Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

[Simon_Jester]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you'd rate pre-9/11 Bush as a better president than, say, 2004-era Bush? Because the latter had invaded Iraq and set in motion the mass death you describe, while the latter had not.

If you had stopped time from progressing forever on 9/10, then yes.

See, my problem with this is that it leads to conclusions like:

"A Hitler who got run over by a truck in February 1939 would have been a better dictator than a Hitler who lived (as historically) up to the fall of Berlin in 1945."

My objection here is that either way, it's still Hitler. Every bad thing done by the Nazi regime between February 1939 and April 1945 was implicit in the man Hitler was at the beginning of that time period. He was no more benevolent, no less inclined towards tyranny and aggressive warfare, in February 1939 than in April 1945. Comparing the same man to himself should surely yield consistent results, even if you compare the same man at different moments in time, so long as the character of the man does not change.

If there would be that added number of surplus mortality then there would have been more deaths before the ACA. That number is way too high IMO, especially as mortality rate has not declined that much AFAIK. If I am mistaken feel free to correct me.

Well, the figure of "twenty million lose health insurance within five to ten years" is straight from the Congressional Budget Office, if you have reason to dispute that as a likely outcome for most ACA repeal variants, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

So the question is: what is the mortality rate among the uninsured, compared to the insured? I want to give this a fair shake, because you may have a point here.

I will do a very crude analysis. Doing a cursory check for at least one relevant journal paper, here, we get a 25% increase in mortality rate for the uninsured.

The US has an annual mortality rate, on average, of about 820 deaths per 100000 people. This includes both the insured and the uninsured; the rate is clearly lower for the insured, but the insured make up a majority of the population so the mortality rate for the population as a whole can't be that far from the rate for people with insurance. Suppose that the mortality rate for insured people is, say, 760 per 100000 people- a number that I am casually estimating but could refine if you wanted. Correspondingly, the mortality rate for uninsured people would be 950 per 100000 people (760*1.25)

Thus, for every hundred thousand people who lose their health insurance, we can expect a yearly increase in the number of deaths of about 190 per hundred thousand. If ten million people lose their health insurance this corresponds to 19000 surplus deaths per year. If twenty million people lose their health insurance, 38000 surplus deaths per year.

This admittedly falls far short of "killing five million people in eight years," which was your reference point for the Iraq War. It would seem that I greatly overestimated the likelihood of people without insurance dying as a consequence of that lack of insurance.

Some factors that complicate the analysis:

1) It sounds like you used figures for the total death toll from the Iraq War to date. That would include deaths that occurred after Dubya's time in office, reducing the annual death toll considerably.

2) The repeal of the ACA would fall disproportionately on those Americans most likely to need good health insurance and be unable to pay for it, because the people losing their insurance would disproportionately be those with pre-existing conditions and those with little money to pay for treatment. It is likely that this would result in a lot more surplus deaths than just looking at the numbers would indicate.

However, even these complicating factors are unlikely to bridge the gap between "repeal the ACA" and "Iraq War," namely a gap between "kill tens of thousands yearly" and "kill hundreds of thousands yearly."

I will therefore concede that by itself, repealing the ACA would not kill more people than the Iraq War in any short-ish timescale. Over very long timescales it might, but realistically some other law would establish universal health care in the US well before that time.

On the other hand, I think we can confidently expect Trump to create new international crises and rack up a death toll comparable to Bush or even worse, if given an opportunity, thus limiting the relevance of saying "he's less bad as of right now."

[Thanas]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you'd rate pre-9/11 Bush as a better president than, say, 2004-era Bush? Because the latter had invaded Iraq and set in motion the mass death you describe, while the latter had not.

If you had stopped time from progressing forever on 9/10, then yes.

See, my problem with this is that it leads to conclusions like:

"A Hitler who got run over by a truck in February 1939 would have been a better dictator than a Hitler who lived (as historically) up to the fall of Berlin in 1945."

And objectively, if Hitler had died in 1938 or 1939 he would have been one of the most successful politicians of his time. He would have been lauded as somebody who finally reunited all Germans, who made Germany great again. His unfortunate racial views would have been ignored or swept under the rug, as they were and still are for other politicians who accomplished great things (Churchill, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln are some that come to mind).

