The poor boy was never asked to think before.
u guys legit trying to overturn a scotus opinion with a fucking entry from dictionary dot com im dying over here
Actually the fake news aspect of it is not looking at the wider context.
For example…
See my post above. Just because the SC once said something in a specific context does not mean that it now applies, applies in the specific context, or is understood by the people quoting it. And then see the post below to see how the reference to the SC’ statement was not present in the full context.
Everybody just sees the information, these days, that suits them. All sides. And then they call it authority.
That’s a pandemic. And viruses like this don’t care about political affiliation.
And if anyone wants more context for Burdick see this newsweek article…
newsweek.com/donald-trump-p … lt-1550716
The comment in Burdick was part of a non-binding ober dictum.
There is another take from the Washington Post.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 9#p2790156
Welcome to the adult world.
KT, did PK present Fake News?
It’s not really news. Fake fact, perhaps. Though to be fair, it is not completely clear what it means, but I would say the evidence does not support it being an admission of guilt, since we have instances that were clearly not that, as in the Newsweek piece. Throw in the condescending title of the thread and it’s a bit embarrassing, but not in the same category with Fake News.
Fake News contains Fake Facts.
Yes. Proposing fake facts is Fake News.
I guess, though it seems to me our posts here, including PK’s, are not news. I suppose if someone picks up his posts and they enter a twitter storm or something but this is the boondocks of the internet, I don’t think we’re influencing anything, here. Perhaps honing something which could influence elsewhere.
Well, maybe PK and Mr. Reasonable are away for the weekend.
K: Kropotkin works retail and this being less then two weeks out from X-mas…
one very busy person until Jan…
I write when I can…
Kropotkin
Or that. No worries, the thread is here.
Bump
Well, PK and Mr. Reasonable, what to you think of what I found in Newsweek and the Washington about the actual context for that Supreme Court quote and also more information about how the pardon is viewed?
the idea that there is debate among legal scholars is sort of an idea that can be brought up on just about any issue that one might seek to analyze but that doesnt change the fact that simply put, you dont need to be forgiven for a crime that you did not commit. its like pleading the 5th. if you dont have anything to hide, and you are telling the truth, and you are willing to argue your case then a reasonable person should believe that the truth will prevail and that their innocence will be shown. similarly with a pardon, if you didnt do anything wrong, then what would you pardon yourself for? why wouldnt you face your accusers and bring all the facts to light and expose them as frauds if you were in fact innocent?
it doesnt take a legal scholar or a fucking philosopher to figure this out.
at the end of the day, pardons are only for federal crimes. there are robust, far reaching state level investigations that have been in the works for several years now that are being held for when trump loses presidential immunity. he can pardon himself and his kids for whatever federal crimes he wants but the issue, is in fact moot. state prosecutors can do the same thing that federal ones can, they just lock you in a different box.
michael flynn, an educated career millitary man of high rank to the degree that his military service essentially equates to being a politician, a guy who traveled the world and has been in govt his entire life, walked into a courtroom and entered a guilty plea.
somehow q nuts and maga are still screaming that he is innocent.
hes not an illiterate kid in a ghetto that got tricked by a savvy prosecutor into pleading to something he didnt do. hes a fucking general for gods sake.
the mental gymnastics that it takes for someone to call this man innocent after he himself pleads guilty are astounding and completely incomprehensible to any rational mind.
flynn pled guilty. i believe him.
OK, so you didn’t read that part where it pointed out OBVIOUS cases where the presidential pardon was used because the person was considered innocent. Instead you restate opinions already stated, appeal to incredulity and seem incapable of conceding that the issue is not clear. That’s it. That’s all it would take. The thread’s tone, as started by PK is that the issue is just simply clear as a bell and those disagreeing with him are fools. You joined in the tone. Well, it’s not clear to legal scholars, it’s not clear to Newsweek and the Washington Post (hardly right wing conspiracy websites) and it has not been clear to Presidents who used the pardon CLEARLY in relation to people they considered innocent (and others did also).
It’s obvious to you, so it should be obvious to anyone. I mean, all it would take here is for you to say: OK, the issue is not clear. A concession instead of your smug opinion that anyone disagreeing with you is an idiot, presumably including legal scholars and Presidents who have used the pardon in ways that do not fit your model. (the pardons that do not fit your model are in the links I presented above).
For example…
Further, people stated in the thread that ‘it was a Supreme Court decision’ but that’s the whole point and why it is not clear in the law: it was one justice writing a kind of side note.
And then we get down into reality. What is a person actually doing when they accept a pardon. Are they always admitting guilt? No.
Whatever Mr. Reasonable. Think about a name change. Because you are as reasonable as the people on the other side of most of your issues who can never concede anything either. Oh, ok, it wasn’t so clear after all and if you disagreed with PK, it didn’t mean you were an idiot, there was more to this than I realized. Such things are beyond the scope of modern discourse. Kill the enemy, be smug…
I didn’t read anything, but I glanced the name Michael Flynn from smears and I am pretty sure I know what he will go on about.
Michael Flynn, a cabinet member for a president elect, met with foreign powers to begin putting in place the president elect’s foreign policy.
John Kerry, no affiliation to the presidency, has been meeting with foreign powers for 5 years, including important objectives like China, Iran and the EU.
Biden, not a president, is meeting with the EU and conducting negotiations.
Again, mentally retarded, completely dishonest, you choose.
I think neither, he just channels CNN.