Worth noting that David Palmer personally counselled Logan during a time of crisis, too. Partisanship doesn’t seem to be as big of a thing in the 24 universe as it is in real life. But also Novick might not have had any career path forward with anyone loyal to Palmer after his dismissal, and his role with Keeler/Logan was his best opportunity back into public life at the time.

It’s also not the only example of a Cabinet-level advisor serving multiple presidents. Ethan Kanin was Secretary of Defense under Wayne Palmer/Noah Daniels presidency, but then Chief of Staff for Alison Taylor. But that goes to my theory that Taylor is actually a Democrat who beat Daniels in a primary (her party is never explicitly stated on screen, and Kanin personally expressed that he disagreed with Daniels’ decision to pardon Logan).

What annoys me about Pride Month is corporations who put a rainbow on their logo while at the same time donate to politicians who want to roll back LGBT rights and seem to have contempt, if not hate, for LGBT people.

Every company who virtue signals by putting a rainbow on their logo but donated to anti-LGBT politicians deserve to get called out for it.

Before social media, you would see Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters if you subscribed to it. Now you see the content of Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters shared on your Facebook feed by the dumbest guy you went to high school with. Social media has undoubtably expanded the reach of things like Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters to a profound degree.

Screwing up on taxes can be absolved by paying back taxes on top of a fine. No one was hurt by the gun charge (though in fairness, someone could have been).

Would you think, for example, that in exchange for a commutation or pardon, first letting a jury have their say, then paying everything owed + a fine, donating money to a gun violence prevention charity, and continuing to seek treatment for addiction wouldn’t yield a better and more just outcome than a prison sentence?

You can make the case that the falsifying business records stuff is victimless. I don’t think the election subversion/January 6th stuff is, though. People were killed on January 6th, the whole plot to overturn the election poisoned millions of Americans’ faith in the system, and it was a national humiliation on a global stage.

Would President Biden be justified in pardoning or commuting the sentence of Hunter Biden, if he is convicted?

Hunter Biden’s federal trial starts on Monday.

He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he were to be convicted, would President Biden have a rational case to pardon him, or at least commute the sentence?

I see it as:

1) Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes are victimless, so there is no sense in sentencing him to prison. The appropriate punishment could easily be satisfied by fines.

2) While the rule of law is importan and should be upheld, Hunter Biden, by virtue of who he is, has faced far heavier personal consequences than any ordinary person charged with tax and gun violations. The media scrutiny, partisan attacks, all of that is far more to endure than a simple jail sentence. It is humiliation in and of itself.

3) Joe Biden was elected President and the President has the sole authority to do that if he wants. He also loves his son. So why shouldn’t he? Wouldn’t you if you were in that position? Are politics really more important than family?

I personally wouldn’t have a problem if he did pardon Hunter, or at least use his pardon/commutation powers to spare him from incarceration.

Obama. Was a memorable first vote.

Life changing, in fact. Being able to stay on my parents’ health insurance plan for a few extra years thanks to the ACA as I struggled for a bit after moving out post-high school allowed me to take the professional risks necessary early on which ultimately resulted in me doing as well as I am today. I have a pre-existing condition, too, so the price of an insurance policy would’ve made the difference of whether I’d be able to afford rent in the place I needed to be at the time.

I have plenty of issues with capital punishment. But I don’t think we can honestly say it has no deterrent effect when applied to what would ordinarily be non-capital crimes.

Singapore has among the harshest drug laws in the world. They execute drug traffickers. They’ve been known to execute people who are clearly addicts with drugs for personal use, prosecuting them as traffickers. They don’t even give their death row inmates lethal injection, or anything “humane” - they literally hang them with ropes like they did hundreds of years ago.

Singapore has no tangible drug problem to speak of.

I think, for example, if we hypothetically applied the death penalty for littering, you would see the cleanest streets imaginable. It works as a deterrent, the question is just a matter of proportionality and moral justification.

It’s a good show, I enjoyed it.

The premise is the protagonist (President) is an Independent to portray him as unbiased as possible. But it is quite evident that President Kirkman would be a Democrat in this day and age, a moderate at best. The issues he seems to care about and advance are far more aligned with the left, and he served in a Democratic administration prior to unexpectedly being elevated to national office.

It has a West Wing vibe, if the West Wing sort of merged with 24 or some thriller. Kal Penn, one of the actors in the show, actually used to work in the White House during the Obama Admin, and he reportedly had a lot of creative influence in writing and producing the show.

Would highly recommend.

I think it’s fair to say most voters want to see bad cops held accountable, but also are sick of having to ask for an attendant to unlock the toothpaste at Walgreens due to incessant shoplifting which goes unprosecuted. There’s macro and micro level things.

The question was who would do the job the most competently. Michelle Obama was the most educated First Lady in American history aside from Jill Biden, and tied with Hillary Clinton. Her charisma and likability is also a major factor. There’s a reason there’s this conspiracy theory in right wing circles about Biden being replaced on the ticket by her at the convention. They’re scared shitless of running against her. She has political talent, even if she has no interest in ever running.

It’s never established in the series to my knowledge.

If I were a writer, I would establish a backstory where she was killed in a terrorist attack when Jack was young, which inspired him to pursue the career he did. Perhaps the 1975 La Guardia Airport bombing or the 1989 Lockerbie bombing, where he was at an age where he was either a child when it happened and it impacted him profoundly, or where he was at a college-level age of just figuring out what he wants to do career-wise. That would add more character depth.

Nothing more annoying than when a couple of crickets show up at your door and want to talk about their Lord & Saviour Joseph Smith.

Have “progressive prosecutors” failed politically?

A recent Politico piece details how “progressive prosecutors” are being voted out even in very progressive cities, in backlash to rising crime rates and lack of public patience with things like having to ask an attendant to unlock the toothpaste at Walgreens.

Has the “progressive prosecutor” experiment failed politically? What are paths forward that do not resort to the failed “tough on crime” approach of the past? What is the best way for progressives to advance criminal justice reform while addressing crime and not facing as much political backlash?