JW Insider

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.
I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.
Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.
To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 
When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.
Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.
I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.
Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.
To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 
When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.
Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.
I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.
Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.
To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 
When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.
Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

In Russian "преследовать" can be translated as "prosecute" or "persecute". Maybe it is better to ask the president what did he mean by saying this :D 

Sorry about that. Sometimes he inspires me!
Some more trivialities:
The "Frank and Ernest" comic strip actually has billed itself as the "Hot Dog Comic Strip" because of a long-running hot dog theme, and these, of course, have nothing to do with the Watchtower's old radio show on WBBR called "Frank and Ernest." But it is true that this radio show moved over from the Watchtower's Bible Students to "Dawn Publishing" in 1928 or so where it kept going, to become one of the longest running radio shows ever.

Interested. I knew him, but not very well. He was the hardest to get to know of all the 18 members of the Governing Body who were simultaneously on the Governing Body at the same time he was.

Exactly so!
What apparently happened is that JTR noticed that if one happened to misread something that BTK said, it could sound painfully funny. There was nothing ungrammatical or funny about what BTK said, and JTR did not say there was anything wrong with BTK's words. BTK probably missed the fact that JTR was only finding a joke in JTR's own potential misreading of it.
Here was the entire exchange:
I don't think that BTK got the joke, or he would have realized that JTR was making fun of his own self, and his own misreading, rather than making fun of what BTK said. I know that once you explain a joke it won't be as funny any more, but I'll break the unwritten rule. If one were not a good reader, they might take that serious and grammatical sentence: "What is the test without ripping out an obstacle?" and spoonerize it into one that contains the expression "ripping out a test-acle." Of course, this won't strike everyone as funny even if they get the joke. But the main point is to notice that no one was making fun of anyone else's grammar. 
Still, I knew better than to upvote JTR's joke, but I did it anyway and, sure enough, BTK claimed that JTR was making fun of his grammar, and that I was also making fun of it, because I laughed at JTR's "joke" with a "laugh" icon.  I had hesitated to laugh because I've seen this happen before when someone doesn't get someone else's joke and thinks people are laughing at something else. But JTR's joke was funny enough for me. Perhaps I am too easily amused. It reminded me of a experience while driving a car group just last week, when a person cut us off almost hitting us but swerved back into his lane when he realized it. For some reason, I quipped the spoonerism: "Stay in your lane . . . .or lay in your stain." No one laughed. They might have thought I suffered from the first stages of road rage. But if JTR had been in the car group, he might have given me an "upvote" of some kind.
After my upvote of JTR's nearly self-deprecating joke, BTK answered my upvote with:
I completely agree with his sentiment, and only responded because of the false accusation BTK made:  that --by finding JTR's joke funny-- I was somehow forcing my idea of grammar on others, and implying that the joke was about a failure in BTK's grammar. I have never thought grammar was a big deal, and have always thought it was funny that anyone would think grammar or writing style was such a big deal.
 
(csvsh)

Well well, @JW Insider, now you're going all JTR on me!!

I see that discussion continued with  UN, but you will forgive me for commenting on this about education, grammar, misunderstanding, abilities and so on.
Good choice of words and their order are important for sending true meaning, but it is not guarantee for understanding. For me, who was not born in English (native speaker) language country, it is difficult to understand some (or many) sentences (phrasemes/idioms, jokes...) of people who participate here. And for you is, probably, hard to understand my expressions and clumsy grammar :)))
But here is what i would like to say. Formal Education and Higher Education can help in thinking abilities but they are not Substitution for Your Natural abilities and experience for understanding and discernment. I am working in School with professors, janitors and cleaning ladies. We are all needed to be there for "show to go on". And all are valuable in own contribution for mutual process. Yes, some Higher Educated persons are "clumsy" for some simple things that somebody else can done with not much effort. I remembered, once,  professors have been asking cleaning ladies, to cut some fruit on slices. And Ladies where not been willing to do it because, as they said, why teachers can not do it yourself? In one hand they was right, it is not mandatory job for cleaning lady to cut fruits. But it is also not obligated job for professors. (School,  some professors and children classes had some guests, that is why they plan to offer some fruits to visitors) After one professor heard complaints from cleaning lady, she ask, Ok, i can go and cut fruits by myself, but can you give a lesson for students instead of me in meantime?   
Thanks to all here who are not so strict and demanding for my grammar :)) About other sort of disagreements we do not need to give any further explanations :)))))  
 
 

The original idea of the United States constitution was to have a state that conformed only to the interest of rich landowners. Only rich landowners could vote. Most men in the United States could not vote, to say nothing for women and slaves. This was to create a powerful central state of ELITE that controlled the thoughts and ideas and material assets of the 99% of the rest of the population. 

