Vance couldn’t answer the question but maybe the Trump voters on here can. You voted for this. Why? It was so vital to get rid of any and all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in America that it was worth unleashing hundreds of violent criminals? The terrible threat of a trans girl playing the sport she loves is more important than punishing the people who tried to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power? The need to terrorize the people fleeing violence and poverty to come here to pick our fruits and vegetables and do all the other s**t jobs we won’t is worth the complete annihilation of law and order in this country?
Oh my god, the comments here. It is simply, yet still tragically astounding, that Conservatives, the group that used to stand for law and order, Old Glory, back the Blue, our revered Founders, the U.S. Constitution, Democracy, the Shining City on a Hill, are trying to normalize the pardoning of convicted felons who violently attacked law enforcement and desecrated perhaps the most venerable symbol of our Democracy because they wanted to overthrow a lawful election, as some sort of minor policy quirk that not everyone agrees with. And DEI, are you kidding me? After centuries of building this nation's wealth and world power on the backs of unpaid slave labor, then convict labor, then decades of Jim Crow discrimination, shutting people of color out of the GI Bill and the Homestead Act, banks redlining to refuse mortgages and real estate agents refusing to show homes to people of color in desirable neighborhoods, rental discrimination and discrimination in hiring, employment and criminal justice that continue to this day, now our biggest priority is doing all we can to prevent discrimination against white people? We have sunk so low as a country that it will take a very long time to dig ourselves out.
“Trying to normalize” is tired. No one here is doing that. Why did you even ask the question? I answered it in good faith. I now think it was rhetorical. You clearly have your mind made up. You aren’t here to learn from and have interesting conversations with people who think differently than you. Conservative’s biggest priority is preventing discrimination against white people? Who is feeding you that disinformation? Did you read Coleman Hughes article? Do you know that many people who aren’t (fill in all the ‘demographics’ you sneer at, starting with white) oppose DEI, Inc.?
I disagree. Normalizing abnormal behavior is definitely not tired as evidenced by your likening Trump's horrific pardons to some policy of Biden's that Biden voters might not agree with. Normalizing is the top of the very slippery slope that led down to the depths where we are now. Normalizing may seem "tired" to you because so much of it had to be done with Trump. We had to normalize an adjudicated sexual abuser in the Oval. We had to normalize a convicted felon in the Oval. We had to normalize a President cashing in on his position in the Oval. We had to normalize a President's multi-billionaire buddy threatening lawmakers over their votes. We had to normalize a violent insurrection at the Capitol as a "day of love." I could go on. It's like if Biden, after the shameful insurrection, declared a Domestic Terrorist National Security Emergency and sent the U.S. Military to fan out across the United States to round up all the Trump supporters. And I, as a Biden supporter, said, hmm, I thought he was only going to round up the people in red MAGA hats, not all of them. Oh well, I really like those economic growth provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, so, I guess it's all cool.
If I'm not mistaken, Kate asked Sharon if Republicans were in attendance at her book tour events. I fear there is no listening to understand here. Kate's disdain for conservatives is palpable.
I believe you are mistaken. Must've been some other disdainful Kate, not I. Though I do admit I have quite a lot of disdain for almost everything that has come out of the White House in the last week and thus struggle to understand the reasoning of people who have enabled it.
I’m not a Trump voter*, but I can say that among the conservatives here, many have expressed disagreement with blanket (as opposed to case-by-case) pardons for January 6 participants. Trump campaigned on pardoning J6 defendants, initially indicating he would approach it case by case. However, he ultimately took a broader approach, which many conservatives have criticized. Similarly, I imagine there are Biden or Harris voters who disagree with some of their administration’s actions—if I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me.
As for conservative priorities, they include (to respond to what you specifically listed) protecting women’s sports, securing stronger borders, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity, and deporting individuals who are in the country unlawfully. That's not to say every conservative feels the same about every issue (and the same goes for liberals). Generally speaking, conservatives don’t see these issues as the “annihilation of law and order.” Instead, they’ve viewed movements like “defund the police,” sanctuary cities, antisemitic campus protests, and the leadership of a president perceived as struggling with cognitive sharpness as challenges to law and order. Headlines like the recent New York Times article, “How Labeling Cartels ‘Terrorists’ Could Hurt the U.S. Economy,” reinforce these concerns.
Since you brought up migrants, Biden oversaw the highest level of deportations since 2014: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/biden-deportations-report/index.html. I'm guessing based on your comments, that this is not an action of his, if you voted for him, that you support. And yet you still voted for Harris (and I'm going to assume would've voted for Biden had he stayed in). And I understand that, because I understand presidents aren't perfect even to their own party.
*For transparency: I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. I cast a write-in vote for a Republican. I’m a conservative-leaning Independent who voted for Biden in 2020 but chose not to support him or Harris in 2024.
I am not politically conservative, but I just want to say I really respect the way you answered this. I voted for Biden and definitely didn't agree with everything he did and in some or several cases was appalled by his behavior. Unfortunately our country only has two viable parties at this time and the reality is that most people are more complex than those two boxes would lead us to believe.
Agreed. I struggled with voting with third party for the first time in my life (for lack of a better way to characterize writing in someone's name). I know now that even if everyone who voted third party in my state had voted for Harris instead, she still would not have carried the state - and it's a state that swung for Biden in 2020. I probably will go back to Dem or Rep in 2028 unless there is a welcome, more moderate and viable third option. Hope is a choice!
I appreciate these insights as well, thank you for sharing! I absolutely don’t agree with a lot of things Biden did, and would never defend a politician 100%. I do think the article shared on DEI is oversimplifying it. DEI also includes having wheelchair ramps for people who need, braille available at work spaces for those who cannot see, and many other things. To totally roll it back I don’t see a positive. Especially when some want to use it as a way to leave out some key points of history and pretend they didn’t happen.
I find it highly unlikely that the DEI initiatives we're discussing today were focused on implementing braille and wheelchair ramps. Such measures have long been - and are still being - addressed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush.
Ok, I certainly hope so. I am admittedly speaking from anecdotal experience of what our DEI department works on and it’s definitely not all race related.
As someone married to a wheelchair user DEI in *some* places definitely did do this. DEI has evolved over time and doesn't necessarily look like what it might have when it started. I'm always amazed at the minimums of the ADA and what can be considered 'compliant' versus what people actually need. Answering those needs is what some DEI initiatives have evolved into today. Funny enough some of the worst offenders are small hospitals and doctor's offices. It's always nice when the wheelchair doesn't even fit through the front door!
Not putting words in anyone's mouths within these comments. But much of the DEI commentary I've seen in the real world has actually revolved around what would actually be affirmative action. It is important to note that none of what Trump did touches EEOE which is law as well. If work places try to discriminate based on anything related to DEI, rather than just roll back work place DEI programs, they will still have that law to deal with.
That’s what we’ve found at my job too. Our DEI team brings everyone in for discussions, and despite any laws we definitely have a lot of work to do in making all feel included. Which I think is very important!
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? We’ve already seen Inspectors General attempted removal without the lawful process being followed.
How exactly is disagreement on pardons, over-reaching mandates & tyrannical deportations going to square with voting a man into power based on the price of eggs & middle school hockey players’ gender? We have to prevent the deterioration of decency. Shrugging after the fact doesn’t keep us safe or feed our people.
Who on here is shrugging after the fact? Who is telling you that people voted for Trump based on the price of eggs and middle school hockey players' gender?
Biden carried out the highest level of deportations since 2014. Were those tyrannical?
Aren’t we lucky that there has never been a better time to be alive for white women? I’d like to keep it that way & include the rest of humanity in our progress. I’m an independent voter, but I guess this makes me progressive.
The price of eggs and gas was the excuse many voters gave for someone with whom they could not defend as a moral choice. I did not make that up.
The fight over gender in sports is given as another excuse. Facts.
The Free Press had a really interesting article about DEI in the military that I read today - https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-military-pete-hegseth-trump. Overall, having a blanket anything really can end up backfiring because it lacks context of the situation or needs of the community or group. One size fits all is just not a good approach (in my world we call it a spray and pray and it usually is a bad business strategy). Personally, diversity in background, ethnicity, and thought are paramount to business and education but the rhetoric right now especially in academia and medicine is just backwards racism and exclusionary. Individual companies who do DEI well should continue their programming and continue pushing for diversity as a part of their ethos. But we also shouldn't be looking to individuals who tell others they are born racists as god-like truth sayers.
DEI is a perfect example of marketing -- so is BLM. Their words and names represent incredibly respectable things that people want, but their leadership and founders are corrupt. And just because we want to believe something is good doesn't mean it isn't and we all should call out when something is rotten no matter if we voted for them or didn't!
Even if true, she was born and assigned female gender. About 1 in 60 babies are born with genitalia that don't fully match their sex chromosomes. Most of them are completely unaware of their genetic sex, and at least some of them are surgically "assigned" based on the most apparent physical gender as babies. Biological sex and gender are correlated, but not fully causally related. Most animal species have a gender spectrum, humans included. That said, she is not transgender because she was born female and remains female. But, did you know that some species change gender based on their environment? Also, some mammals can choose the sex of their offspring.
Over 900 females lost medals to trans-identifying females (males) in sports according to the UN. So while we are getting really granular on Iman and discussing interesting points, but points that generally ignore the our human reality, the problem is....bigger.
