Trump pardons Joe Arpaio

[Flagg]

There needs to be constitutional amendment where no pardon or clemency can be issued from October in an election year until a the next presidential term begins (i.e. no lame duck pardons), AND where no government official (elected or appointed) can receive pardon or commutation unless it is approved by a 3/4 vote of both houses of Congress.

I know why that sounds good, but (a) it will never happen, and (b) it shouldn't happen either. If the purpose propping the power of the presidential pardon (alliteration, bitches) is to provide an avenue to address miscarriages of justice, and those can happen at any time, then limiting the time frame during which the pardon can be granted undermines the point of having it there in the first place.

So if you really want to take the worst abuses out of the presidential pardon authority, there are a few choices: eliminate it entirely, which sounds fine to me; or require that it goes through Congress like you suggest (with a supermajority? why not?) as well, kind of in the reverse of the way a bill gets passed, which also sounds fine to me. The only issue I would have with this last idea is that it could politicize the pardon even further, which is the opposite of what it should be.

I think there should be a non-partisan "pardon review and recommendation board" that those seeking a pardon must submit an application to. If the board finds merit they pass it on to the President for consideration, if they find it has none, no pardon. I don't know how the board members would be chosen, but it wouldn't be by congress or the executive.

I'd leave commutation power alone.

[Thanas]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

[Flagg]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

Yeah. That's why I'm wary of calls for impeachment. Not because I don't think Trumpzi shouldn't be impeached if/when we have evidence to do it, but because I don't think it's going to happen and people are setting themselves up for disappointment. W wasn't impeached and what he did was up there with Andrew Jackson. It's purely political. You impeach the fucker and the Democratic nomination and general election get a backseat to a lost cause that may well rally support for the clownshoes motherfucker.

[Zaune]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

It's early days yet, and Trump hasn't had a convenient Reichstag Fire moment land in his lap the way 9/11 did for Bush Jr.

[Simon_Jester]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

On August 27, 2001, Dubya hadn't caused very much harm either.

[Flagg]

You don't get to impeach someone for what they "may do".

[Thanas]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

On August 27, 2001, Dubya hadn't caused very much harm either.

The question was if there were any presidents worse than trump. Yes, on his current record there are.

[Simon_Jester]

That seems like a very rigid definition of "worse" and "better."

If you don't prorate for time spent in office, you get counterintuitive results like "Zombie Hitler on his second day in office would be a better president than Andrew Johnson on his last day in office."

It might be strictly true if you only count what people did, since even Zombie Hitler could only do so much harm in twenty-four hours. It would be pretty easy to do more evil in four years than Zombie Hitler could do in one day.

But it's a statement that contains the seeds of its own negation, because sooner or later Zombie Hitler will predictably end up accumulating far more evil than Johnson.

[Flagg]

That seems like a very rigid definition of "worse" and "better."

If you don't prorate for time spent in office, you get counterintuitive results like "Zombie Hitler on his second day in office would be a better president than Andrew Johnson on his last day in office."

It might be strictly true if you only count what people did, since even Zombie Hitler could only do so much harm in twenty-four hours. It would be pretty easy to do more evil in four years than Zombie Hitler could do in one day.

But it's a statement that contains the seeds of its own negation, because sooner or later Zombie Hitler will predictably end up accumulating far more evil than Johnson.

For all you know Trumpzi will choke on a pretzel and die tomorrow. Is he the most corrupt in recent history? Probably. But he's far from the worst. At least not yet. Thanas clearly wasn't talking about whether Trumpzi was worse than W was by the end of August 2001.

[Thanas]

That seems like a very rigid definition of "worse" and "better."

If one guy gets cancer but has another 3 years to know whether it will kill him or not vs another guy who died of it, which one of the two do you think is more alive right now?

It is just fucking premature to think that one guy who so far has not managed to get anything of substance done (except fucking up Kyoto, which is big but not that big in its effects after all) is doing the same damage as the other guy who started the longest running war in US history (still ongoing), fucked up the middle east causing millions of deaths (still ongoing) and fucked up plenty of other nations.

