I’d rather we deport him.
Justice Dept. Official Says She Was Fired After Opposing Restoring Mel Gibson’s Gun Rights
Submitted 5 weeks ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
Comments
Pistcow@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 weeks ago
Send this Aussie back home.
Love, an actually empathetic USian who is just really tired of the constant hypocrisy. Love you, Aussies.
klu9@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Born January 3, 1956, Peekskill, New York, U.S.A. Family moved to Australia in 1968, so that the sons wouldn’t get drafted and sent to fight people Mel probably has some choice words to describe when he’s had a few.
Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
What exactly has he done to warrant his fundamental human rights being curtailed?
LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 5 weeks ago
Fundamental human rights? Like breathing?
Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Like shelter and the right to defend it.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Domestic battery.
And, if it was a temporary thing, that would be fine. Nothing wrong with a cool off period for such things.
Tbh though, it’s Mel Gibson, and the whole stink isn’t because someone that was convicted of domestic battery qas petitioning for their right to be un-suspended. The stink is because he’s a Trump supporter and wasn’t recommended for the suspension to be ended, then the person making the decision gets canned for political reasons, despite having followed procedure during the execution of their duty.
Well, that’s the premise of the article.
But, yeah, he did commit domestic battery, and he pled guilty to the charge to avoid jail time, because all evidence showed him guilty.
Beyond that, I’d just be summarizing the whole article, and it’s a gift link, so there’s no point
TheSambassador@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Somehow I read “fired upon” and I was imagining Mel Gibson just shooting at them until they agreed to restore the gun rights.
klu9@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
“He then essentially explained to me that Mel Gibson has a personal relationship with President Trump and that should be sufficient basis for me to make a recommendation and that I would be wise to make the recommendation,” she said.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrimonialism
Patrimonialism is a form of governance in which the ruler governs on the basis of personal loyalties which are derived from patron-client relations, personal allegiances, kin ties and combinations thereof.[1] Patrimonialism is closely related to corruption, opportunism and machine politics.[2] It can contribute to underdevelopment and weak state capacity.[3]
In contrast to many other systems of governance, the ruler does not derive their legitimacy from their personal charisma or a sense of mission, but primarily through their ability to dole out rewards and punishments.[1][2] Initially coined by Max Weber, patrimonialism stands in contrast to rational-legal bureaucracies, as there is no objective of efficiency in public administration and government staff are not advanced based on merit, experience and training.
ricketyrackets@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
The passion of the magas.
Staring Mel Gibson and 70+ million stupid inbred Americans.