Nah! The dog was clearly born, and named, far back into the time of the previous leadership, which had ended only a few months prior.
However, this dog's previously sired pups on the other hand, all being hot little dogs, half-Beagle, half Dachshund, were named "Nathan" and "Frank" and "Ernest." Nathan stuck close to his "Pappy," although Frank and Ernest were found jumping the fence to Dawn's house (in Layman's terms) having previously been raised in the "House of the Rising Sun" with some Russell Terriers.*



[Sadly, Rutherford's phonograph players were sold to Berlitz.]

[This doctrine was later changed to "The World Will End When The King of the North and the King of the South Try to Get Even."]
*Perhaps the Librarian will not notice that this post has gone just a wee bit off topic.
 

The original idea of the United States constitution was to have a state that conformed only to the interest of rich landowners. Only rich landowners could vote. Most men in the United States could not vote, to say nothing for women and slaves. This was to create a powerful central state of ELITE that controlled the thoughts and ideas and material assets of the 99% of the rest of the population. 

Exactly so!
What apparently happened is that JTR noticed that if one happened to misread something that BTK said, it could sound painfully funny. There was nothing ungrammatical or funny about what BTK said, and JTR did not say there was anything wrong with BTK's words. BTK probably missed the fact that JTR was only finding a joke in JTR's own potential misreading of it.
Here was the entire exchange:
I don't think that BTK got the joke, or he would have realized that JTR was making fun of his own self, and his own misreading, rather than making fun of what BTK said. I know that once you explain a joke it won't be as funny any more, but I'll break the unwritten rule. If one were not a good reader, they might take that serious and grammatical sentence: "What is the test without ripping out an obstacle?" and spoonerize it into one that contains the expression "ripping out a test-acle." Of course, this won't strike everyone as funny even if they get the joke. But the main point is to notice that no one was making fun of anyone else's grammar. 
Still, I knew better than to upvote JTR's joke, but I did it anyway and, sure enough, BTK claimed that JTR was making fun of his grammar, and that I was also making fun of it, because I laughed at JTR's "joke" with a "laugh" icon.  I had hesitated to laugh because I've seen this happen before when someone doesn't get someone else's joke and thinks people are laughing at something else. But JTR's joke was funny enough for me. Perhaps I am too easily amused. It reminded me of a experience while driving a car group just last week, when a person cut us off almost hitting us but swerved back into his lane when he realized it. For some reason, I quipped the spoonerism: "Stay in your lane . . . .or lay in your stain." No one laughed. They might have thought I suffered from the first stages of road rage. But if JTR had been in the car group, he might have given me an "upvote" of some kind.
After my upvote of JTR's nearly self-deprecating joke, BTK answered my upvote with:
I completely agree with his sentiment, and only responded because of the false accusation BTK made:  that --by finding JTR's joke funny-- I was somehow forcing my idea of grammar on others, and implying that the joke was about a failure in BTK's grammar. I have never thought grammar was a big deal, and have always thought it was funny that anyone would think grammar or writing style was such a big deal.
 
(csvsh)

Hermaphrodites are a very small percentage of the population - this is a true physical dilemma which does require special consideration.
However, to 'condone' sexual deviancy is declared to be wicked - Romans 1: 43 King James: " 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
True Christians will not compromise on this principal.  We are now being prepared to be under the future government of Jehovah where these things will not be allowed.
If I have a bad temper - I must learn to control it.  If I have deviant sexual desires - I must learn to control it.  Peoples foibles and fetishes differ but in the end self-control is what helps us.
Jesus said that looking at a woman to desire her is adultery and hating someone is like murdering them.  Why? The self-control of our desires, which originates in our deviant hearts, must be controlled.
We must be spiritually circumcised with Jehovah's laws written on our hearts.
 