Even if you only rate US deaths then there is still no way Trump is as bad as Dubya in his effects. Dubya (and Obama) did not prosecute and effectively pardon war criminals and torturers. I would say giving a whole torture and murder program run by the CIA/DOD a blanque check like Obama did (and blocking victims from suing) is worse than pardoning one torturous murderer as well.

Oh and if you only want to focus on the first few months of the presidency, Obama had by then declined to persecute the war criminals and torturers as well. Even worse, he continued to employ them and paid them pensions.

How is that not objectively worse than what Trump has done so far?

[Simon_Jester]

That seems like a very rigid definition of "worse" and "better."

If one guy gets cancer but has another 3 years to know whether it will kill him or not vs another guy who died of it, which one of the two do you think is more alive right now?

You're defining down "worse" and "better" into terms with little meaning here, because if Trump does something terrible in a month, that we knew in advance he was likely to do... under your definition he suddenly becomes a much "worse" president.

I would argue that predictable consequences of a man's continued presidency should reflect on our evaluation of him now, not until later.

It is just fucking premature to think that one guy who so far has not managed to get anything of substance done (except fucking up Kyoto, which is big but not that big in its effects after all) is doing the same damage as the other guy who started the longest running war in US history (still ongoing), fucked up the middle east causing millions of deaths (still ongoing) and fucked up plenty of other nations.

Dubya had done none of these things on August 28, 2001. We don't know what Trump will do in four years of trying, but if you're going to compare Dubya to Trump, you have to make the comparison on equal terms that don't give Trump a free pass just for not having had time to make a big enough mess.

Even if you only rate US deaths then there is still no way Trump is as bad as Dubya in his effects. Dubya (and Obama) did not prosecute and effectively pardon war criminals and torturers. I would say giving a whole torture and murder program run by the CIA/DOD a blanque check like Obama did (and blocking victims from suing) is worse than pardoning one torturous murderer as well.

Oh and if you only want to focus on the first few months of the presidency, Obama had by then declined to persecute the war criminals and torturers as well. Even worse, he continued to employ them and paid them pensions.

How is that not objectively worse than what Trump has done so far?

I'm sorry, Thanas, did Trump start prosecuting (or persecuting, if you prefer) the war criminals and torturers while I wasn't looking? Because if not, I'm pretty sure this sin of omission by Obama is identical to one of Trump's numerous sins of both omission and commission.

An identical thing cannot be "objectively worse than" the thing it is identical to. If Trump has done bad things A, B, and C, while Obama did bad thing B during the same span of time, it seems hard to believe Obama's commission of Act B to be "objectively worse than" Trump's commission of Act B. And certainly hard to believe that Obama's overall record during the relevant time period (Act B) is worse than the Trump record (all three put together).

Now, you personally may be more disappointed in Obama, whereas expecting such behavior of Trump, but that's not the same thing.

[Exonerate]

I'm not sure why a full term Obama/Bush II is getting compared to Trump 8 months in. He's already announced an indefinite increased commitment to Afghanistan and taken the leash off the Pentagon in regards to Syria (with increased civilian casualties to show for it). His appointees are causing incalculable damage to government institutions while shifting the Overton window ever towards fascism. He exhibits neither the ability nor inclination to competently serve as President. For all of Obama's sins, you can expect Trump to continue, or, more likely, take the brakes off them. He might not have caused or allowed as much harm yet, but he sure is on track to surpass them.

[Broomstick]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

Trump has only been in office eight months, he has time to match or exceed that.

[Flagg]

I am not sure how Trump can be any worse than Bush II right now, that man caused the deaths of millions of people and opened torture centers. Sure he might not have been an open racist but the death count is far worse for Bush II.

Trump has only been in office eight months, he has time to match or exceed that.

We covered that.

[Thanas]

I'm not sure why a full term Obama/Bush II is getting compared to Trump 8 months in. He's already announced an indefinite increased commitment to Afghanistan and taken the leash off the Pentagon in regards to Syria (with increased civilian casualties to show for it). His appointees are causing incalculable damage to government institutions while shifting the Overton window ever towards fascism. He exhibits neither the ability nor inclination to competently serve as President. For all of Obama's sins, you can expect Trump to continue, or, more likely, take the brakes off them. He might not have caused or allowed as much harm yet, but he sure is on track to surpass them.

