6 ms·

When Obama really increased the number of pardons, a lot of contemporary opinion writers said stuff along the lines of "this is a dangerous precedent and we're

When Obama really increased the number of pardons, a lot of contemporary opinion writers said stuff along the lines of "this is a dangerous precedent and we're lucky that the pardons are fairly popular and sane." Now we're seeing unpopular, not sane pardons. When democratic norms erode like pardons becoming more acceptable, it's like laying tinder and kindling for a fire. You still need a fire; a bad actor who is willing to light the material on fire. That bad actor is Trump. But the warnings from abusing these limitations from previous administrations was exactly for this moment. Nobody is saying Trump isn't the bad one, he is. But the conditions were laid for him. Now we need to survive him. When we look back at Roman Senators and Emperors, it's often hard as modern people to point to one, single bad figure because we don't have a lot of contemporary thought or reading from the time. But when we look back we can see the seeds of "decline" in eras rather than single figures.

ajross 1y ago
I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies is simply not bound by norms, period. To pretend that he'd never have pardoned Zhao but for Obama's "increased number of pardons" is, to be blunt, ridiculous on its face. And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you. But don't worry! You can always take solace in the fact that it was Really Barack Hussein Obama's Fault.
- aaronbrethorst 1y ago
  Obama did once wear a tan suit, and on another occasion put his feet up on the Resolute Desk.
- mlrtime 1y ago
  >I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies. This is what happened to Trump though, the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running Again, this is a excuse-making whopper. The republican aisle in the senate refused to convict him twice, which would have prevented him from running. I won't argue "do not like him" in the abstract, but in practice established politicians in his party are 100% behind the guy.
    - maxerickson 1y ago
      The federal efforts at prosecution were also hesitant more than "everything".
- Karrot_Kream 1y ago
  > And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then. I agree Trump is bad. Am I supposed to just say that 3 times and click my heels and then he'll go away? These are observations designed around trying to make sure, once Trump is gone, that we don't get another Trump. I can't change the current President and this constant purity testing about hating Trump changes nothing. The reason Trump will have to blatantly violate the Constitution if he tries to run again is because the country was so spooked after FDR's third term that it limited Presidential terms. One could have made the same argument then, the only reason FDR ran a 3rd term is because he's FDR and a different person wouldn't do that. But that amendment is why there's a bright line around a 3rd term now.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then. Not equivocate.
    - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
      Why are you reading equivocation there? You're being way too defensive. Just because Trump is the worst doesn't mean other things aren't also bad, just less bad. Are you implying that I'm not supposed to talk about anything other than how Trump is bad? Again what's the point of this purity testing? If I caveat my statements a million ways to convince you that I'm not equivocating then will Trump stop being President?
      - ajross 1y ago
        You're pretending that Trump's pardon is not a singular act but the result of some kind of imagined erosion of norms for which you blamed Obama specifically. That's textbook equivocation. A vote for Romney wouldn't have fixed this. You're also simply incorrect, which is why I'm spending the bytes to try to correct you.
  - ModernMech 1y ago

ajross 1y ago

I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies is simply not bound by norms, period. To pretend that he'd never have pardoned Zhao but for Obama's "increased number of pardons" is, to be blunt, ridiculous on its face. And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you. But don't worry! You can always take solace in the fact that it was Really Barack Hussein Obama's Fault.

aaronbrethorst 1y ago
Obama did once wear a tan suit, and on another occasion put his feet up on the Resolute Desk.
mlrtime 1y ago
>I don't buy it. A president that will literally direct his AG in public to prosecute his political enemies. This is what happened to Trump though, the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running.
- ajross 1y ago
  > the established politicians do not like him and did everything they could to stop him from running Again, this is a excuse-making whopper. The republican aisle in the senate refused to convict him twice, which would have prevented him from running. I won't argue "do not like him" in the abstract, but in practice established politicians in his party are 100% behind the guy.
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    The federal efforts at prosecution were also hesitant more than "everything".
Karrot_Kream 1y ago
> And in context, you're doing exactly what I mocked above, tut tutting about civil behavior and norms and The Discourse while the system burns down around you. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then. I agree Trump is bad. Am I supposed to just say that 3 times and click my heels and then he'll go away? These are observations designed around trying to make sure, once Trump is gone, that we don't get another Trump. I can't change the current President and this constant purity testing about hating Trump changes nothing. The reason Trump will have to blatantly violate the Constitution if he tries to run again is because the country was so spooked after FDR's third term that it limited Presidential terms. One could have made the same argument then, the only reason FDR ran a 3rd term is because he's FDR and a different person wouldn't do that. But that amendment is why there's a bright line around a 3rd term now.
- ajross 1y ago
  > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do then. Not equivocate.
  - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
    Why are you reading equivocation there? You're being way too defensive. Just because Trump is the worst doesn't mean other things aren't also bad, just less bad. Are you implying that I'm not supposed to talk about anything other than how Trump is bad? Again what's the point of this purity testing? If I caveat my statements a million ways to convince you that I'm not equivocating then will Trump stop being President?
    - ajross 1y ago
      You're pretending that Trump's pardon is not a singular act but the result of some kind of imagined erosion of norms for which you blamed Obama specifically. That's textbook equivocation. A vote for Romney wouldn't have fixed this. You're also simply incorrect, which is why I'm spending the bytes to try to correct you.
- ModernMech 1y ago