth comes out that many "fine people" in Trump's circles blatantly, explicitly are guilty of working with Russian agents to steal the American Presidency (and launder money and other crimes). Then Trump wants to pardon them because among these people who conspired with Russia are his 'wonderful' Sons and daughter.
One would hope that committing the crime of treason and working with Russia to break American Democracy then pardoning those crimes away and treating them like a joke would be enough to get the Republicans off their "aww gee he's not so bad" butts to impeach the guy.
The American people won't stand for it. Gary Cohn supposedly was so disgusted with Trump after Charlottesville that he drafted his resignation letter. He didn't turn it in but by God he drafted it. Maybe proof of Russia will get some of these lowlifes to realize that sticking with Trump is going to drag them down with him.
The Republican needle is stuck on "very concerned" in perpetuity. It's not moving anywhere. Then again, my hunch at this point is they simply want Trump to survive the year and be a live hand to sign a tax cut for billionaires. After that, they will have no problem throwing him overboard if Mueller comes heavy. But the problem is this: Trump came in and stole the GOP voters from the Republican Party. They don't own them anymore, Trump does. His cult will turn on McConnell and Ryan as soon as any Democrat.
As to Arpaio. I know of a at least one sheriff in NC that has got somewhat wider attn. as well, when it comes to raids and profiling here in NC. Problem with ol Joe was he stepped into the limelight in a big way, then got backed up by a then candidate for pres. Not exactly the best way to carry out one's operations sneakily.
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
Obviously, I think it makes situation far worse. You need example? Here. Since we are on the game forums let's look at something close to the house. Remember that Voice Actors strike? VA were trying to get money from game companies and sympathy from the public. Not sure about companies (judging but complete silence on the matter - nothing major was won) but public they lost for sure. Why? They used the same tactic that article did - usurping general problem, as if they were the only one suffering from it. They literally tell things like "We are overworking and underpaid!" - Boo-hoo, who is not? Raze the hand someone who does not feel this way! Or "There are plenty of artists who work less but get much more" - Oh, cry me a river! What a shocking news! Someone gets more than me! And best of all "We are not stopping others from fighting for their rights" - Oh, really? How kind of you. So, why exactly should those "others" care about you then?
Just a one tiny example but this is what happens when people care about only their tiny group. It's like having a leaking pipe with hundreds of holes, but instead of replacing the pipe insisting of patching one little hole above your head.
Makes sense of course but often when something 'hits home' the tendency I think is to personalize it and fight for whatever that issue is (maybe not the best for all but it can get people fired up). At the same time, (for many) that one issue often turns into a much broader fight and understanding for the plights of others dealing with their own and separate issues (good).
EDIT: It's a good point @Mirandel brought up. I should probably say this is not a defense but just the way I see human nature reacting to events and dealing with conflict. When faced with immediate crisis or trauma we don't always feel better when hearing someone else has it worse.
There are some things Republicans won't excuse out of Trump. Most Republicans denounced, but did nothing about, the racism of Trump.
Admitting there's a problem is the first step, normally they aren't even doing that. There are some other things that Republicans won't tolerate, aren't there? There's not much obviously but there's something, right? Wouldn't being Putin's puppet and working with Russia agents be one of those things? Or is there nothing that he can do that can't just be excused?
I mean I guess Republicans have almost all just jumped off the cliff following this guy so far. I guess that's how dictators work - one excuse by the guy's party at a time. They just keep doing nothing about the creeping abuses of power by the leader until you can look back and be like holy crap how how did we get to where we are now with permanent martial law.
As to Arpaio. I know of a at least one sheriff in NC that has got somewhat wider attn. as well, when it comes to raids and profiling here in NC. Problem with ol Joe was he stepped into the limelight in a big way, then got backed up by a then candidate for pres. Not exactly the best way to carry out one's operations sneakily.
