site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10507 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 2024

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A tweet from June 6th:

Riddle me this MAGA: how has Biden weaponised the Justice Department if his own son is on trial and he's saying he will not pardon him if convicted? Your whole argument kinda crumbles, doesn't it? Embarassing.

A reply to this tweet, today:

Oh.

Sure enough, in his final month in office, Joe has pardoned Hunter, after repeatedly promising not to do exactly that. No less than the Guardian and the BBC are calling Joe Biden a hypocrite and saying that this latest action legitimises some of the criticisms Trump has lobbed at Biden.

A few weeks ago there was a discussion here on what Biden might do with his final few weeks in office to ensure his legacy, knowing that he'll never hold public office again. Negotiate a last-minute but inevitable peace deal in Ukraine, to snatch that opportunity from Trump's grubby claws? Recognise the Armenian genocide at last? Pass a bill mandating the creation of a new national park? Step down so that Kamala can legitimately claim to be the first female POTUS, if only for ten minutes?

I guess we have our answer as to what he'll do with his legacy: piss all over it, exposing himself as no less of a corrupt nepotist than Erdoğan.

My headcanon is that Biden is going nuclear on the Democratic party. He gave his life to the party, got ousted against his will after a lifetime of service, and then decided to burn the whole thing down. First, by endorsing Kamala to prevent an open primary, then sabotaging their messaging by untimely contradictions, and finally by doing this. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Biden worked this out so Trump can hand out J6 pardons without having to wade through as much shit. Biden protects himself, Hunter, and further delegitimizes the institution that threw him under the bus. Trump won, so he can afford to generous and by all accounts isn't actually vindictive. Probably not what's actually going on, but when the dramatisation eventually happens, I'm sure the writers will heavily suggest it.

Biden might be mad at Kamala and Democrats, but he certainly is not working with Trump, particularly on J6. I think Biden has truly internalized a lot of the propaganda and thinks Trump is a Putin puppet who tried to overthrow democracy on J6. Just like with the fake DUI claim he made about his dead wife, there are many Bidenisms that are no longer lies for him. As George Costanza would say, its not a lie if you believe it.

An amusing theory, albeit unlikely. But actually burning down the Democratic Party is probably the biggest gift Biden could give to the left (i.e. the leftist wing of the Democratic Party + those disenchanted due to being even further left), since they've been claiming for decades that the Democratic Party is too far right and the "real people" want a leftist party. Of course, building up a new political party from the ashes of the Democratic Party would take several years, and would likely just be filled with leftist populist grifters and not actually make anyone happy. And it's much more likely the Democratic Party just limps along continuing to not leave enough air for another party to take its place opposing the Republican Party.

In the meantime, republicans win senate races in New Mexico and Virginia, making the left decidedly unhappy, and the new party may call itself socialist but in practice moderates into centrist machine politics faster than a barefoot jackrabbit on the blacktop in july.

I doubt Biden (if he’s lucid) is particularly scared of Trump going after him. He didn’t go after Hillary and Trump disliked her much more than he dislikes Biden.

Aside from which, the idea that an elderly dementia patient poses a threat to anybody is farcical.

I'm not 100% that this is pissing all over his legacy, per se.

An interesting "culture war" piece of this is why it was a blanket pardon stretching back to when Hunter first joined Burisma. The "innocent" argument is that even if Biden simply pardoned Hunter for the gun/IRS charges, there would be continued lawfare trying to tie the Bidens to shady backroom dealings in Ukraine.

The less innocent argument - the one that will spawn a thousand conspiracy theories - is that there's a lot of "there" there and Biden is protecting himself, not just his son. And seeing how much rationality gets expensed towards the "innocent" theory will be interesting to watch unfold.

The discussion along party lines have also been eye raising. The three things I've seen from Dems have been "Trump pardoned/will pardon worse!!!", "guess I won't vote for Biden again, hurr hurr" and "wow cons are melting down!!" The three things I've seen from cons are "I'm a father, I get it," "well, Biden lied," and the aforementioned "so... Why ten years?"

There's a reason why exit polls had voters listing Democracy as their #1 issue had those voters breaking 50/50. "Democracy" is not a winning issue for Dems when their messaging on this stuff sucks. The cons are acting more conciliatory about this than they are.

I mean, I'm mostly curious as to how Hunter will behave going forward.

If they really want him, seems like Trump could direct an ongoing investigation into him and keep him under tight surveillance and ding him for any new crimes he commits.

It's a tad hard for me to believe that Hunter will just go completely straight after this.

It's a tad hard for me to believe that Hunter will just go completely straight after this.

He'll still be into hookers and blow, but he won't be making any corrupt deals, because he no longer has the quo that others would provide the quid for.

Uh, this doesn’t seem like something trump or Bondi would do. Hunter has always been much more useful as a tool of political grandstanding(for which he’s most useful when free) or a means to get at Joe Biden(who’s now irrelevant, free to live out his life in the memory care facility he so clearly needs to be in). Republican grandstanding about Hunter was not based on genuine horror of his crack habit, otherwise it wouldn’t have been a matter for congress.

What’s actually wrong with this? It’s his son. He shouldn’t have said he wouldn’t pardon him but that’s not actually what he said, was it(he said something like ‘let the justice process take its course’).

  • -14

If he had taken his son and defected with him to North Korea, I would respect his decision a lot on grounds of familiar ties. (Of course, that would be complete overkill. Realistically, his son could likely escape to a neutral country and continue his lifestyle there during Trump II, or he could risk having to spend some time as a VIP prisoner for his misconduct. Neither would destroy him.)

The problem with accepting that of course, people in power will use that power to help their family members is that it will result full-on nepotism.

  • "Naturally the CEO gave that cushy managerial position to his nephew. Who would not put family first?"
  • "The Don basically had to order a hit on the witness accusing his son in law. Should he deprive his daughter of her husband?"
  • "Of course the general leaned on his adjutants to quickly promote his son."

Improperly helping your family is just as selfish as helping yourself personally. If you accept that of course elected officials will do that, then you basically end up with a banana republic.

At the end of the day, every accused is someone's son or daughter, but most fathers and mothers are not in a position to put their hand on the scale.

What’s actually wrong with this? It’s his son.

That is exactly what's wrong with it. Using power to grant favorable outcomes to friends and family is a bad thing.

He shouldn’t have said he wouldn’t pardon him but that’s not actually what he said, was it

Yes it was:

The president's decision to pardon his son is a sharp reversal from months of vows from the White House and Biden himself that he would not use the power of his office to benefit his family. After his son was convicted in his gun case, the president said he would "abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.”

Pretty pathetic. I thought he genuinely cared about the rule of law and his legacy, as you point out, but it seems I've been insufficiently cynical. I suppose politicians will only be honest insofar as voters can punish them for defection.

Nonono, not even that.

You still aren't even close to in the vicinity of the ballpark where cynicism once played.

Trump should have the Ukraine extridite and prosecute him as part of the peace negotiations.

The other obvious lawfare strategies would be to find a red state prosecutor with whatever nebulous nexus to bring state charges not subject to the pardon according to lots of blue media ink ("lied to a patrol officer about the nature of his travel"). Or to use the pardon to compel unfavorable testimony (voids the fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination) or face even further charges.

