|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 26 2017 12:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos." Trump should now appoint Arpaio to chair his council on building the wall. Gotta double down on this shit!
Hahahaha that would certainly be an interesting power play. But then in a week, Trump would get somebody else to fire Arpaio and Trump would probably tweet something cavalier like "Shoulda left him in jail to rot. Sad!"
Is the pardoning of Arpaio something that the Republican base wants or supports? I'm wondering why he's doing certain things (e.g., pardoning Arpaio, removing transgender individuals from the military), and the only reason I can think of is because he's trying to make some of his supporters happy.
|
|
|
On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:
Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad.
I'm unconvinced, I think I look quite dapper. Of course, given that you never actually engage in arguments and instead do whiny sentence into evasion every time you are engaged, it was always going to be hard for you to convince me, or anyone.
|
On August 26 2017 12:59 Wulfey_LA wrote:
I read Madison's words and I think they can stretch to cover these facts. I knew it wasn't quite a criminal association (but Manafort/Flynn/Page pardons, those will be on the nose for Madison's exact words). Pardoning Apraio is a direct attack on the ability of Article III judges to keep law enforcement in line. Arpaio willfully violated the orders of a Federal Judge and used state power to inflict violence in violation of that order. If Madison was concerned about President's pardoning their criminal associates and those that would implicate the President himself, then Madison certainly would also be concerned about pardoning friends (see, Birther posse) to flout Article III. Read the contempt finding here. There is a reason McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law.
No, they really can't. Pretty much every sentence in your argument requires the reader to make a rather large logical leap. You are way off in left field here.
And the reason why McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law is because he's playing politics. Don't over-complicate things.
|
The pardon was pure racist politics. McCain isn't doing anything Trump didn't already do. No need to make this more complex than it is. A reward for a political ally at the expense of justice.
|
I don't even see what the benefit of this is. This will just affect Trump negatively, it seriously is banana republic level stuff. He doesn't even seem to care anymore
|
There are several aspects to the pardon decision.
(1) substantively wrong - see the local reporter's thread I linked, on the substance this is an endorsement of racism and torture.
(2) procedurally wrong - pardoning a friend (see birther posse) prior to sentencing without an admission of guilt and to flout a contempt holding weakens Article III judges.
(3) impeachable as an abuse of the pardon power.
So far, only Kurt Schlichter has defended Trump on (1), and it was because of sticking it to the libs. Dan McLaughlin tried (2), but he ignores all of the valid concerns that Feldman raised. But Feldman's piece doesn't quite reach (3), yet. Any pardons of Manafort/Flynn/Page will be word for word what Madison talked about.
EDIT: remember that Aprio isn't no one to Trump. Aprio provided critical official cover when Trump was getting started in politics as leader of the birther movement. This still isn't quite criminal conspiracy, but the shocking cronyism here shouldn't be ignored.
|
On August 26 2017 13:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:59 Wulfey_LA wrote:I read Madison's words and I think they can stretch to cover these facts. I knew it wasn't quite a criminal association (but Manafort/Flynn/Page pardons, those will be on the nose for Madison's exact words). Pardoning Apraio is a direct attack on the ability of Article III judges to keep law enforcement in line. Arpaio willfully violated the orders of a Federal Judge and used state power to inflict violence in violation of that order. If Madison was concerned about President's pardoning their criminal associates and those that would implicate the President himself, then Madison certainly would also be concerned about pardoning friends (see, Birther posse) to flout Article III. Read the contempt finding here. There is a reason McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law. https://twitter.com/joshgreenman/status/901278608836177920 No, they really can't. Pretty much every sentence in your argument requires the reader to make a rather large logical leap. You are way off in left field here. And the reason why McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law is because he's playing politics. Don't over-complicate things.
One could argue very easily that in most cases the pardon in and of itself is an assault on the rule of law. It may be a legal loophole but it gives the president the power to overrule the judicial branch at will.
|
not sure if this has been posted before, but I had to laugh
I'm rooting for the man, he is America's hope
|
United States42009 Posts
On August 26 2017 13:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:59 Wulfey_LA wrote:I read Madison's words and I think they can stretch to cover these facts. I knew it wasn't quite a criminal association (but Manafort/Flynn/Page pardons, those will be on the nose for Madison's exact words). Pardoning Apraio is a direct attack on the ability of Article III judges to keep law enforcement in line. Arpaio willfully violated the orders of a Federal Judge and used state power to inflict violence in violation of that order. If Madison was concerned about President's pardoning their criminal associates and those that would implicate the President himself, then Madison certainly would also be concerned about pardoning friends (see, Birther posse) to flout Article III. Read the contempt finding here. There is a reason McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law. https://twitter.com/joshgreenman/status/901278608836177920 No, they really can't. Pretty much every sentence in your argument requires the reader to make a rather large logical leap. You are way off in left field here. And the reason why McCain is calling this an assault on the rule of law is because he's playing politics. Don't over-complicate things.
