5 people now have died from that minor scuffle yesterday. And a white female former air force Vet as well. Will the knee be taken at the weekend for her ?
|
|
President - Term - Pardons -Commutations - Other - Total Clemency
Donald Trump 2017-Present 25 10 0 35
Barack Obama 2009-2017 212 1,715 0 1,927
George W. Bush 2001-2009 189 11 0 200
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 369 61 2 459
George H.W Bush 1989-1993 74 3 0 77
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 393 13 0 406
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 534 29 3 566
Gerald Ford 1975-1977 382 22 5 409
Richard Nixon 1969-1975 863 60 3 926
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963-1969 960 226 1 1,187
John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 472 100 3 575
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-1961 1,110 47 0 1,157
Harry Truman 1945-1953 1,913 118 13 2,044
https://checkyourfact.com/2020/02/21/fact-check-barack-obama-donald-trump-pardons
As of Dec. 24 (2020), President Trump has issued clemency in the form of pardons or commutations to more than 90 people....
https://news.yahoo.com/the-complete-list-of-donald-trumps-pardons-and-commutations-183713910.html
My 2 mins of searching, I hope he has a few more pardons to grant!
5 people now have died from that minor scuffle yesterday. And a white female former air force Vet as well. Will the knee be taken at the weekend for her ?
Re: pardons - I'd have to look deeper but at a glance it looks like a number of the pardoned by Trump are either connected to him personally in some way or are convicted of pretty despicable stuff like war crimes in Iraq.
I don't particularly care about the comparison to Yobamos (google it ).
But like I said - you're not a person I enjoy talking to about anything more complex than whether or not we won a game. Our conversation styles and base axioms don't align particularly well.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
Don't get me wrong CC - it's not a knock on you - I like you a lot and genuinely think you make the forum a better place. I'm sure you're a fun enough guy to talk to irl, but I do believe we're so far apart in so many ways that it's practically impossible to have an enjoyable conversation both of us would find to be "in good faith" on an online forum. We've tried this before and I've certainly learned a lot from the videos and sources you've posted on topics such as global warming and inequality. But it's just not particularly fun.
I'm not interested enough or sure enough of my view in/on the topic to research the background of every single person Trump has pardoned but the list you sent looks pretty suspicious. And of course even if I do do my research, you'd dispute every single letter of every single word I wrote beyond what I could consider a reasonable threshold of understandability - which isn't a bad thing - just incredibly tedious. E.g. if I were to say that the Blackwater dudes are war criminals, you'd dispute that and we'd have to basically go over the entire gigantic court case. That would, of course, basically mean we'd each have to take a semester or two of law to understand what's going on there. And we still wouldn't agree in the end. I'm the type of person who considers any argument that does not end in agreement to more or less be a failure - reaching an agreement with you on a topic like this is not within the realms of possibility.
Not to mention the fact that you're simply much better at this than I am.
Now irl a conversation with you over a b̶e̶e̶r̶ fruit juice or twelve might be a different story but it looks like none of us will get that chance anytime soon. Gramps.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
There are 2 basic claims to flesh out.
1) Trumps incitement of violence which I've stated is not a wild claim. I just asked you how you would substantiate that claim. I raised the issue of novel as that would be important in applying a not just trump filter.
I'd imagine it would be in the ball park of...
Rejecting the legitimacy of the election results
Activating base supporters into a frenzy from this action
Loosely connecting his words to an incitement of violence, where a direct incitement to violence is not present.
The idea of asking you was so as I wouldn't have to have to guess.
Secondly as it would provide a basis for referring to others actions.
Like with Biden in a debate prior to Trumps entry into politics, where he said of the reps they'll put y'all back in chains 're mitt Romney iirc. Similarly not an incitement of violence but a loose connection to one as the idea that being put back in chains would be, albeit historically republicans were on the right side of history and were often lynched alongside blacks by the kkk.
Yet it was under that administration that kids in cages policy was implemented but only brought to light under trump. Yet kids in cages due to media priming and direction is often misattributed to trumps administration. I'm not sure what level of knowledge biden/Obama had of this decision and implementation.
Or aoc stating there are concentration camps on the southern border. Or that people there were forced to drink from toilets. She didn't ask the antifa to storm such a facility directly.
She did misdirect on the toilets been drank from as having looked for evidence I found a black employee on YouTube asking her to clarify her position, in that drinking from toilets was in reality not what people would typically imagine.
He showed stainless steel toilets where the water fountain was located on top where the cistern is typically located. You can argue that's drinking from a toilet, or that it's less hygienic that having a tap a foot or two further away from the toilet as is typical in a small bathroom. But the go to visual for people is they were desperately drinking from the toilet bowl at these concentration camps.
Iirc the nature of toilet flushing has a 10 foot radius from the bowl so it's more a visual proximity issue than a real one imo.
In the 2 years prior to this last election both parties undermined the election process. Some democrat presidential candidates and representatives talking about dominion voting systems and how they can be hacked on or offline, of course trump undermined the election too with his attack on postal ballots.
It was an election to fail and whoever lost wasn't going to accept it imo - posted prior to the election day results earlier in the thread.
But again in context Trumps post results undermining has the same refusal to accept as the 2016 results.
In terms of political violence in the US it's pretty clear to me the agitation has come from the left. Shooting officials, attacking officials, shooting trump supporters in the streets has been emanating from the left. Wearing a trump hat has been in a mild sense a symbol for attacking those who don it.
Noam Chomsky had a few years back tried to dissuade fhe left from political violence.
2) The second was in relation to trumps pardoning every crimelord or whatever term you used.
I posted data about his pardons with numbers copied from the links and details in the links. Like the Yahoo news link
"As of Dec. 24, President Trump has issued clemency in the form of pardons or commutations to more than 90 people, from relatively obscure white-collar or nonviolent drug offenders to the famous (conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza; Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio) and the infamous (four security contractors with the Blackwater firm who murdered more than a dozen civilians in Iraq)."
Your assumption about my position regarding Blackwater is rather baseless. Pardons are routinely given to people, including bad people. They are not just given to worthy cases.
I've posted about Blackwater on here beforehand (Not that we are obliged to note and remember all of our posts) and would abolish private contractors. Trumps the least war criminal president in decades and by some stretch.
Trumps funniest pardon imo was that long dead feminist, an icon for feminists for years turned a racist following trumps pardon.
In relation to what is dubbed russiagate imo most of those were warranted.
I didn't bring up Trumps pardon, but I questioned you as you have me beforehand in relation to several topics where I've obliged your requests or queries and replied with sources and my opinion or argument. I'd say that is the fundamental difference in our discussions.
Irl I would imagine a conversation would follow in much the same manner.
You know you don't have to provide your sources when I ask for them CC. It's a request you decide to kindly fulfil which I always genuinely appreciate. And I will continue to do so.
Edit: And just to clarify - Blackwater was an example. I don't know your position on them and did not make any assumptions about it.
Etiam si omnes, ego non
Bookmarks