It's also worth noting that more than twice that many people are injured by lighting each year in Florida alone. We still refer to something as being rare by likening it to the chances of being struck by lightning. Pretty darn rare. Meanwhile, more than 5x that many people die in car wrecks because we've failed to regulate the size of motor vehicles. Seems like that could be readily addressed and have a real impact on lives. I could provide so many more examples where more people are impacted in much more meaningful ways. But I hope you get the drift.
Boxing is about punching people without remorse. Swimming is about going for the gold. I don't know when women became so precious that we lost our sense of competition. Sports is about getting beat sometimes - usually by people with an athletic advantage. No one complains when Michael Phelps - with his unusual anatomy that gives him competitive advantage - wins scores of gold medals.
Genetics IS a thing. But probably not in the way you're suggesting. I'm curious what your background in genetics is. I have a PhD in cancer biology, which required several advanced courses in genetics, not to mention that my thesis revolved around the function of a protein that influenced expression of genes during development. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me a geneticist, let alone a geneticist that specializes in sex determination and the impact of genetic expression and environmental factors on sex traits. BUT...I am pretty well versed on how genetics isn't the equivalent of fate. If you can speak knowledgeably in the subject, I wouldn't mind discussing how much of a thing genetics is. If not, let's not pretend that the phrase "[this complex scientific concept] is a thing" is a cogent point.
You'll have to define "physical man." In my experience, the phenotypes of male humans vary significantly, as do the phenotypes of female humans. There's a significant amount of overlap driven by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. And, no. In many sports, feminine traits provide an advantage over masculine traits. Also, life's not fair and sports are entertainment.
Gender does not have to be the only method for separating sports. Weight classes and skill levels are used in so many sports to create fair footing. The sports you referenced have qualification standards for their athletes (all of which trans athletes must meet to compete). Trans athletes usually don't win first place.
Genetics do matter. A “trans woman” has an increased lung capacity, larger heart, higher muscle mass among other factors that must not be ignored. These don’t change by merely reidentification.
Here, the term "precious" refers to "overly sensitive" or "overly delicate." It's derogatory, not complimentary. The point is that when did women become so weak and helpless that we can't handle competition. When we step into a boxing ring, shouldn't we expect to get punched? That's the point of the sport. As a woman, I'm fine with competing with men. I'm better at a lot of things that many men aren't, and vice versa. Even in "traditionally masculine" areas. Most women are fine with competing with men. And we don't need anyone to protect us. I literally don't have a fight in the ring for women's boxing. But I do recall that Angela Carini, the woman that got beat in the match that set of the rumors that Khelif was transgender (she's not), made it clear that she didn't think that her "defenders" had a fight in the ring, either. Carini doesn't need your protection, so why do you insist on it?
Sure. But recall that you brought it up. If you don't want to discuss the facts, then I recommend you don't open the door to the conversation. The long and short of it is that women boxers get punched because that's what the sport is, and there's absolutely no proof that men are boxing against women in the Olympics. Rumor and innuendo are not a reasonable basis for opinion and debate.
People are way overly concerned about trans people. According to USA Facts, approximately 1.14% of the nation's adult population, or 3 million Americans, identify as transgender. They are not going to take over the world and they are not going to hurt anyone. These sports cases are so rare but they get all blown up, just to be made an example of. They are just people wanting to live their lives like the rest of us get to. As Rachel has explained, gender and sexuality are a continuum. It's religion and dogma in our culture that has made us think otherwise.
The only time I care is when it’s so blatantly bad, live your life but when you play fair you end up at the bottom so you switch teams to win. Then I object.
When has this happened to you, where a transgender person caused you to end up at the bottom? It's happened to me before, though not in sports, but it was just good old fashioned sexism. Let's maybe deal with the inherent sexism of the rules and laws that we already have than tackle the 3 instances in 8.2 billion that it allegedly happens in a world where the least of our worries is whether a game is fair.
Did you address the sexism Rachel, or let it slide? If I worked my entire life to win something and lose it to someone who wouldn’t have been able to just a year or two before, then yeah, I would question it.
I'm sorry to get sarcastic here, but yeah. I waved my anti discrimination wand and it was totally fixed. But I've never had to use my wand to prevent a transgender person from ruining my day, despite knowing several, because systemic transgenderism is vanishingly rare. Instead, I do what I can at the ballot box to deal with common sexism, and I think about systemic transgenderism after I worry about how unfair it is that unicorns don't need wands because they're genetically magic and I'm not.
Let’s not forget that men and women were separated during tournaments due to women’s advancement in competition. Women were showing that they could beat a man, and therefore the men organized a separate category for women. Like bathroom bills, these gender-based concerns aren’t about protecting women at all.
If anything they’re putting cis women at risk as well. What happens when a cis woman is accused of being trans in a public bathroom? What sort of trauma will she be subjected to? Or what about trans women who have undergone bottom surgery? Which bathroom are they supposed to safely use?
I chose to state it here because I replied to a commenter asking Trump voters a question. I clarified - in answering her question - that I wasn't a Trump voter, but I was answering anyway. I'm also not a Harris voter. And I didn't boast of being a Biden voter, so I'm unsure if that was directed to me or to the others on here.
Got it. I believe I’m one of the few here who has shared being a conservative leaning Independent who didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. While I agree that who I voted for shouldn’t necessarily matter, I also see value and transparency when it contributes to the goal of this newsletter: Learning from and having interesting discussions with people who think differently than you. In that context, I feel like sharing my voting stance can help further that goal. But maybe I’m wrong.
Over my many years, I've voted democrat; I've voted republican; I've voted independent. I have never been SCARED of the "other side" winning. Now, I am legitimately worried about what is happening here.
I'm trying to play my part. Do the next best thing I can do. I'm worried that the misinformation, the disinformation, and the quest for retribution are unstoppable. Yes, there are so many good people out there, but a lot of them aren't paying attention or are making excuses.
Sorry...I'm rambling, but wow. I feel really scared for our country.
Exactly this. When a president was elected that I didn't like, I was never terrified for what might happen, or that the president was out to seek revenge on people who didn't agree with him. This is new, in my lifetime at least.
Good on Margaret Brennan for asking Vance that question! The president and VP should both be asked how they justify some of these pardons relentlessly until we get a satisfactory explanation. Disappointing that Vance couldn’t give one. Disgusting to blame the DOJ.
Not only Trump and Vance, but every single Republican senator and Rep should be made uncomfortable with this question over and over. It is simply unacceptable that we should move on from violent criminals being pardoned.
Every time a politician that supports Trump claims they also support law and order, back the blue, etc., ask them which is it, because one of these things is not like the other.
While I disagree with some of the pardons of the J6, I did enjoy how Vance handled the rest of the interview. Margaret came on tough and he answered the questions thoroughly and with facts! He is such a refreshing alternative to the office of VP!!
For sure!! I am more and more impressed with his intellect and communication skills. He is also very quick on his feet. All I kept thinking was how would this have been so different if the interview were with Harris, on both accounts. The interviewer and interviewee.
Same! I have been an admirer of Vance since reading his book years ago but continue to be impressed with him. I would love to see him as President one day!
In less than 2 weeks, don the con has made a mockery out of the country. I never want to hear republicans talk about backing the blue again. To think he thought it would be just “too much trouble “ to comb through the cases, is disturbing on a level I can’t comprehend. I’m not sure the county can survive 4 years of his erratic, juvenile and unqualified behavior.
I’m not sure I understand the WHY behind any pardons. Unless you are looking at those truly innocent (West Memphis 3), and others who maybe took the Alford plea, then my brain just says why? You still have approx 32,000 people convicted of marijuana charges who remain in prison. WHY are the violent offenders, the drug dealers, those who commit crimes against the US the ones who get the free passes? It’s a disgusting, perversion of justice and only part of our problems.
I don’t agree with the pardoning of any violent criminals. Period. But I especially disagree with pardoning violent criminals who attacked our Capitol in a coup attempt.
Thank you for telling it like it is, Sharon. I appreciate your hard work and research. We need to read the truth and each of us needs to figure out what we are going to do with the information. At the very least we can write letters, call, email, or text our politicians and let them know our opinions. If we all saturate their inboxes, maybe they will take notice.
I tried to post this elsewhere but now I can’t find it. I want to back up my statement that Trump is a purveyor of revenge politics. Here is some information:
Boy that’s some fine hair splitting going on. Rhetoric is often the first step in the chain that leads to political violence. And he’s only been in power a few days.
I disagree. He's been saying some of these things for quite some time. I'm in the camp that Trump says a lot of things and is to be taken seriously but not literally. I suppose time will tell if he politically prosecutes his "enemies." I understand you believe he will, but I hope you are wrong.
Oops. We’ve accidentally changed the subject instead of addressing the core question. The question was, is Trump an arbiter of revenge politics. His rhetoric strongly suggests he is.
What about preemptive pardons? I’d listen to this if I felt like the same level of critical thinking was being made on those. But people can easily justify those and sweep them under the rug. “But, but… what Trump did is so much worse”. I want zero comments justifying what Biden did. I want honest, fair holding EVERYONE accountable. The same people who can justify Biden won’t acknowledge the many examples of J6ers who Were over zealously prosecuted for political points. I agree there were violent ones who shouldn’t have been pardoned. (Although I haven’t looked at time served and appropriate levels of charges and sentencing - have you??)
Pardoning people back to 2014? You’ve got No concerns about that?
Deena, I agree with honesty, fairness, and holding everyone accountable. Yes, I am keeping track of all of the pardoned J6ers in my area because I don’t want them running for my school board. Kimberly Dragoo ran for the St. Joseph, MO school board.
They are insurrectionists and they are emboldened. We must be vigilant!
The “but” does matter here. I wonder what you would do if your family was facing legitimate threats from a sitting president. It’s not a justification for what Biden did, but it is reality. And another reason (among many) that Kash Patel is unqualified for FBI Director.
What kind of accountability are you looking for in terms of preemptive pardons?
Just how much of the kook aid have you had??? The pardons from President Biden are not remotely like don the cons. All the trump supporters kept saying he’s not really going to do…….fill in the blank, he’s just saying that. Well less that 2 weeks in and he’s already done a lot of what you said he wouldn’t. He said he was going after the people president Biden pardoned. Not because they did something wrong, but because they enraged don and his ego. The January sixers were not prosecuted for political points, they actually broke the law and were found guilty. Maga has been fear mongered into hating the wrong people all so an unscrupulous man can stoke his ego and line his pockets.
The problem is Trump doesn't care because he can't be re-elected, however, Vance and other Republicans with future political aspirations might need to start caring because it's all going to fall on them and they will be the ones ultimately voted out for excusing these terrible decisions.
Yes, I know that however, he danced around and gave excuses when questioned about Trump doing it rather than pushing back and reiterating that he was against it. I would have actually respected him had he held his stance on it.
I get the instinct to respond with whataboutism. Politics always feels like a tit for tat. But I think it’s okay for us to condemn violent, unrepentant criminals being pardoned without having to play politics about it. Are Biden’s pardons problematic? Sure, we could have that argument. But that’s entirely unrelated to Trump’s pardons. I haven’t found a single Trump supporter who can defend the pardons of these violent people without turning to whataboutism.
Agreed. The false equivalence of pardoning poor Dr. Fauci to get ahead of revenge politics (Trump’s favorite kind) versus pardoning a boatload of violent criminals (apparently “back the blue” is only important when they’re on your team) is logical fallacy of the worst sort.
Preemptive pardons set an entirely new precedent. Something that has been harshly criticized by both sides, including Biden himself. If "poor Dr. Fauci" did nothing wrong, then "revenge politics" would be a dead end. I also push back on revenge politics being "Trump's favorite kind" as what examples can you even point to that he has done this? What comes to my mind is Hillary Clinton and "lock her up" only to be never spoken of again after Trump was elected.
Trump should not have pardoned all January 6th rioters. Violence against law enforcement is never okay. However, some of these pardons make sense. A majority of the charges were misdemeanors including trespassing and property crimes. A lot of these people had no prior record. I would argue this could be seen as revenge politics as similar charges would've likely been dropped in most liberal cities with progressive DAs. These jury trials also took place in Washington, DC where 93% of residents voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Have these defendants received fair trials by juries of their peers?
January 6th was incredibly ugly. I wish it had never happened. I also feel like January 6th has become an obsession for the left. Pardoning "a boatload of violent criminals" is certainly an exaggeration. While some of these pardons are unacceptable, others are reasonable. This goes for Biden and Trump alike.
You claim that J6 is an obsession for the left, but I’d argue it’s because the left is being gaslit to not believe their own eyes after having watched a violent movement to stop our free and fair election. These people didn’t just break a few windows - they did it in pursuit of halting democracy. You claim it was horrible while simultaneously downplaying it. You can’t have it both ways.
Relentless coverage of January 6th for the past four years is gaslighting?
I can acknowledge January 6th was ugly while also seeing it for what it was. It was not a planned coup or armed insurrection. It was not comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11. All of these claims I've heard from the left. The election was delayed but ultimately certified within a few hours. It should not have happened. It also has been exploited and exaggerated. All of these things can be true at once.
I know these comments are not going to be welcome by Sharon's readers, but the reality is my opinion is shared by tens of millions of Americans including independens. Maybe the left needs to focus on policy and move on from the hyperfixation of January 6th.
I guess I’d invite you to revisit the feelings you had about J6 the day after it happened compared to now. There was a brief window where we all agreed about the scope of it, even Trump’s most staunch supporters. Something happened a week or two later where they all began to bow the knee to Trump’s narrative, but that brief window… it was really something.
I disagree that there has been a hyper fixation on J6. It was a dreadful day for our nation, and should never be forgotten. I hope that my children learn about it in their history books. Additionally, it might be easier to move forward if the current President would actually concede that he lost the 2020 election.
It took 14 hours to certify the election in 2020, compared to 2 hours in 2024 (I believe - may not be 100% correct on this. Can’t find my source but will keep looking).
I don’t care if my comments are “well-received” or not. I care about the truth.
The attempted insurrection was the equivalent to Guy Fawkes trying to overthrow England. The UK still celebrates that failure with annual fireworks. We should be celebrating the heroic actions of the Capital police instead of arguing about criminals. Thanks to Trump we don’t. He spins the plates to keep us from focusing on how to advance our society. We are in retrograde. Let’s hope we survive this cycle.
The only thing worse than participating in an attempted insurrection against our country, is treason. The logic that some were “harmless” crimes is like saying the getaway driver wasn’t really participating in the burglary. That’s BS. Trump has a LONG history of revenge moves and if you don’t think he’d go after Dr. Fauci and the January 6th committee, then you really haven’t been paying attention.
Your suggestion that Biden has used the DOJ to go after political enemies carries an implication that you do not believe Trump committed the crimes he's been accused of. But he had the classified documents and refused to give them up. He was convicted in the Stormy Daniels case. Do you believe we should never prosecute an ex-president by nature of their past position? Or do you believe no one is above the law?
Summer, you don't seem capable of criticizing your own party. You jump to defend Biden with every comment. You then make snide remarks to anyone who does not share your beliefs.
Let me come back one more time Kayla and others to say - if I came off as disrespectful or rude, I apologize. It’s really difficult to be productive in these conversations (on all sides) but I can see that many of you are making an effort. I will as well.
I’m not defending Biden. I don’t need to because I’m not invested in his rightness. Please tell me what you mean by snide remarks? I’ve been nothing but straightforward on here as far as I know. What I am interested in defending are the facts and a sense of morality and justice unconstrained by partisan politics.
He has removed secret service protection for Bolton, Pompeo & Fauci; all of whom have had credible threats against them. He is threatening to withhold aid for the CA wildfires unless there is an agreement to lift the debt limit. IMO - DJT revenge politics is his playbook.
From what I can tell, Biden did not pardon violent offenders, though there are a handful of violent offenders who had their sentences commuted. Thankfully, these individuals will still have to live with their felony record.
Out of prison in the second case after serving 50 years. The first case as I said elsewhere, they were found not guilty. These comparisons are a huge stretch.
Sharon discusses his pardons here - https://thepreamble.com/p/biden-granted-clemency-to-the-man. I don't agree with all of them and in much the same way Trump didn't go over each January 6th pardon Biden did the same thing here. I don't love Biden's pardons here. I do have a really big issue pardoning anyone involved in the insurrection. It can feel like they're trying to rewrite history and make that day not what it was.
Here are some more details on some of Biden’s commutes. To Ashley’s point- these are violent criminals but they weren’t pardoned. But they are out of prison.
Oh, did you read the first article you posted? A jury found them not guilty but the judge sentenced them to life in prison? Seems like good candidates for clemency.
Of course. I was saying specifically - does it have any bearing on the public health response? Of course the truth matters in the general sense but is it relevant to this particular discussion?
You can also find heathy debates on masks, vaccines, some are no longer on market, and why people shouldn’t have been forced to be vaccinated. Certain exclusions apply of course.
As far as “healthy” debate goes, as Adam Grant says, balanced discussion doesn’t mean weighing all arguments equally. It means giving the most weight to the strongest evidence. There are certainly “other opinions” available regarding vaccines, but they are not backed up by evidentiary support or solid reasoning.
I’m well versed in these things and there is a lot of data out there to support the health measures that were taken. Vaccine mandates were par for the course in several organizations before the pandemic. Still not sure what point you’re making here.
Summer there are tons of verbal attacks on people that said maybe, just maybe, the virus didn’t come from a bat in a market but came from the lab in the same city. Pages and groups were taken off social media. Doctors silenced. Now the government is saying it probably came from a lab. You can find plenty online if you look.
I’m sorry I’m not clear on what that has to do with Fauci getting rich or his supposed scare tactics. I’m sure there’s a connection but maybe you can elaborate.
Also, if doctors were “silenced” as you claim, how do you know this? If people are actually silenced then wouldn’t it be the case that no one would know about it?
Look into what the CIA is reporting today. You are correct, you haven’t seen anything because it was hidden by the Biden admin. And, now, pardoned. Don’t forget, a pardon does not cover crimes at the state level. I hope every state pushes Fauci’s accountability to the light.
Other than being a liar, and those lies having extreme consequences, he hasn't had legitimate crimes against him. I believe that Biden preemptively pardoning him proves him to be guilty. Why else would he have pardoned him? If it is fear of Trump - when has Trump weaponized DOJ?
The only good thing about Biden’s pardons is that these people can’t plead the fifth if called to testify at a hearing (from what I’ve heard, I hope that’s true).
Is it whataboutism or is it illustrating a need for some guardrails for pardons? I think that both are examples of how times have changed and a need for a revisit. Trump’s pardons of violent criminals shouldn’t be analyzed in a vacuum.
Fair enough. I’d hope Trump’s actions alone would be enough for a call for change, but if we need to throw Biden’s in as well to make things look more bipartisan, why not.
Wouldn’t we want the changes to be across the board for future Presidents, regardless of political leanings? Or did you want Trump to only be accountable for the pardons he issued?
Maybe we should look at the underlying issue of Biden's preemptive pardons —a future president shouldn't be able to weaponize his power against people who disagree with him. If there wasn't the fear that Trump would absolutely try something against people doing their jobs, Biden wouldn't have needed to pardon them. Let's fix the problem first.
If those pardoned haven’t committed any crimes, surely there would be nothing to find. Now we are left to only assume there is guilt by those that accepted the pardons. Regarding whataboutism, it is a card that is frequently played here.
I posted this at the top but I’m leaving it here also.
We have to elevate the political discourse above simply asking “does this source lean right or left?” We can ask better questions — we MUST ask better questions of ourselves as well as our leaders. We have to engage in the hard work of challenging our assumptions and interrogating our inner selves — especially our fears, as they drive our responses and our thought processes more than we often realize. We will have to navigate the biases of others (as well as our own) but we would do well to deeply consider the very best arguments that our opponents have to offer. We ought to learn the logical fallacies and do our best to keep from indulging them, however tempting they may be. My wish for this place is that we could enter into these discussions with honesty and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. That, I think, is the only way forward.
I don’t disagree. I would like to add that I think it would be helpful if commenters held some humility and showed a genuine curiosity to learn. I think many of us work to prove others wrong and ourselves right. This includes myself:)
Humility is a must. And I would add that fact checking ourselves and our own claims would cut down on needing to clarify statements (which can come off as “proving others wrong”) after the fact.
The comments that support Trump or his actions on here - have to be defended almost each time someone comments. Yet- the same doesn’t apply to others who aren’t supportive of Trump. People are constantly trying to prove any comment wrong that doesn’t align to the majority of comments here. Anyone can see this with a quick glance at the Preamble comments section. It is why the majority of right leaning and independent commentators are leaving this space. I stick around because I have learned SO much and I don’t want to surround myself with content that only echoes my own thoughts.
Well...I don't think fact checking is the same as "proving a comment wrong." It's crucial to productive dialog. Without a shared set of facts how can we graduate to the higher levels of discussion around ethics, values, etc? I think you and I have talked about this before, but it's really less about Trump vs Biden and more about truth versus falsehood. Just today I ran into many commenters making claims that were outright lies in defense of their positions. That just isn't a healthy place to debate from.
I agree Summer. There are many falsehoods and misinformation shared daily in the comments section here (and other places of course). But I don’t think we should be constantly correcting people or making them feel like their point of view doesn’t matter.
We do clearly have different experiences which is fine. However just because we have different experiences doesn’t mean that they are both of equal merit. I am by no means claiming to know it all but I do believe that I have a more intimate understanding of all of the nuances that were at play as well as a wider array of firsthand experience working in a pharmacy all throughout the pandemic.
After getting more details and looking at the attacked letter I can understand your comments more. Your Dr would be scared to use high dose iv vitamin c for Covid patients because it had not been studied in that patient population and therefore wasn’t approved for those patients which would bring on liability for them if they were to proceed. However, doctors prescribing vitamin c at dosages approved over the counter did not have any issues and was being dispensed regularly (from personal experience).
As far as the cease and desist letter, it seems that the recipient was making claims he was not legally allowed to. There was no evidence to back up his claims and therefore he could not make them. It was not just because it was Covid. No company is allowed to make claims that their product, regimen etc. is a “treatment” as they did unless it has been fda approved as such. That’s why vitamins or supplements will say things like “helps support a healthy immune system” and not “will cure your cold in 3 days”. If this person were to make the same claims today about a product for UTIs it would garner the same response.
Amy this is a great example of what I was referring to in my earlier post. What is there for you to “disagree with” here? These are factual explanations from a credible source. You can dislike them but they’re not up for debate.
This is what I responded to Cassidy with earlier. And she brought up valid points but I don't know that we will agree. Which is ok!
Cassidy - we have 2 different experiences and opinions on this and that does not mean that I am perpetuating false information. I have been taking high dose vitamin c via IV for the last 8 years and had extensive discussions with my doctor about vit. C during Covid. She was terrified of prescribing it for Covid patients. The issue is that these treatments were censored and could have helped people.
Here is an example of a holistic Dr who received a cease and desist letter in May 2020. This isn't my Dr, but a friend in the MS community. He had to remove any recommendation of many vitamins for Covid. This is one example why many functional doctors were fearful of recommending treatments.
It's not you - I can't find it. This is so weird. Cassidy and I had a couple exchanges and I can't find them on this thread. If it appears again - I'll re-post it. I shared my experiences during covid with Vit C and a Dr who was censored.
Amy too bad nobody will read that and see “Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 8,000 individuals, which is more than any other modern president. Thousands of Biden's clemency grants were to serious criminals, including murderers, child killers, child abusers, and the biggest municipal embezzler in history, Rita Crundwell. Several of the grants benefitted well-connected Democrats. In both 2022 and 2024, Biden abused his pardon power to achieve mass sentencing reductions that Congress refused to pass by law.”
He already served his time for the murder conspiracy sentence Robn. 20 years. The commutation was for the drug charge. Not here to argue over whether the drug charge should’ve been commuted, but you’re misstating your case.
Vance couldn’t answer the question but maybe the Trump voters on here can. You voted for this. Why? It was so vital to get rid of any and all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in America that it was worth unleashing hundreds of violent criminals? The terrible threat of a trans girl playing the sport she loves is more important than punishing the people who tried to sabotage the peaceful transfer of power? The need to terrorize the people fleeing violence and poverty to come here to pick our fruits and vegetables and do all the other s**t jobs we won’t is worth the complete annihilation of law and order in this country?
Oh my god, the comments here. It is simply, yet still tragically astounding, that Conservatives, the group that used to stand for law and order, Old Glory, back the Blue, our revered Founders, the U.S. Constitution, Democracy, the Shining City on a Hill, are trying to normalize the pardoning of convicted felons who violently attacked law enforcement and desecrated perhaps the most venerable symbol of our Democracy because they wanted to overthrow a lawful election, as some sort of minor policy quirk that not everyone agrees with. And DEI, are you kidding me? After centuries of building this nation's wealth and world power on the backs of unpaid slave labor, then convict labor, then decades of Jim Crow discrimination, shutting people of color out of the GI Bill and the Homestead Act, banks redlining to refuse mortgages and real estate agents refusing to show homes to people of color in desirable neighborhoods, rental discrimination and discrimination in hiring, employment and criminal justice that continue to this day, now our biggest priority is doing all we can to prevent discrimination against white people? We have sunk so low as a country that it will take a very long time to dig ourselves out.
“Trying to normalize” is tired. No one here is doing that. Why did you even ask the question? I answered it in good faith. I now think it was rhetorical. You clearly have your mind made up. You aren’t here to learn from and have interesting conversations with people who think differently than you. Conservative’s biggest priority is preventing discrimination against white people? Who is feeding you that disinformation? Did you read Coleman Hughes article? Do you know that many people who aren’t (fill in all the ‘demographics’ you sneer at, starting with white) oppose DEI, Inc.?
I disagree. Normalizing abnormal behavior is definitely not tired as evidenced by your likening Trump's horrific pardons to some policy of Biden's that Biden voters might not agree with. Normalizing is the top of the very slippery slope that led down to the depths where we are now. Normalizing may seem "tired" to you because so much of it had to be done with Trump. We had to normalize an adjudicated sexual abuser in the Oval. We had to normalize a convicted felon in the Oval. We had to normalize a President cashing in on his position in the Oval. We had to normalize a President's multi-billionaire buddy threatening lawmakers over their votes. We had to normalize a violent insurrection at the Capitol as a "day of love." I could go on. It's like if Biden, after the shameful insurrection, declared a Domestic Terrorist National Security Emergency and sent the U.S. Military to fan out across the United States to round up all the Trump supporters. And I, as a Biden supporter, said, hmm, I thought he was only going to round up the people in red MAGA hats, not all of them. Oh well, I really like those economic growth provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, so, I guess it's all cool.
Ok. Your opinion has been noted.
If I'm not mistaken, Kate asked Sharon if Republicans were in attendance at her book tour events. I fear there is no listening to understand here. Kate's disdain for conservatives is palpable.
I believe you are mistaken. Must've been some other disdainful Kate, not I. Though I do admit I have quite a lot of disdain for almost everything that has come out of the White House in the last week and thus struggle to understand the reasoning of people who have enabled it.
You described this situation so well and concise Kate. Thanks for sharing your perspective here.
I’m not a Trump voter*, but I can say that among the conservatives here, many have expressed disagreement with blanket (as opposed to case-by-case) pardons for January 6 participants. Trump campaigned on pardoning J6 defendants, initially indicating he would approach it case by case. However, he ultimately took a broader approach, which many conservatives have criticized. Similarly, I imagine there are Biden or Harris voters who disagree with some of their administration’s actions—if I’m mistaken, feel free to correct me.
As for conservative priorities, they include (to respond to what you specifically listed) protecting women’s sports, securing stronger borders, ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity, and deporting individuals who are in the country unlawfully. That's not to say every conservative feels the same about every issue (and the same goes for liberals). Generally speaking, conservatives don’t see these issues as the “annihilation of law and order.” Instead, they’ve viewed movements like “defund the police,” sanctuary cities, antisemitic campus protests, and the leadership of a president perceived as struggling with cognitive sharpness as challenges to law and order. Headlines like the recent New York Times article, “How Labeling Cartels ‘Terrorists’ Could Hurt the U.S. Economy,” reinforce these concerns.
