Missouri Gov. says Trump will 'get involved' in case of gun-toting St. Louis couple because he thinks 'they have a right to protect' - as the investigating prosecutor claims the president has 'come after me for doing my job'
Link: Missouri Gov. says Trump will 'get involved' in case of gun-toting St. Louis couple because he think
Under Trump, the culture war comes first
Previous conservative values no longer mean anything.
In America, an individual has civil rights regardless of whether they are assholes or black or ambulance chasers or Left or Right. But you and Chris go right to who the people are. Both the Left and Right united in defense of George Floyd, but with the McCloskeys, the Left steps away. The Right wants a nation of laws for justice; the Left wants a nation lf laws used to wield political power to change the nation.
He broke the law, was convicted, but commuted based on who he is.
Are you saying that if we apply the laws impartially, for individual justice (as opposed to political gain), then all pardons and commutations are not valid? That seems like an extremely weird position to take.
I think all laws should be applied impartially. If they are not, and if an injustice occurs, then there are ways to correct that, from the prosecutor dropping a case...to the judge dismissing the case...to the jury nullifying the prosecution...to the appellate court setting aside a conviction...to the president commuting or pardoning the individual. I think all those things can exist under a system that prosecutes people justly for their crimes, instead of who those people are. So, your question seems out of place in this discussion.
Recently, Paul Manafort was prosecuted, but not his partner Podesta, because one was a Trump supporter and the other was not. If they committed the same crime (failing to register as a lobbyist), should only one be prosecuted because of his political allegiences, and the other not prosecuted because of his political allegiences? You give political support to people who do things like that (even though I assume you think that is wrong), so why can't I give political support to someone who will correct that injustice?
There is a long list of presidents pardoning and commuting sentences for bad people, even terrorists. Stones commutation is exceedingly mild in comparison. And, I think the president's power in that regard is absolute, as it was when Obama pardoned a terrorist, and commuted more sentences than the past 13 presidents combined.
Most of the commutations Obama gave were for non-violent drug offenders. Not people he knew personally. You would think a libertarian would support those commutations.
Stone was not victim of a corrupt system. He is a criminal that happens to be a friend and supporter of the president, and someone that wouldn't rat him out. You think that Stone would have had his sentence commuted if he didn't know Trump personally or if he gave the prosecution some dirt on Trump in exchange for a lesser sentence?
Short answer is should pardons be used to correct an injustice? Yes. Should pardons be used for personal and/or political gain (as was the case with Stone)? No. If it is used that way, then it is a perfect example of the imbalanced law and order you are referring to.
Also, back to the McCloskey's, I never said they should have anything happen to them outside of the law. If it is found they broke the law, then they should be convicted. If they didn't, they shouldn't be. That said, many conservative posters here referred to their courage and described them as heroes. That is the hypocrisy I was referring to. Not the legal ramifications.
My position: Enforce the law based on facts, not on political affiliation. Do you agree, or disagree? This is not hard. That is not what is happening with the McCloskeys and the rioters in St. Louis. The more guilty parties are going free (rioters/arsonists), and the more innocent parties (McCloskeys) are being harassed, and the Left is doing this, so the Left is hypocritical. It is not hypocritical for the Right to point this out.
Regarding commutations by POTUS: Most of the commutations of Obama, Trump, and all other presidents were non-violent offenders. I'm fine with those commutations by Obama. Stone is in that category. But, Obama also commuted the sentence of Oscar López Rivera, leader of an organization that conducted over 130 bombings in the US, and killed police, and Clinton pardoned family members and violent offenders as well. So, please spare me your indignation over Trump's pardoning of peaceful offenders he knew.
Obviously we agree that pardons should be used to correct injustice, and not for political gain, but they are used for friends, and always have been. None of this has anything to do with selective prosecutions of private citizens for political reasons, which is disgusting, and antithetical to a free society. I would think a classical liberal would agree with that, but modern liberals do not agree with that, which is shameful.
Also, I never said my side was perfect on this issue. You stated the right only wanted a nation of laws for justice. Trump commuting Stone, which has been widely praised on the right, is evidence that is not true.
In other words, don't try to pretend your side has the moral high ground on this issue. You probably did pre-Trump, but not anymore.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
They are complete assholes. Perfect representatives of Trump nation.
Link: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/portland-place-couple-who-confronted-protesters-have-a-long-history-of-not-backing-down/article_281d9989-373e-53c3-abcb-ecd0225dd287.html
(no message)