Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 996 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#871

Post by acdha »

coryfklein wrote: post #781
acdha wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that when any significant percentage don’t follow him in lockstep. Very few elected officials are willing to disagree with him in public, most backed dishonest claims or opposition to public health measures, and he has high approval ratings from Republican voters: it’s his party.

Yes, but in the context of presidential pardons there is nothing the GOP can do to either back the president or not back the president. It doesn't make sense to attribute presidential pardons to The Republican Party when there is a sole individual who decides who to pardon and why. I'll point out that, now that Donald Trump is out of power, many in the GOP in general have been rather quick to turn their backs on him…

It's true that the direct decision was his but this doesn't happen in a vacuum. People talk beforehand — this is reportedly why he didn't pardon himself or his children – and especially now there's no reason why a member of Congress or other national leader couldn't speak against something like this. It practically writes itself — “Republicans support private property rights, thievery isn't something we condone” – so if they want an easy way to show that Trump isn't the party, all they have to do is start.

> While he was in power, sure, Republicans politicians were politically savvy enough to side with him, knowing that the alternative was suicide.

It's not that easy: some people were making a cold political calculation but we're far enough down the Tea Party rabbit hole that there are members who earnestly believe what used to be fringe beliefs. I mean, think about how many right now are willing to unequivocally say that Biden legitimately won the election, which is almost the weakest sop to objective reality possible. That's not going to reverse itself quickly, especially without a hard fight from everyone else still in the party. I know some people who are trying to pull the party back from the edge and I wish them success but the odds aren't looking great.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#872

Post by chipsa »

triceratops wrote: post #692
briandear wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal government is the government of the individual states. A state is a sovereign entity. Each vote in the United Nations general assembly is identical regardless of the size of the country voting. Ireland’s vote is just as valuable as India’s. That’s the point of the United States — it’s a republic, not a democracy. As far as 1 WY vote being worth 4 Texas votes, that’s also irrelevant because the president i…

> The federal government is the government of the individual states. In that case, why aren't state legislatures or state governors voting for president and members of congress?

Technically, the state legislatures are entirely in control of which electors are sent for the Presidency. It's just that all of them use the popular vote to determine that. They could pass a law that the governor decides who goes, or that the state legislature chooses exactly who. But they don't at this time.

And prior to the 17th, Senator were chosen by the state governments as well.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#874

Post by slg »

kazinator wrote: post #576
slg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are such weird arguments. The origins are irrelevant because it wasn't just a trick pulled on normies; white supremacists also fell for the joke. Once they started genuinely using the gesture it did become a symbol of hate. The Wikipedia article you linked says exactly that a few paragraphs below the paragraph you quoted.

The origins are totally friggin' relevant. Firstly, the OK gesture is a deeply entrenched, familiar, everyday gesture—at least in North American culture. Only a complete moron could think that it suddenly has to do with white supremacy, and accept it for such use to the point of believing that it is a white supremacist symbol and not the OK gesture any more, so that anyone using it is a racist. Secondly, anyone who h…

Ok, let's try an example in which this issue is further heightened. Would you be comfortable displaying a swastika in the western world today? That symbol didn't originate with the Nazis. Most people simply don't care about the origin.

Also I am not saying every use is racist or anything that extreme, but it is clear that in some instances there is a connection between this symbol and white supremacy.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#875

Post by [deleted] »

rchaud wrote: post #626
kyleblarson wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was already a billionaire before he got elected. What I find particularly disgusting is how lifelong politicians with relatively meager (compared with the private sector) salaries can become so wealthy while in office. But yes the revolving door is a thing and it should be addressed. Yellen earned over 7 mil in speaking fees in the last two years. It is impossible that that will not have any influence over her dec…

Pretty much every major figure in the Fed (and minor figures too) has come straight from from Goldman or JPMorgan or some other major bank. It's called a 'revolving door' for a reason.