My objection here is that either way, it's still Hitler. Every bad thing done by the Nazi regime between February 1939 and April 1945 was implicit in the man Hitler was at the beginning of that time period. He was no more benevolent, no less inclined towards tyranny and aggressive warfare, in February 1939 than in April 1945. Comparing the same man to himself should surely yield consistent results, even if you compare the same man at different moments in time, so long as the character of the man does not change.

Are we judging politicians on character or deeds now? I mean, you think Lincoln to be a pretty great president for his deeds I bet, but his character was something else entirely.

Good characters only count for having good intentions. Bismarck was at times a truly evil motherfucker but the greatest politician of his time who benefitted (and still benefits) millions of people. Is he judged for chararcter or for deeds? Same goes for Churchill, who was personally in favor of concentration camps in South Africa and also in favor of gassing middle-eastern people. And yet he defeated Hitler.

I am quite okay with condemning the character of a man, but it cannot be the sole and the most important metric. That has to be shit that actually gets done.

I will therefore concede that by itself, repealing the ACA would not kill more people than the Iraq War in any short-ish timescale. Over very long timescales it might, but realistically some other law would establish universal health care in the US well before that time.

On the other hand, I think we can confidently expect Trump to create new international crises and rack up a death toll comparable to Bush or even worse, if given an opportunity, thus limiting the relevance of saying "he's less bad as of right now."

Oh I am pretty sure he is already thinking of way to bomb brown people. However this goes back to character.

[Flagg]

Maybe Simon doesn't know better than to misrepresent what people have said by omitting the most important part of what he's chosen to quote. Sad.

[Simon_Jester]

Maybe Simon doesn't know better than to misrepresent what people have said by omitting the most important part of what he's chosen to quote. Sad.

That's very passive-aggressive nice, but since I'm a bit unclear on what you wanted me to address, I can't help you yet.

And objectively, if Hitler had died in 1938 or 1939 he would have been one of the most successful politicians of his time. He would have been lauded as somebody who finally reunited all Germans, who made Germany great again. His unfortunate racial views would have been ignored or swept under the rug, as they were and still are for other politicians who accomplished great things (Churchill, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln are some that come to mind).

This then requires us to differentiate clearly between "worst leader" in the sense of "leader with the worst competence and character" and "worst leader" in the sense of "leader with the longest list of evils and the shortest list of good achievements."

If you want to compare the character and competence of leaders you can always do that, even before they take office.

But if you want to compare lists of achievements, it is completely meaningless to compare the partial list of achievements of a current leader to the complete list of achievements of a past one. It's like saying "this oak tree is smaller than this rose bush, because I measured the oak tree when it had just sprouted." Strictly true, but pointless and far more likely to confuse matters than to clarify them.

I can accept comparing achievements, but only when they are compared in a way that controls for differences that had nothing to do with the individual quality of the leaders involved. Some ways to do that:

1) You can compare equivalent spans of time during both leaders' tenure; this is often done in the US as reviews of a president's first 100 days in office, for example.

2) You can set up counterfactuals that examine how both leaders might behave under similar circumstances: "Suppose Trump had been president in place of Bill Clinton. What would he have done differently than Mr. Clinton, and would the results have been better or worse?" Or "Suppose Obama had been president from 2001-4. What would he have done differently from Bush?"

3) You can measure achievements that take very little time to accomplish, like "setting up a competent White House staff."

But what you're doing by comparing partial accomplishments under circumstances that present limited opportunities for mismanagement, to the complete list of accomplishments under circumstances that present greater ones? It's as meaningless a metric as saying "the Empire State Building is thirty minutes tall." There's some sense in which it's true, but that doesn't make it true in a relevant sense.

It's like, one of the most basic principles of comparing, testing, or evaluating anything is to do it under controlled conditions and compensate for outside variables that have the potential to distort the results. How do we get results that matter except in a sophist sense, while abandoning that approach?

My objection here is that either way, it's still Hitler. Every bad thing done by the Nazi regime between February 1939 and April 1945 was implicit in the man Hitler was at the beginning of that time period. He was no more benevolent, no less inclined towards tyranny and aggressive warfare, in February 1939 than in April 1945. Comparing the same man to himself should surely yield consistent results, even if you compare the same man at different moments in time, so long as the character of the man does not change.

Are we judging politicians on character or deeds now? I mean, you think Lincoln to be a pretty great president for his deeds I bet, but his character was something else entirely.