Exactly so!
What apparently happened is that JTR noticed that if one happened to misread something that BTK said, it could sound painfully funny. There was nothing ungrammatical or funny about what BTK said, and JTR did not say there was anything wrong with BTK's words. BTK probably missed the fact that JTR was only finding a joke in JTR's own potential misreading of it.
Here was the entire exchange:
I don't think that BTK got the joke, or he would have realized that JTR was making fun of his own self, and his own misreading, rather than making fun of what BTK said. I know that once you explain a joke it won't be as funny any more, but I'll break the unwritten rule. If one were not a good reader, they might take that serious and grammatical sentence: "What is the test without ripping out an obstacle?" and spoonerize it into one that contains the expression "ripping out a test-acle." Of course, this won't strike everyone as funny even if they get the joke. But the main point is to notice that no one was making fun of anyone else's grammar. 
Still, I knew better than to upvote JTR's joke, but I did it anyway and, sure enough, BTK claimed that JTR was making fun of his grammar, and that I was also making fun of it, because I laughed at JTR's "joke" with a "laugh" icon.  I had hesitated to laugh because I've seen this happen before when someone doesn't get someone else's joke and thinks people are laughing at something else. But JTR's joke was funny enough for me. Perhaps I am too easily amused. It reminded me of a experience while driving a car group just last week, when a person cut us off almost hitting us but swerved back into his lane when he realized it. For some reason, I quipped the spoonerism: "Stay in your lane . . . .or lay in your stain." No one laughed. They might have thought I suffered from the first stages of road rage. But if JTR had been in the car group, he might have given me an "upvote" of some kind.
After my upvote of JTR's nearly self-deprecating joke, BTK answered my upvote with:
I completely agree with his sentiment, and only responded because of the false accusation BTK made:  that --by finding JTR's joke funny-- I was somehow forcing my idea of grammar on others, and implying that the joke was about a failure in BTK's grammar. I have never thought grammar was a big deal, and have always thought it was funny that anyone would think grammar or writing style was such a big deal.
 
(csvsh)

What is all this complaint about grammar?  I thought this was a forum where one can have discussions similar to sitting in your lounge with friends.   I did not think this was a place where only the elites congregate to share their extensive scholarly inclinations and have scholarly debates while correcting the language on the contributions of others.

At newspapers they used to have subs to correct the serious language problems and journalists where hired for their knowledge and thinking abilities while reporting on actual events accurately.  This seems to have gone astray in the modern world. 

I have often seen people with little formal education have thinking abilities much better than those of scholars.  One just has to read the theories on theology such as “liberation theology” or the latest theories on how the New Testament was concocted…..by the Creaser’s of Rome…. Crazy stuff... to know there is a screw lose at universities.   The scholars these days really come up with unsubstantiated trash…  

My brother (who is not a JW) had almost 50 engineers working for him – some from Harvard.  He has 5 degrees and retired at age 40.   He always said: “People who cannot make it in the real world become scholars and teach at universities.” 

Depending on the field - I often agree with him… and seeing the level of science and education at universities at present, I totally agree with him.  I will not send my child to such an institution now to be brainwashed by them.  A vocational school is much better!
This is why I am very careful of wiki and many other sites.  It is edited by people with a new world agenda already embedded in their thinking.  Recently a person requested permission to edit what was written about him on Wikipedia.  They refused.  It apparently means that he did not understand his own writings and his own life history is twisted. This is happening much more and is more insidious than people think.  To keep blind to its level of permeation is to deliberately ignore what is in front of you. 

And of course there are people here on this forum who still have OCD – obsessive compulsive disorder – to twist any opportunity to hit back at the GB.

They are the ones hitting back at their brothers and it shows in their writings.

Look, I am in no mood for this. I just drove seven times around the mall of Jericho. Furious, I let loose with a mighty horn blast. I still hadn’t found a parking spot.

I have to admit that I thought the joke was funny immediately, but I hesitated to respond with the "laugh" emoticon. In fact, I canceled my initial response because, well, I already knew that what just happened could easily happen because it had happened a few times in the past. And sure enough, it just happened again.
Let me explain:
You probably know that I equate BillyTheKid with AllenSmith and at least a dozen other monikers that I believe are used by the same person. You probably also remember that AllenSmith(s) went on a campaign for about two years on this forum trying to claim that I had made fun of his grammar (also claiming that you and Ann had made fun of his grammar). I knew I hadn't and I knew, therefore, that he also had no evidence for this false claim. But that didn't stop him from repeating the claim every few months. 
What made your joke, above, just as dangerous is that --even though your joke was not about him-- it could have been taken as a joke made at his expense. And even worse, it included the word "dyslexia."
I'll just pick up a few phrases from the search tools, and you will probably remember some of these conversations, usually involving the three of us. [I won't mention the topic, because I don't want to divert too far from this topic of the UN Compact. 😎
[From February 2018] "I told a joke and maybe you thought I was making fun of you." Here's one that's more to the point from September 2017:
Even TTH has been involved in a couple of these occurrences:
 

This was right after Allen Smith had complained that you (JTR) had made fun of his condition, saying:
"When JTR (Someone calling himself a witness) insulted my condition . . ." At any rate, I could go on and on here, but won't, even though Google and other search tools tend to "keep account of the injury." I just wanted to say that I realized the joke was not about BillyTheKid at all, so I put back my "laugh" up-vote. But the rest of this was completely expected and predictable, because it's evidently a kind of goal for him to find evidence that I somehow made fun of his grammar.

