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

981–990 of 996 posts

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#981

Post by russellendicott »

pokot0 wrote: post #972
russellendicott wrote: post #935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas that make sense to people in cities don't always make sense in rural areas. Let's say for an overly simplistic example everyone in a city thinks it's a great idea to tax anyone who lives in a home that has more than 2000 sq ft of living space. In the country _everyone_ meets this criteria so thereforethey are unfairly taxed.

This sounds very weak. It's like saying "Ideas that makes sense to the lower class don't always make sense to the top 1% net-worth people. For example taxing the rich more. For the top 1% net-worth individuals, _everyone_ meets the criteria and therefore they are unfairly taxed". How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a…

So what you're saying is that the opinions of rural people regarding uniquely rural problems don't matter in the context of the nation as a whole.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#982

Post by pokot0 »

russellendicott wrote: post #981
pokot0 wrote: post #972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds very weak. It's like saying "Ideas that makes sense to the lower class don't always make sense to the top 1% net-worth people. For example taxing the rich more. For the top 1% net-worth individuals, _everyone_ meets the criteria and therefore they are unfairly taxed". How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a…

So what you're saying is that the opinions of rural people regarding uniquely rural problems don't matter in the context of the nation as a whole.

That is not at all what I am saying (or anyone else afaik).

Understanding and protecting minorities is one of the core values that need to shapes policies.

You can't solve the minority problem by giving them more votes, because you can't give it to all minorities. Everyone is part of somekind of minority.

Today rural people are a minory who has a privilege compared to others.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#983

Post by marcusverus »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #849
marcusverus wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue you're referring to with the Senate is, of course, the fact that each state gets two senators, regardless of population. This means that the sparsely populated North Dakota has the same number of senators as California. This a feature, not a bug, and in fact the United States would not exist without it. The senate prevents small states from being dominated by large states, and is the only reason that smalle…

Quick note, no matter how unfair states may think they have it, "remaining in the Union" is not a choice. This isn't the USSR. Statehood is eternal. Secession is quite literally treason and the Civil war was in that sense constitutionally mandatory.

If the population of a State wants to leave the Union and the Union forcibly prevents them from doing so, then the United States is no different than the Romans, or the British, or the Soviets. They all had their own state documents which declared secession illegal, of course, so perhaps you're comfortable in that company.

>Statehood is eternal.

Is that you, Louis XIV? Spinning yarns about the divine right to rule?

>Secession is quite literally treason...

Says the nation born of treason.

>..and the Civil War was in that sense constitutionally mandatory.

Any institution which is willing and able to kill a million men solely for the purpose of its own preservation is a menace. But as long as it was constitutionally necessary, I guess we're good?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#984

Post by emreca »

ardy42 wrote: post #815
emreca wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information Warfare

Just so you know, this isn't reddit, and joke replies are discouraged. I was looking for clarification about what "the information warfare campaign" was. I'm guessing it's some kind of post-hoc rationalization for a lot of Trump's bizarre statements and other distractions, but I'm not sure.

I’m sorry, my bad. You asked that question as if he/she (will just cal her/him X) is talking about the Big Foot so I couldn’t help myself.

As for the information warfare part. The media on opposite sides tend to sensationalize their titles to manipulate the discourse for their benefit.

In X’s comment, we can summarize information warfare as lies. So X thought that “Trump is going to pardon himself” titles are part of the informational warfare and Trump won’t actually do that. But now that X saw this HN thread, X said “was he even going to do that? Do we actually have a proof that he intends to do that? Or was it just a lie to shape public opinion further” Like the time Pelosi asks US generals if they keep Trump in check so that he can’t launch nuclear weapons. [0] Implying to the public that Trump is so crazy he can start a nuclear war. These type of things, shape public opinion over time. It is the same with Fox News shaping conservatives’ opinions about Biden. Or the NYT shopping global issues from a pool for Americans to get concerned with. It is standard propaganda and has been happening for decades.

That’s why I think X’s skepticism is healthy and warranted.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-nancy-pelos...

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#985

Post by paul7986 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #963
paul7986 wrote: post #949

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both are no good and Google blasted him legally and his name in the media yet Google does the same thing this guy did and gets away with it? The pardon is their karma.

Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the story about how Google didn't "get away with it"? The patent wasn't issued.