Good characters only count for having good intentions. Bismarck was at times a truly evil motherfucker but the greatest politician of his time who benefitted (and still benefits) millions of people. Is he judged for chararcter or for deeds? Same goes for Churchill, who was personally in favor of concentration camps in South Africa and also in favor of gassing middle-eastern people. And yet he defeated Hitler.

I am quite okay with condemning the character of a man, but it cannot be the sole and the most important metric. That has to be shit that actually gets done.

Okay, but if you're going to compare deeds, it should be done in a fashion that controls for outside variables, rather than embracing them and weaving them directly into the evaluation process.

[Ralin]

I get the impression that this is an important distinction to Simon because not long ago right-wing trolls were insisting that Clinton would be a way worse and more war-mongering president 'because she voted for the Iraq war and Trump has never voted for any war' or crap like that.

[Simon_Jester]

That is one of several overlapping reasons, yes.

I did feel like during the campaign, through some kind of demented judo, it became a disadvantage for Clinton that Clinton had a career of experience in politics and government, whereas Trump had no experience beyond mismanaging his own casinos and flimflamming people into building skyscrapers with his name on them. Because every mistake or vaguely questionable act Clinton ever committed was dug up over and over and made out to be a serious offense, while Trump's own track record was brushed under the rug because none of HIS many, many, many fuckups directly involved public service.

It's like, which is a track record more indicative of a willingness to abuse the public trust? Keeping a private email server while secretary of state, or having repeatedly throughout one's career managed projects into the ground and bailed out with cushy bankruptcy deals? The former seemed to matter more to a lot of people, even though the latter says a lot more about a person's overall managerial competence and willing to ignore or sacrifice their duties for personal gain.

And that mindset strikes me as in some ways parallel to the mindset behind "compare eight years of one man's actions to seven months of another man's actions, and pronounce the new guy better than the old because he hasn't done as much damage in the time allotted."

[Flagg]

Maybe Simon doesn't know better than to misrepresent what people have said by omitting the most important part of what he's chosen to quote. Sad.

That's very passive-aggressive nice, but since I'm a bit unclear on what you wanted me to address, I can't help you yet.

No it was assertive and the second time I pointed it out. The only reason I'm not outright calling you a lying shithead is because you don't normally pull this type of shit so I'm assuming it was an error.

Flagg?

Is Trump that aloof douchenozzle? Or is he the other kind.

Fenix's basic point is that Trump has every bad trait that Bush had, but also has other bad traits piled on top of those traits. It's like "from the party that gave you Presidential Fuckup, here's Presidential Fuckup II: Electric Boogaloo, now Bigger, Yuger, and Oranger!"

Don't lump me in with "everyone else present" please.

My apologies, I honestly didn't realize you were using Thanas's "karma model."

I don't know or care if it's a "karma model", it's simply not judging a person's potential harm vs actual harm. And no, Trumpzi is obviously not an aloof douchenozzel that is competant. I'd appreciate it if you would use what I say in its entirety rather than pick 2 words and present them out of context. You know better.

[Simon_Jester]

Flagg, I honestly don't understand what you're angry about. Yes, I asked a question that might seem like it has an obvious answer to you, it was semi-rhetorical, not an attempt to somehow create a public impression that you were calling Donald Trump competent.

Because this was related a point that strikes very close to the core of what we're debating. When you have a president who did terrible things because of his bungling and evils, and you compare him to a president who is more bungling and more evil in every way that you can directly compare their personalities...

It's kind of hard to say that the inferior man is the superior president, when we have no reason to think the inferior man would have made better choices in the same situation. It's like, Trump combines all the flaws of Bush with other flaws Bush did not possess, so how does he end up being better ?

[Flagg]

Flagg, I honestly don't understand what you're angry about. Yes, I asked a question that might seem like it has an obvious answer to you, it was semi-rhetorical, not an attempt to somehow create a public impression that you were calling Donald Trump competent.

Because this was related a point that strikes very close to the core of what we're debating. When you have a president who did terrible things because of his bungling and evils, and you compare him to a president who is more bungling and more evil in every way that you can directly compare their personalities...

It's kind of hard to say that the inferior man is the superior president, when we have no reason to think the inferior man would have made better choices in the same situation. It's like, Trump combines all the flaws of Bush with other flaws Bush did not possess, so how does he end up being better ?