Coleman Hughes: The End of DEI (https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/the-end-of-deittps://www.thefp.com/p/coleman-hughes-the-end-of-dei) might offer additional insight.
Since you brought up migrants, Biden oversaw the highest level of deportations since 2014: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/biden-deportations-report/index.html. I'm guessing based on your comments, that this is not an action of his, if you voted for him, that you support. And yet you still voted for Harris (and I'm going to assume would've voted for Biden had he stayed in). And I understand that, because I understand presidents aren't perfect even to their own party.
*For transparency: I didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. I cast a write-in vote for a Republican. I’m a conservative-leaning Independent who voted for Biden in 2020 but chose not to support him or Harris in 2024.
I am not politically conservative, but I just want to say I really respect the way you answered this. I voted for Biden and definitely didn't agree with everything he did and in some or several cases was appalled by his behavior. Unfortunately our country only has two viable parties at this time and the reality is that most people are more complex than those two boxes would lead us to believe.
Agreed. I struggled with voting with third party for the first time in my life (for lack of a better way to characterize writing in someone's name). I know now that even if everyone who voted third party in my state had voted for Harris instead, she still would not have carried the state - and it's a state that swung for Biden in 2020. I probably will go back to Dem or Rep in 2028 unless there is a welcome, more moderate and viable third option. Hope is a choice!
I appreciate these insights as well, thank you for sharing! I absolutely don’t agree with a lot of things Biden did, and would never defend a politician 100%. I do think the article shared on DEI is oversimplifying it. DEI also includes having wheelchair ramps for people who need, braille available at work spaces for those who cannot see, and many other things. To totally roll it back I don’t see a positive. Especially when some want to use it as a way to leave out some key points of history and pretend they didn’t happen.
I find it highly unlikely that the DEI initiatives we're discussing today were focused on implementing braille and wheelchair ramps. Such measures have long been - and are still being - addressed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush.
Ok, I certainly hope so. I am admittedly speaking from anecdotal experience of what our DEI department works on and it’s definitely not all race related.
As someone married to a wheelchair user DEI in *some* places definitely did do this. DEI has evolved over time and doesn't necessarily look like what it might have when it started. I'm always amazed at the minimums of the ADA and what can be considered 'compliant' versus what people actually need. Answering those needs is what some DEI initiatives have evolved into today. Funny enough some of the worst offenders are small hospitals and doctor's offices. It's always nice when the wheelchair doesn't even fit through the front door!
Not putting words in anyone's mouths within these comments. But much of the DEI commentary I've seen in the real world has actually revolved around what would actually be affirmative action. It is important to note that none of what Trump did touches EEOE which is law as well. If work places try to discriminate based on anything related to DEI, rather than just roll back work place DEI programs, they will still have that law to deal with.
That’s what we’ve found at my job too. Our DEI team brings everyone in for discussions, and despite any laws we definitely have a lot of work to do in making all feel included. Which I think is very important!
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? We’ve already seen Inspectors General attempted removal without the lawful process being followed.
How exactly is disagreement on pardons, over-reaching mandates & tyrannical deportations going to square with voting a man into power based on the price of eggs & middle school hockey players’ gender? We have to prevent the deterioration of decency. Shrugging after the fact doesn’t keep us safe or feed our people.
Who on here is shrugging after the fact? Who is telling you that people voted for Trump based on the price of eggs and middle school hockey players' gender?
Biden carried out the highest level of deportations since 2014. Were those tyrannical?
How are we now going to choose which laws to follow? Really? I recommend everyone watch this, Sharon's interview last week with Isaac Saul, there has never been a better time to be alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=GWldKcItsQU&t=2766s
Aren’t we lucky that there has never been a better time to be alive for white women? I’d like to keep it that way & include the rest of humanity in our progress. I’m an independent voter, but I guess this makes me progressive.
The price of eggs and gas was the excuse many voters gave for someone with whom they could not defend as a moral choice. I did not make that up.
The fight over gender in sports is given as another excuse. Facts.
The Free Press had a really interesting article about DEI in the military that I read today - https://www.thefp.com/p/dei-military-pete-hegseth-trump. Overall, having a blanket anything really can end up backfiring because it lacks context of the situation or needs of the community or group. One size fits all is just not a good approach (in my world we call it a spray and pray and it usually is a bad business strategy). Personally, diversity in background, ethnicity, and thought are paramount to business and education but the rhetoric right now especially in academia and medicine is just backwards racism and exclusionary. Individual companies who do DEI well should continue their programming and continue pushing for diversity as a part of their ethos. But we also shouldn't be looking to individuals who tell others they are born racists as god-like truth sayers.
DEI is a perfect example of marketing -- so is BLM. Their words and names represent incredibly respectable things that people want, but their leadership and founders are corrupt. And just because we want to believe something is good doesn't mean it isn't and we all should call out when something is rotten no matter if we voted for them or didn't!
Excellent reply, Tammy!
It’s more about the trans boxer that bashed the girl’s face in with no remorse. The swimmer who took a gold medal from a female…
What trans boxer? If you're referring to Iman Khalif, she's not trans, so your source is not trustworthy.
Actually XY, so male
Even if true, she was born and assigned female gender. About 1 in 60 babies are born with genitalia that don't fully match their sex chromosomes. Most of them are completely unaware of their genetic sex, and at least some of them are surgically "assigned" based on the most apparent physical gender as babies. Biological sex and gender are correlated, but not fully causally related. Most animal species have a gender spectrum, humans included. That said, she is not transgender because she was born female and remains female. But, did you know that some species change gender based on their environment? Also, some mammals can choose the sex of their offspring.
Over 900 females lost medals to trans-identifying females (males) in sports according to the UN. So while we are getting really granular on Iman and discussing interesting points, but points that generally ignore the our human reality, the problem is....bigger.
Yet, the problem is still miniscule. And will never actually amount to being important enough to trade our democracy for.
It's also worth noting that more than twice that many people are injured by lighting each year in Florida alone. We still refer to something as being rare by likening it to the chances of being struck by lightning. Pretty darn rare. Meanwhile, more than 5x that many people die in car wrecks because we've failed to regulate the size of motor vehicles. Seems like that could be readily addressed and have a real impact on lives. I could provide so many more examples where more people are impacted in much more meaningful ways. But I hope you get the drift.
No one has presented any evidence that her chromosomes are XY.
Fallon Fox?
Boxing is about punching people without remorse. Swimming is about going for the gold. I don't know when women became so precious that we lost our sense of competition. Sports is about getting beat sometimes - usually by people with an athletic advantage. No one complains when Michael Phelps - with his unusual anatomy that gives him competitive advantage - wins scores of gold medals.
Genetics is a thing.
Genetics IS a thing. But probably not in the way you're suggesting. I'm curious what your background in genetics is. I have a PhD in cancer biology, which required several advanced courses in genetics, not to mention that my thesis revolved around the function of a protein that influenced expression of genes during development. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me a geneticist, let alone a geneticist that specializes in sex determination and the impact of genetic expression and environmental factors on sex traits. BUT...I am pretty well versed on how genetics isn't the equivalent of fate. If you can speak knowledgeably in the subject, I wouldn't mind discussing how much of a thing genetics is. If not, let's not pretend that the phrase "[this complex scientific concept] is a thing" is a cogent point.
Then you know that a physical man has differences that will pummel a woman every time, no matter what the sport is. How is that fair?
You'll have to define "physical man." In my experience, the phenotypes of male humans vary significantly, as do the phenotypes of female humans. There's a significant amount of overlap driven by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. And, no. In many sports, feminine traits provide an advantage over masculine traits. Also, life's not fair and sports are entertainment.
Let’s let men have all the things then. Why even start a female division of anything??? Who needs equal rights or a fair footing?
Gender does not have to be the only method for separating sports. Weight classes and skill levels are used in so many sports to create fair footing. The sports you referenced have qualification standards for their athletes (all of which trans athletes must meet to compete). Trans athletes usually don't win first place.
Genetics do matter. A “trans woman” has an increased lung capacity, larger heart, higher muscle mass among other factors that must not be ignored. These don’t change by merely reidentification.
Michael Phelps had all those factors and was praised for it. We love genetic anomalies in athletics.
What study has shown that? Please cite your sources.
As far as Michael Phelps, you could argue he was born that way, sports figures today say they’re women and we automatically accept it?
Why wouldn’t we? If they meet the sports’ qualifications to compete, I do not care how they identify.
The women’s movement just died
The women's movement is rather feeble if it is built solely on having a sports category to ourselves.
The good news is the women's movement that is built on women being recognized as fully autonomous people is still alive, (mostly) well, and thriving.
And yes, women are precious and should be treated well.
Here, the term "precious" refers to "overly sensitive" or "overly delicate." It's derogatory, not complimentary. The point is that when did women become so weak and helpless that we can't handle competition. When we step into a boxing ring, shouldn't we expect to get punched? That's the point of the sport. As a woman, I'm fine with competing with men. I'm better at a lot of things that many men aren't, and vice versa. Even in "traditionally masculine" areas. Most women are fine with competing with men. And we don't need anyone to protect us. I literally don't have a fight in the ring for women's boxing. But I do recall that Angela Carini, the woman that got beat in the match that set of the rumors that Khelif was transgender (she's not), made it clear that she didn't think that her "defenders" had a fight in the ring, either. Carini doesn't need your protection, so why do you insist on it?