The crime for which Trump pardoned Arpaio isn't even the tip of the iceberg. Here is just SOME of what he has been up to in the last couple decades:
*One of his jailers nearly broke the neck of a paraplegic prisoner who was asking for a catheter *He once marched all his Latino prisoners into a segregated area surrounded by an electric fence as a publicity stunt *He arrested a local Phoenix reporter who was covering him, which ended up costing the taxpayers $3.75 million in a lawsuit payout *While laser focused on busting Hispanics, his department ignored HUNDREDS of sexual abuse cases, many involving children *He once staged an assassination attempt against himself *He hired a private investigator to harass the judge who found he had been engaged in rampant racial profiling *Attempted to destroy hard drives relating to his contempt case *One of the members of the inner-circle of his department was charged with possession of child pornography *All in all, his conduct as Sheriff cost the county more than $44 million dollars in damages over the years
And those are just the highlights. Joe Arpaio is an honest to god fascist who would have fit right at home in Nazi Germany, and that isn't even the slightest bit of hyperbole. He is one of the most evil figures in American public life. And his supporters don't like him in SPITE of that, but BECAUSE of that.
I'm disgusted with the Arpaio pardon. BTW by pardoning Arpaio Trump has "broke" the pardon. Normally, there are all kinds of rules and norms for who can be pardoned and among other things minimum 5 yrs in jail prior to being considered for a pardon.
Arpaio never served a day in jail and he willfully ignored federal judges and the law. So Trump decided to try and break the Judicial branch.
I think we have to take it seriously now how a few weeks ago Trump was rumored to be questioning whether he can pardon himself and his family.
Here's the dojs website for an idea of the normal process for a pardon request-
Whatever the rules, this is a power that no president should ever have. It goes against the Magna Carta principle - rulers should be subject to the law, never above it.
And Trump is simply following precedent - it's been abused before, by Clinton and Obama at least.
It takes a bad president to show up bad law. And this law really is appallingly bad.
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
Obviously, I think it makes situation far worse. You need example? Here. Since we are on the game forums let's look at something close to the house. Remember that Voice Actors strike? VA were trying to get money from game companies and sympathy from the public. Not sure about companies (judging but complete silence on the matter - nothing major was won) but public they lost for sure. Why? They used the same tactic that article did - usurping general problem, as if they were the only one suffering from it. They literally tell things like "We are overworking and underpaid!" - Boo-hoo, who is not? Raze the hand someone who does not feel this way! Or "There are plenty of artists who work less but get much more" - Oh, cry me a river! What a shocking news! Someone gets more than me! And best of all "We are not stopping others from fighting for their rights" - Oh, really? How kind of you. So, why exactly should those "others" care about you then?
Just a one tiny example but this is what happens when people care about only their tiny group. It's like having a leaking pipe with hundreds of holes, but instead of replacing the pipe insisting of patching one little hole above your head.
Makes sense of course but often when something 'hits home' the tendency I think is to personalize it and fight for whatever that issue is (maybe not the best for all but it can get people fired up). At the same time, (for many) that one issue often turns into a much broader fight and understanding for the plights of others dealing with their own and separate issues (good).
EDIT: It's a good point @Mirandel brought up. I should probably say this is not a defense but just the way I see human nature reacting to events and dealing with conflict. When faced with immediate crisis or trauma we don't always feel better when hearing someone else has it worse.
Oh, I totally understand classical "if you do not fight for that group - anyone can be next", but somehow emphasis moved form "anyone" to "that very specific group and the rest don't count". It only provokes in-fighting, nothing else.
Take that "anti-trans" law Trump just signed. People yell "poor trans" - no! Not "poor trans", they are only an immediate victims. The broken law is the problem, the fact that someone - even if president - is allowed by personal authority to ban group of people for no other reasons but a stone age view of the world. People have to fight for a law, that prevents THAT from happening, the law explicitly stating "those physically capable do the job" (regardless of anything - color, gender, religion - whatever). But we are already so used to look only at very little parts and specific pieces, even the idea of bigger picture does not cross the minds. That really saddens me.
The ability to issue pardons or sentence commutations does not place the President above the law...unless a President tries to pardon himself. If that happens--not even I can determine the approximate likelihood of that event occurring--then it will immediately become a SCOTUS decision.