First, you don't quote someone in a way that makes it seem as if they are saying something they are not by omitting part of what they said. When I said "aloof douchenozzel that is competent" I was talking about someone like John Kerry (as he was portrayed at least) in comparison to a friendly idiot who shouldn't be within 10 miles of the nuclear launch codes that I could sit and have a beer with (Warcriminal Bush). It's simply dishonest to do that because you can change what someone is saying into literally anything. Like I can find something you've said and just omit things and make it look like you are condoning child murder. And I'm not angry, I don't want or need an apology, I just expected that you knew that shit isn't cool.

Two, neither I or Thanas has said that Trumpzi is a better person or President than Warcriminal Bush, just that at this point Trumpzi has the potential and probably inclination to cause more harm, but when you compare him to Warcriminal Bush he simply has not done anything as bad or worse. It's just a statement of fact. We both freely admit that he has the potential to be much worse (and very well may end up being worse), but potential doesn't equal deeds. I have an IQ high enough to have had the potential to be a Nobel Prize winner, but I don't have a shiny medal and $1,000,000 because I've accomplished nothing. Does that make me as "good" as anyone who has won a Nobel Prize? No. I'd say "give me time" but that would be a very sick joke.

[Rogue 9]

Oooookay. To return to the topic: Washington Post

Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins
By Jennifer Rubin August 30 at 9:35 AM

After President Trump’s pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order designed to stop the violation of the constitutional rights of suspected illegal immigrants, conventional wisdom — and certainly the Trump administration — would have us believe that Trump’s pardon powers are unlimited. However, never before has someone stretched the pardon power so beyond its original intent. Trump has now drawn scrutiny not simply from critics of his racist rhetoric but from the court itself.

The Arizona Republic reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio’s request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn’t grant Arpaio’s request.

In other words, this is no slam dunk.

Meanwhile, Protect Democracy, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type. “While many pardons are controversial politically, we are unaware of any past example of a pardon to a public official for criminal contempt of court for violating a court order to stop a systemic practice of violating individuals’ constitutional rights,” Fein says. He posits the example of criminal contempt in the context of desegregation. “In 1962, after the governor and lieutenant governor of Mississippi disobeyed a court order to allow James Meredith to attend the University of Mississippi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the Department of Justice to bring criminal contempt charges, which it then did,” Fein recalls. “Eventually, while the criminal contempt case was pending, the Mississippi officials relented and allowed Meredith (and others) to attend the university. But if the president had pardoned the Mississippi officials from the criminal contempt, it would have sent a clear message to other segregationist officials that court orders could be ignored.”

In other words, if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless. It is a creative argument, but then, this president has created new and disturbing challenges to democratic norms.

Lurking in the background is the potential for Trump to pardon associates involved in the probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and the possible obstruction of justice that followed. The Arpaio pardon may well have been an attempt to signal to those officials and ex-officials that they can resist inquiries with the assurance that Trump will pardon them. (Recall Trump’s unprecedented remarks that Michael Flynn should hold out for a grant of immunity.) Using the pardon power to obstruct an investigation into his own possible wrongdoing would signal a constitutional crisis. “It is possible that such an act would be of such corrupt intent and so contrary to our constitutional system that Congress would use it as a grounds to impeach, and/or that the special counsel would see it as a grounds to indict for violations of federal criminal statutes related to obstruction of justice,” Fein explains. Indeed, Congress can decide the president’s conduct is impeachable even in the absence of a finding of criminal wrongdoing. Fein warns, “As for the validity of these pardons, because Trump pardoning associates to shield them and him from scrutiny by the special counsel would be such a corrupt and untested act, his associates would be wise not to rely on such a pardon providing them full protection as, in the end, it might not.”

Other legal experts agree with this line of reasoning. Philip Allen Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, who served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors, argues in The Post today:

As with any other presidential power, the power to pardon is constrained by the ordinary requirements of federal law applicable to all public officials. For example, if representatives of a pardon-seeker arrived in the Oval Office with a bundle of cash that the president accepted in return for a pardon, there is little doubt that the president would be guilty of the crime of bribery. . . . If Trump were to pardon any of the figures in the current Russia investigation, his action would certainly impede or obstruct the due administration of justice, as the courts have broadly construed that standard.