Not that I'd endorse these, they just seem the logical escalating responses.

I suspect republicans would rather make political hay, because there’s no real advantage to prosecuting a single drug user.

It also would remove the Republican talking point, largely true, that the Democrats are uniquely destabilizing because they use the court system to persecute political opponents.

Kind of loving the fact that Biden, being old as shit, on his way out, and having been betrayed by his own party is willing to torch anyone and everyone who was counting on him to remain sidelined for the remainder of his term.

Also as usual I love that Twitter is a pretty good archive of public figures' stated positions on issues in the past so they can be dredged up when they blatantly alter said position without cause.

Community Notes is having a field day.

Not under the illusion that this will cause any contrition or self-reflection, but these folks are soon to be out of power for a while so I can take humor from this, rather than annoyance.

And finally, I generally support the Office of the Presidency having unilateral, unquestioned authority to pardon (federal) criminals although for somewhat obvious reasons which I can elucidate if needed, I think the pardons need to be precise and specifically define which crimes are being pardoned. And of course has to actually be retroactive, not prospective.

So Biden's approach to blanket pardoning Hunter's crimes during a broad period of time is raising my eyebrows quite a bit. Not claiming anything specific but if it comes out later that he did something, I dunno, treasonous that would be a HORRIBLE look.

I think the pardons need to be precise and specifically define which crimes are being pardoned

Nope. With the discretion that the prosecutors have and the US penalty code vastness - let's say for Jan 6 participants, anything but a blank pardon will leave further door for prosecution.

Pardoning someone for any Federal crimes they committed specifically on the date of January 6th, 2021 and maybe even narrowing it to crimes that did not involve bodily injury, is not that difficult to do.

Insufficient; clever prosecutors would get them for conspiracy, committed on the date they decided to go to DC.

And that is literally a blank pardon with a small asterisk

The Galaxy Brain move for Biden would be;

  1. Privately ask Trump, now, to pardon Hunter on Day 1 of his admin. Trump does seem to genuinely love his kids and so the father-to-father humility would work.
  2. Trump does this even though it pisses off some of his more conspiratorial supporters - but they forget about it in a news cycle when Kash Patel is defenestrating FBI bureaucrats or something.
  3. Biden publicly thanks Trump and shakes his hand at a rose garden meeting or some other photo op.

The only fly in this ointment is that the left has really gone all into the "Literally Hitler" line. It's not that Trump would be so vengeful to rebuff Biden if the Delaware Destroyer himself were to come, hat in hand, to Mar-A-Lago to ask for the favor, it's that Biden, BidenWorld, and the rest of the Left Establishment is so permanently apoplectic over Trump's continued existence that they cannot see a clever- but straightforward - move here. Pride before the fall. Lack of humility. Richness of spirit. And they wonder how they become the villains.

(Quick) Edit: Ah, well. Guess I was wrong

(Quick) Edit: Ah, well. Guess I was wrong

Don't read too much. Right now trashing Biden is zero cost for Trump. So he is doing it.

It could even have been a quid pro quo — “Donald, give me a list of people it would cost you political capital to pardon. I’ll pardon some of them, and then you pardon Hunter when you’re sworn in.”

I have to admit darkly enjoying the NPC's switching their talking points from "Biden respects institutions and would never attack the legitimacy of our justice system by pardoning Hunter Biden" to "Biden proves what a great father he is by protecting his son from the selective and unjust prosecution of the politicized DOJ". But it is going to cause me to have a stroke at Christmas when my FIL sperges out about Trump apropos of nothing.

I'm continually amazed at the cognitive dissonance of the people who buy into the rehabilitation of Joe Biden. This is a man with a career longer than most of us have been alive. A career consistently marked by crass shameless lies, retarded own goals, and a long reputation for being highly inappropriate with women and children. So much so Obama was joking about Biden's "special backrubs". Who's raised deeply troubled and dysfunctional children, so bursting at the seems with the horrors of their parentage that it continually leaks out through forgotten journals and laptops.

And somehow people believed in the span of 6 months of propaganda that Biden was an honest, decent man, and his administration would be a "return to normalcy". Ignore everything you knew about the man for 50 years. Ignore that his previous failed presidential run became a historically remembered punchline of a campaign.

I've seen a few people remark that the pardon isn't even a pardon for specific enumerated crimes, but a blanket pardon for everything Hunter did from 2014 through now. Things we know, things we don't know, you name it. Is that typical? It reads like one of those Hollywood tropes where some supervillian has a hostage tied to a biological weapon hidden in a school for blind molested girls, and demands a blanket pardon or he'll give all those poor kids Super AIDS.

It would tickle me pink if Biden turned out to be just like Trump, in that the pardon is written so poorly and hastily that it doesn't hold up in court. But somehow I doubt such a sloppily issued order will receive an ounce of the legal scrutiny a Trump order received.

Is that typical?

I don't think it is atypical in cases that warrant it. In cases where crimes may have been committed over a period of time pardons will apply to a time frame in addition to specific crimes. Otherwise the pardon has potential to not feel very pardon-like in a few years. Who knows what kind of goofy antics Hunter was up to we don't know about? The draft dodgers pardons, general amnesty pardons, and a pardon like the one Nixon received apply to chunks of time rather than a pardon for only a specific crime.

As I understand, presidential pardons are basically magical spells. Make'em how you want. Biden wants his son safe from prosecution, so he casts a more powerful spell. Biden may know there is more dirt to find, fears or knows of Republican intentions to go digging, or simply doesn't trust his son with an ounce of mud to be honest about things. If you're going to pardon him properly, then it's best to pardon him for the time period he was a bad boy.

The breadth of Hunter Biden's pardon is unprecedented, with Ford's pardoning of Nixon the closest comparison. That source goes through other presidential pardons in history for comparison. Since it's MSN, I take it as a sign that Democratic Party partisans are less-than-pleased with Biden pissing in their well.

Okay, fair enough. Kudos to me for thinking of all the same examples as an MSN journalist. Eek. Bad of me to assume that should mean more. So sure, unprecedented in some ways, but it adheres to the spirit of the pardon in this case. For the good and bad reasons

It makes sense to be unprecedented. We don't see many mob bosses who require big blocks of time washed away receive pardons. That article led me to reporting on Bush 2. At the end of his second term in 2008 he issued then rescinded a pardon. All to avoid a look of impropriety. The concern? The recipient had donated to Republican candidates. How far we've come in 15 short years!

Another thing that article led me to was this 2020 paper from a bygone and never ending era. I skimmed. It's by a UConn professor that argues the presidential pardon has a "specificity requirement" based on the practices in English common law at the time of the American Founders. It doesn't seem like a great paper, but maybe I will finish it and report back.

Yes a lot of people believe pardon power is unfettered but what if SCOTUS ruled it wasn't and you had to specify crimes? What good would a pardon be if you couldn't get your son off the hook because he probably can't even remember all his crimes? I suppose it'd be fine if it was more like a guilty plea, so long as it still had broad power.

As The Motte's most rabid Trump partisan: I really don't care. I'm not sure what people expected.

Maybe this will finally end years of gaslighting about Hunter and Joe. The idea has always been that Hunter traded money for connection to Joe, and Joe was in on it, and took a cut. The rest of Hunter's crimes were just personal antics, of a kind any normal person would have received worse punishment for. But it wasn't really "political" except from bungling Republicans who couldn't sell the connection from Hunter to Joe, so made it look like all this uproar was over dick pics et al.

Personally I like the pardon power and am glad it exists. This is probably a much better outcome than the alternative. The example of other nations shows thay prosecuting presidents and their families is much likelier to lead to coups and crises than genuine justice and law.

The uproar about Hunter Biden always felt farcical. From Clinton's emails to Mar a lago documents.

Temporary talking points and weapons that you're supposed to look down on for the enemy but the other way when it's your team.

Typical political shitflinging. It means nothing, was noise, is noise, and will continue to be noise. Useful for filling the air and giving the playmakers background latitude, however.

The uproar about Hunter Biden always felt farcical. From Clinton's emails to Mar a lago documents.

Hunter Biden wasn't farcical inherently, the DOJ's handling of his cases were. They decided to go for the least important crimes he committed, the gun, the taxes, and ignore FARA and anything else that put the microscope anywhere near Joe (see also the total lack of investigation into the classified documents found in Joe's garage, basement, and Chinese-funded university office). Hunter has never been about Hunter any more than busting any street dealer for dope is about that dealer. The target of a legitimate investigation is the Biden crime family whos head and chief operating officer was, for most of the most know relevant potential crimes, vice-president Joe Biden. Joe ran an open air corruption market getting his failson sinecures in return for official government acts, as well as his brother, and his wife.

Joe built his political career on peddling political influence to foreign nationals. Hunter was both the ultimate proof, and a terrible distraction because Republicans couldn't close the sale. It looked like political cornball. If this had been 60's, this would have dwarfed Watergate. But nobody cares anymore because every politician does it, and every politician does it because nobody cares.

Sadly, selling out Americans and the working class has been a pasttime of the oligarchy for the last 60 years, agreed.

Hopefully tariffs will begin to reverse the trend, but we will see!

There is considerable evidence that Hunter was selling access to Joe. That is, by itself, quite illegal and highly objectionable.

It gets worse when "illegitimate foreign influence" has been a consistent talking point against Trump and anyone else who went against the Blue Tribe policy consensus.

It gets worse when Trump was impeached for attempting to direct the justice department to investigate the evident corruption.

It gets worse when the Justice Department evidently slow-walked investigations and attempted to cut sweetheart deals to provide political advantage to Biden.

It gets worse when The federal government and state governments have been bending and outright breaking laws in an attempt to destroy Trump legally and politically.

It gets worse when this is not a recent problem, and in fact Trump made opposition to it central to his campaign in 2016.

The media is, of course, in no hurry to assemble the facts into a coherent, easily-digestable normiefeed narrative. That doesn't change the weight of the actual facts. There is path dependence here, and the result is that you will never, ever get trust and cooperation across the aisle in this area ever again.

Do you think Kushner soliciting billions of dollars in Saudi money while Middle East envoy (almost certainly for a word in Trump’s ear) is corruption that deserves to be investigated? Everybody seems to do this.

Damn, that sounds pretty bad. I wonder why no one ever bothered to look into that? Hunter Biden pretty clearly engaged in money laundering and tax evasion in an attempt to conceal earnings from his illegal activities. Did Kushner do that? If so, why has he not been charged?

...On a deeper level, it seems that this topic highlights a salient difference between our perspectives. I do not "trust the system". I am opposed to the "manipulation of procedural outcomes." I am in fact opposed to corruption, but at the moment it seems to me that corruption is best opposed through an adversarial process, not a cooperative one. I think Biden's corruption is best prevented by Republicans prosecuting him. I think Trump's corruption is best prosecuted by Democrats prosecuting him. The Democrats have shot their wad, and have nothing to show for it. Now I want to see the Republicans take a good, honest swing. I am not swayed by arguments that "everyone does it", because I have observed that these appeals to informal "norms" are one of the primary mechanisms by which procedural outcomes are manipulated. If Kushner is corrupt, which I do not particularly believe, Democrats have had ample opportunity to prosecute him and their failure to do so is their own failing. It seems to me that the best path toward low corruption is to enforce the laws fairly but mercilessly against Democrats where my side is able, and trust self-interest to compel Democrats to do the same to my side where they are able. To the extent that corruption has been normalized among our elites, with a common understanding that a blind eye should be turned to bribery and influence-selling, defecting on that understanding seems like an excellent way to break it for good. And since that understanding seems entirely against the public interest, this seems like a good thing to do.

This logic has been a huge part of the value of Trump generally, in my eyes. We all knew the system was corrupt, but no one involved was interested in burning their own meal ticket, and so all involved cooperated in maintaining and concealing the corruption. The solution was to feed the system something it couldn't cooperate with, and this has worked astonishingly well. The system can conceal its corruption and it can suppress attacks on its legitimacy, but it can't do both at the same time while also fighting a war with itself. And so, we see the perceived legitimacy of large parts of the system outright collapsing, and direct attacks on major institutions are now within the Overton window.

As i said, mostly noise.

  • -18

If you think broad-based consensus on the legitimacy of the justice system's interactions with politicians isn't something that we should consider terribly important, then sure. It's not as though such questions have been a chronic flashpoint for the Culture War over the last decade. I'm sure it'll be fine.

If your reality predicts collapsism stemming from the Hunter Biden Pardon, go for it, it is your reality, and a useful rhetorical weapon.

  • -20

So look, you can take the position you do, but engage in good faith, don't snarkily dismiss people as "living in their own reality." I am annoyed by this comment not because you're being rude to @FCfromSSC (he can take it, and he and I don't agree on much politically) but because it is the sort of comment that's been flying a lot lately, the Twitter-dunk, the dismissive "Wow," the failure to engage except to the minimum degree necessary to snidely express your contempt.

Don't do this.

Personally I like the pardon power and am glad it exists.

The biggest issue is Biden's blatent lying about it to collect on the facade of justice when expedient and avoid the consequences when not. This is what tears at the credibility the most, not the pardon in itself.

This is probably a much better outcome than the alternative. The example of other nations shows thay prosecuting presidents and their families is much likelier to lead to coups and crises than genuine justice and law.

Moderation in all things. You need a stalemate here, which has been perilously broken on both sides by the left now inside of a year. Yes, escalation in prosecuting the opposition's family leads to bad outcomes. But so does flagrantly demonstrating that overt familial corruption and enrichment are given a blank cheque, as long as one obtains / stays in power. The family in power gets to break laws sell influence and avoid prosecution as a perk, is a bad overt admission.

By both prosecuting Trump on nonsensical charges & by pardoning Hunter who was overtly criminal and corrupt after repeatedly stating letting it play out was the justice-based approach, the left has broken both sides of what should be a schelling point of stability.

I don't really mind Biden lying about it, I don't take the word of politicians to be all that sacrosanct. Politicians lie all the time, and I don't just mean in small ways that amount to fodder for a rant on facebook. A reasonable person would have accepted the possibility of Biden lying; and people who earnestly posted pro-Biden No Pardon propaganda made themselves easy marks.

I agree with you overall, but I'm struck by the helplessness of the frame the discourse has taken. Biden lied, Biden pardoned Hunter, Biden prosecuted Trump, Biden demonstrated that the first family gets to break laws and get away with it... but, voters legitimized this. Final responsibility lies with the American people. Even if we take 2020 and fraud and Hunter's laptop and say, "Americans were cheated, it wasn't our fault," people up and down the line endorsed all of this. Biden chose to run again and the Democratic party allowed him to. RFK tried to primary Biden and was thoroughly shut out. Millions of Democrats turned out to vote for Biden in the primaries, record turnout, far exceeding what Obama got in 2012. Biden tanked the debate, and while they made him stand down from re-election, nobody made him stand down, or even offer a plausible explanation for why he should remain in office if he's not fit to run.

Whatever people are saying now, they endorsed this, the American people allowed this to happen. Yeah, Biden lied, but at a certain point that should have been priced in. It's naive that it wasn't. And the Democratic electorate had every opportunity to change course and didn't.

I don't really mind Biden lying about it, I don't take the word of politicians to be all that sacrosanct. Politicians lie all the time, and I don't just mean in small ways that amount to fodder for a rant on facebook. A reasonable person would have accepted the possibility of Biden lying; and people who earnestly posted pro-Biden No Pardon propaganda made themselves easy marks.

It's not about you minding it. It's the audicity of this specific propoganda. This particular lie carried an incredible amount of water across the media, specifically to discredit Trump by contrast as a subversion of the rule of law, and to counter serious accusations of a politicized justice department

See supercuts like this: https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1863563615858577505

In a world where this wasn't a not just major campaign theme, but an active judicial attack on Trump, no the lying wouldn't have mattered so much. If this was just a test of Biden's trustworthiness or integrity, that's one thing. Its the context of Biden using the lie to provide attack ground and further discredit criticism of his judicial weaponization, that make his lies so bad here.

Meh, nothingburger. But he missed an opportunity here - he had to pardon Trump and the Jan 6 rioters too. With - let's tone down the political persecutions message. I think the democrats would have been too confused to exactly what to be outraged about, that they would just stay silent AND the republicans would let it slide. And he would take some of Trump's wind.

Oh, that would have been clever. Biden could even commute the sentences for the Jan 6 people rather than pardon them. That's a difference people can point at. This action indicates Biden doesn't seem worried about blowback on his party or the politics. I don't really blame him. Pardoning Trump as a deflection is a no brainer if you want a deflection, but if you're not concerned about the politics, why bother? Dark Brandon indeed.

I had little hope for a presidential pardon for Trump had he lost the election. Dems so fully committed to get him on legalities that I don't think POTUS declaring a time to heal would even have had the state prosecutions pack up shop. We passed the point of no return. I hope America hasn't seen its last overt act of graciousness in the service of moving forward peacefully. Hopefully post-Trump world sees some amount of useful grace return to politics. I do not have high hopes for it in now-Trump world. I would like to be surprised!

How very Confucian:

The Duke of She said to Confucius, “Among my people there is one we call ‘Upright Gong.’ When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities.” Confucius replied, “Among my people, those who we consider ‘upright’ are different from this: fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. ‘Uprightness’ is to be found in this.”

Yes, this reflects badly on Biden as US President, and by extension on the Democratic Party. Giving such an unprecedently-broad pardon to his own son--prior to sentencing--is hypocritical on so, so many levels. And yet, one of my favorite Borges short story is the Three Versions of Judas:

"God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible—all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas."

I know little about Confucianism, but isn't there an idea that duties go both ways and generation to generation? Joe should cover for Hunter, but also should have acted as proper father in other respects by uprising an upright son; Hunter should cover for Joe and handle many other filial duties virtuously (acting like a proper father to his kids, too). The Biden family and Hunter specifically shows very little Confucian virtue. I have not much respect for Confucius, if he praises a single act that coincidentally aligns with Confucian virtue that otherwise continues a cycle of unvirtuous behavior.

This is the wrong take. From a less speciously confucian standpoint:

Pardoning Hunter sends the message that it's not worth sacrificing the interests of yourself or your family to uphold the institutions of law and order that sustain the United States.

As president of the United States, JB's duty is to uphold said institutions. As a leader, he's meant to set a moral example for other citizens. Perhaps following his example is most prudent in the present day, but I wouldn't call it moral by any means.

As president of the United States, JB's duty is to uphold said institutions. As a leader, he's meant to set a moral example for other citizens. Perhaps following his example is most prudent in the present day, but I wouldn't call it moral by any means.

Do presidents try to be moral exemplars any more? I can't think of a president in my lifetime who I've looked up to as a true paragon of morality. Most of them haven't been openly and brazenly corrupt either (at least not in ways that are illegal in the US), but I can't recall thinking even once, "Gee, so-and-so is just the most morally upright and saintly human being I've ever seen. I'm truly glad such a virtuous person represents America to the world."

The Renaisance Humanists might have believed that virtue confers the moral legitimacy to be a ruler, but I feel like modern representative democracies haven't believed that in practice for a long time.

People that supported Bush Jr generally thought he was a moral exemplar as a person and not just a good leader. In fact there are still a lot of people who think he was and remains a moral exemplar as a person, certainly more than believe he was a good leader.

I said last year that if Hunter had any decency, he would go to his father and beg to be put in prison. It would have been a perfect political move to plead guilty, go to prison, and let Biden (or ultimately Kamala) point to him in prison for a multi-year sentence as evidence that "no one is above the law."

If the intent was always to pardon Hunter, why not let him get convicted and spend a nominal amount of time behind bars? That sacrificial lamb would have been massively politically advantageous.

This is (hopefully) the final act in what has been a disasterclass from the Democratic establishment in anointing Biden against his long record of mediocrity and the inevitable ravages of time.

I said last year that if Hunter had any decency, he would go to his father and beg to be put in prison.

I mean, it's Hunter Biden.

If the intent was always to pardon Hunter, why not let him get convicted and spend a nominal amount of time behind bars? That sacrificial lamb would have been massively politically advantageous.

Biden doesn't have time to make this happen, and even if he did, he'd have no reason to care. He lost, he feels betrayed by the current DNC leadership, and he's a few short years away from dying in a nursing home surrounded by people he thinks are someone else.

I said it last year, when it would have made more sense.

I contend that if Hunter were currently in prison, since say April, he would be in a better position in every way right now. People would be more understanding about the pardon, he'd have a redemption arc, he wouldn't be perceived as a political football in the sand way.

Good for him. This was the virtuous thing to do. The world needs more humans, and fewer bots who are governed by algorithms (even, and perhaps especially, when that algorithm is the algorithm for “justice”).

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case? Be honest now.

I'd respect it if he did it the same day Don Jr. got arrested.

The behavior here is just gross in its attempted manipulation of the American people.

Jumping up and down on the “defect” button is not the kind of humanity I appreciate.

And while I agree that our Trump stans would bend over backwards to justify such a pardon, I don’t find it admirable.

Jumping up and down on the “defect” button is not the kind of humanity I appreciate.

How is this more defect button than Trump pardoning the Blackwater massacerers? I think killing 14 civillians is bad, and I don't want private security firms representing America to do that on the world stage. I definitely don't want the world to get the message, "we'll accept any level of misconduct, and the perpetrators won't even face a tiny amount of justice."

