Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1540366)

5/28/2025 8:46:15 AM

From: Maple MAGA

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
longz
Mick Mørmøny

Read Replies (1) of 1572778

There are several inconsistencies and rhetorical tensions in this article that merit scrutiny, both internally and in terms of tone, logic, and standards.

Here's a breakdown:

1. Conflating Legal and Moral Grounds The article opens by acknowledging that Trump’s pardon is legal, but repeatedly calls it a “threat to the rule of law.” That is a contradiction in terms:

Legality vs. Rule of Law: If the pardon was issued through proper constitutional means, then it is part of the rule of law. You can argue it undermines justice or ethics, but you can’t argue it violates the rule of law without redefining the term.
The piece never resolves this tension—it just asserts that legality and lawfulness are different in this case without defining how.

2. Guilt Is Presumed Absolute The article paints the sheriff’s conviction as unquestionably valid—“overwhelming evidence,” “video,” “undercover FBI agents”—then accuses Trump of undermining justice. But it does not explore:

Whether there were any appeals pending,
Whether the trial had procedural concerns,
Or whether the president might believe a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Even if Trump’s motivations were political, the possibility of legitimate disagreement on sentencing or prosecutorial conduct is never addressed.

3. Speculative Chains of Consequences The authors warn that this pardon:

Will encourage vigilantism,
Lead to "Trump enforcement officers,"
Inspire MAGA sheriffs to act with immunity,
And embolden lawlessness.

These are slippery slope predictions. There’s no actual causal link shown—only inference and emotive rhetoric. The authors write as if this one act sets off a preordained collapse of civil society.

4. Ad Hominem Language and Political Bias Despite aiming to sound constitutional and civic-minded, the article resorts to biased language:

“Rabidly anti-immigrant,” “MAGA vigilantism,” “Trump’s own efforts to avoid the law,” etc.
It attributes Trump’s motives to malice or narcissism without evidence, while treating opposition figures (like Spanberger) as moral authorities.

This style undercuts the neutral legal tone the authors try to adopt.

5. No Mention of Precedents or Counterexamples If this is a discussion of presidential pardons and abuses:

Where is the context? Obama, Clinton, and Bush issued controversial pardons. Clinton famously pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive financier.
Without context, this reads less like constitutional analysis and more like partisan outrage.

6. Overuse of Founding Father Quotes The article ends with quotes from Lincoln and The Federalist Papers. This lends rhetorical weight, but:

These quotes are abstract generalities and don’t connect directly to the current situation.
It gives the illusion of authority without specificity—what Lincoln called a “small evil” is never defined in relation to legally issued pardons.

Summary of Inconsistencies:

Legal vs. Lawless	Asserts Trump’s act is legal, yet also a violation of the rule of law—without bridging that gap.
Speculative Consequences	Predicts lawlessness and vigilantism with no evidence or past precedent.
Biased Framing	Uses emotionally charged, partisan language instead of legal reasoning.
Lack of Precedent Comparison	Omits context of previous presidential pardons that were similarly controversial.
Philosophical Overreach	Invokes lofty American principles without connecting them meaningfully to this case.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next