It would not be difficult to imagine Mueller making the case that the motive behind such interference was “corrupt.” As the Founding Fathers made plain, the purpose behind the pardon power is to extend mercy to those who have offended and have demonstrated remorse. Using the pardon power to protect the president’s own interests against embarrassment or exposure is not legitimate. Rather, a crassly self-interested exercise of presidential power to impede the due administration of justice is the very antithesis of the president’s most solemn oath — “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

And this brings us back to Judge Bolton. Bassin notes, “Judge Bolton may want to see how the honorable lawyers of DOJ’s public integrity section respond personally in open court — themselves as officers of the bar who’ve taken an oath to uphold the Constitution — to the blatant abuse of power by their boss.” He adds, “After all, these are people who’ve dedicated their lives and careers to ensuring our public officials act with integrity and Joe Arpaio and now the President of the United States have spit in the face of that.” Bolton’s hearing will venture into uncharted territory, a voyage necessitated by Trump’s utter disregard for the rule of law and his constitutional obligations to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good for them.

Of course, now I'm afraid it'll end with the courts explicitly upholding the President's power to pardon as absolute. Which, given our current President, amounts to immunity for his lackies and the possible end of any government accountability in America, barring impeachment and a Constitutional amendment.

[Thanas]

Two, neither I or Thanas has said that Trumpzi is a better person or President than Warcriminal Bush, just that at this point Trumpzi has the potential and probably inclination to cause more harm, but when you compare him to Warcriminal Bush he simply has not done anything as bad or worse. It's just a statement of fact. We both freely admit that he has the potential to be much worse (and very well may end up being worse), but potential doesn't equal deeds.

What Flagg said.

[Simon_Jester]

Good for them.

Of course, now I'm afraid it'll end with the courts explicitly upholding the President's power to pardon as absolute. Which, given our current President, amounts to immunity for his lackies and the possible end of any government accountability in America, barring impeachment and a Constitutional amendment.

Well, it's better than the courts passively rolling over without a fight.

Furthermore, even a right-leaning Supreme Court might hesitate to rule presidential pardon power as absolute and including protection from contempt of court hearings. They're jurists too. If they take that step, they're basically writing themselves out of power, and they have very little incentive to do that. Even the guy Trump nominated doesn't seem to be an "All power to MAXIMUM LEADER!" guy of the masochistic-fascist type who will dismantle his own power base to hand it over to the Fuhrer.

I'm pretty sure if there's one thing that a bunch of crotchety old judges of various political leanings can agree on, it's that everybody should have to listen to crotchety old judges.

First, you don't quote someone in a way that makes it seem as if they are saying something they are not by omitting part of what they said. When I said "aloof douchenozzel that is competent" I was talking about someone like John Kerry (as he was portrayed at least) in comparison to a friendly idiot who shouldn't be within 10 miles of the nuclear launch codes that I could sit and have a beer with (Warcriminal Bush). It's simply dishonest to do that because you can change what someone is saying into literally anything. Like I can find something you've said and just omit things and make it look like you are condoning child murder. And I'm not angry, I don't want or need an apology, I just expected that you knew that shit isn't cool.

See, the thing is, I know it's not cool to portray someone as believing or stating a falsehood.

At the same time, it honestly did not cross my mind that anything involved in that part of the conversation, yours or mine, would lead any sensible person to even seriously consider that you might choose to describe Trump as "competent."

Imagine the following conversation snippet:

Flagg: "People shouldn't just rush out of buildings for no reason."
Simon: [snip wordy bastardy] "...I mean maybe if the building's on fire or something..."
Flagg: "Was the building on fire?"

[For context, it wasn't on fire]

Now, in this case it would honestly not cross my mind to imagine that you were misrepresenting me as a person who believed the building to be on fire. I would think you asked me a sarcastic rhetorical question, not that you were trying to strawman me as a "burning-building-ist" or whatever.

Thus, it likewise did not cross my mind that my words would be interpreted in the way that you outline. I know that the behavior is wrong, I just didn't think I could plausibly be said to have committed the behavior.

Two, neither I or Thanas has said that Trumpzi is a better person or President than Warcriminal Bush, just that at this point Trumpzi has the potential and probably inclination to cause more harm, but when you compare him to Warcriminal Bush he simply has not done anything as bad or worse. It's just a statement of fact. We both freely admit that he has the potential to be much worse (and very well may end up being worse), but potential doesn't equal deeds...

The exact words that began this string of exchanges were "I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now." There was context but it didn't substantially reduce the accuracy of that statement as a summary.

I hope you can understand how "Trump is not a worse president than Dubya" can reasonably be equated to "Trump is either exactly as bad a president, or a better president, than Dubya." At least to me, it's kind of a number line thing; either DT is greater than W, DT is lesser than W, or DT is equal to W.

