Thought these were interesting in the last bread and capped if anyone wants to save them.
Trump is a pragmatist and a Christian. His goal is to eliminate the enemy and uncover the truth, not only to pass judgement.
If immunity can causes someone to not only stop doing the stuff we're trying to stop, but to also provide access and/or information you didn't have but need, then it's sometimes a reasonable solution.
It's definitely frustrating sometimes, but I support it for SOME when it's the best or only way available. I believe in a higher judge, and I believe in mercy towards the repentant, so that probably biases my acceptance.
But my goals are to remove bad actors from positions of influence, put an end to the criminal activities, free and care for the victims, and expose the truth. All of that can be done in spite of immunity. Punishing the criminal for their crimes feels good, but I'm willing to stomach a pardon if there isn't another way to accomplish the above goals or specific circumstances justify it.
>Terminate all “hate”-speech and “hate”-crime laws in the West, all hate speech and hate crime laws need to be done with, its a mechanism of censorship that thrives on false flags.
Aren't all crimes "hate" crimes? People usually don't harm/kill people out of love, right? Why punish more because they hated their race or whatever than if they hated their personality? What does that matter to the sentencing for the crime?
My issue is that many, if not most, murders where the killer is a different race/religion/sexuality/gender than the victim are NOT motivated by bigotry. Labeling it a "hate crime" gives the government the authority to falsely punish someone more harshly or with a longer sentence based on a motivation THEY insist they must have had. It allows serious and legal punishments for THOUGHTS they decide the accused had. It's beyond thought crime. You can serve 5 extra years because the government says they know you thought something unacceptable without any actual way of knowing.
But even when people DO commit crimes because of bigotry, the implications of extra jail time for "hate" crimes are really creepy and backwards. If it's 5 more years in jail for killing someone because he's black than killing someone during a robbery, isn't the law deciding it's WORSE to believe one race is inferior to another than to believe a human being is less valuable than their jewelry?
It's 5 extra years in prison when a white guy kills a black guy than if they kill a white guy. Doesn't that mean the law has decided that it's "less wrong" for the killer to murder a white guy? And doesn't that imply the white guy was less valuable, since it's less of a crime to kill him? Since race is the only factor, doesn't that racially discriminate?
Or if the same black guy had a black killer, there wouldn't be any danger of the 5 extra hate crime years. Doesn't that imply it's "more okay" for a black guy to commit the same crime? What does that imply? Is that extra five years of freedom for the same crime a racially motivated privilege for a black murderer? Or maybe a racially motivated punishment for a white murderer? Isn't that hypocritical?
And besides, the entire idea of it is so divisive and pessimistic. It assumes that all demographics hate each other, so any time one harms another it may be motivated by that hate. And in practice, I really only see it applied when the murderers are straight white men, which is not only operating with the bigoted assumption that they are inherently hateful and prejudiced but asserting that other demographics are MORE off limits to hurt or kill than their own for them, while not for others, which is a form of discrimination/targeting. It all just constantly assumes and promotes division and conflict between demographics for no pragmatic and often no valid reason except to keep us hyper aware of race and legally enforce a hierarchy of victim status based on it.
Backwards and sinister in my opinion.
I'll assume Trump is honest about being a Christian because I can't read his mind, he says he is, I have no reason to assume he's lying about it, and I don't think he has a pattern of behavior that warrants concluding he isn't.
Melania seems to be devout, and he not only married her but she chose to marry him. Usually that would imply agreement on worldview. Trump speaks a lot about God and in a way that seems consistent with someone who actively believes in God would. He was raised Christian, which often sticks, especially since his formative years were during a time where the culture was much less skeptical, less exposed to other religions/arguments against religious belief, and more uniformly Christian.
Further, he's had religious advisors that he consults consistently through his entire career. He is often reported to ask people to pray with and for him before speeches or anything of importance. I also think his general view of people, morality, tradition, his history of philanthropy is all consistent with a believing Christian.
Vices, ego, and conflict has never indicated someone wasn't a believer. His remarks, affairs, and wealth are far less egregious than the likes of Biblical figures such as David or Cyrus. Both of whom were believers, both of whom were considered righteous, and both used by God despite their sins.
He does sometimes indicate he's not particularly knowledgeable about the Bible or theology. But that's par for the course for a LOT of believers.
I also think he's pretty consistent with Christian values in how he governs. There are some times where I think he doesn't codify Christian mandates into the law, but he often shouldn't. The law should protect religious practice, not enforce. People should CHOOSE not to do evil, even if it's legal. Not simply be prohibited by law.
>That's noble on a personal level but it should not apply in terms of justice.
You're right. But if it's the difference between immediately getting actionable intel on 8 people with 4 children they're trafficking or having to continue investigating indefinitely to get the information, I'm willing to choose the lesser of the evils. Isn't it preferable to free the victims sooner than later? Isn't it worth stopping the crimes that may continue until you can catch up? Is pardoning one person and catching eight worse than prosecuting one person and letting eight remain at large?
I think some crimes should not be pardonable. But I understand it in some cases.