πŸ€·β€β™€οΈπŸ§™β€β™‚οΈ True or false? πŸ™„β“

  • 1,088
  • 23
  • 299

False. First interesting etymology, the root word "pay" in "payment" comes from the Latin "pacare" (to pacify), from "pax", meaning "peace". Thus he wants to tell that "if you want peace, prepare your payment." Technically he sells "Pax Americana", nothing less, nothing more.

I did not know that. So if you pay you give peace or you get it because you have done that!!


And thank you very much too @Etienne, @Lianshen and @Fleurke!! πŸ™πŸ™ Now America pays a LOTTT more than other countries. So if NATO protects all of us it is important that we help it too. But i also think that if we pay more to NATO than other countries will also pay more to the army and it only gets more dangerous. And in many countries there are a lot of things that are important but there is no money. So if you spend a lot on the army that will also be a problem for many other things i think. πŸ™„πŸ™„

Hello everybody! πŸ™‹β€β™€οΈ


Yesterday we had a discussion in our society class about Trump and Biden. Ok so we discussed this:


➑️ Biden has given pardons to several people and Trump will also do that. The President of America should NOT have that power anymore because it can be abused.


That was the statement and i think the statement is true because one person can now give a pardon and NOBODY can do anything about it if it is abused. That is not right I believe and for example in our country it is also not possible that the prime-minister gives a pardon.


What do you think about this statement? True βœ… or false ❌ ?

➑️ Biden has given pardons to several people and Trump will also do that. The President of America should NOT have that power anymore because it can be abused

I think I agree with that. Biden pardoned his own son despite the overwhelming evidence against him, and despite saying months (years?) ago that he wouldn't. I can't think of a tangible reason why it is a good thing, we have the same system in France too. There must be a reason but I haven't done my research!

I think I agree with that. Biden pardoned his own son despite the overwhelming evidence against him, and despite saying months (years?) ago that he wouldn't. I can't think of a tangible reason why it is a good thing, we have the same system in France too. There must be a reason but I haven't done my research!

I agree too but i think for BOTH Biden and Trump and also any other president in the future! Because only one person can decide it now with a pardon. BUTTT i think if it is one person it should be a judge.


In our society class the teacher said it was old fashioned because in the past it was because of a king who could do that but he had all the powers. But now a president is not a king. And still he can do that. I hope i understand that correctly but maybe @diogenes_cask knows more about it!! 😊😊

I agree too but i think for BOTH Biden and Trump and also any other president in the future! Because only one person can decide it now with a pardon. BUTTT i think if it is one person it should be a judge.


In our society class the teacher said it was old fashioned because in the past it was because of a king who could do that but he had all the powers. But now a president is not a king. And still he can do that. I hope i understand that correctly but maybe @diogenes_cask knows more about it!! 😊😊

First of all, we should understand the legal term of "executive clemency." The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: β€œThe President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States. A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred. Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state government has created such a board.

Latter we should understand the difference between "commutation of sentence" and "pardon". "A commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the fact of conviction, imply innocence, or remove civil disabilities that apply to the convicted person as a result of the criminal conviction. A commutation may include remission (release) of the financial obligations that are imposed as part of a sentence, such as payment of a fine or restitution. A remission applies only to the part of the financial obligation that has not already been paid. A commutation of sentence has no effect on a person’s immigration status and will not prevent removal or deportation from the United States. To be eligible to apply for commutation of sentence, a person must have reported to prison to begin serving his sentence and may not be challenging his conviction in the courts."


"A pardon is an expression of the President’s forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence. It does not signify innocence. It does, however, remove civil disabilities – e.g., restrictions on the right to vote, hold state or local office, or sit on a jury – imposed because of the conviction for which pardon is sought, and should lessen the stigma arising from the conviction. It may also be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. Under some – but not all – circumstances, a pardon will eliminate the legal basis for removal or deportation from the United States. "


The crucial point in this difference, is that pardon "does not signify innocence." Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. The rationale behind this power might be explained like that the president may pardon someone held in criminal contempt because the punishment is "punitive." The president cannot pardon someone held in civil contempt because the punishment is "remedial." Royal prerogative of mercy is something else because it doesn't differ "punitive" or "remedial."