[deleted]

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#876

Post by slg »

rendall wrote: post #211
slg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are such weird arguments. The origins are irrelevant because it wasn't just a trick pulled on normies; white supremacists also fell for the joke. Once they started genuinely using the gesture it did become a symbol of hate. The Wikipedia article you linked says exactly that a few paragraphs below the paragraph you quoted.

> white supremacists also fell for the joke. Once they started genuinely using the gesture it did become a symbol of hate. [citation needed]

The very next sentence of that comment referred to the previously linked Wikipedia article with its own citations. You were one click away from being able to answer your own snarky comment.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#877

Post by [deleted] »

dkarl wrote: post #370
kjakm wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner Presidential pardons + the appointment (and life terms) of Supreme Court judges baffle me. How can a country that claims to be a leader in democracy have these two wildly abused bugs? Edit: fixed use of election instead of appointment

The people who created the system and decided on lifetime terms for Supreme Court judges had a lot of enthusiasm for democracy, but they could see it had flaws, and they wanted the judiciary to be much less sensitive to the mood of the public than the rest of the system. As disappointed (and angry) as I am to see the Republicans steal the Merrick Garland appointment and then replace RBG with someone who has flaunted…

[deleted]

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#878

Post by russellendicott »

pokot0 wrote: post #750
cherrycherry98 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The citizens don't vote directly for the president, the electoral college does. Usually the distinction doesn't matter but it does affect outcomes. States have different rules in how their electors vote for the president. Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy. It will be interesting to see the first state that has its electoral votes changed due to…

Yes, I am aware of how it works and indeed it would be interesting to see a change in the election laws. For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in. Rural areas…

> Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome.

So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising.

This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with more friends than you.

Might as well just throw out the whole state sovereignty idea which is an option.

Our whole system was based on individual rights and that philosophy extends to states as equal members of the union.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#879

Post by dragonwriter »

cossatot wrote: post #567
mwigdahl wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with virtually everything you're saying here, I'm not convinced the Founders had a high opinion of democracy itself. The Federalist Papers are full of warnings about mob rule, and the goal of the Constitutional framework was explicitly to insulate government from populist and direct democratic influence, while setting up structures that were supposed to mold the government into the form of an aristocrac…

It should be noted that the Federalist papers only represent the views of a few of the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison, Jay), i.e. from one of the two major parties. The Democratic-Republicans had a greater distrust of centralized government and were more supportive of democracy and rule by the better of the average Joes (Jefferson's 'yeoman farmers' and all that). This is quite similar to taking the views of Paul Rya…

> It should be noted that the Federalist papers only represent the views of a few of the Federalists (Hamilton, Madison, Jay), i.e. from one of the two major parties. The Democratic-Republicans had a greater distrust of centralized government and were more supportive of democracy and rule by the better of the average Joes (Jefferson’s ‘yeoman farmers’ and all that).

“Represent the view of” is misleading. The Federalist Papers were not an academic exercise of recording opinions for posterity, they were long form campaign ads for a targeted audience to sell the ratification of the constitution.

Also, the Federalist Papers were written before the formation of the parties, and when that formation did occur, Madison was one of the founding leaders, along with Jefferson, of the Democratic-Republican Party, he wasn’t a Federalist.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#880

Post by tehjoker »

mantap wrote: post #868
tehjoker wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pardon power should obviously at this point be severely limited, it has a purpose, but clearly its major use is corruption or the threat of corruption in order to secure deals. So many modern presidents have used it to do crimes and then pardon their helpers.

However much you may dislike the particular individuals that trump has pardoned, he has used the pardon in a much more restrained way than Obama, who gave an order of magnitude more. So far, the pardon power is still a net good.

Okay, but why should the President be able to pardon people close to him including himself? Shouldn't the power be circumscribed to things that aren't obvious corruption? GWB pardoned Scooter Libby. George HWB pardoned Iran-Contra conspirators. Ford pardoned Nixon.
Post reply on HN