d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2016 > Trump Vs Clinton
Prev1193919401941194219433169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 104,578
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
Jun 3 2018 09:48am
Quote (IceMage @ Jun 3 2018 11:41am)
I've had him blocked for months, but his retardation triggered me so I had to respond.




And when someone makes a point that really should be considered, we resort to insults. :D

/e Another vote for Trump in the poll. 567 ---> 568 in 3 days.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 3 2018 09:49am
Member
Posts: 40,833
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2018 10:53am
Quote (Ghot @ 3 Jun 2018 15:36)
That's the problem I have with the post. It implies Trump is considering pardoning this guy, when in fact we see no mention of this.
Sort of like... propaganda?

/e Posting facts about what Trump is doing is fine. Implications are just propaganda.


/ee You running in 2020? Or is this a clever time machine reference? :D


Quote
President Donald Trump has now told reporters he’s considered commuting the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and pardoning Martha Stewart.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/31/17413510/trump-pardon-rod-blagojevich-martha-stewart
Quote
President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday that he is considering pardoning Martha Stewart and commuting former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's sentence.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/martha-stewart-rod-blagojevich-trump-pardons/index.html
Quote
President Trump said he is considering two other commutations -- one for TV personality Martha Stewart, and one for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rod-blagojevich-martha-stewart-pardons-considered-by-trump/
Quote
President Trump said Thursday he was considering pardoning or commuting the sentences of Martha Stewart and former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/31/rod-blagojevich-jail-wife-praises-trump-after-considering-pardon-commutation

Chucked FAUX news in there for bipartisanship.

Now would be the time to say 'Oh, my bad. I was wrong.' if you're ever gonna do it.
Would be step one in gaining any respect round here.
Member
Posts: 104,578
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
Jun 3 2018 10:59am
Quote (Scaly @ Jun 3 2018 12:53pm)




In the video, he posted, which I did say was old news. ?????

/e Try to keep up.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 3 2018 11:00am
Member
Posts: 40,833
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2018 11:04am
Quote (Ghot @ 3 Jun 2018 16:59)
In the video, he posted, which I did say was old news. ?????

/e Try to keep up.


:lol:

Just can't do it can you?

'I was wrong'. It's not hard bud. It's three words that instantly increase people's opinion of you.
Member
Posts: 104,578
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
Jun 3 2018 11:09am
Quote (Scaly @ Jun 3 2018 01:04pm)
:lol:

Just can't do it can you?

'I was wrong'. It's not hard bud. It's three words that instantly increase people's opinion of you.




Dude, I was talking about the video he posted. You're taking things out of context... again. I even said it was old news. Now why would I have said that?
Maybe because i saw your vox post about it. Which is the same reason I didn't post the article about the same thing on Reuters.


/e Hell bro, I even said that when I commented...

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2018 11:36am)
That's the problem I have with the post. It implies Trump is considering pardoning this guy, when in fact we see no mention of this.
Sort of like... propaganda?


This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 3 2018 11:11am
Member
Posts: 40,833
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2018 11:15am
Quote (Ghot @ 3 Jun 2018 17:09)
Dude, I was talking about the video he posted. You're taking things out of context... again. I even said it was old news. Now why would I have said that?
Maybe because i saw your vox post about it. Which is the same reason I didn't post the article about the same thing on Reuters.


/e Hell bro, I even said that when I commented...


So was it propaganda? Or was it accurate reporting of something the president said?
Member
Posts: 104,578
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
Jun 3 2018 11:33am
Quote (Scaly @ Jun 3 2018 01:15pm)
So was it propaganda? Or was it accurate reporting of something the president said?




Watch the video. Where in there do they say Trump said anything?
Member
Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 26 2016
Gold: 0.00
Jun 3 2018 11:59am
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2018 09:48am)
And when someone makes a point that really should be considered, we resort to insults. :D

/e Another vote for Trump in the poll. 567 ---> 568 in 3 days.


That was me, my bad fam

This post was edited by Melbenator on Jun 3 2018 12:21pm
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,296.75
Jun 3 2018 12:08pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 3 2018 08:48am)

/e Another vote for Trump in the poll. 567 ---> 568 in 3 days.


Look at this lefty loon social justice warrior nerd

all those battle scars and like a typical DemocRat didn't even vote

https://i.imgur.com/gL3cXok.png
Member
Posts: 12,379
Joined: Jul 14 2008
Gold: 2,620.00
Jun 3 2018 12:18pm
Quote (Goomshill @ 3 Jun 2018 00:04)
His question was valid, but it was answered months ago. Your question is not. Its like asking "Do Obama fans think the president should be an absolute monarch who rules by decree?"
The legal gray area over executive powers when it comes to subpoenas / prosecution of the president isn't new. It wasn't settled under Nixon or Clinton. And its obviously the role of any lawyers for the president to come down on the side of arguing the president is immune. That's their job. What kind of lawyers would they be if they were throwing away a significant legal fight over jurisdiction and privilege? As far as the question of how the law should be resolved: Its not clear. If Mueller decided to push it for some reason, it might wind up at the supreme court. Theres a reason the precedents were set vague and limited, like saying prosecutors could issue a subpoena for an interview only if they can show its material, that only the executive can provide it and they've exhausted all alternatives. But even that wasn't fully enshrined when Clinton voluntarily sat down with Starr.

but you'd have to live in a cave on mars to not have heard about all this over the past year


If you feel uncertain answering that question because it wasn't settled under Nixon or Clinton and the Constitution is vague on the subject, I think it comes down to what kind of precedent our country wants to set.

What kind of country do we want to be?

One where the President has unfettered ability to close investigations into himself for any reason or one where the Justice Department is capable of exercising oversight into our cheif executive?
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1193919401941194219433169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll