Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by AugustaGator, Jun 10, 2018.
Why I am not too happy about this development.
Times a million. Again, they picked a very poor medium to use for their protests. But they weren't championing specific people in jail that shouldn't be. I've never even read about people needing to be pardoned from the protestors. It's like he doesn't have any clue what they are actually talking about. And reading on here is hilarious. Trump could **** on the south lawn and the responses on here would be "brilliant", "transparent", "another home run". https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html He must laugh his ass off at some of his sycophants and their rationalizing every thing he does.
So, just what ARE they championing? This is where it gets fun.
I thought it was police brutality. How does "pardoning" fit that narrative? Again, I do not agree with the medium of the protests or them doing it during an NFL game.
Exactly. And what do they want done about whatever they're championing? And who do they want to do whatever it is they want done?
The majority of people that have been pardoned (if you exclude the 100s of thousands who got a blanket pardon by Grant for serving in the CSA during the war) got it because of the entreaties of famous or connected people. Exceptions to this general rule were wartime pardons or pardons for sedition or treason which were typically charges that made them more publicly known anyway. While it is technically true that anyone can submit a petition for a pardon through the DOJ you're kidding yourself if you don't believe someone of some kind of standing isn't lobbying for the people that actually get it. Does it really matter whether that person is connected because of money that they made in real estate instead of entertainment? If anything I think it's better that celebs are the ones asking because more people will actually pay attention to the merits of the application. I think people have some understandably misguided ideas about the nobility of certain practices with the government. Most of that nobility did not serve the deaths of the framers, and the Constitution as adopted virtually ensured that it wouldn't. Why is Joe Lewis buried in Arlington? He didn't meet the criteria for burial there. He's there because Frank Sinatra bent Ronald Reagan's ear about it and because Reagan and Lewis went way back. I'm not necessarily saying that it wasn't a good decision - but it happened because he was connected.
I really wish people that keep showing up telling us what they are really talking about would actually take the five minutes it takes to read the mission statement of the movement these athletes are identifying with. Because it is abundantly apparent to anyone that has that you have no idea that this goes beyond police treatment of minorities.
And every governor. This isn’t new. It has been openly abused in the past - access is always an issue.
Wasn’t a new office created to evaluate these requests to add more objectivity to the process after fords action? Not saying perfect just potential to be better. Regardless, my concern is more how the president is utilizing the process...more quid pro quo.
Yeah, Obama created LOTS of new offices and lots of new govt employees. It is why Northern Virginia has become one of the wealthiest areas in the country.
Post the mission statement please, with link.
I don't mean to offend you, but I've posted a link to one specific part of that statement already. I'm not your google. It's on the main Black Lives Matter website.
No offense taken. Didn't know it existed or that you'd posted it. However, if you're going to make a statement here that you wish people would read something, you should post it. With a link. That doesn't make you anyone's google. I'll find it and read it.
How is it quid pro quo when the people that he is talking about engaging are actively and loudly campaigning against him? Do you honestly believe that black people are ever going to support him in any large numbers? Let's be realistic here. Black unemployment is at historic lows - as in the lowest in history since we started measuring it. Polls aren't showing a massive political realignment happening. Trump could pardon a laundry list of people and the activists would not be satisfied. If your hang up is with his comments about the.<ahem> "investigation" of Russian collusion and the use of pardon, it is pretty clear he's sending a message. Look, I don't know if you're a fair minded person, or a hack - so here's the test: Let's assume the Republicans had appointed a special prosecutor to look into the conduct of Secretary Clinton concerning Benghazi and whether or not she had knowingly lied to Congress. The clear mandate is to look at this matter. Then the following happens: 1. Associates of Sec. Clinton are indicted on charges that have nothing to do with the Benghazi. 2. These charges are used as the grounds for discovery of other associates who are likewise charged with matters completely unrelated to Benghazi for which they face potentially lengthy prison sentences. 3. Text messages are made public which show that members of the SP's team are actively seeking a specific outcome to the investigation - while simultaneously intimating that they have found no evidence thus far that makes them believe there is anything to the charges. 4. A year of this goes by with no charges and no convictions for anything approaching the mandate of the special prosecutor. There is no sign that he plans to submit a final report or indict anyone on charges he was specifically empowered to investigate. It becomes increasingly apparent to everyone on the left that he is dragging out the investigation to try and make a case on Sec Clinton for something other than lying to Congress and he is also dragging his feet hoping to influence an upcoming election. 5. The SP then uses discovery to justify raiding the office of the individual that just so happens to be the personal lawyer for Sec. Clinton and seizes all of this lawyer's records going back more than 20 years. At what point do you recognize that this investigation is off the rails? Do you really believe that Obama would not step in at this point and use Executive power to send a message that it isn't going to be allow to be used this way? Before you blurt an answer you might want to take a look at how the former POTUS used executive powers. I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I cast a vote for Trump at the time merely because I justified it knowing I was cancelling the vote of a co-worker for Hillary. I don't like his personal life - it is very different from my morality. The way he carries out debates is not my style. I'm calling balls and strikes here. If you can't honestly say that the scenario above is not the way things are supposed to work and understand that the framers provided strong executive powers for these exact scenarios, I can't help ya.
That was a little blunt. Mea culpa. I try and give a fair hearing to issues like these and it means I do a lot of independent reading. No one really directs that research. Generally I try to go directly to the horses mouth and decode the world view by the statements on the public record. As these athletes sloganeering was coming directly BLM it wasn't really difficult to find the source material. It's racial-identity infused academic Marxism. The sensationalized coverage of questionable interactions of black citizens and police was used to rally support, but the messaging is clear to me. Read up and form your own opinions.
Do you think that the athletes protesting are in agreement with the BLM movement: and if so, why?
Also, I encourage you to examine the following:
Different time period. I’m speaking of late 70s
"Facts don't care about your feelings." And some people definitely ignore facts.
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.