The ability to issue pardons or sentence commutations does not place the President above the law...unless a President tries to pardon himself. If that happens--not even I can determine the approximate likelihood of that event occurring--then it will immediately become a SCOTUS decision.
Yes, it does.
Person X commits a crime. They are found guilty by a court of law. The president lets them off. That is above the law, and exactly the sort of abuse of power Magna Carta was written to address. It wasn't uncommon for Norman English kings to issue pardons - frequently in exchange for money.
We need to look at the reasons each of the most high profile pardons or commutations of the last 5 Presidents were done to examine the 5 men:
*George H. W. Bush-Pardons six people involved in Iran Contra, can easily be seen as something that was part of a deal they struck to protect Reagan.
*Bill Clinton- Mark Rich, pretty indefensible even though it happened at the end of his term.
*George W. Bush-Scooter Libby, the guy who took the fall for Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame scandal, and one everyone saw coming. The most like a cover-up of anything we've seen to date.
*Barack Obama-Commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the one act on this list that can be legitimately seen as a genuine act of mercy on someone who had already paid a heavy price.
*Donald Trump-Pardons Joe Arpaio before the court is even allowed to sentence him, and simply to appeal to the bigoted portion of his base.
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
Obviously, I think it makes situation far worse. You need example? Here. Since we are on the game forums let's look at something close to the house. Remember that Voice Actors strike? VA were trying to get money from game companies and sympathy from the public. Not sure about companies (judging but complete silence on the matter - nothing major was won) but public they lost for sure. Why? They used the same tactic that article did - usurping general problem, as if they were the only one suffering from it. They literally tell things like "We are overworking and underpaid!" - Boo-hoo, who is not? Raze the hand someone who does not feel this way! Or "There are plenty of artists who work less but get much more" - Oh, cry me a river! What a shocking news! Someone gets more than me! And best of all "We are not stopping others from fighting for their rights" - Oh, really? How kind of you. So, why exactly should those "others" care about you then?
Just a one tiny example but this is what happens when people care about only their tiny group. It's like having a leaking pipe with hundreds of holes, but instead of replacing the pipe insisting of patching one little hole above your head.
Makes sense of course but often when something 'hits home' the tendency I think is to personalize it and fight for whatever that issue is (maybe not the best for all but it can get people fired up). At the same time, (for many) that one issue often turns into a much broader fight and understanding for the plights of others dealing with their own and separate issues (good).
EDIT: It's a good point @Mirandel brought up. I should probably say this is not a defense but just the way I see human nature reacting to events and dealing with conflict. When faced with immediate crisis or trauma we don't always feel better when hearing someone else has it worse.
Oh, I totally understand classical "if you do not fight for that group - anyone can be next", but somehow emphasis moved form "anyone" to "that very specific group and the rest don't count". It only provokes in-fighting, nothing else.
Take that "anti-trans" law Trump just signed. People yell "poor trans" - no! Not "poor trans", they are only an immediate victims. The broken law is the problem, the fact that someone - even if president - is allowed by personal authority to ban group of people for no other reasons but a stone age view of the world. People have to fight for a law, that prevents THAT from happening, the law explicitly stating "those physically capable do the job" (regardless of anything - color, gender, religion - whatever). But we are already so used to look only at very little parts and specific pieces, even the idea of bigger picture does not cross the minds. That really saddens me.
Because it's not just anyone who is being denied the right to serve in the military. It is also someone with those "little parts and specific pieces". First it was African-Americans, then gays, and now transgender Americans. There has never been a time when straight white men were denied access to volunteering for military service based on what they were born as.
Comments
This agreement expires four years after negotiations are done, or long enough that each country will go through one election each without knowing the complete details of how this issue was handled.
I see the need for this (Read Trump) but disappointed as taking the public's opinion out of such an important deal doesn't fit well with a democratic state like the 3 involved, especially since only one country of the 3 ran on a platform to renegotiate it.
I also hope they attached a fine to the deal if anyone goes on Twitter and breaks it. Like a swear jar where the proceeds go to buy a shared wall or something.
I agree with @semiticgod , why aren't moderates more emphasized, since more people ultimately agree with them? Both sides (gah!) are guilty of demonizing the other side, and it's getting a bit absurd.