I am not disputing that Trump might become worse, I think he will. But it is quite simply wrong that with his current track record that he is worse than Jackson, Bush II, McKinley or any of the manifest destiny presidents the country has had. Thus it is simply wrong to say Trump is the worst president the country has had.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not sure why a full term Obama/Bush II is getting compared to Trump 8 months in. He's already announced an indefinite increased commitment to Afghanistan and taken the leash off the Pentagon in regards to Syria (with increased civilian casualties to show for it). His appointees are causing incalculable damage to government institutions while shifting the Overton window ever towards fascism. He exhibits neither the ability nor inclination to competently serve as President. For all of Obama's sins, you can expect Trump to continue, or, more likely, take the brakes off them. He might not have caused or allowed as much harm yet, but he sure is on track to surpass them.

I am not disputing that Trump might become worse, I think he will. But it is quite simply wrong that with his current track record that he is worse than Jackson, Bush II, McKinley or any of the manifest destiny presidents the country has had. Thus it is simply wrong to say Trump is the worst president the country has had.

Thanas, the problem appears to be that you are measuring "best/worst" in a totally different way from everyone else present.

When most of us say "Trump is the worst president," most of us mean one of two things.

One, many of us mean this in terms of his character and in terms of the likely amount of harm he will cause if he continues to do as he is already doing. In this sense, he is the worst man ever to occupy the office, in the sense of his lack of desirable qualities and his propensity to do harm. Other men, less bad than him, might have been able to do more total harm than he has done as yet- but that is beside the point, for people evaluating this way. This point, you have agreed on, as you note in your first sentence.

Two, some of us mean this in terms of the amount of evil he does per day. A president is graded on the rate at which he shovels evil acts from his desk, not the total number. If Trump did half as much evil per day he would become "less bad" in the eyes of such people, for instance- only half as bad as before. Whereas under the system you appear to be using he would not, because whether he is good or bad depends entirely on what he has done, and so long as he continues to be a net negative per day, there is no possibility of "Trump tomorrow" being any less bad than "Trump today."

Which brings me to the third viewpoint, the one you seem to be using: namely, measuring a president by the 'karma' accumulated by all their actions to date, while ignoring other considerations. This works fairly well when comparing historical figures to one another. For instance, in a debate over which was the better Roman emperor, Diocletian or Tiberius, we could easily tally up all the good and evil done by both men and compare fairly, especially since they were emperors for roughly comparable spans of time.

But it's useless to do this in a comparison between a historical figure and a current serving politician. By saying "Trump has less bad president karma right now than Dubya has after his whole eight-year presidency," you're saying something that I can agree is true... but it doesn't matter very much. It doesn't enable us to predict anything useful or form useful conclusions about Trump's character.

[Flagg]

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

[Thanas]

OTwo, some of us mean this in terms of the amount of evil he does per day. A president is graded on the rate at which he shovels evil acts from his desk, not the total number. If Trump did half as much evil per day he would become "less bad" in the eyes of such people, for instance- only half as bad as before. Whereas under the system you appear to be using he would not, because whether he is good or bad depends entirely on what he has done, and so long as he continues to be a net negative per day, there is no possibility of "Trump tomorrow" being any less bad than "Trump today."

In this viewpoint I would still rate somebody who managed to cause almost 2k deaths per day during his term as somebody worse, because Trump is not at that level yet.

Or is he killing 2k persons a day with his politics? Right now there is no indication of that.

But it's useless to do this in a comparison between a historical figure and a current serving politician. By saying "Trump has less bad president karma right now than Dubya has after his whole eight-year presidency," you're saying something that I can agree is true... but it doesn't matter very much. It doesn't enable us to predict anything useful or form useful conclusions about Trump's character.

It matters however immensely when you try to prove that historically Trump was the worst president ever.

