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 -
It would be some feat to pardon people accused of committing a crime after he wasn't president anymore, are we talking time travel or just precognition here?
Personally I'm just sitting back and watching the circus for entertainment value (which I can do as a non-American, sorry USAians), though I think there must be some miracle in operation this time round because Snopes of all places fact-checked a Trump story (that he had said something which had been misrepresented) and deemed it false! What wonder is this? A favourable decision for Orange Man Bad by Snopes? Keep an eye out for three headed calves and talking dogs!
From scotusblog:
On January 7th Trump could have pardoned them all.
I think the confusion is that only some by the 20th had undergone any criminal proceedings. most were unidentified.
Confusion is there because some folks cannot accept that Trump obviously threw his supporters under the bus and have to come up with cope theories why that wasn't what happened.
More options
Context Copy link
Presidents have previously granted mass pardons of categories of people without knowing or specifying each named individual. Based on my very layman understanding, I think Trump could have blanket pardoned them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He was President up until January 20.
It's a nice technical point, isn't it? He was technically president, but he had been beaten in the election. More informed people can tell me if he was still able to issue pardons while the clock on his term was running out. Biden was president-elect and inaugurated on January 21st, so you're saying Trump could have exercised full presidential powers right up until the very last minute?
It's a proud American tradition. The powers of the supreme court are based in a case about midnight appointments. Clinton was issuing pardons and selling off anything that wasn't nailed down until the last possible second.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes and yes. It's very common for presidents to issue last-minute pardons, and Trump was no exception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Donald_Trump#Chronology
Furthermore,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States#Modern_process
More options
Context Copy link
I vaguely remember that he wasn't allowed to talk after Jan 6th. He lost Twitter, I don't remember any press conferences, there was the impeachment, but I don't think he was permitted to talk to the public or sign anything.
Legally he should have been able to issue pardons up until his last day, that is a power the president has. But I don't know if he was allowed near a pen.
He was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2020_Q4–January_2021)
The start of that article is a shitshow, but the timeline table is relatively solid. He’s very quiet for a couple days, then
I elided a bunch of actions by his cabinet and by Congress. He was also making speeches and TV appearances in this window.
Thank you for the correction, like I said it was a vague memory.
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