US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Randhir said:
Oh good. So they spout that 'law and order' sh*te like they spout the 'party of family' and 'party of small government' nonsense. Glad to see you see it too.
Click to expand...

Using presidential pardons is not against the law. It might shock you, but my personal options of the system do not affect whether it is legal or not.
 
konfab said:
Using presidential pardons is not against the law. It might shock you, but my personal options of the system do not affect whether it is legal or not.
Click to expand...

Except, with your usual comprehension fail, you haven't seemed to notice that I haven't called it illegal.

The point is, for a party of supposed 'law and order', the commander in chief sure loves pardoning some ****ing scumbags.
 
The_Assimilator said:
No, I would not be okay with a president who pardoned domestic terrorists. And yet, you are.
Click to expand...

Actually no, you on the other hand therefore should not be okay with Obama or Clinton.
Oscar López Rivera (born January 6, 1943) is a Puerto Rican activist and militant who was one of the leaders of the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN), a clandestine paramilitary organization devoted to Puerto Rican independence that carried out more than 120 bomb attacks on United States targets between 1974 and 1983, killing five


U.S. President Bill Clinton offered López Rivera and 13 other convicted FALN members clemency in 1999, on condition they renounce violence, but López Rivera rejected it. On January 17, 2017, President Barack Obama commuted López Rivera's sentence and he was released from prison on May 17, 2017, after 36 years in prison. López Rivera had been incarcerated longer than any other member of the FALN.[7] On February 9, 2017,[8] he was moved from an Indiana prison to Puerto Rico, where he completed the last three months of his sentence under house arrest before being released on May 17, 2017.[9]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_L%C3%B3pez_Rivera

As for the "domestic terrorist" part, please check the actual people who he pardoned. Their crimes were arson on federal land, that is not terrorism...
https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/HammondGovBrief.pdf

The morons who organised the protest against this action are still in prison

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge
 
Last edited:
Randhir said:
Except, with your usual comprehension fail, you haven't seemed to notice that I haven't called it illegal.

The point is, for a party of supposed 'law and order', the commander in chief sure loves pardoning some ****ing scumbags.
Click to expand...

You are equating law and order with morality. Something can be immoral whilst still being legal. Like abortion.
 
konfab said:
You are equating law and order with morality. Something can be immoral whilst still being legal. Like abortion.
Click to expand...

Abortion's not immoral :confused: Though I agree with your sentiment. Laws themselves can be immoral
 
C4Cat said:
Abortion's not immoral :confused:
Click to expand...
It is.

I would bet everyone here would agree with me that it would be a good thing if society no longer needed abortion. Ergo there is a negative morality associated with it.

To use another example, taxation is basically no different from theft. So it is a moral negative. But our societies not functioning is a greater evil than taxation so we allow it.
C4Cat said:
Laws themselves can be immoral
Click to expand...

That is when things start getting extremely difficult. Especially with laws that compel people to do things.

I think it is simpler to look as laws as amoral conceptual tools. You can infer morality on the person who designs or uses said tool, but the actual tool itself is amoral. It is akin to saying guns are evil.
 
Last edited:
konfab said:
You are equating law and order with morality. Something can be immoral whilst still being legal. Like abortion.
Click to expand...

And you are trying very hard to distance the party of 'law and order' with the party that loves to pardon scumbags.
 
konfab said:
I think it is simpler to look as laws as amoral conceptual tools. You can infer morality on the person who designs or uses said tool, but the actual tool itself is amoral. It is akin to saying guns are evil.
Click to expand...

A law is a moral judgement on behavior, so how can it be amoral or conceptual? If a country legalizes marital rape, the law itself is immoral.
 
cerebus said:
A law is a moral judgement on behavior, so how can it be amoral or conceptual? If a country legalizes marital rape, the law itself is immoral.
Click to expand...

Don't get sucked into the Daddy Peterson armchair philosophy.
 
konfab said:
It is.

I would bet everyone here would agree with me that it would be a good thing if society no longer needed abortion. Ergo there is a negative morality associated with it.
Click to expand...
Well then I guess medication is immoral too, as I bet everyone here would agree with me that it would be a good thing if society no longer needed medication. Ergo there is a negative morality associated with it.

konfab said:
That is when things start getting extremely difficult. Especially with laws that compel people to do things.

I think it is simpler to look as laws as amoral conceptual tools. You can infer morality on the person who designs or uses said tool, but the actual tool itself is amoral. It is akin to saying guns are evil.
Click to expand...
Difference between saying that laws, in general, are immoral (which it isn't, it's a tool, as you point out) and saying specific laws are immoral (which they can be) - e.g. apartheid laws, oppressive laws in the Middle East (or anywhere), laws prohibiting cannabis, etc. Many would say Sharia Law is immoral. This doesn't mean laws, in general are immoral.
Laws, unlike guns, can be considered morally good or bad irrespective of context.
 
C4Cat said:
Well then I guess medication is immoral too, as I bet everyone here would agree with me that it would be a good thing if society no longer needed medication. Ergo there is a negative morality associated with it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. How many cancer patients wish their chemotherapy would go on forever? Or any medication for that matter.

C4Cat said:
Difference between saying that laws, in general, are immoral (which it isn't, it's a tool, as you point out) and saying specific laws are immoral (which they can be) - e.g. apartheid laws, oppressive laws in the Middle East (or anywhere), laws prohibiting cannabis, etc. Many would say Sharia Law is immoral. This doesn't mean laws, in general are immoral.
Laws, unlike guns, can be considered morally good or bad irrespective of context.
Click to expand...

Nope.
Using your example: laws prohibiting cannabis. Would you such law immoral if the population which was affected by the law had no need of it? Would it be immoral if cannabis was suddenly made extinct and no longer available? The law would no longer be applicable, thus inferring a moral status to it is impossible.

To use another example, lets say I take the apartheid laws as they were written to affect black people and I implement them in a country with no black people. Would they be immoral?
 
cerebus said:
1) I'm not too clued up on US MSM apart from CNN and the human centipede of Trumpian servility and propaganda that is Fox News

2) Just... Like.... What are the chances that guy is a liberal, really?
Click to expand...

So the black lady that beat the old man and told him to go back to his country was most likely a young republican?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X