HgH wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:This is what happens when liberals are in charge of your country. Madness.
Canadians will soon have 3 gender options on their passports:
âšªï¸ M
âšªï¸ F
âšªï¸ X
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/americas/canada-passport-x.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=curSo?
Trumpkin / Trumpster / Trumptard / Trumpvestite have more options
âšªï¸ White Supremacist
âšªï¸ Nazi
âšªï¸ Racist/Bigot
âšªï¸ All of the above
HgH wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:This is what happens when liberals are in charge of your country. Madness.
Canadians will soon have 3 gender options on their passports:
âšªï¸ M
âšªï¸ F
âšªï¸ X
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/americas/canada-passport-x.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=curSo?
Yea, I'm not sure how that's madness. I'm sure Canada would look at the red state disasters like Louisiana, which gets 44% of its budget from the federal government because the state can't accept personal responsibility for its own affairs, and consider that madness. Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas - all madness. Maybe the problem is they're spending too much time worrying about transgenders and not enough time developing their skills to provide meaningful contributions to this great country. Madness.
What are you talking about? What do you think the Democrats have power to do?
itsbaddude wrote:
Like I said, the Democrats are playing games with these kids. They have the power to stop it.
========> Party
This line from Arizona's largest newspaper says it best:
By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal.
No, we are sick of you and laugh at you too. He's saying it like it is, unlike Clinton the LIAR! Racist? Look up Clinton and see who the real racist is. Man, you've got some serious rage issues and possibly a mental order as well. Get help now old man.
Pookie Washington wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:When Trump denounced David Duke in 2000, it was on the record and he knew exactly who he was. Last year, the question was more about Duke's support. Trump was unaware of Duke's endorsement when the reporter mentioned it. Trump could have phrased it better, sure. He should have said, "I don't care for Duke or what he represents, etc." I criticize Trump for the poor choice of words. Of course he knew Duke and what he stood for but there is no way in hell that you can leap to the conclusion that Trump was seeking the KKK's support in any way, shape or form- that's lib echo chamber groupthink.
He's not a racist as many libs and the media are so desperately trying to pin on him along with "Russia, Russia, Russia" narrative.
I am truly SICK of you silly a$$ Trump apologists making excuses for that racist motherphucker!! He really meant to say this and he really meant to say that. HE IS A GROWN PHUCKING MAN...HE MEANT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. He lied...he lied...he lied....he lied.........just like he has done on sooooooo many other occasions. HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACIST OR DAVID DUKE. That was a phucking lie!!! Housing discrimination, Central Park case, Mexicans are rapists, judge can't be fair because he is Mexican, BIRTHER CRAP, Charlottesville, KKK's favorite person .....and more. Yes Yes Yes.......Donald Trump is a racist.
Nope, you are the racist Flagboy. Hide all you want, your resentment is obvious.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:Let's stop equivocating. Trump says racist things and he always has. Trump does racist things and he always has.
Can someone say racist things, do racist things, and still not be a racist? I'm sorry, that's just not possible.
Yep. Trump is a racist..that is crystal clear. Always has been.
Says the idiot who doesn't even know what "pales" means. Your middle name must be ignorant, am I right?
pales in compare wrote:
foo fighter wrote:Pales in comparison
0/10, poop eater.
You have no clue what pales in comparison means.
Who cares what the paper says? Suddenly they have validity because they aren't slamming your girl? Which way will you twist facts today Fatso?
Fat hurts wrote:
This line from Arizona's largest newspaper says it best:
By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal.
Fatty Hurts Bigtime wrote:
Says the idiot who doesn't even know what "pales" means. Your middle name must be ignorant, am I right?
pales in compare wrote:0/10, poop eater.
You have no clue what pales in comparison means.
Wow, you can type while eating poop. Pails in compare.
Fatty Hurts Bigtime wrote:
Which way will you twist facts today Fatso?
Yeah, obese Trump twists facts every day.