So I may have been misrepresenting that position all along, but I assure you it was an accident and I really hope you can see how I might come to believe that was a correct interpretation.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good for them.

Of course, now I'm afraid it'll end with the courts explicitly upholding the President's power to pardon as absolute. Which, given our current President, amounts to immunity for his lackies and the possible end of any government accountability in America, barring impeachment and a Constitutional amendment.

Well, it's better than the courts passively rolling over without a fight.

Agreed. If the case can be made for limiting the President's power to pardon, its a case that has to be made.

Furthermore, even a right-leaning Supreme Court might hesitate to rule presidential pardon power as absolute and including protection from contempt of court hearings. They're jurists too. If they take that step, they're basically writing themselves out of power, and they have very little incentive to do that. Even the guy Trump nominated doesn't seem to be an "All power to MAXIMUM LEADER!" guy of the masochistic-fascist type who will dismantle his own power base to hand it over to the Fuhrer.

I'm pretty sure if there's one thing that a bunch of crotchety old judges of various political leanings can agree on, it's that everybody should have to listen to crotchety old judges.

It would be nice if the self-interest of those in power worked to the benefit, rather than the detriment, of democracy for a change.

Edit: I will add that, individual exceptions aside, the only branch of government I retain any real confidence in at this point is the Federal judiciary (though I wish the SC were a little less Right-leaning, we've also seen that some of the conservative justices are willing to rule across party lines at times, notably including Chief Justice Roberts upholding Obamacare).

[Thanas]

The exact words that began this string of exchanges were "I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now." There was context but it didn't substantially reduce the accuracy of that statement as a summary.

I hope you can understand how "Trump is not a worse president than Dubya" can reasonably be equated to "Trump is either exactly as bad a president, or a better president, than Dubya." At least to me, it's kind of a number line thing; either DT is greater than W, DT is lesser than W, or DT is equal to W.

So I may have been misrepresenting that position all along, but I assure you it was an accident and I really hope you can see how I might come to believe that was a correct interpretation.

I just love how you continue to skip the words "right now" as if they have no meaning whatsoever.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, my entire argument has been exactly that by applying the words "right now" to the comparison, you deprive the comparison of meaning.

Meaningless comparisons are not good fuel for a debate.

For example, I could say that London is a greater city than Paris because it has more letters in its name. While the comparison is strictly true, it is utterly useless. The sense in which cities with longer names are 'greater' than cities with shorter names is meaningless. No one cares how many letters there are in a city's name, no one considers this an actionable or relevant concern, except perhaps for highway sign manufacturers

Likewise, saying "Trump is better than Bush right now because Bush did more evil in eight years than Trump did in seven months" is strictly true, but useless. The sense in which a person who has not yet done great evil, but predictably will if not stopped is 'greater' than a historical figure that has already done all their evil... that is a meaningless sense.

It's not that what you're saying is untrue, it's that by insisting on that standard of comparison you reduce the act of comparison to a pointless cipher.

[Flagg]

Simon, I'll take your word for it but to me it didn't seem particularly rhetorical so maybe emojis next time?

[Flagg]

Basically, my entire argument has been exactly that by applying the words "right now" to the comparison, you deprive the comparison of meaning.

Meaningless comparisons are not good fuel for a debate.

For example, I could say that London is a greater city than Paris because it has more letters in its name. While the comparison is strictly true, it is utterly useless. The sense in which cities with longer names are 'greater' than cities with shorter names is meaningless. No one cares how many letters there are in a city's name, no one considers this an actionable or relevant concern, except perhaps for highway sign manufacturers

Likewise, saying "Trump is better than Bush right now because Bush did more evil in eight years than Trump did in seven months" is strictly true, but useless. The sense in which a person who has not yet done great evil, but predictably will if not stopped is 'greater' than a historical figure that has already done all their evil... that is a meaningless sense.

It's not that what you're saying is untrue, it's that by insisting on that standard of comparison you reduce the act of comparison to a pointless cipher.

It really doesn't matter if you feel the comparison as Thanas made it is useless, it matters if it's accurate. And for now it is. Even though Trumpzi is probably likely to have equaled or surpassed Warcriminal Bush's misdeeds by the time his stay in the Oval Office is over and both Thanas and I have stated this more than once.

[Thanas]

Likewise, saying "Trump is better than Bush right now because Bush did more evil in eight years than Trump did in seven months" is strictly true, but useless. The sense in which a person who has not yet done great evil, but predictably will if not stopped is 'greater' than a historical figure that has already done all their evil... that is a meaningless sense.