I don't think Joe Biden should have lied about pardoning his son, and if Joe himself was personally involved in corrupt dealings, I want all of that information set before the American people. However, I don't think the mere act of pardoning his son is a bad thing. It is only bad if Joe Biden was personally involved in corrupt dealings, and is now pardoning his son so that Joe's connections are never made public.

I don’t like that either.

Though I’d have pointed to Charles Kushner, or maybe to Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, rather than PMCs with no personal connection. Trump openly showers favors on people in his orbit; he has somehow passed this off as mundane instead of scandalous.

That doesn’t make me feel better about Hunter Biden.

How was it a defect button? The president has the power to pardon crimes. This is a known power.

Both options in the prisoner’s dilemma are known, too.

Pardoning your kids is eroding a common good to benefit yourself and yours.

But I think it's fair to say that it's highly questionable for the President to use that power to prevent his loved ones from facing legal repercussions for misconduct. If the presumption that it's illegitimate for a Republican President to do such a thing, but legitimate for a Democrat President to do it, that is a defection.

Where did I say it would be illegitimate for a Republican to do the same thing?

You said that a President pardoning someone isn't hitting a defect button.

If two teams have agreed not to use the power of Presidential pardons for illegitimate purposes, then if one team goes ahead and uses them for that purpose, that team is defecting.

When was this agreement ever a thing?

Every time Trump has been accused of nepotism (e.g. the Jared Kushner appointment) or of abusing the power of Presidential pardons for nepotistic reasons (Kushner's father), Democrats are implicitly appealing to said agreement.

A father should do what's best for his son. It's debatable whether get-out-of-jail free cards and general leniency qualifies as such. (I'd suggest it doesn't.)

A father should do what's best for his son.

You do realize how controversial this statement is?

Should a father murder to cover up the crimes of his son if he thinks that this results in a net increase of his expected utility?

Most people would grant that people have some moral obligations to their children, that it is fine and good to spend your money to feed them before you feed random strangers. But people also have other moral obligations (i.e. not to murder), and sometimes they rank higher thank family.

I didn't say a father should cover up crimes. In fact I am suggesting subtly that to do so is not, ultimately, best for his son in that it's a model of criminality and a lack of basic ethics, and that a father should model these.

I mean, he’s in his fifties, not his early twenties. It’s probably too late to scare him straight; cleaning up so he can’t do too much damage to himself before an early grave(likely baked in by the history of drug use) is the best that can be done.

Well, they're not condemning Trump for pardoning Kushner's dad and then naming him to the post of Ambassador to France.

Pardoning his son in law's dad after serving a prison sentence, not before.

The decade of preemptive not-yet-charged or even just hypothetical crimes pardoning is the shocker here. Hunter is already convicted for some of his many crimes, but yet to be sentenced. He got free pass on those too.

The world needs more humans, and fewer bots who are governed by algorithms

The world has enough humans. We need more bots, or at least people who recognize some higher principle than blind tribal loyalty. Especially when you are president of the United States. Nepotism is for peasants.

This is precisely the sort of behavior I despite Trump for, and while I think there's a dramatic difference in scale, that's not going to make me say "actually Biden doing it is good."

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case?

We don't have to speculate. Trump pardoned his father-in-law for substantially more egregious conduct.

To be fair to both Trump and Biden, this is honestly not that unusual. The core function of the presidential pardon power is exonerating politically favored individuals. To be less fair, it's not clear to me why this is an essential piece of executive discretion. I'd rather have amnesty be a congressional function where it is not dependent on the whims of one man and where you're going to get fewer instances of blatantly political pardoning of friends and allies.

Trump pardoned his father-in-law for substantially more egregious conduct.

Yes, with the key distinction being that pardon was after the prison sentence was completed, not before.

Good for him. This was the virtuous thing to do.

By the treatment of Hunter's own daughter, this is not some demonstration of higher code to one's family. I understand you want to make Nietchian strong-man arguments, but exercising one's power to meet their ideosyncratic preferences is not virtue, it's tautology of will to power, even when your preference is for your family to prosper. Loyalty to smallest possible tribe, at thee xpense of other duties to one's station, natuion, and culture. is not the ur-virtue by almost any standard. It's just mob behavior. It's the definition of corruption.

I am supposed to appauld someone for taking advantage of power to enrich their personal loyalties as virtue?

Finally, Biden is a professed Catholic, and there's nothing in Catholic morality that upholds loyalty to flesh as virtuous (quite the opposite, tfh). If we want to appaud Biden's virtue, he should start by renouncing the all the other duities and affiliations that this virtue undermines. Or is it also virtuous to exercise raw familial enrichment through deception and expressions of false standards of morality?

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case? Be honest now.

I would, of course. Corruption and personal loyalty over loyalty to either the American people, or the principles he was elected on are among the biggest criticisms of Trump. Why would I bury my head if Trump further legitimized those criticisms?

Finally, Biden is a professed Catholic, and there's nothing in Catholic morality that upholds loyalty to flesh as virtuous (quite the opposite, tfh).

Aside from the fourth commandment, the traditional understanding of which has been to consider loyalty to relatives morally obligatory.

Also, subsidiarity would imply that you should do charity to the once close to you first before you move to larger circles.

I understand you want to make Nietchian strong-man arguments

I briefly outlined the reasons for my judgement in another comment in this thread. None of them have anything to do with Biden's "strength". (And for the record, the idea that "good = being 'strong' and doing whatever you want" is, at best, a highly simplified distortion of Nietzsche's actual views.)

I am supposed to appauld someone for taking advantage of power to enrich their personal loyalties as virtue?

It does depend on Biden's motivations to an extent. If it was done out of genuine love, then yes, you should applaud. If it was a purely self-interested act of political calculation, not so much.

Finally, Biden is a professed Catholic, and there's nothing in Catholic morality that upholds loyalty to flesh as virtuous (quite the opposite, tfh). If we want to appaud Biden's virtue, he should start by renouncing the all the other duities and affiliations that this virtue undermines.

Forsaking your flesh for Christ - there's at least a real dilemma there. That's at least an interesting problem. But forsaking your flesh for the abstract idea of democracy and the rule of law? Well, I'm afraid that's where I'll have to part with Catholic morality, if that's what it recommends.

Forsaking your flesh for Christ - there's at least a real dilemma there. That's at least an interesting problem. But forsaking your flesh for the abstract idea of democracy and the rule of law?

I know that this view (I'm not sure what to call it, post-Rationalist?) has a cadre of supporters on TheMotte as I've seen it numerous times over the years. I imagine because it has a certain meta-contrarian appeal and draws on a yearning of reactionaries that perceive modern western Whites as too domesticated, too deracinated and slavishly devoted to abstract Enlightenment concepts to the point of their own destruction. This view seems to have a kind of admiration for the naked tribalism of American blacks ("He wuz a good boy!") that supersedes any attachment to honesty or justice.

This view is just repellent to me. I'm all for White nationalism and family loyalty and nepotism and blah blah blah, but Hunter Biden is 54 not 18 and Joe Biden is the President not some random guy. If the cops found a teenager's drug stash and his father stepped up and claimed the drugs to be his, taking the fall to protect this son, sure, I could see that as honorable and respectable.