Huh and what would've happened if they didnt get caught and this is what they do. THat's not the first time! Google and Anthony L. are one in the same two thieves in a pod! How one can not see that their actions are exactly same makes no sense.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#986

Post by lazide »

nemothekid wrote: post #933
lazide wrote: post #914

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure you're supporting the point you think you are, or are addressing my points? CA's central valley produces fruits, vegetables, and nuts, much of which gets exported, and a bit of, but not a huge amount of staple foods - and if you add up all California's agricultural output, it is still only ~13.5% of the US total. [ https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/#:~:text=California's%20a... .] The areas in California tha…

> Not sure you're supporting the point you think you are, or are addressing my points? I think you are missing mine; I'm not making a blue/red distinction, I'm making a point about senate representation. First, you are trying to prove that California, Texas, or New York could not be self sufficient. This is a meaningless point as today states like Wyoming are not self sufficient. I'm sure a state like Texas would fig…

Ah - the reason being those were the terms the state joined under? If they hadn't, many likely wouldn't and the nation would not be what it is?

Anything else is 'changing the terms', and that is very likely to result in a lot of chaos - since it would be unconstitutional, unless you got 3/4's of the states to go along with it.

Pretty unlikely, since most of the states benefit from this arrangement?

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#987

Post by simonh »

radlad wrote: post #980
simonh wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it that you think I'm back-rationalising?

Sorry, I'm pointing out that you and the other commenter are both just speculating: "but is it really not possible that...?" I don't really understand what argument you're trying to make.

No real point. I'm not even saying it's a bad system. I just find it amusing that the US system is held up as a shining example of modern enlightened constitutional innovation, where in fact the president is an elected, limited term British King circa 1770.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#988

Post by ttyprintk »

jl2718 wrote: post #317
ttyprintk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what the current going rate is; we’ll see if Joe Exotic met it. Supporters of Snowden and Assange have only a few hours to get the cash together.

Interesting perspective. What else besides cash would you suspect to be influential?

Well, in hindsight none of them provided enough transactional basis. Mr. Exotic once got 19% of the vote for governor of Florida. Seemed like a natural ally in a swing state. Earlier in Trumps presidency, one explanation for a Snowden pardon is that he would appear on stage at a Trump rally. But, it’s not clear what Assange would be pardoned for. He might be in better shape without the guilt conveyed by a pardon.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#989

Post by quantified »

dragonwriter wrote: post #930
quantified wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state, and in 2017 a vote on the issue was scotched because of anti-statehood boycotters. They just (Nov 3) narrowly voted to welcome statehood, easily lost in the recent noise, let's see what happens.

> In 2012 PR voted AGAINST becoming a state No, it voted for becoming a state, under the terms set for the 2-question referendum. Question 1: Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status? Yes: 46% No: 54% (Wins) Question 2: Which non-territorial option do you prefer? 61.2% for statehood (Wins) 33.3% for free association 5.5% for independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_ref..…

However (from same sources):

Criticism Edit Critics said that voters who favor a developed version of the current status of Puerto Rico (a commonwealth which is part of the United States with internal self-government) had no alternatives on the ballot. As a result, leaders of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) instructed such voters to leave the second portion of the ballot blank, or to invalidate the ballot.[27]

Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, it provided Congress an opportunity to ignore the vote, which it did.[28]

History professor Luis Agrait explained the result in this manner to CNN: "If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%."[29] Considered as a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the first ballot, 44% voted in favor of statehood on the second ballot.

—-

“Scotched” was the wrong word, implying not held, I apologize. Interpreting the vote got destroyed, was what I meant.

It’s clear that the folks who run PR see their jobs in danger if the island becomes a state. Hurricanes have now made it clear what second-class status means to the average person.

Re: Anthony Levandowski Pardoned

#990

Post by travisjungroth »

mamon wrote: post #896
jonp888 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might not be directly elected, but they are political. If they weren't political we wouldn't divide them into liberal and conserative jusices. It seems like everyone already knows how they would 'interpret' any case involving abortion. This doesn't seem to be such a problem in other countries. I don't really understand if that's because the judges are purposely appointed to be as partisan as possible, or whether…

That isn't as big problem as you paint it. Yes, Trump was particularily "lucky" (for the lack of the better word) that during his single term in the office 3 Supreme Justices died, so he could appoint replacements. But Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, George Bush senior, they each appointed 2 Justices. So it seems to me that the system is deliberately designed to capture long-term political trends - Democratic preside…

Trump appointed 50% more judges in half the time. So, triple the rate.

And to your second point, the popular vote went Democratic in the last 7 of 9 elections (and electoral in 5 of 9) but 3 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Democrat appointed. The court does not reflect our deeply ingrained values.

Post reply on HN