This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
He would only face that choice if he were protected from prosecution while in office, which he should not be.
So then any DC prosecutor with a taste for power can try making his bones by filing grand jury indictments against the President. Even if they’re frivolous charges, the President’s staff and lawyers would have to respond, comply with subpoenas, etc. And considering the District of Columbia has such a liberal body politic, Republicans would stand no chance if the case proceeds to a jury trial.
The constant filing of trivial and/or frivolous ethics complaints is what drove Sarah Palin out of the Governor’s office in Alaska. The cost in time and money were a form of legalized harassment, a sort of Denial of Service attack on her ability to govern. Avoiding the same thing happening to the President should be a priority, given that his duties include things like wars, treaties, and emergencies in and outside the country.
What protects anyone else from frivolous charges?
Most people are not nationally important, and lawsuits are expensive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given that those were not criminal prosecutions with the risk of jail time, that is much closer to Jones vs Clinton (where SCOTUS ruled that lawfare against a sitting President was just fine) than United States vs Trump.
But once criminal prosecution and jail time are on the table for official acts allowed by the Constitution to the President, either in office or once he leaves, harassing lawfare gains teeth it didn’t have before. Hence immunity.
The public interest in preventing harassing lawfare against private citizens (including ex-Presidents) is a lot weaker than the public interest in preventing harassing lawfare against a sitting President.
If Obama had been brought up on criminal charges following his terms (let’s say serially for Benghazi, Gaddafi, and Operation Fast and Furious, off the top of my head), the public would absolutely care.
They’d be worked into riotous fervor by the media: “How dare they try to make the first Black President into a felon! This is a banana republic! Obama did nothing wrong! He was just doing his Constitutionally mandated duties, no matter how things turned out!” And so on, and so forth.
The “public” doesn’t care because the progressives want Trump to die in prison and the conservatives don’t have time in their workdays to go protest.
EDIT: I realize you said “public interest” as in the stakes the country has in each scenario. I disagree, because of the spectre of an end to the peaceful transfer of power, the very thing constantly hung around Donald Trump’s neck re Jan 6.
That’s not a very good analogy. What would be the charges?
I don’t believe Trump is being charged either for his foreign policy, or for his handling of law enforcement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He'd also face that choice if his own attorney general weren't inclined to prosecute him but the next one might be
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link