There are lawsuits handling it so I’ll let them argue.
Sure. But recall that you brought it up. If you don't want to discuss the facts, then I recommend you don't open the door to the conversation. The long and short of it is that women boxers get punched because that's what the sport is, and there's absolutely no proof that men are boxing against women in the Olympics. Rumor and innuendo are not a reasonable basis for opinion and debate.
People are way overly concerned about trans people. According to USA Facts, approximately 1.14% of the nation's adult population, or 3 million Americans, identify as transgender. They are not going to take over the world and they are not going to hurt anyone. These sports cases are so rare but they get all blown up, just to be made an example of. They are just people wanting to live their lives like the rest of us get to. As Rachel has explained, gender and sexuality are a continuum. It's religion and dogma in our culture that has made us think otherwise.
It's about objective truth.
The only time I care is when it’s so blatantly bad, live your life but when you play fair you end up at the bottom so you switch teams to win. Then I object.
When has this happened to you, where a transgender person caused you to end up at the bottom? It's happened to me before, though not in sports, but it was just good old fashioned sexism. Let's maybe deal with the inherent sexism of the rules and laws that we already have than tackle the 3 instances in 8.2 billion that it allegedly happens in a world where the least of our worries is whether a game is fair.
Did you address the sexism Rachel, or let it slide? If I worked my entire life to win something and lose it to someone who wouldn’t have been able to just a year or two before, then yeah, I would question it.
I'm sorry to get sarcastic here, but yeah. I waved my anti discrimination wand and it was totally fixed. But I've never had to use my wand to prevent a transgender person from ruining my day, despite knowing several, because systemic transgenderism is vanishingly rare. Instead, I do what I can at the ballot box to deal with common sexism, and I think about systemic transgenderism after I worry about how unfair it is that unicorns don't need wands because they're genetically magic and I'm not.
Let’s not forget that men and women were separated during tournaments due to women’s advancement in competition. Women were showing that they could beat a man, and therefore the men organized a separate category for women. Like bathroom bills, these gender-based concerns aren’t about protecting women at all.
If anything they’re putting cis women at risk as well. What happens when a cis woman is accused of being trans in a public bathroom? What sort of trauma will she be subjected to? Or what about trans women who have undergone bottom surgery? Which bathroom are they supposed to safely use?
“Im not a Trump voter…” why do people think they have to post that in a nonpartisan group? And why does one boast of being a Biden voter? 🤔
Since I'm the one who said it:
I chose to state it here because I replied to a commenter asking Trump voters a question. I clarified - in answering her question - that I wasn't a Trump voter, but I was answering anyway. I'm also not a Harris voter. And I didn't boast of being a Biden voter, so I'm unsure if that was directed to me or to the others on here.
It just ended up under a post instead of on its own. A general observation since I see it a lot here.
Got it. I believe I’m one of the few here who has shared being a conservative leaning Independent who didn’t vote for Trump or Harris. While I agree that who I voted for shouldn’t necessarily matter, I also see value and transparency when it contributes to the goal of this newsletter: Learning from and having interesting discussions with people who think differently than you. In that context, I feel like sharing my voting stance can help further that goal. But maybe I’m wrong.
Over my many years, I've voted democrat; I've voted republican; I've voted independent. I have never been SCARED of the "other side" winning. Now, I am legitimately worried about what is happening here.
I'm trying to play my part. Do the next best thing I can do. I'm worried that the misinformation, the disinformation, and the quest for retribution are unstoppable. Yes, there are so many good people out there, but a lot of them aren't paying attention or are making excuses.
Sorry...I'm rambling, but wow. I feel really scared for our country.
Exactly this. When a president was elected that I didn't like, I was never terrified for what might happen, or that the president was out to seek revenge on people who didn't agree with him. This is new, in my lifetime at least.
Bridget I feel the same way 😞
❤️
Yes. I would have happily voted for Bush as an alternative.
His justification is it would take too much time to evaluate each case. Pathetic!
Good on Margaret Brennan for asking Vance that question! The president and VP should both be asked how they justify some of these pardons relentlessly until we get a satisfactory explanation. Disappointing that Vance couldn’t give one. Disgusting to blame the DOJ.
Not only Trump and Vance, but every single Republican senator and Rep should be made uncomfortable with this question over and over. It is simply unacceptable that we should move on from violent criminals being pardoned.
Do Not Move On!
Keep asking!
Every time a politician that supports Trump claims they also support law and order, back the blue, etc., ask them which is it, because one of these things is not like the other.
While I disagree with some of the pardons of the J6, I did enjoy how Vance handled the rest of the interview. Margaret came on tough and he answered the questions thoroughly and with facts! He is such a refreshing alternative to the office of VP!!
It was refreshing to see! He held his own.
For sure!! I am more and more impressed with his intellect and communication skills. He is also very quick on his feet. All I kept thinking was how would this have been so different if the interview were with Harris, on both accounts. The interviewer and interviewee.
Same! I have been an admirer of Vance since reading his book years ago but continue to be impressed with him. I would love to see him as President one day!
Scary that the answer was "It would have taken too much time and effort to do it right, so we did it wrong."
In less than 2 weeks, don the con has made a mockery out of the country. I never want to hear republicans talk about backing the blue again. To think he thought it would be just “too much trouble “ to comb through the cases, is disturbing on a level I can’t comprehend. I’m not sure the county can survive 4 years of his erratic, juvenile and unqualified behavior.
I’m not sure I understand the WHY behind any pardons. Unless you are looking at those truly innocent (West Memphis 3), and others who maybe took the Alford plea, then my brain just says why? You still have approx 32,000 people convicted of marijuana charges who remain in prison. WHY are the violent offenders, the drug dealers, those who commit crimes against the US the ones who get the free passes? It’s a disgusting, perversion of justice and only part of our problems.
I don’t agree with the pardoning of any violent criminals. Period. But I especially disagree with pardoning violent criminals who attacked our Capitol in a coup attempt.
This is the glaring most hypocritical pardon, considering he is supposedly trying to keep drugs from coming in at the border...https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pardons-silk-road-founder-ulbricht-online-drug-scheme-2025-01-22/
It doesn't look like we have enough representatives in Congress or the Senate who will stand up to him, so now what?
Angela- Replace Them!
It doesn't look like we have time for that.
Thank you for telling it like it is, Sharon. I appreciate your hard work and research. We need to read the truth and each of us needs to figure out what we are going to do with the information. At the very least we can write letters, call, email, or text our politicians and let them know our opinions. If we all saturate their inboxes, maybe they will take notice.
I tried to post this elsewhere but now I can’t find it. I want to back up my statement that Trump is a purveyor of revenge politics. Here is some information:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4996981-trump-enemies-fear-retribution/
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/1211597189/a-look-into-trumps-recent-rhetoric-focusing-on-revenge-and-threats
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-has-threatened-dozens-of-times-to-use-the-government-to-target-political-enemies/
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/07/trump-dr-phil-interview-revenge
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-guilty-verdict-revenge-retribution-rcna155743
Adfontes puts the Hill squarely in the middle. More to the point, does it matter? The relevant question is, are the reports true or false?
Incidentally, all of these are left-leaning sources. Just FYI…
These all seem to be examples of threats and threatening language. No actual implementation if I'm correct?
Boy that’s some fine hair splitting going on. Rhetoric is often the first step in the chain that leads to political violence. And he’s only been in power a few days.
I disagree. He's been saying some of these things for quite some time. I'm in the camp that Trump says a lot of things and is to be taken seriously but not literally. I suppose time will tell if he politically prosecutes his "enemies." I understand you believe he will, but I hope you are wrong.
Perhaps we should ask “why” they are his “enemies”? 🧐
Oops. We’ve accidentally changed the subject instead of addressing the core question. The question was, is Trump an arbiter of revenge politics. His rhetoric strongly suggests he is.
Oops, I guess my question was too much to ask?
What about preemptive pardons? I’d listen to this if I felt like the same level of critical thinking was being made on those. But people can easily justify those and sweep them under the rug. “But, but… what Trump did is so much worse”. I want zero comments justifying what Biden did. I want honest, fair holding EVERYONE accountable. The same people who can justify Biden won’t acknowledge the many examples of J6ers who Were over zealously prosecuted for political points. I agree there were violent ones who shouldn’t have been pardoned. (Although I haven’t looked at time served and appropriate levels of charges and sentencing - have you??)
Pardoning people back to 2014? You’ve got No concerns about that?
Deena, I agree with honesty, fairness, and holding everyone accountable. Yes, I am keeping track of all of the pardoned J6ers in my area because I don’t want them running for my school board. Kimberly Dragoo ran for the St. Joseph, MO school board.
They are insurrectionists and they are emboldened. We must be vigilant!
The “but” does matter here. I wonder what you would do if your family was facing legitimate threats from a sitting president. It’s not a justification for what Biden did, but it is reality. And another reason (among many) that Kash Patel is unqualified for FBI Director.
What kind of accountability are you looking for in terms of preemptive pardons?
Just how much of the kook aid have you had??? The pardons from President Biden are not remotely like don the cons. All the trump supporters kept saying he’s not really going to do…….fill in the blank, he’s just saying that. Well less that 2 weeks in and he’s already done a lot of what you said he wouldn’t. He said he was going after the people president Biden pardoned. Not because they did something wrong, but because they enraged don and his ego. The January sixers were not prosecuted for political points, they actually broke the law and were found guilty. Maga has been fear mongered into hating the wrong people all so an unscrupulous man can stoke his ego and line his pockets.
I remember when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. I never got over that. And neither did the American people. He was not re-elected.
The problem is Trump doesn't care because he can't be re-elected, however, Vance and other Republicans with future political aspirations might need to start caring because it's all going to fall on them and they will be the ones ultimately voted out for excusing these terrible decisions.
Vance wasn’t for the pardoning of the violent J6 prisoners, FYI.
Yes, I know that however, he danced around and gave excuses when questioned about Trump doing it rather than pushing back and reiterating that he was against it. I would have actually respected him had he held his stance on it.
It’s up to us to uphold standards. Remember those?
Between Biden’s pardons 15 mins before he left office and Trump’s - some changes need to be made.
Interesting opinion piece
https://www.newsweek.com/sorry-bidens-pardons-are-much-worse-trumps-opinion-2018843
I get the instinct to respond with whataboutism. Politics always feels like a tit for tat. But I think it’s okay for us to condemn violent, unrepentant criminals being pardoned without having to play politics about it. Are Biden’s pardons problematic? Sure, we could have that argument. But that’s entirely unrelated to Trump’s pardons. I haven’t found a single Trump supporter who can defend the pardons of these violent people without turning to whataboutism.
Agreed. The false equivalence of pardoning poor Dr. Fauci to get ahead of revenge politics (Trump’s favorite kind) versus pardoning a boatload of violent criminals (apparently “back the blue” is only important when they’re on your team) is logical fallacy of the worst sort.
Preemptive pardons set an entirely new precedent. Something that has been harshly criticized by both sides, including Biden himself. If "poor Dr. Fauci" did nothing wrong, then "revenge politics" would be a dead end. I also push back on revenge politics being "Trump's favorite kind" as what examples can you even point to that he has done this? What comes to my mind is Hillary Clinton and "lock her up" only to be never spoken of again after Trump was elected.
Trump should not have pardoned all January 6th rioters. Violence against law enforcement is never okay. However, some of these pardons make sense. A majority of the charges were misdemeanors including trespassing and property crimes. A lot of these people had no prior record. I would argue this could be seen as revenge politics as similar charges would've likely been dropped in most liberal cities with progressive DAs. These jury trials also took place in Washington, DC where 93% of residents voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Have these defendants received fair trials by juries of their peers?
January 6th was incredibly ugly. I wish it had never happened. I also feel like January 6th has become an obsession for the left. Pardoning "a boatload of violent criminals" is certainly an exaggeration. While some of these pardons are unacceptable, others are reasonable. This goes for Biden and Trump alike.
You claim that J6 is an obsession for the left, but I’d argue it’s because the left is being gaslit to not believe their own eyes after having watched a violent movement to stop our free and fair election. These people didn’t just break a few windows - they did it in pursuit of halting democracy. You claim it was horrible while simultaneously downplaying it. You can’t have it both ways.
Relentless coverage of January 6th for the past four years is gaslighting?
I can acknowledge January 6th was ugly while also seeing it for what it was. It was not a planned coup or armed insurrection. It was not comparable to Pearl Harbor or 9/11. All of these claims I've heard from the left. The election was delayed but ultimately certified within a few hours. It should not have happened. It also has been exploited and exaggerated. All of these things can be true at once.
I know these comments are not going to be welcome by Sharon's readers, but the reality is my opinion is shared by tens of millions of Americans including independens. Maybe the left needs to focus on policy and move on from the hyperfixation of January 6th.
I guess I’d invite you to revisit the feelings you had about J6 the day after it happened compared to now. There was a brief window where we all agreed about the scope of it, even Trump’s most staunch supporters. Something happened a week or two later where they all began to bow the knee to Trump’s narrative, but that brief window… it was really something.
I disagree that there has been a hyper fixation on J6. It was a dreadful day for our nation, and should never be forgotten. I hope that my children learn about it in their history books. Additionally, it might be easier to move forward if the current President would actually concede that he lost the 2020 election.
J6 was an attempted coup:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-it-was-attempted-coup
It took 14 hours to certify the election in 2020, compared to 2 hours in 2024 (I believe - may not be 100% correct on this. Can’t find my source but will keep looking).
I don’t care if my comments are “well-received” or not. I care about the truth.
The attempted insurrection was the equivalent to Guy Fawkes trying to overthrow England. The UK still celebrates that failure with annual fireworks. We should be celebrating the heroic actions of the Capital police instead of arguing about criminals. Thanks to Trump we don’t. He spins the plates to keep us from focusing on how to advance our society. We are in retrograde. Let’s hope we survive this cycle.
Complete agree Kayla. Thank you for sharing your thoughts that won’t be well received with majority of this audience.
The only thing worse than participating in an attempted insurrection against our country, is treason. The logic that some were “harmless” crimes is like saying the getaway driver wasn’t really participating in the burglary. That’s BS. Trump has a LONG history of revenge moves and if you don’t think he’d go after Dr. Fauci and the January 6th committee, then you really haven’t been paying attention.
Trump's own record suggests otherwise. Trump has not weaponized the DOJ to go after his political enemies. Biden on the other hand...
Your suggestion that Biden has used the DOJ to go after political enemies carries an implication that you do not believe Trump committed the crimes he's been accused of. But he had the classified documents and refused to give them up. He was convicted in the Stormy Daniels case. Do you believe we should never prosecute an ex-president by nature of their past position? Or do you believe no one is above the law?
I am sincerely asking this question…
Was it Biden who requested that Trump be charged? Or was it the DOJ? Because they’re supposed to be separate arms of the government.
Yes, Kayla! Very well stated!!
You can’t be serious.
Summer, you don't seem capable of criticizing your own party. You jump to defend Biden with every comment. You then make snide remarks to anyone who does not share your beliefs.
Let me come back one more time Kayla and others to say - if I came off as disrespectful or rude, I apologize. It’s really difficult to be productive in these conversations (on all sides) but I can see that many of you are making an effort. I will as well.
I’m not a member of the Democratic Party, and I think there’s plenty they get quite wrong. I’m an open book if you want to ask me about it.
I’m not defending Biden. I don’t need to because I’m not invested in his rightness. Please tell me what you mean by snide remarks? I’ve been nothing but straightforward on here as far as I know. What I am interested in defending are the facts and a sense of morality and justice unconstrained by partisan politics.
Agree Kayla! I would also be interested in examples of revenge politics Trump has used.
He has removed secret service protection for Bolton, Pompeo & Fauci; all of whom have had credible threats against them. He is threatening to withhold aid for the CA wildfires unless there is an agreement to lift the debt limit. IMO - DJT revenge politics is his playbook.
Do you know of any examples of Trump weaponizing the DOJ?
I can see how that looks like revenge politics.
How is it a false equivalence when Biden also pardoned violent criminals?
From what I can tell, Biden did not pardon violent offenders, though there are a handful of violent offenders who had their sentences commuted. Thankfully, these individuals will still have to live with their felony record.
I believe you’re correct Ashley. Although they weren’t fully pardoned, they are out of prison. Pretty awful.
Ferrone Claiborne and Terance Richardson
Adrian Peeler
https://www.wtkr.com/news/politics/decades-after-police-officer-killed-biden-grants-clemency-for-waverly-two
https://apnews.com/article/leonard-peltier-biden-pardons-eba525b713f2ec739b84aa4426366775
Out of prison in the second case after serving 50 years. The first case as I said elsewhere, they were found not guilty. These comparisons are a huge stretch.
Sorry - I might’ve missed it but can you point me to where he pardoned violent criminals?
Sharon discusses his pardons here - https://thepreamble.com/p/biden-granted-clemency-to-the-man. I don't agree with all of them and in much the same way Trump didn't go over each January 6th pardon Biden did the same thing here. I don't love Biden's pardons here. I do have a really big issue pardoning anyone involved in the insurrection. It can feel like they're trying to rewrite history and make that day not what it was.
Thanks- I was trying to find that post.
Here are some more details on some of Biden’s commutes. To Ashley’s point- these are violent criminals but they weren’t pardoned. But they are out of prison.
Ferrone Claiborne and Terance Richardson
Adrian Peeler
https://www.wtkr.com/news/politics/decades-after-police-officer-killed-biden-grants-clemency-for-waverly-two
https://apnews.com/article/leonard-peltier-biden-pardons-eba525b713f2ec739b84aa4426366775
Oh, did you read the first article you posted? A jury found them not guilty but the judge sentenced them to life in prison? Seems like good candidates for clemency.
‘Poor Dr Fauci’?? Are you serious? Have you read reports the CIA released today? “Poor US citizens” would be more accurate.
Does it matter? Does the origin of the virus have any bearing on how it was handled from a public health perspective? I’m not convinced it does. You?
It matters. The truth always matters!!
Of course. I was saying specifically - does it have any bearing on the public health response? Of course the truth matters in the general sense but is it relevant to this particular discussion?
“Poor” Fauci got RICH by using scare tactics and people believed his rhetoric.
Prove it.
You can also find heathy debates on masks, vaccines, some are no longer on market, and why people shouldn’t have been forced to be vaccinated. Certain exclusions apply of course.