Obvi wrote:?
HI HARDLOPER!!!
Personally I have never been in favor of presidents have the legal authority to pardons those convicted of crimes. They are not kings.
I might be in favor of the president having the authority to send a convicted criminal to a committee that would evaluate the appropriateness of a pardon.
The presidential pardon is too vulnerable to abuse.
Conundrum wrote:
Personally I have never been in favor of presidents have the legal authority to pardons those convicted of crimes. They are not kings.
I might be in favor of the president having the authority to send a convicted criminal to a committee that would evaluate the appropriateness of a pardon.
The presidential pardon is too vulnerable to abuse.
It is time to minimize presidential powers. Take away the ability to pardon--courts can handle it. Force 100% financial disclosure--tax returns. Ban ANY business use payments to a president. The later two changes would get Trump to walk away.
Conundrum wrote:
Personally I have never been in favor of presidents have the legal authority to pardons those convicted of crimes. They are not kings.
I might be in favor of the president having the authority to send a convicted criminal to a committee that would evaluate the appropriateness of a pardon.
The presidential pardon is too vulnerable to abuse.
I agree.
But that's why modern presidents have always had a strict process in place that includes a recommendation from the justice department before pardons are granted.
Until now.
What Trump did was indeed an abuse of power. There was apparently no serious vetting of the case. There was no consideration of what is good for the country. He just decided to grant a pardon for purely political reasons.
Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. If impeachment ever happens then this pardon will probably constitute one of the charges.
What Obama did was clearly an abuse of power, look up the list.
Fat hurts wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Personally I have never been in favor of presidents have the legal authority to pardons those convicted of crimes. They are not kings.
I might be in favor of the president having the authority to send a convicted criminal to a committee that would evaluate the appropriateness of a pardon.
The presidential pardon is too vulnerable to abuse.
I agree.
But that's why modern presidents have always had a strict process in place that includes a recommendation from the justice department before pardons are granted.
Until now.
What Trump did was indeed an abuse of power. There was apparently no serious vetting of the case. There was no consideration of what is good for the country. He just decided to grant a pardon for purely political reasons.
Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. If impeachment ever happens then this pardon will probably constitute one of the charges.
Trump is a racist bigoted lying sack of sh!t
L L wrote:
Trump is a racist bigoted lying sack of sh!t
Well, on a good day, I suppose.
Trump condones overt racial discrimination and disregard for the judicial branch.
Worst president since Jefferson Davis.
Fat hurts wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Personally I have never been in favor of presidents have the legal authority to pardons those convicted of crimes. They are not kings.
I might be in favor of the president having the authority to send a convicted criminal to a committee that would evaluate the appropriateness of a pardon.
The presidential pardon is too vulnerable to abuse.
I agree.
But that's why modern presidents have always had a strict process in place that includes a recommendation from the justice department before pardons are granted.
Until now.
What Trump did was indeed an abuse of power. There was apparently no serious vetting of the case. There was no consideration of what is good for the country. He just decided to grant a pardon for purely political reasons.
Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. If impeachment ever happens then this pardon will probably constitute one of the charges.
Good point
I know Obama did vetting of his pardons through the justice department and I think the justice department recommendation should not just be good practice but should be a legal requirement before as pardon can be given.
I don't know if this would be a charge on Trump that could stick unless there were other pardons that showed a pattern of obstruction of justice. Trump would claim based on Arpaio's age and "intentions" the pardon was given.
I was very disappointed in the number and types of pardons Bill Clinton gave at the end of his administration. I was pleasantly surprised when George Bush didn't cave to Cheney and refused to pardon Scooter Libby. (I think George Bush had a sad epiphany at the end of his second term when he realized how he was mislead and the damage he created during his 2 terms - he strikes me as a man currently carrying the burden of tremendous guilt)
Good to see Trump tweeting about the wall and NAFTA this hour! Priorities, folks, priorities.