Hunter Biden is 54

Man how the hell does he still look so good at that age with that lifestyle? He easily looks 10 years younger than he is.

It's incredible. Even his father didn't have nearly as much hair at that age.

In a similar situation Trump would have pardoned his son before the election.

That's interesting. I kind of feel the same way, in that it is absolutely virtuous for a father to protect his son, and ensure his family has a future. But this also makes the future of his political party more difficult, along with worsening the state of partisan politics in the world, as it gives the other side both a bludgeon against his party and an excuse to do corrupt things like this themselves.

ensure his family has a future

I'm curious what you mean by this. Pardoning Hunter ensures his family will have a future?

Well, I really don't know too much about the Biden family's situation, so I could be wrong. But my general assumption would be that it'd destroy his family if Hunter were in prison. It'd be detrimental to Hunter and his kids to have a father behind bars, creating emotional trauma and financial and logistical hardships that could last generations. As opposed to if he is pardoned, he could still be a father and go on to still achieve things.

Hunter is known to have fathered at least five children. The first three of these he fathered with his first wife, the youngest of whom was born in 2001. The fourth he fathered illegitimately in 2018 with a former stripper, denying paternity until a paternity test proved otherwise, followed by a court ruling. The fifth child he fathered in 2020 with his current wife.

I have a hard time imagining that Hunter is terribly present in the life of the girl whose father he denied being and whose mother had to sue him for paternity (as noted elsewhere in the thread, said daughter was pointedly not invited to Biden family events), so if he'd gone to prison I can't imagine said daughter would've noticed. I agree that his youngest daughter with his current wife probably would have felt his absence. But as upsetting as it is for a young child to have a father behind bars - is it so much more upsetting than having a father who's addicted to crack cocaine and unexpectedly disappears for weeks at a time to go on crack binges and have sex with prostitutes? Sort of sounds like much of a muchness to me, to be honest. There's even the possibility that a short spell in an environment in which crack cocaine is markedly harder to come by than outside might have straightened him out by forcing him to go cold turkey.

Finally there's the point about Hunter providing for his children financially, to which my only response is a high trill of gay laughter. Whether Hunter had gone to prison or not, I think we all know that, either way, his children would have been financially provided for by their grandfather, not their father. Hunter has been a wastrel for his entire adult life, and I don't think even he would dispute that whatever gainful employment he's had (e.g. his seat on the Burisma board) came about purely as a result of his family connections.

But even in the counterfactual world where Hunter had his shit together and was capable of providing for his minor children on his own merit and was a positive role model for all of them - either his crimes are serious enough to warrant jail time, or they aren't. This seems like "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" - why is the welfare of Hunter's children being elevated to being a point of material concern in whether or not he should serve jail time, and not the welfare of the children of all the other people who've been convicted under the same laws he's deemed to have violated?

I think for all his children, but especially his youngest, it could take a big emotional toll to have a father in prison. I just don't really know how they feel about him, but I could see that it could cause anyone to have additional layers of self loathing and feelings of inadequacy to be told that they come from someone that is deemed as not worthy to participate in society.

Finally there's the point about Hunter providing for his children financially, to which my only response is a high trill of gay laughter. Whether Hunter had gone to prison or not, I think we all know that, either way, his children would have been financially provided for by their grandfather, not their father

Yeah, that's probably true. Though I don't know much specifics at all. It may be a drop in a bucket, though, but it is generally costly to a family to have a father in prison.

Hunter's children being elevated to being a point of material concern in whether or not he should serve jail time, and not the welfare of the children of all the other people who've been convicted under the same laws he's deemed to have violated?

Well, I'm definitely not saying it's fair, or the right or just thing to do, or that Hunter shouldn't serve jail time. I'm just saying what I would do as a father if I had the power to. But also that Biden may also wish to think about how such a move may have repercussions for his party or the political system.

I could see that it could cause anyone to have additional layers of self loathing and feelings of inadequacy to be told that they come from someone that is deemed as not worthy to participate in society.

He has already been deemed not worthy to participate in society -- that's what the pardon is for!

If the Bidens want to protect their young'uns from emotional harm, Hunter should have made better choices. He should have thought about the impact of his actions on his family. Hell, he impregnated a stripper and then rejected paternity until it was proven; maybe he should have thought of his youngest when his then-youngest's mother was asking him to pay for his daughter's upkeep.

I'm sorry, but I'm entirely unwilling to base my concept of justice on not hurting the feelings of the children of criminals. It's not the job of the state to make sure no children ever feel sad. It's the job of the state to enforce the law.

But like I said, I don't think it's "justice" in any way to pardon him. I just think it's what a father would want to do, and maybe should do, because fathers should always protect their children in any way possible.

Hunter has three children from his first marriage, the youngest of whom was born in 2001. He has two young children, one from his current marriage and the illegitimate child he fathered with a former sex worker. This comment got posted prematurely, the full comment is here.

Yeah, I'm somewhat aware of that, though I didn't know all details. I still think that for all parties involved, having Hunter in prison would have far more detrimental effects, emotional, psychological, legacy-wise, and otherwise, than not.

This was intended to be a lengthier comment but my phone posted it before I could finish it. I replied to you with a full comment.

Whatever Don Jr's failings, which I've never investigated enough to be properly informed of, I'm not aware of Don Jr doing anything close to:

-- Fucking his own sister in law

-- Fathering a child on a stripper and then denying paternity, up to and including refusing to invite the child to Biden family gatherings

-- Buying a firearm illegally

-- Leaving hard drugs in a rental car

I'm aware that all of those sins have nothing, in particular, to do with the tax fraud case. But they're going to color people's opinions of Hunter, and of Hunter getting off scot free.

I honestly just assume, based on his business association, that you could probably get Don Jr on some kind of tax fraud charge if you looked hard enough and played exactly enough with the statutes. But I know nothing about him personally other than I think he hunts? I've read a million drive-by tweet accusations or thowaway magazine lines about how he's "coked out" or something, but idk.

If Don Jr. were publicly scum in the same way that Hunter was, for over a decade, then I guess we'd have a rough equivalence?

Charles Kushner, the father of Jared, wanted revenge on his brother in law, so he paid a prostitute to have sex and record the encounter, and then he sent the video to his sister:

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-charles-kushner-new-jersey-elections-crime-0155d15fa31108fd2c0e6360a3b597dd

He was pardoned by Trump four years ago and was now nominated as ambassador.

Are you saying this is the equivalent that I should be crying out against?

Kushner served his sentence a decade before the pardon. The pardon primarily removed some residual attached bars from things like voting or practicing law.

In an above comment, I stated directly that Hunter should have gone to prison for a few months. After that I think the pardon would have seemed neater.

Chris Christi prosecuted Kushner for "one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes" he's ever prosecuted, but agreed to a plea deal which resulted in a felony conviction and a mere 14 months in a federal prison camp? Gee, must be a low bar.