To be honest I don't have to think to hard to imagine your example, as when I was much younger I experienced somewhat similar events first hand.
-----
Both sexes seem to have a cultural and social bias almost 'built in' regarding the other at times. Things are changing somewhat but have a long way to go obviously. As a man I have felt the pull of that very bias to fight many a time. I have also seen what years of buying into this can do to both sexes. It gets even harder with rubberneckers standing around watching one. It even gets in the way of our daily conflict management in a one on one situation (of many types, even with spouses alone).
TV and movies, especially in the past have gone right along with this, reinforcing it more, even for someone NOT having experienced it.
Seems like things and issues are divided up into separate issues more to... not sure, but maybe to focus on, test, measure, etc. or to expose problems that are not always the easiest to get everyone to be aware of.
At least, that seems to have been the way when it comes to the various laws. We have general equal rights in the workplace but ALSO have laws made at one time or another that go the extra mile for ageism, sexism, racism, etc.
Not that a law fixes it, for darn sure on that. I believe it is often these cultural and social biases that are hardest for people to overcome on a wide scale.
It certainly is an issue in politics.
We do often tend to go this route, of dividing everything up into neat boxes, or assigning a priority lvl to issues, when part of a greater issue or cause overall.
I ask because in conflict management and resolution, while we look at an overall approach, we also research various problems in detail and somewhat separate, in order to learn what needs to be incorporated and mended into that overall approach. Not a one size fits all but more of a 'make sure I have every tool in the shed' approach when called on.
Sometimes I feel my groups (I have a few at my age now) are often called out, and it bugs me in a way I think that might be at least somewhat similar to how @Mirandel felt about this.
A question (for anyone really). Do you think that dividing the fights against various -isims makes it worse for the people involved, better, or no difference, compared to one overreaching human rights issue?
My concentration is bout out to pasture lately, hopefully this is somewhat coherent and on topic.
He wants no one to discuss him unless they are saying good things about him. So the truth is not an option.
That he wants to hide NAFTA renegotiation is not a shock. He just wants to claim he won and that the president of Mexico said (according to Trump) it's a "beautiful deal" and he'll claim the PM of Canada said "I can't believe how wonderful and fair Trump is" and in front of his gullible rally crowds he'll claim to have won the most one sided deal in history and it's better than Obama's deals.
The point is that Reaganism is completely dead. Young people just aren't conservative. At all. The conservative base is bleeding voters.
The only right-wing/left-wing dialectic at all interesting to the current and next generation of voters is populism/progressivism (which will heavily correlate with rural/urban).
The idea that rich people should be able to make as much as they want, pay the same amount of taxes, have government protections, wield powerful lobby groups, etc, is profoundly unpopular. Just as the idea of war, nation building, free-trade, etc, are all unpopular ideas heavily condemned by populists.
On the flip side, liberalism is on borrowed time as well. Ideas such as privilege theory, reverse-racism, liberation/identity politics, SJWism, healthcare reform instead of nationalization, globalism, etc, are all incredibly unpopular ideas, and despite the fact that liberals wish to believe otherwise.
On the right it's going to be populism (including nationalism), and on the left it's going to be progressivism (including socialism and the far-left). This is the future...Europe made this very same transition a decade ago.
Do you Yanks have someone in charge of FEMA yet? If not, things may start looking ugly in Texas.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trumps-fema-director-doesnt-seem-incompetent.html
They literally tell things like "We are overworking and underpaid!" - Boo-hoo, who is not? Raze the hand someone who does not feel this way!
Or "There are plenty of artists who work less but get much more" - Oh, cry me a river! What a shocking news! Someone gets more than me!
And best of all "We are not stopping others from fighting for their rights" - Oh, really? How kind of you. So, why exactly should those "others" care about you then?
Just a one tiny example but this is what happens when people care about only their tiny group. It's like having a leaking pipe with hundreds of holes, but instead of replacing the pipe insisting of patching one little hole above your head.