[Flagg]

Pretty much what Thanas said. Trumpzi is more of a vile incompetent buffoon than W, but to declare him the worst ever is an insult to history. When his 4 (pleasepleaseplease) to 8 (NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!![/Vader]) years are up, then that decision can be made.

That said, he's clearly the most incompetent and buffoonish twat to ever be s elected President.

[Rogue 9]

Oh no, he's not the worst ever. Unless he winds up presiding over a major attempt to destroy the Republic while doing jack all to stop it, he won't surpass James Buchanan.

[TheFeniX]

Pretty much what Thanas said. Trumpzi is more of a vile incompetent buffoon than W, but to declare him the worst ever is an insult to history. When his 4 (pleasepleaseplease) to 8 (NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!![/Vader]) years are up, then that decision can be made.

Bush differs because he surrounded himself with with competents then listened to them. And the guy at least (not that it excuses anything he did) had numerous reports of people who've dealt with him saying he's actually a nice guy. One from a former aid was that the Secret Service would have to constantly remind him "Sir, we need to be at X" because he'd just want to hang around randos and shoot the shit with them all day rather than... you know, be leader of the free world.

Heard the same thing about Obama and Clinton (not the bumbling part, but the "Hey, I actually enjoy interacting with people" thing) and I think I could easily hang out with them for a while and just shoot the shit.

Trump surrounds himself with competents and sycophants and either A. ignores them or B. throws them under the bus at first convenience. And I already have a good idea what hanging out with Trump would be like because every time I see him (even before his election) he reminds me of my brother in a suit: bearable for about 5 minutes, then it's just like "Jesus, go fucking home already." They are constantly trying to "win" every. fucking. conversation. And when they feel they are losing or are challenged in any way (even if only in their imagination) they become incredibly petulant quickly.

We basically elected a "mean drunk" into head office, and we're finding out quickly how awful an idea that was. I mean, a large group of people already had about 99% of an idea about it. But it's like.... you know setting off an M-80 in a closed hand is going to blow most of it off, but some kids just gotta learn things the hard way.

[Flagg]

Pretty much what Thanas said. Trumpzi is more of a vile incompetent buffoon than W, but to declare him the worst ever is an insult to history. When his 4 (pleasepleaseplease) to 8 (NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!![/Vader]) years are up, then that decision can be made.

Bush differs because he surrounded himself with with competents then listened to them. And the guy at least (not that it excuses anything he did) had numerous reports of people who've dealt with him saying he's actually a nice guy. One from a former aid was that the Secret Service would have to constantly remind him "Sir, we need to be at X" because he'd just want to hang around randos and shoot the shit with them all day rather than... you know, be leader of the free world.

Heard the same thing about Obama and Clinton (not the bumbling part, but the "Hey, I actually enjoy interacting with people" thing) and I think I could easily hang out with them for a while and just shoot the shit.

Trump surrounds himself with competents and sycophants and either A. ignores them or B. throws them under the bus at first convenience. And I already have a good idea what hanging out with Trump would be like because every time I see him (even before his election) he reminds me of my brother in a suit: bearable for about 5 minutes, then it's just like "Jesus, go fucking home already." They are constantly trying to "win" every. fucking. conversation. And when they feel they are losing or are challenged in any way (even if only in their imagination) they become incredibly petulant quickly.

We basically elected a "mean drunk" into head office, and we're finding out quickly how awful an idea that was. I mean, a large group of people already had about 99% of an idea about it. But it's like.... you know setting off an M-80 in a closed hand is going to blow most of it off, but some kids just gotta do things the hard way.

I don't think being a horrible person = being a worse president than the guy who started the longest (and still going) war in US history or not only lied, but refused to order a strike on Anwar Al Alaki (I'm sure I mangled that) aka "Mr Al Quaeda in Iraq" because then he couldn't use him as another reason to launch an illegal war of aggression in Iraq that has cost the lives of millions and spurred on the creation of ISIS. I don't care if the President is an all hat no cattle shit-for-brains I can have a beer with. I'd rather an aloof douchenozzel that is competent.