Judge Ruff the Third?
Judge Ruffled Fur?
Peace on the Sidewalk?

JTR: I agree with you here. If you look at the entire meeting, the word "prosecute" was used in the translation a few of the other times, even in similar contexts. Judicial prosecution was already the topic here in nearly every case discussed, but the overall topic is a wider context than the auto-translator AI looks at. The fact that the name of a minority was used in the sentence, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and that the word "Christians" was in the immediate context, this is what probably triggered the translation, "persecute" instead of "prosecute."
Of course, this is still a very important admission as @Outta Here has said, and it's in line with what you were thinking about Putin being the one to get it straightened out, if it reaches to a high enough priority. There were several interesting admissions in the meeting, and Putin comes across as very professional, careful, knowledgeable and "wiley." He is just defensive enough to protect himself from various questionable decisions by judges, admits problems with some laws, understands some of the PR issues with the rest of the world, etc. But he also doesn't commit to overturn questionable actions, and doesn't want to give in too much, to avoid the impression, for example, that future amnesty can be counted on, based on past or current amnesty. 

I have to admit that I thought the joke was funny immediately, but I hesitated to respond with the "laugh" emoticon. In fact, I canceled my initial response because, well, I already knew that what just happened could easily happen because it had happened a few times in the past. And sure enough, it just happened again.
Let me explain:
You probably know that I equate BillyTheKid with AllenSmith and at least a dozen other monikers that I believe are used by the same person. You probably also remember that AllenSmith(s) went on a campaign for about two years on this forum trying to claim that I had made fun of his grammar (also claiming that you and Ann had made fun of his grammar). I knew I hadn't and I knew, therefore, that he also had no evidence for this false claim. But that didn't stop him from repeating the claim every few months. 
What made your joke, above, just as dangerous is that --even though your joke was not about him-- it could have been taken as a joke made at his expense. And even worse, it included the word "dyslexia."
I'll just pick up a few phrases from the search tools, and you will probably remember some of these conversations, usually involving the three of us. [I won't mention the topic, because I don't want to divert too far from this topic of the UN Compact. 😎
[From February 2018] "I told a joke and maybe you thought I was making fun of you." Here's one that's more to the point from September 2017:
Even TTH has been involved in a couple of these occurrences:
 

This was right after Allen Smith had complained that you (JTR) had made fun of his condition, saying:
"When JTR (Someone calling himself a witness) insulted my condition . . ." At any rate, I could go on and on here, but won't, even though Google and other search tools tend to "keep account of the injury." I just wanted to say that I realized the joke was not about BillyTheKid at all, so I put back my "laugh" up-vote. But the rest of this was completely expected and predictable, because it's evidently a kind of goal for him to find evidence that I somehow made fun of his grammar.

Some people would complain if they were hung with a new rope.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. ..... Data tilts head... Shades of Rossum's Robots!!

JTR: I agree with you here. If you look at the entire meeting, the word "prosecute" was used in the translation a few of the other times, even in similar contexts. Judicial prosecution was already the topic here in nearly every case discussed, but the overall topic is a wider context than the auto-translator AI looks at. The fact that the name of a minority was used in the sentence, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and that the word "Christians" was in the immediate context, this is what probably triggered the translation, "persecute" instead of "prosecute."
Of course, this is still a very important admission as @Outta Here has said, and it's in line with what you were thinking about Putin being the one to get it straightened out, if it reaches to a high enough priority. There were several interesting admissions in the meeting, and Putin comes across as very professional, careful, knowledgeable and "wiley." He is just defensive enough to protect himself from various questionable decisions by judges, admits problems with some laws, understands some of the PR issues with the rest of the world, etc. But he also doesn't commit to overturn questionable actions, and doesn't want to give in too much, to avoid the impression, for example, that future amnesty can be counted on, based on past or current amnesty. 

The bottom 99.99999% of Americans do not own nuclear weapons, either.