Kushner served his jail term, went to a half-way house to complete his 2 year sentence, completed his probation, and Donald Trump gave him a full and unconditional pardon only for that conviction 14 years later claiming as justification 14 years of reformed behavior and charity. Do you think that's a difference in kind from a complete and total unconditional pardon to a son for any criminal behavior over the last 10 years, known and unknown, and for which son hasn't spent a single day in prison, let alone completed the sentence and gone on to lead a reformed life with charitable works?

Not only is the Charles Kushner pardon the sort of dime-a-dozen pardons we see every single admin, but it's hard to even criticize it much.

Maybe this is just the availability heuristic, but it does seem to anyone else that the two major political families in American politics (the Trumps and Bidens) are two of the most uniquely toxic and dysfunctional families in the US? This would sound contrived if it happened in a soap opera.

Have you already forgotten about the Clintons? What about the Kennedys?

Obviously the Kennedys held the mantle during the period in which they were the preeminent political family in the states, and probably the Clintons as well.

I agree with you. IMO both Biden and Trump are in the bottom 25% of presidents generally, they're dysfunctional people who made it to office because of how awful the rest of our political class has been for the past 20-30 years at responding to real economic and social problems in society. Personally I think our politics are just generally degrading, our whole society is degraded now and thus so are our leaders.

No.

Why is the Trump family dysfunctional? What is "uniquely toxic" about the Trump family?

The story above, coupled with:

  1. Trump's weird habit of openly lusting over his own daughter

  2. Trump's ex-wife accusing him of rape

  3. Trump's second wife almost certainly being unfaithful to him

  4. Trump's current wife's obvious distaste for him

  5. Trump paying a porn star to have sex with him, along with his numerous other extra-marital affairs during at least two of his marriages

  6. Trump Jr. getting embroiled in a messy divorce and custody battle

Point 2 is a big nothingburger. She admitted she only claimed that to squeeze him in divorce proceedings. She later clarified that he never physically raped her, but his emotional distance was a sort of emotional rape.

I'm sure what you're saying is true, but do you have a source?

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case? Be honest now.

TheMotte is not a person. But yes, I am happy to condemn both Trump and Biden for pardonning their family members. Rule of law means that everyone is subject to the law, not just those who sit outside the ruling family (which itself is a bizarre thing to have to say about a republic).

This is just corruption. Biden is less corrupt than Trump, but as we see here he is clearly somewhat corrupt.

Meh, it isn’t human to prioritize an abstract law over your own flesh and blood.

Bring forth chatgpt as ruler or deal with president’s sons getting away with drug use.

Meh, it isn’t human to prioritize an abstract law over your own flesh and blood.

On the contrary, that is the highest praise one can give a human. A good person should be able to put abstract ideas ahead of base instincts.

Good for him. This was the virtuous thing to do.

I don't know that it was virtuous, but certainly I would have done the same thing, as a parent. I would not, however, have promised in the first place to not do it. The public discourse on this is disheartening but unsurprising; everyone accuses everyone else of being hypocrites, no one makes any efforts toward not being a hypocrite because hey, then you're just giving the advantage to those other hypocrites.

It's weird reading some of the commentary on reddit, where several posters are bemoaning "this is what sucks about being a liberal, we're constantly doing the reasonable thing while the Republicans break all the rules and take unfair advantage of our tolerance and longsuffering." As if this weren't precisely why the Republican party has been moving away from Buckleyan conservatism.

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case?

I expect @Folamh3 would; probably others also. I'm not sure why you're referencing "TheMotte" here as if it were a hivemind, particularly when you're only the fourth person into the thread.

I would not, however, have promised in the first place to not do it.

This is reasonable. It's rarely a good look to contradict yourself so blatantly in public.

I'm not sure why you're referencing "TheMotte" here as if it were a hivemind, particularly when you're only the fourth person into the thread.

I was combining this thread with the post in last week's thread on the same topic, which got 3 additional replies that were critical of Biden.

This was the virtuous thing to do.

Why?

The world needs more humans, and fewer bots who are governed by algorithms (even, and perhaps especially, when that algorithm is the algorithm for “justice”).

What a bizarre way of saying "there's no point in having rules or laws of any kind".

Would TheMotte really be here condemning Trump if he pardoned Don Jr. in a tax fraud case?

I would.

Why?

  • Why should a father not protect his son when he is able to? This should be the default position (not an absolute position of course, but the default one, at least) - especially for a crime as minor as tax fraud.

  • There's something heartwarming about the party that has recently been so obsessed with procedural norms and maintaining the moral high ground learning that there are, in fact, situations where a strict literal interpretation of the norms should be suspended. This may be more of a tactical consideration than a purely ethical one, because it helps Republicans illustrate how absurd the prosecution of Trump has been.

  • It's an appropriate parting "fuck you" to a political establishment that conspired to replace him without his consent in the 2024 election.

What a bizarre way of saying "there's no point in having rules or laws of any kind".

That's not what I said, and that's not the position I endorse.

Why should a father not protect his son when he is able to?

A father should protect his son when he is able to - when the son is a child. Even if Hunter was in his early twenties, it'd be a lot more understandable if Joe pardoned him - sowing your wild oats is what youth is for. But Hunter is 54 years old and has been a fuckup and prodigal son for essentially his entire adult life. Tough love has to come into effect at some point.

especially for a crime as minor as tax fraud

One of the crimes Hunter was indicted on was providing false information when purchasing a firearm, namely lying when asked if he was a drug user. "Crack cocaine addicts should not be carrying guns" seems like a rare gun control policy proposal that I could imagine a lot of 2A diehards getting onboard with. Given Joe's outspoken support for gun control (e.g. his support for the federal assault weapons ban of 1993; his longstanding support for universal background checks; the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which he signed into law two years ago), this makes his leniency all the more hypocritical.

There's something heartwarming about the party that has recently been so obsessed with procedural norms and maintaining the moral high ground learning that there are, in fact, situations where a strict literal interpretation of the norms should be suspended. This may be more of a tactical consideration than a purely ethical one, because it helps Republicans illustrate how absurd the prosecution of Trump has been.

I see nothing heartwarming about this naked hypocrisy and corruption. Espectially seeing as, contrary to your interpretation, I have zero confidence that this pardon will prompt reflection among Democrats and they'll realise "you know, maybe it's more about the spirit of the law than the letter, perhaps we should be more forgiving when the Republicans overstep in future". No - the takeaway from this will be, as always, "it's okay when we do it".

It's an appropriate parting "fuck you" to a political establishment that conspired to replace him without his consent in the 2024 election.

It's weird that I specifically asked you why you think this action was "virtuous", and part of your answer is, in essence, that was a wonderfully spiteful act of malicious revenge. Which is quite far from what I typically think of when I hear the word "virtuous".

"Crack cocaine addicts should not be carrying guns" seems like a rare gun control policy proposal that I could imagine a lot of 2A diehards getting onboard with.

I agree in the abstract, but it's still not a serious enough infraction for me to change my assessment of the situation.

It's weird funny that I specifically asked you why you think this action was "virtuous", and part of your answer is, in essence, that was a wonderfully spiteful act of malicious revenge. Which is quite far from what I typically think of when I hear the word "virtuous".

Spite and malice can be virtuous. Who told you they couldn't?

Virtue is the appropriate response in the appropriate situation. It's not a static table of naughty and nice feelings that can be drawn up in advance. There's no reason a priori to think that spite is never an appropriate thing to feel.