Last but not least, "Clementia" should be taken as "the merciful face of power." For example Seneca defines clementia as the following:

"Clemency is β€˜restraint of the mind when it is able to take revenge,’ or β€˜the leniency of the more powerful party towards the weaker in the matter of setting penalties.’ It is safer to propose several formulations, in case a single definition is not comprehensive enough, and so to speak, loses its case. So clemency can also be defined as a tendency of the mind towards leniency in the matter of exacting punishment."

Thank you very much for this explanation @diogenes_cask!! Our teacher said that a pardon how he called it just came from kings and how it was now used by Biden and Trump. πŸ™‚ He did not make separations of the rules like you did. So that is super nice to read!! Do you think that the American rules now are good or should it be changed maybe? πŸ™„πŸ™„

Thank you very much for this explanation @diogenes_cask!! Our teacher said that a pardon how he called it just came from kings and how it was now used by Biden and Trump. πŸ™‚ He did not make separations of the rules like you did. So that is super nice to read!! Do you think that the American rules now are good or should it be changed maybe? πŸ™„πŸ™„

We should have a time travel and get back into The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 in Pennsylvania. The uprising quickly disintegrated and subsequent trials resulted in the conviction of only two individuals. Washington pardoned both, and on his last day in office, extended clemency to 10 others in the region charged with "high treason." Then he said that: "It is ever my desire to temper the administration of justice with a reasonable extension of mercy." He could have smashed all by the hammer of law but to err is human. In some cases, the state needs a reasonable extension of mercy than the sharp sword of justice.

We should have a time travel and get back into The Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 in Pennsylvania. The uprising quickly disintegrated and subsequent trials resulted in the conviction of only two individuals. Washington pardoned both, and on his last day in office, extended clemency to 10 others in the region charged with "high treason." Then he said that: "It is ever my desire to temper the administration of justice with a reasonable extension of mercy." He could have smashed all by the hammer of law but to err is human. In some cases, the state needs a reasonable extension of mercy than the sharp sword of justice.

Thank you very much @diogenes_cask!! I understand what you write (i read it two times πŸ˜› )!! But on the other hand now i think it can also be used for the wrong reasons by for example presidents to help family members or people who committed crimes that helped the president. So for example Biden and Trump can use it to help people but it that may also be abuse that they do that. And nobody can stop it now.


---------------------------


Although i am curious what people maybe think about the previous statement and if it is true or false. I also have a new statement:


➑️ Protestors cant block highways and protest in some important buildings with a lot of damage.


I was not sure how to exactly write the statement but i will explain. In a lot of countries in the world, Extinction Rebellion has blocked highways and even for example ambulances or people who had emergencies could not go away. In America protestors for Trump went in a group to the Capitol and took it. And in my country The Netherlands there was a LOTTTT of damage in universities because of protestors for Palestine and against Israel. Even there were masked persons looking for some people in the university who work there and that could be very dangerous.


The statement is not about if ER is right or not. Or about the war in Gaza. BUTTT it is about if you can protest that way. I think that you should NOT be allowed to protest on highways and some important buildings where a lot of damage can take place (and it is also super unsafe for people) it is also NOT allowed.


What do you think about this statement? True βœ… or false ❌ ?

hello yue . the problem is that protests for which they protest do not help. which means there are more bad guys who destroy everything for others. In Brussels there are many protests for higher wages, better education, and so on. but always the bad guys who shouldn't be there at all have to ruin it for others by smashing shop windows etc. I've never known anything good to be achieved by protesting
hello yue . the problem is that protests for which they protest do not help. which means there are more bad guys who destroy everything for others. In Brussels there are many protests for higher wages, better education, and so on. but always the bad guys who shouldn't be there at all have to ruin it for others by smashing shop windows etc. I've never known anything good to be achieved by protesting

I think that you made a super good point that for example ER makes more people angry about it with what they do than that other persons also want the same measures. So i think it does not help at all and it is even VERY dangerous if for example an ambulance cant go away because they block everything. People will only get angry!! πŸ™„πŸ™„

Hello everybody! πŸ™‹β€β™€οΈ


Today is Sunday 🌈🌞🌈 and in my country a lot of shops are closed. Maybe in your country it is the same on Sunday or on another day in the week. I have this statement:


➑️ It would be better that shops and other things (for example library, bowling house, cinemas, museums and other things) are OPEN on Sunday if they want to.