You think McCain is positioning himself for a future job or campaign, and not simply stating his opinions? What motive would McCain have to play politics? He's already got the last political post he'll hold.
|
One thing i wonder is, if trump sparks the desire to "reform" presidency. I feel like people start to realise more and more how a collective mistake of voting an actual idiot can actually do a lot of harm to your country. The bullshitting of trumpets a la "congress will keep him in check n shit" seems to slow/quiet down too.
Keep in mind, he's in office for 217 days. Look at all the shit, even if you take the russia investigation out of the picture as a "media conspiracy", you still have so much other shit that you can't blame on others because the problem in those cases objectively is trump. There's three and a half more years of this. Just imagine how much damage he could do by presidenting as his confederate base would want him to. And there's no indication for any improvement either. He just keeps going and going.
|
|
|
United States42009 Posts
I mean there's few things that could be as expensive and destructive as Iraq. Complete domestic mismanagement is probably still a good job compared to starting wars. Iraq has cost more than a hundred walls. It's cost more than pulling out of NAFTA overnight would. I liked Bush more than Trump but Trump could really do far more damage than he has. Trump does petty damage like pardoning one super racist, stack that against imprisoning a million African Americans and you'll see Trump lacks the vision to deliberately destroy America. When he causes the end it'll be by accident.
|
On August 26 2017 12:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for:
EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] +
Like people who want a re-do on the constitution over this.
I'm old school I prefer my Nazi's in full retreat, dead on the streets, hanging from lamp posts like the old days. Anyways...
Then we just apply your grasp of civil rights to the blacks, and StealthBlue's clones argue they're all druggies and gangbangers.
|
On August 26 2017 14:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 12:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for: https://twitter.com/phoenixnewtimes/status/901263384087334914EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution. Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is. + Show Spoiler [pardon power] + I'm old school I prefer my Nazi's in full retreat, dead on the streets, hanging from lamp posts like the old days. Anyways... https://twitter.com/AP/status/901279153625993216 Then we just apply your grasp of civil rights to the blacks, and StealthBlue's clones argue they're all druggies and gangbangers.
Are you saying that it's unreasonable to do morally questionable things to people like the Nazis with the justification that their views and actions work against modern Western values?
|
|
|
On August 26 2017 14:32 KwarK wrote:
I mean there's few things that could be as expensive and destructive as Iraq. Complete domestic mismanagement is probably still a good job compared to starting wars. Iraq has cost more than a hundred walls. It's cost more than pulling out of NAFTA overnight would. I liked Bush more than Trump but Trump could really do far more damage than he has. Trump does petty damage like pardoning one super racist, stack that against imprisoning a million African Americans and you'll see Trump lacks the vision to deliberately destroy America. When he causes the end it'll be by accident.
Trump's damage to the country will be from a social standpoint. A divided country that he actively divides more by the day. He's not just pushing people further left in protest of his rhetoric, but he's emboldening the far right as well. Reasonable republicans may be distancing themselves from him, but that 30% base that bends over backwards to justify his horrible conduct is going to be mind fucked at the end of his term. I imagine that once those people condone enough of this shit over time, then that "shit" becomes the new baseline for what is acceptable. I can see civil unrest continuing to grow under his term as president.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump wasn't the one who divided the country; he simply came to prominence when the country was already deeply divided and fed the flames. He can't be blamed for it all and framing it as "this is what happens when you don't elect Hillary Clinton as a compromise" is laughably reductionist.
GH did put it nicely though: it's a good thing that a president this bad is more concerned with his own ego and with vanity praise than with power. Because the latter would be far more dangerous.
|
On August 26 2017 15:34 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wasn't the one who divided the country; he simply came to prominence when the country was already deeply divided and fed the flames. He can't be blamed for it all and framing it as "this is what happens when you don't elect Hillary Clinton as a compromise" is laughably reductionist.
GH did put it nicely though: it's a good thing that a president this bad is more concerned with his own ego and with vanity praise than with power. Because the latter would be far more dangerous.
Hold on a sec, I gotta open reeaalll wide to fit in all those words you just tried to shove into my mouth.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 26 2017 15:41 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 15:34 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wasn't the one who divided the country; he simply came to prominence when the country was already deeply divided and fed the flames. He can't be blamed for it all and framing it as "this is what happens when you don't elect Hillary Clinton as a compromise" is laughably reductionist.
GH did put it nicely though: it's a good thing that a president this bad is more concerned with his own ego and with vanity praise than with power. Because the latter would be far more dangerous. Hold on a sec, I gotta open reeaalll wide to fit in all those words you just tried to shove into my mouth.
Who said that was a direct response to your post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