[Simon_Jester]

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."

OTwo, some of us mean this in terms of the amount of evil he does per day. A president is graded on the rate at which he shovels evil acts from his desk, not the total number. If Trump did half as much evil per day he would become "less bad" in the eyes of such people, for instance- only half as bad as before. Whereas under the system you appear to be using he would not, because whether he is good or bad depends entirely on what he has done, and so long as he continues to be a net negative per day, there is no possibility of "Trump tomorrow" being any less bad than "Trump today."

In this viewpoint I would still rate somebody who managed to cause almost 2k deaths per day during his term as somebody worse, because Trump is not at that level yet.

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.

[Incidentally, where are you getting the figure of roughly five million deaths caused by Bush? I'm not disputing it, just asking you where it came from. Because "slightly less than" two thousand deaths a day would be, oh, six or seven hundred thousand people a year, which adds up to about five million people when multiplied by eight years. Again, I'm not disputing this figure, just asking where it comes from.]

Or is he killing 2k persons a day with his politics? Right now there is no indication of that.

Out of curiosity, would you consider the following hypothetical scenario to make the answer "yes?"

Suppose the Republicans succeeded in repealing the ACA, and Trump signs off on it. As per existing predictions by the Congressional Budget Office, twenty million people lose their health insurance. Surplus mortality of seven hundred thousand deaths a year or so sounds fairly realistic as a plausible outcome of that, which would correspond to about two thousand a day

Would the answer then become "yes, Trump is in fact killing that many people a day with his politics?"

But it's useless to do this in a comparison between a historical figure and a current serving politician. By saying "Trump has less bad president karma right now than Dubya has after his whole eight-year presidency," you're saying something that I can agree is true... but it doesn't matter very much. It doesn't enable us to predict anything useful or form useful conclusions about Trump's character.

It matters however immensely when you try to prove that historically Trump was the worst president ever.

It matters immensely if you assume that Trump will be expelled from office tomorrow and that the consequences of his actions will fade away into nothingness.

Otherwise, you should either be comparing the first seven months of the Trump presidency to the first seven months of other presidencies, or trying to assess what Trump would do in an otherwise equal situation.

You can't do a meaningful comparison between two things without controlling for other variables like "time in office" and "opportunities to mismanage major national crises."

[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.

[Incidentally, where are you getting the figure of roughly five million deaths caused by Bush? I'm not disputing it, just asking you where it came from. Because "slightly less than" two thousand deaths a day would be, oh, six or seven hundred thousand people a year, which adds up to about five million people when multiplied by eight years. Again, I'm not disputing this figure, just asking where it comes from.]

There are - according to estimates about 2-3 million deaths caused so far in Iraq. I think that number is probably too low as it does not account for deaths from the destruction of infrastructure that are stil ongoing. Then there are the deaths in Afghanistan of course, as well as other deaths caused by the global war on terror, as well as a share of the blame for destabilizing the middle east. Maybe five million is too high in total.

Suppose the Republicans succeeded in repealing the ACA, and Trump signs off on it. As per existing predictions by the Congressional Budget Office, twenty million people lose their health insurance. Surplus mortality of seven hundred thousand deaths a year or so sounds fairly realistic as a plausible outcome of that, which would correspond to about two thousand a day

If there would be that addded 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.

Would the answer then become "yes, Trump is in fact killing that many people a day with his politics?"

If he assume your numbers are correct ( I don't think they are) then of course, yes.

]It matters immensely if you assume that Trump will be expelled from office tomorrow and that the consequences of his actions will fade away into nothingness.

Otherwise, you should either be comparing the first seven months of the Trump presidency to the first seven months of other presidencies, or trying to assess what Trump would do in an otherwise equal situation.

Obviously time in office is one variable that should be considered after the time in office has actually ended but not before. Because everything else is just counting chickens before they hatch. One can assess overall performance up to a certain point but sorry, Trump has not started any wars yet, has not caused thousands of deaths yet (at least not US citizens, his death toll elsewhere is starting to rise quickly).

[Flagg]

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.