Many people here speculated that Trump's transgender ban was just another 24-hour fake controversy that wasn't actually going to take place. They were wrong. This is unconscionable. And anyone who is FOR this should have the balls to tell a transgender solider so to their face, and sign up for the service themselves. Otherwise their argument is hollow, and motivated by nothing but fear and hate. Here again is why bigotry is so easy to sell. You take the transgender community, a small group already, very marginalized in society to being with. Since most people aren't transgender, and, unlike in the case of gay citizens, most people may not actually know someone who is transgender. Thus, most Americans won't give a shit, because it isn't them, and isn't anyone they know. When everything else is going wrong, authoritarians will ALWAYS find a minority group for the populace at large to fear and scapegoat. But the fact is, any transgender citizen who is currently in the military, or who are willing to serve even now, have more bravery on a Tuesday morning in one pinky finger than anyone who opposes them doing so will be able to muster in their entire pathetic lives.
And....Jesus Christ Almighty, he just pardoned Joe Arpaio. This son of a bitch. Law and order my ass. Any Republican who ever talks about "law and order" again can go fly a kite. Seriously. And keep in mind, he is doing all this LITERALLY under the cover of a Category 4 Hurricane so it gets buried. Again, you'll recall that I said 2 weeks ago this was going to happen as a olive branch to white supremacists, the white nationalists, and the militia and anti-immigrant movement. I was 100% correct.
Let's review, shall we?? If you are transgender and willing to die for your country, Trump just said to go f**k yourself. If you are a convicted criminal racist Sheriff who simply refused to recognize the authority of the judicial branch of government, Trump hands you a get out of jail free card. That's what just happened the last few hours. And that is the message that has been sent across the country. And the main problem isn't Trump. It's the 1/3 of the country that thinks this is absolutely wonderful. This is what fascism looks like in it's infancy. It's not coming. It's here. This country is now being run by the opinions Trump sees on FOX News, Bretibart and InfoWars. If you think that ends well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Someone else just made a great point that I saw: Pardoning Arpaio today makes the pardons he will surely issue to either his associates, family members, or himself down the road seem more normal. Just something a President does. No President issues pardons of this magnitude at this point in his term, certainly not to someone who hasn't even been sentenced yet.
You had to be that guy, didn't you?
Arpaio never served a day in jail and he willfully ignored federal judges and the law. So Trump decided to try and break the Judicial branch.
I think we have to take it seriously now how a few weeks ago Trump was rumored to be questioning whether he can pardon himself and his family.
Here's the dojs website for an idea of the normal process for a pardon request-
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon-information-and-instructions
And:
Yeah no shit Sheriff Joe that's how the law is supposed to work when you break the law. No one is supposed to be above the law. You are supposed to know that as a former law enforcement officer but he was used to just doing whatever he wanted and the law is for everyone else.
Interpreting the law is not the prerogative of those elected/appointed to enforce the law. You have enforcers and you have interpreters. The balance of powers are clearly separated - no one is a law unto themselves. This is what makes us civilized.
It's like if Trump decided local cops should enforce his war in Afghanistan. It's not their job. That's the federal government's job. But I agree with the rest of your statement.
This means that all the DoJ rules are things you *should* do as a person applying for clemency or commutation but the President can decide to issue a pardon for anyone convicted of any Federal offense (except treason or impeachment) whenever the mood strikes them.
That is why I have been curious as to why people have been bothering with all the Russiagate investigations. Yes, those things need to be investigated but Trump is just going to start handing out pardons as soon as anyone gets charged with anything. The paperwork is already in place except for the blanks where the charges and the name of the person being pardoned will be input.
I don't like it when someone stacks the deck in their favor. The fact that he got elected means that not only did he stack the deck in his favor, he is also the dealer, the pit boss, and the casino floor manager. We cannot win; we can only wait for shift rotation.