It's not that what you're saying is untrue, it's that by insisting on that standard of comparison you reduce the act of comparison to a pointless cipher.

It is not pointless, it merely serves to highlight that pulling out statements like "the worst ever" is pretty ridiculous. Is Trump a very bad president? Yes. Is he a racist incompetent nutjob? Yes. Is he worse than any other president in US history? This is where I disagree. I think one can only say that once everything in total has piled up. Why? Because only after a president has left office can you total up the good and bad and attempt to be fair. Things that might look bad now might have other consequences.


None of that means Trump should not be opposed. But I don't agree it is fair calling him the worst ever if he has spent less than a year in office.

[Simon_Jester]

If by "worst" I mean he is the most useless, contemptible hog of a man ever to occupy the office, then it is hardly premature to call him "worst." *

It is only by defining "worst" in a very specific and rather narrow way, that we arrive at "it is premature to call him 'worst.' " The word 'worst' is rather broad, and assigning it a narrow definition is more effective as a tool for rhetorically bludgeoning one's debating partner than for making useful distinctions between things.

If you wish to use a precise definition like "has done the most evil over his presidency," fine- but there is no need to appropriate the word 'worst' to match this definition and claim that all usage incompatible with this definition is in error.
__________________________

*[Granted, we could dispute Trump's uselessness, contemptibility, and hoggishness, but he would nonetheless be a strong contender in all three areas. Many past presidents have been terrible in many ways, but in nearly every case one can identify some redeeming qualities. If Trump has any such qualities, I am unaware of them.]

[The Romulan Republic]

That's the striking thing about Donald Trump, to me-

Their are many people who are worse than him in specific ways. But I have a hard time recalling any public figure (outside of the crazier third world dictators, anyway) who is as comprehensively loathsome as Trump. Sometimes it seems like someone ran down a check list and checked off "All the ways someone can be an utterly worthless and abhorrent waste of a human being."

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and a rapist, but he was also a talented politician and writer, and (ironically) one of the most eloquent advocates for democracy and equality. Werner Von Braun built rockets for the Nazis (using slave labour, IIRC), but he also helped take us to space.

Trump just sucks.

[TheFeniX]

I read a fluff piece that supposedly Ivana in her book wrote Donald knew how to rock her world. You know.. there's that? I mean, right? Provided it's true: either her book or that it was written.

But, I also read he doesn't own a dog. Even Hilter owned a dog.

[The Romulan Republic]

I read a fluff piece that supposedly Ivana in her book wrote Donald knew how to rock her world. You know.. there's that? I mean, right? Provided it's true: either her book or that it was written.

Wow.

Considering that that could easily be taken as a euphemism/double entendre for "Daddy has sex with me"... yeah.

[TheFeniX]

I read a fluff piece that supposedly Ivana in her book wrote Donald knew how to rock her world. You know.. there's that? I mean, right? Provided it's true: either her book or that it was written.

Wow.
Considering that that could easily be taken as a euphemism/double entendre for "Daddy has sex with me"... yeah.

Ivana Trump (His ex-wife), not Ivanka.

Double-edit: and yes, she was talking about sex. I don't care to look into it, but the supposed word is Donald was more than proficient at love making. Which is weird because you would think he'd only know how to please himself, but I've met plenty of douches who were described as good in bed.

Triple-edit: I hope everyone got the joke that even if he WAS good in bed, I wasn't trying to say it meant anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

I read a fluff piece that supposedly Ivana in her book wrote Donald knew how to rock her world. You know.. there's that? I mean, right? Provided it's true: either her book or that it was written.

Wow.
Considering that that could easily be taken as a euphemism/double entendre for "Daddy has sex with me"... yeah.

Ivana Trump (His ex-wife), not Ivanka.

Double-edit: and yes, she was talking about sex. I don't care to look into it, but the supposed word is Donald was more than proficient at love making. Which is weird because you would think he'd only know how to please himself, but I've met plenty of douches who were described as good in bed.

Oh, my bad.

That said... I could honestly believe Ivanka saying that, because their are creepy incestuous undertones (and overt objectification by Donald) between them.

And... okay. Donald is good at sex. Not really an imagine I wanted to have, but anyway.

But seriously, the man has one real talent: he's a skilled con man/attention whore. I'll give him that much, and only that much.