I think the statement is TRUE because everybody can decide himself or herself what you want to do on a Sunday. So if you want to rest at home: that is ok. But if you want to go to the library or the cinema: that is ok too. But of course shops can decide to close on Sunday but i think it should not be obliged. And of course a lot of things are open on Sunday in some countries but not in others.


What do you think about the statement? True βœ… or false ❌ ?

➑️ It would be better that shops and other things (for example library, bowling house, cinemas, museums and other things) are OPEN on Sunday if they want to.

Absolutely, I think businesses should be open as much as possible. It's so stupid that the vast majority of people work Monday through Friday and then everybody has to rush with the crowd on Saturday to do whatever they need to do because on Sunday everything is closed. I won't even mention the countless businesses or public services that work the exact same days/hours as you which makes life impossible.

I'm aware there are benefits to having moments when seemingly everyone is off too, but I believe there are more drawbacks than benefits and I'd be heavily in favor of more flexibility.




➑️ It would be better that shops and other things (for example library, bowling house, cinemas, museums and other things) are OPEN on Sunday if they want to.

The good thing when everything is closed on Sunday is that people don't have to work that day and have to rest/spend time with their family. In Germany, most of the grocery shops are closed on Sunday too, and I think it's great; I just have to plan a little to buy my food accordingly, but on Sunday, I know nothing will ever disturb my tranquility

Hello everybody! πŸ™‹β€β™€οΈ


For this time i have two NOTTT so serious statements to debate! πŸ˜› πŸ˜› But I am curious what you think! πŸ˜ŠπŸ˜‡


➑️ Ice cream is BETTER than cake!!


➑️ People should not have to go to school or work on their birthdays.


What do you think about the statements? True βœ… or false ❌ ?

➑️ Ice cream is BETTER than cake!!

Both are good..But i canβ€˜t decide which is better, sooo..Ice cream cake. (I never even had one before but idc it always looks and sounds so good)


➑️ People should not have to go to school or work on their birthdays.

I donβ€˜t know, itβ€˜s not how it works but i think people should decide if they wanna come or not on their special days πŸ˜›
Edited by Emmiiii_17_11 .




➑️ Ice cream is BETTER than cake!!

No, and I will not elaborate πŸ™‚



➑️ People should not have to go to school or work on their birthdays.


I was born 1 day away from having a perpetual day off for my birthday, but my mother decided to deliver me on the 2nd of May, so I will say that everyone should work for their birthday, but it's purely out of spite 😁

hahahh now i am super curious @Lianshen why you think cake is better because you dont explain it!! i think im the same like @Emmiiii_17_11 because SOMEEE ice creams are super nice but also SOMEEE cakes and not all. πŸ™‚


and i think people should be free on their birthdays or at least go earlier to home to prepare to celebrate!! πŸ˜› BUTTTTT i know that is not really possible but it would be fun!! πŸ˜ƒ

Hello everybody!! πŸ™‹β€β™€οΈ I dont want to SPOIL anybody's weekend but i had to think a lot about something that was in the Dutch news so it is the statement for this forum today. But if you dont want to be disturbed by super serious and sad things than STOP READING NOW.


Ok this is the statement:


➑️ People are allowed to determine euthanasia ONLY after they speak with a doctor and if there is a medical reason. The medical reason can be physical (for example HUGEEE pain) or mental (for example dementia in a very bad way).


About this statement: personally i think that there should always be a doctor and it should only happen for medical reasons. If there is no doctor than people can too easily maybe decide euthanasia if maybe it is for example a depression but they can perhaps get better.

In the news there was also a message of DOUBLE euthanasia. So a couple decides to do that. I did not want to read more because it is super painful i think if your husband dies or your wife. And maybe if both have dementia i can understand it. But it is also difficult if there is no medical reason but i do understand it even if i would not do that because you have maybe children or grandchildren when you are super old. And you have to take care of them too!!


What do you think about the statements? True βœ… or false ❌ ?