4 ms·

Previous administrations have clearly abused their power with the DOJ, just look at how DACA was passed. Just because the large media outlets did PR for previou

Previous administrations have clearly abused their power with the DOJ, just look at how DACA was passed. Just because the large media outlets did PR for previous administrations or you agreed with their politics doesn't mean that abuses did not occur.

BubRoss 7y ago
He didn't say previous abuses didn't occur, he said he doesn't trust this administration to not have ulterior selfish political motives. Edit: Also, poor form or not, I see the same patterns here as I do on threads about china and the people that took over bitcoin - votes up in increments, then all comments are downvoted multiple times in batches. That and lots of whataboutism.
- ngold 7y ago
  The classic "But what about...look over there...this is normal...nothing to see here...move along now. "
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Yes, that's whataboutism and what I was replying to. Instead of saying why the current administration can be trusted to not have ulterior motives, someone says 'other people also abused their position'. This isn't about comparison, it's about the motives of this move.
tzs 7y ago
DACA was a Presidential memorandum. What DOJ connection are you referring to?
cletus 7y ago
Oh, great. Even HN apparently isn't immune to Trumpian Butwhataboutism. DACA was enacted by executive order. What does this have to do with the DOJ? I could even add that DACA in various form was passed by the House and Senate at different times and only didn't become enacted legislation because of a Republican filibuster in the Senate (and, later, being not brought up for a vote in the House).
herbstein 7y ago
Other comments have explained why DACA isn't an example of DOJ overreach. I'd like to take a magnifying glass to the underlying reason to bringing up DACA in this context. It's an Obama-era policy that has been shown to have wide, bi-partisan support across the country. Bringing it up here is a means to say "Look, Obama also did bad stuff. You can't call Trump out on his bad stuff" which is an asinine way to frame anything. It reminds me of an old conservative response to progressive/leftist ideas about American foreign policy. Leftist: "... and that's why the current administration should be considered as war criminals" Conservative: "By that logic every administration since World War 2 were war criminals" Leftist: "Yes" Whether or not the argument posed by the above comment is even valid is, for the purposes of this comment, irrelevant. What is more interesting is knowing why the supposed crimes/overreach of the Obama administration excuses the overreaches of the Trump administration.
- zweep 7y ago
  But in your war criminals dialogue, the “Yes” from the leftist provides cover to compress all administrations on the dimension of war crimes, dismissing LBJ/Nixon/GWB by saying “Carter was a war criminal too.”

BubRoss 7y ago

He didn't say previous abuses didn't occur, he said he doesn't trust this administration to not have ulterior selfish political motives. Edit: Also, poor form or not, I see the same patterns here as I do on threads about china and the people that took over bitcoin - votes up in increments, then all comments are downvoted multiple times in batches. That and lots of whataboutism.

ngold 7y ago
The classic "But what about...look over there...this is normal...nothing to see here...move along now. "
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Yes, that's whataboutism and what I was replying to. Instead of saying why the current administration can be trusted to not have ulterior motives, someone says 'other people also abused their position'. This isn't about comparison, it's about the motives of this move.

tzs 7y ago

DACA was a Presidential memorandum. What DOJ connection are you referring to?

cletus 7y ago

Oh, great. Even HN apparently isn't immune to Trumpian Butwhataboutism. DACA was enacted by executive order. What does this have to do with the DOJ? I could even add that DACA in various form was passed by the House and Senate at different times and only didn't become enacted legislation because of a Republican filibuster in the Senate (and, later, being not brought up for a vote in the House).

herbstein 7y ago

Other comments have explained why DACA isn't an example of DOJ overreach. I'd like to take a magnifying glass to the underlying reason to bringing up DACA in this context. It's an Obama-era policy that has been shown to have wide, bi-partisan support across the country. Bringing it up here is a means to say "Look, Obama also did bad stuff. You can't call Trump out on his bad stuff" which is an asinine way to frame anything. It reminds me of an old conservative response to progressive/leftist ideas about American foreign policy. Leftist: "... and that's why the current administration should be considered as war criminals" Conservative: "By that logic every administration since World War 2 were war criminals" Leftist: "Yes" Whether or not the argument posed by the above comment is even valid is, for the purposes of this comment, irrelevant. What is more interesting is knowing why the supposed crimes/overreach of the Obama administration excuses the overreaches of the Trump administration.

zweep 7y ago
But in your war criminals dialogue, the “Yes” from the leftist provides cover to compress all administrations on the dimension of war crimes, dismissing LBJ/Nixon/GWB by saying “Carter was a war criminal too.”