*************
People down along the coast where Harvey hit....well, fellow Texans or not, when you know that a hurricane is coming and you decide to sit it out you are choosing to accept all the consequences which will likely befall you. I have no sympathy for people who choose to stay in the path of a storm which has the potential to destroy all their belongings and/or kill them. If you watched the news at all you knew it was likely to hit four days ago; you should have made your preparations and gotten out yesterday, ahead of the traffic jams. Also, you don't have to wait for some government official to tell you to evacuate. (obviously, the elderly and infirm should have been moved the earliest--"unsympathetic" does not equate to "cruel")
One would hope that committing the crime of treason and working with Russia to break American Democracy then pardoning those crimes away and treating them like a joke would be enough to get the Republicans off their "aww gee he's not so bad" butts to impeach the guy.
The American people won't stand for it. Gary Cohn supposedly was so disgusted with Trump after Charlottesville that he drafted his resignation letter. He didn't turn it in but by God he drafted it. Maybe proof of Russia will get some of these lowlifes to realize that sticking with Trump is going to drag them down with him.
EDIT: It's a good point @Mirandel brought up. I should probably say this is not a defense but just the way I see human nature reacting to events and dealing with conflict.
When faced with immediate crisis or trauma we don't always feel better when hearing someone else has it worse.
Admitting there's a problem is the first step, normally they aren't even doing that. There are some other things that Republicans won't tolerate, aren't there? There's not much obviously but there's something, right? Wouldn't being Putin's puppet and working with Russia agents be one of those things? Or is there nothing that he can do that can't just be excused?
I mean I guess Republicans have almost all just jumped off the cliff following this guy so far. I guess that's how dictators work - one excuse by the guy's party at a time. They just keep doing nothing about the creeping abuses of power by the leader until you can look back and be like holy crap how how did we get to where we are now with permanent martial law.
*One of his jailers nearly broke the neck of a paraplegic prisoner who was asking for a catheter
*He once marched all his Latino prisoners into a segregated area surrounded by an electric fence as a publicity stunt
*He arrested a local Phoenix reporter who was covering him, which ended up costing the taxpayers $3.75 million in a lawsuit payout
*While laser focused on busting Hispanics, his department ignored HUNDREDS of sexual abuse cases, many involving children
*He once staged an assassination attempt against himself
*He hired a private investigator to harass the judge who found he had been engaged in rampant racial profiling
*Attempted to destroy hard drives relating to his contempt case
*One of the members of the inner-circle of his department was charged with possession of child pornography
*All in all, his conduct as Sheriff cost the county more than $44 million dollars in damages over the years
And those are just the highlights. Joe Arpaio is an honest to god fascist who would have fit right at home in Nazi Germany, and that isn't even the slightest bit of hyperbole. He is one of the most evil figures in American public life. And his supporters don't like him in SPITE of that, but BECAUSE of that.
And Trump is simply following precedent - it's been abused before, by Clinton and Obama at least.
It takes a bad president to show up bad law. And this law really is appallingly bad.
Take that "anti-trans" law Trump just signed. People yell "poor trans" - no! Not "poor trans", they are only an immediate victims. The broken law is the problem, the fact that someone - even if president - is allowed by personal authority to ban group of people for no other reasons but a stone age view of the world. People have to fight for a law, that prevents THAT from happening, the law explicitly stating "those physically capable do the job" (regardless of anything - color, gender, religion - whatever).
But we are already so used to look only at very little parts and specific pieces, even the idea of bigger picture does not cross the minds. That really saddens me.
Person X commits a crime. They are found guilty by a court of law. The president lets them off. That is above the law, and exactly the sort of abuse of power Magna Carta was written to address. It wasn't uncommon for Norman English kings to issue pardons - frequently in exchange for money.
*George H. W. Bush-Pardons six people involved in Iran Contra, can easily be seen as something that was part of a deal they struck to protect Reagan.
*Bill Clinton- Mark Rich, pretty indefensible even though it happened at the end of his term.
*George W. Bush-Scooter Libby, the guy who took the fall for Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame scandal, and one everyone saw coming. The most like a cover-up of anything we've seen to date.
*Barack Obama-Commutes the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the one act on this list that can be legitimately seen as a genuine act of mercy on someone who had already paid a heavy price.
*Donald Trump-Pardons Joe Arpaio before the court is even allowed to sentence him, and simply to appeal to the bigoted portion of his base.