As far as “healthy” debate goes, as Adam Grant says, balanced discussion doesn’t mean weighing all arguments equally. It means giving the most weight to the strongest evidence. There are certainly “other opinions” available regarding vaccines, but they are not backed up by evidentiary support or solid reasoning.
I’m well versed in these things and there is a lot of data out there to support the health measures that were taken. Vaccine mandates were par for the course in several organizations before the pandemic. Still not sure what point you’re making here.
Summer there are tons of verbal attacks on people that said maybe, just maybe, the virus didn’t come from a bat in a market but came from the lab in the same city. Pages and groups were taken off social media. Doctors silenced. Now the government is saying it probably came from a lab. You can find plenty online if you look.
I’m sorry I’m not clear on what that has to do with Fauci getting rich or his supposed scare tactics. I’m sure there’s a connection but maybe you can elaborate.
Also, if doctors were “silenced” as you claim, how do you know this? If people are actually silenced then wouldn’t it be the case that no one would know about it?
Biden knew Fauci was guilty of so much. It’s just shameful that he was pardoned in advance.
Wait, what is Fauci guilty of? I haven't seen any legitimate crimes laid at Fauci's feet yet.
Look into what the CIA is reporting today. You are correct, you haven’t seen anything because it was hidden by the Biden admin. And, now, pardoned. Don’t forget, a pardon does not cover crimes at the state level. I hope every state pushes Fauci’s accountability to the light.
Other than being a liar, and those lies having extreme consequences, he hasn't had legitimate crimes against him. I believe that Biden preemptively pardoning him proves him to be guilty. Why else would he have pardoned him? If it is fear of Trump - when has Trump weaponized DOJ?
Please explain what Dr. Fauci is guilty of.
The only good thing about Biden’s pardons is that these people can’t plead the fifth if called to testify at a hearing (from what I’ve heard, I hope that’s true).
Yes, Amy. We are beginning to see reports of this today as a matter of fact!!
Is it whataboutism or is it illustrating a need for some guardrails for pardons? I think that both are examples of how times have changed and a need for a revisit. Trump’s pardons of violent criminals shouldn’t be analyzed in a vacuum.
Times have changed. Are we going to ignore it, accept it, move on? Or are we going to hold people accountable?
We should absolutely hold people accountable.
Why shouldn’t his pardons be analyzed in a vacuum? Is this abuse of power not enough on its own to justify guardrails?
I don’t believe he is the only President to abuse such powers. If analyzing in a vacuum- I think an opportunity for change is missed.
Fair enough. I’d hope Trump’s actions alone would be enough for a call for change, but if we need to throw Biden’s in as well to make things look more bipartisan, why not.
Wouldn’t we want the changes to be across the board for future Presidents, regardless of political leanings? Or did you want Trump to only be accountable for the pardons he issued?
So you agree with Biden’s pardons?
Maybe we should look at the underlying issue of Biden's preemptive pardons —a future president shouldn't be able to weaponize his power against people who disagree with him. If there wasn't the fear that Trump would absolutely try something against people doing their jobs, Biden wouldn't have needed to pardon them. Let's fix the problem first.
If those pardoned haven’t committed any crimes, surely there would be nothing to find. Now we are left to only assume there is guilt by those that accepted the pardons. Regarding whataboutism, it is a card that is frequently played here.
Hi Katie. It definitely admits guilt with those preemptive pardons.
It doesn't, according to a Federal Court of Appeals ruling about a pardon that Trump gave a soldier during his first term: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/mypmnoxykvr/pardon.pdf
But go ahead and pretend that a confident answer is the same as a competent answer.
I guess go ahead and continue to be snarky. :)
I am sooo over with the condescending tone on here when someone disagrees with an opinion.
I posted this at the top but I’m leaving it here also.
We have to elevate the political discourse above simply asking “does this source lean right or left?” We can ask better questions — we MUST ask better questions of ourselves as well as our leaders. We have to engage in the hard work of challenging our assumptions and interrogating our inner selves — especially our fears, as they drive our responses and our thought processes more than we often realize. We will have to navigate the biases of others (as well as our own) but we would do well to deeply consider the very best arguments that our opponents have to offer. We ought to learn the logical fallacies and do our best to keep from indulging them, however tempting they may be. My wish for this place is that we could enter into these discussions with honesty and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. That, I think, is the only way forward.
I don’t disagree. I would like to add that I think it would be helpful if commenters held some humility and showed a genuine curiosity to learn. I think many of us work to prove others wrong and ourselves right. This includes myself:)
Humility is a must. And I would add that fact checking ourselves and our own claims would cut down on needing to clarify statements (which can come off as “proving others wrong”) after the fact.
The comments that support Trump or his actions on here - have to be defended almost each time someone comments. Yet- the same doesn’t apply to others who aren’t supportive of Trump. People are constantly trying to prove any comment wrong that doesn’t align to the majority of comments here. Anyone can see this with a quick glance at the Preamble comments section. It is why the majority of right leaning and independent commentators are leaving this space. I stick around because I have learned SO much and I don’t want to surround myself with content that only echoes my own thoughts.
Well...I don't think fact checking is the same as "proving a comment wrong." It's crucial to productive dialog. Without a shared set of facts how can we graduate to the higher levels of discussion around ethics, values, etc? I think you and I have talked about this before, but it's really less about Trump vs Biden and more about truth versus falsehood. Just today I ran into many commenters making claims that were outright lies in defense of their positions. That just isn't a healthy place to debate from.
I agree Summer. There are many falsehoods and misinformation shared daily in the comments section here (and other places of course). But I don’t think we should be constantly correcting people or making them feel like their point of view doesn’t matter.
Actually I think many of us independent folks are still here :-) Not liking Trump doesn’t mean we are automatically in one political party.
I agree Rachel. I was referring to people I’ve chatted with on direct messages.
We do clearly have different experiences which is fine. However just because we have different experiences doesn’t mean that they are both of equal merit. I am by no means claiming to know it all but I do believe that I have a more intimate understanding of all of the nuances that were at play as well as a wider array of firsthand experience working in a pharmacy all throughout the pandemic.
After getting more details and looking at the attacked letter I can understand your comments more. Your Dr would be scared to use high dose iv vitamin c for Covid patients because it had not been studied in that patient population and therefore wasn’t approved for those patients which would bring on liability for them if they were to proceed. However, doctors prescribing vitamin c at dosages approved over the counter did not have any issues and was being dispensed regularly (from personal experience).
As far as the cease and desist letter, it seems that the recipient was making claims he was not legally allowed to. There was no evidence to back up his claims and therefore he could not make them. It was not just because it was Covid. No company is allowed to make claims that their product, regimen etc. is a “treatment” as they did unless it has been fda approved as such. That’s why vitamins or supplements will say things like “helps support a healthy immune system” and not “will cure your cold in 3 days”. If this person were to make the same claims today about a product for UTIs it would garner the same response.
I hope this helps clear some things up.
We aren’t going to agree. :) Thanks for providing additional info.
Amy this is a great example of what I was referring to in my earlier post. What is there for you to “disagree with” here? These are factual explanations from a credible source. You can dislike them but they’re not up for debate.
I also presented facts above from a credible source.
I'm sorry to ask but can you re-share or copy/paste? It's a cluttered comments section :).
This is what I responded to Cassidy with earlier. And she brought up valid points but I don't know that we will agree. Which is ok!
Cassidy - we have 2 different experiences and opinions on this and that does not mean that I am perpetuating false information. I have been taking high dose vitamin c via IV for the last 8 years and had extensive discussions with my doctor about vit. C during Covid. She was terrified of prescribing it for Covid patients. The issue is that these treatments were censored and could have helped people.
Here is an example of a holistic Dr who received a cease and desist letter in May 2020. This isn't my Dr, but a friend in the MS community. He had to remove any recommendation of many vitamins for Covid. This is one example why many functional doctors were fearful of recommending treatments.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/warning-letters/covid-19-letter_to_dr._brownsteins_holistic_medicine.pdf
The comments have become very cluttered and I share ownership in that. :) I found it but by searching for it on my laptop (not phone).
It's not you - I can't find it. This is so weird. Cassidy and I had a couple exchanges and I can't find them on this thread. If it appears again - I'll re-post it. I shared my experiences during covid with Vit C and a Dr who was censored.
Amy too bad nobody will read that and see “Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 8,000 individuals, which is more than any other modern president. Thousands of Biden's clemency grants were to serious criminals, including murderers, child killers, child abusers, and the biggest municipal embezzler in history, Rita Crundwell. Several of the grants benefitted well-connected Democrats. In both 2022 and 2024, Biden abused his pardon power to achieve mass sentencing reductions that Congress refused to pass by law.”
Hey - I read the clemency list. Please show me where he pardoned child killers and child abusers. I must’ve missed it.
Look up Adrian Peeler.
He already served his time for the murder conspiracy sentence Robn. 20 years. The commutation was for the drug charge. Not here to argue over whether the drug charge should’ve been commuted, but you’re misstating your case.
Thank you for posting. It is easier for some to blindly blame Trump as the problem rather than seeing the bigger picture.
Yea, those who refuse to see will remain blind. There is certainly a lot of that happening.
Yes there is. Hopefully someday you take the blindfold off! 🙏
No blindfold for me Katie but thanks for your concern.
Thank you this is honest, balanced, fair
What would changing the way Presidents can use the pardon going forward look like? Congress? I’m wondering if there is enough political will to do so.
All it seems to take is for Trump or ‘president musk ‘ to threaten a member of congress w funding am opponent and they all fall right into line . 😓