To give a simple example, if a criminal is breaking into your house uninvited in the middle of the night, then the virtuous thing to do is certainly to respond with malice.

"Spite" may be an appropriate emotional reaction in certain situations, in the sense that it was what we would expect the average person to reasonably feel in that situation. That's quite a ways from saying it's the virtuous emotional reaction. The whole point of virtue as a concept lies in recognising that many times our instinctual emotional reactions to situations are both morally wrong and often counterproductive.

Not only is being spiteful not virtuous almost by definition, in many cases it's counterproductive from the perspective of pure pragmatism - hence the phrase "cut your nose to spite your face". It's an ugly and irrational emotion.

To give a simple example, if a criminal is breaking into your house uninvited in the middle of the night, then the virtuous thing to do is certainly to respond with malice.

Hard disagree. The virtuous thing to do in that situation is to defend yourself from home invasion using no more than force than is strictly necessary (which, yes, can escalate into lethal force depending on the specifics of the situation). In the hypothetical situation in which you can point a gun at the criminal, force him to surrender and wait for the police to take him away, what do you stand to gain by using additional force beyond that?

The malicious thing to do would be to maim the criminal breaking into your house and then sadistically torture him for hours on end. Your immediate response to hearing someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night should be concern for your and your family's welfare, not "oh goody, now I have a blank cheque to be as vicious and cruel as I please!"

"Bullshit - if someone breaks into my house, beating the shit out of him is a totally understandable, even reasonable response." No argument here. We're not discussing what's understandable - we're discussing what's virtuous. The standards are higher, by design. I can't even truthfully say that this is a standard of behaviour I would succeed in meeting in the heat of the moment - but this is a failing on my part, not a failing of the moral standard I've set myself.

It seems unsurprising as realpolitik: he's a lame duck, the election is over, and the corporate news media is currently focused on disasturbating over everything Trump is even thinking about doing. What's anyone going to do about it--impeach him? He was a pretty bad president, he may as well take the opportunity to do one last thing for his son (and also maybe cover his own ass a bit, by making the pardon broad enough to ensure the Justice Department can't use Hunter's Ukraine dealings to get to his dad).

Where are all our "no one is above the law, not even the President['s son]" American news reporters? Presumably explaining that a pardon is a part of the law and so there is nothing to see here! Which they will of course immediately forget should Trump deliver on some riot-related pardons of his own. (In fact I already see many social media comments to the effect of "criticizing this makes Republicans the real hypocrites, actually.")

(See, if it were me somehow in Biden's exact shoes, I would pardon Hunter and the Capitol rioters in the same batch, just to screw with everyone. It would also have been funny to pardon Trump at the same time, if only because I suspect Trump would be inclined to turn it down. Of course, my own mischievous nature is likely sufficient to prevent me from ever holding elected office, much less one capable of extending pardons.)

I would be surprised if anyone cynical enough to regularly post here will be surprised by the pardon, but it really does clear the rhetorical decks for Trump to hand out a whole mess of pardons, should he feel so inclined. "Accuse your enemy of what you are doing" apparently equates, in the Biden administration, to "do what you plan to later accuse your enemy of doing."

"Accuse your enemy of what you are doing" apparently equates, in the Biden administration, to "do what you plan to later accuse your enemy of doing."

Trump isn't the enemy to Joe Biden, not any more. Trump is fargroup; the part of the Democratic party that ousted him is outgroup and his enemy. Not that this pardon is about them, it's about protecting Hunter, and I join the multitudes who say "well, of course".

Not that this pardon is about them, it's about protecting Hunter, and I join the multitudes who say "well, of course".

This pardon is about protecting the Biden family because Hunter is dead-to-rights on a variety of crimes he recorded himself committing and even provided commentary in text messages to other family members, who also committed those crimes or helped him commit the crimes.

By pardoning Hunter Biden for the entirety of the active years of the "fake, Russian intel operation" laptop, Joe Biden is stopping a liability from being used to incriminate the entire crime family. He protects Hunter from ever suffering the negative effects of him being a wanton criminal, drug addict, and general piece of shit, and also prevents Hunter being used against the family. I seriously doubt this will be the last pardon w/re the Biden family or any of its confidants.

edit: although a counter argument would be the sheer breadth and long time period of the pardon removes Hunter's protection under the 5th Amendment and he would therefore still be subject to subpoena and investigation into these various ties. This is why I believe there will be more pardons coming down the pipe.

It's also probably not the worst pardon in history. I was under the impression domestic terrorists had previously been pardoned. Bill Clinton pardoned Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg from the Weather Underground and granted clemency to 16 members of the FALN terrorist organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy).

I think commuting the sentence of someone who has already spent 19 years in jail is a very different thing to a pre-conviction pardon that ensures someone escapes justice.

Commuting a deserved life sentence to 19 years is a violation of the rule of law, but then any pardon except of someone who appears to be factually innocent is a violation of the rule of law. But I don't see how it can be egregiously bad compared to the standard issue lame-duck cash-for-pardons job.

I would be surprised if anyone cynical enough to regularly post here will be surprised by the pardon

I'm sure there are some Hanania-cels in shambles

disasturbating

Fantastic word, never come across it before.

I would pardon Hunter and the Capitol rioters in the same batch, just to screw with everyone. It would also have been funny to pardon Trump at the same time, if only because I suspect Trump would be inclined to turn it down.

Love it, I would be entirely on board with this, though I'd note that as a Brit, I find the concept of Presidential pardons to be pretty odd, and in tension with the idea of legal equality of all citizens.

Does the crown have the authority to pardon, or perhaps parliament itself?

though I'd note that as a Brit, I find the concept of Presidential pardons to be pretty odd, and in tension with the idea of legal equality of all citizens.

OP's post lead me on a minor rabbit hole about government pardons. Apparently we do have them in the UK, although they are rarely used. The last couple were Alan Turing (posthumously) and Steven (nominative determinism) Gallant, a convicted murderer who, while on day-release, fought against the jihadi who carried out the London Bridge attack in 2019.

Although if I'm honest, pardoning a relative totally feels like something Boris Johnson would have done.

Steven (nominative determinism) Gallant, a convicted murderer who, while on day-release, fought against the jihadi who carried out the London Bridge attack in 2019

How have I never heard this story before? This is incredible. What a redemption arc.

I was curious about the case, so I decided to look it up. As I suspected, it turns out that the original murder was a case of vigilantism against, allegedly, a habitual abuser of women. When it was put in the public spotlight, many years later, by the London Bridge attack, apparently much of the public felt that, lawful or unlawful, he'd done the right thing in the first place. The whole story felt very British.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-66945566

Quite a story! Convicted murderer Gallant was out of prison on license for the first time, when the attack occurred and he battled down the terrorist. Talk about having a really unlucky and lucky day!

Not happy with this. There's a reason we still remember Lucius Junius Brutus today and commemorate the time he sentenced his own sons to death for treason against the nascent Roman Republic. We even memorialize the event in high art thousands of years after it happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lictors_Bring_to_Brutus_the_Bodies_of_His_Sons

Joe Biden could have been like Brutus but now he just looks like a hypocrite.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats