Jump to content


The Trump Presidency Thread


  • Please log in to reply
1513 replies to this topic

#1401 Scrim

Scrim

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 555 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 08:59 AM

View PostFCP Bob, on 18 August 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

Talia‏ @2020fight Aug 17
Are we going to take down this statue of Trump and Mitch McConnell?

Posted Image

Holy Shit, that is amazing.

I've always said that Italians were the best trolls of all time.
“Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions,”

#1402 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 19 August 2017 - 12:05 PM

"After the statue removals, we will get to the book burnings. Then the purging of the vocabulary."


Wonder why none of these things mattered when Obama was president.

I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#1403 scuudagouch

scuudagouch

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 252 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Holdem

Posted 21 August 2017 - 02:23 AM

crickets....the Dems controlled both sides of congress with BHO for 2 full years and none of this mattered.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian"

Henry Ford

#1404 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 21 August 2017 - 04:21 PM

he really is a child

kelly cohen‏Verified account
@politiCOHEN_
yep, trump looked without glasses #solareclipse

Posted Image
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#1405 scuudagouch

scuudagouch

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 252 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Holdem

Posted 22 August 2017 - 03:24 AM

yea because glancing up for a moment is going to do anything to your eyes. What is dumber is the fact you and so many others think this has any relevance.

when in doubt use your head, don't be a libtard
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian"

Henry Ford

#1406 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 22 August 2017 - 05:19 AM

https://nypost.com/2...campaign=buffer

Guess they were right about Russia being in our computers.

Just wrong about who let them in through greed and stupidity
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#1407 SilentSnow

SilentSnow

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,181 posts
  • Location:parallel universe

Posted 22 August 2017 - 06:16 AM

Trump lies yet again. Republicans don't care since it means billions more wasted on the military and bombing brown people. In other news, water is wet.

http://www.huffingto...kushpmg00000009

It does bring up a philosophical question though. Is there even a theoretically possible lie Trump could tell that would bother most Republicans?

"I am a series of electronic pulses in a vast array of networked silicon lifeforms."

#1408 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 22 August 2017 - 07:59 AM

"most"

lol


Why do you just assume that a liberal writer writing for a liberal newspaper has any idea what actual republicans think about anything? Maybe you should talk to more Neo-Nazis so you can determine what ALL republicans think and believe.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#1409 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 22 August 2017 - 10:45 AM

Matt Bors‏
@MattBors
I made this political cartoon in 2010. Enjoy! http://thenib.com/daily

Posted Image
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#1410 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 22 August 2017 - 11:07 AM

There is also the reality that constant pressure in Afghanistan is a magnet to the type of Muslims who want to shoot Americans.

Much better to have them stay in their own crappy backwater counties and go against armed Marines, rather than have them travel to the west and go against unarmed soccer moms.

Everyone was sure Obama was going to pull out and he didn't, same with Trump. Do you think it is possible that we don't have all the facts, and those facts matter?
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#1411 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 August 2017 - 06:11 AM

Boy the Russia, Russia, Russia chants sure have disappeared.

Nazi, Nazi, Nazi will soon disappear too.

Then you guys will only have Chelsea, Chelsea, Chelsea.

Sucks to be you.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#1412 GOCUBSGO

GOCUBSGO

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IA
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL MTT's

Posted 24 August 2017 - 06:59 AM

Thanks for the update from fantasyland, BG.

#1413 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 24 August 2017 - 08:33 AM

The republicans are poised to be in power for a long time.

http://www.washingto...ats-another-lo/

Because the democrats are convinced their right-think will be accepted by all.

And if not, they will just focus on attacking wrong-think.

Because that's what America is all about.

Thank you from the right, we will enjoy your complete collapse.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#1414 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 26 August 2017 - 01:11 AM

Trump pardons criminal Sheriff Joe another racist piece of shit .

His lowlights in this Twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/...263384087334914
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#1415 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 26 August 2017 - 01:14 AM

NYT Opinion‏Verified account @nytopinion 3h3 hours ago
A con-law professor, anticipating the Arpaio pardon, explained why it's a big deal:
https://www.nytimes....inion&smtyp=cur


At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday, President Trump strongly implied that he would pardon Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who was found guilty in July of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order against prolonging traffic patrols targeting immigrants. This is not idle presidential chatter: On Thursday morning, CNN reported that the White House has prepared the necessary paperwork, along with talking points for its allies.

This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. And past presidents have used it with varying degrees of wisdom, at times in ways that would seem to clash with the courts’ ability to render justice. But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment — itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.

The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires.


In American constitutional democracy, democratic choices are limited by restraints imposed by the Constitution. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that neither life nor liberty nor property may be deprived absent “due process,” which the Supreme Court construes to require adjudication by a neutral judge.

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

I am not suggesting that the pardon power itself provides for a due process exception. To the contrary, on its face the pardon power appears virtually unlimited. But as a principle of constitutional law, anything in the body of the Constitution inconsistent with the directive of an amendment is necessarily pre-empted or modified by that amendment. If a particular exercise of the pardon power leads to a violation of the due process clause, the pardon power must be construed to prevent such a violation.

I admit that this is a novel theory. There’s no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way.

But if the president can immunize his agents in this manner, the courts will effectively lose any meaningful authority to protect constitutional rights against invasion by the executive branch. This is surely not the result contemplated by those who drafted and ratified the Fifth Amendment, and surely not the result dictated by precepts of constitutional democracy. All that would remain to the courts by way of enforcement would be the possibility of civil damage awards, hardly an effective means of stopping or deterring invasions of the right to liberty.

Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny. They were all too aware of the sad fate of all the republics that had preceded ours — rapid degeneration into tyranny. One of the most effective means of preventing tyranny was the vesting of the power of judicial review in a court system insulated from direct political pressures. Subsequent enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included the Fifth Amendment and its due process clause, only strengthened the nation’s resolve to prevent tyranny.

It has long been recognized that the greatest threat of tyranny derives from the executive branch, where the commander in chief sits, overseeing not just the military but a vast and growing network of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation didn’t even provide for an executive, for fear of what dangerous power he might exercise.

While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesn’t mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of neutral judicial process before deprivation of liberty cannot function with a weaponized pardon power that enables President Trump, or any president, to circumvent judicial protections of constitutional rights.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#1416 Dubey

Dubey

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,821 posts
  • Location:Lethbridge, Alberta

Posted 26 August 2017 - 09:14 AM

Just another left wing smear campaign. I'm sure ol' Sherrif Joe is a real stand up guy. One of the good guys from the good old days. A true American.

#1417 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:30 PM

The Hill‏Verified account
@thehill
Trump Cabinet member's daughter calls Trump a "never-served piece of sh-t" over transgender ban http://hill.cm/O5JdoSK
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#1418 scuudagouch

scuudagouch

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 252 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Limit Holdem

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:53 PM

View PostFCP Bob, on 26 August 2017 - 01:14 AM, said:

NYT Opinion‏Verified account @nytopinion 3h3 hours ago
A con-law professor, anticipating the Arpaio pardon, explained why it's a big deal:
https://www.nytimes....n&smtyp=cur


At his rally in Phoenix on Tuesday, President Trump strongly implied that he would pardon Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., who was found guilty in July of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order against prolonging traffic patrols targeting immigrants. This is not idle presidential chatter: On Thursday morning, CNN reported that the White House has prepared the necessary paperwork, along with talking points for its allies.

This is uncharted territory. Yes, on its face the Constitution’s pardon power would seem unlimited. And past presidents have used it with varying degrees of wisdom, at times in ways that would seem to clash with the courts’ ability to render justice. But the Arpaio case is different: The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Should the president indicate that he does not think Mr. Arpaio should be punished for that, he would signal that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights, when their illegal actions are consistent with presidential policies.

Many legal scholars argue that the only possible redress is impeachment — itself a politicized, drawn-out process. But there may be another route. If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.

The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, “stop doing that or else.” The “or else” is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the “or else,” the injunction is all but meaningless.

But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires.


In American constitutional democracy, democratic choices are limited by restraints imposed by the Constitution. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that neither life nor liberty nor property may be deprived absent “due process,” which the Supreme Court construes to require adjudication by a neutral judge.

In short, under the Constitution one cannot be deprived of liberty without a court ruling upon the legality of the detention. The power of courts to restrain government officers from depriving citizens of liberty absent judicial process is the only meaningful way courts have to enforce important constitutional protections. But if the president can employ the pardon power to circumvent constitutional protections of liberty, there is very little left of the constitutional checks on presidential power.

I am not suggesting that the pardon power itself provides for a due process exception. To the contrary, on its face the pardon power appears virtually unlimited. But as a principle of constitutional law, anything in the body of the Constitution inconsistent with the directive of an amendment is necessarily pre-empted or modified by that amendment. If a particular exercise of the pardon power leads to a violation of the due process clause, the pardon power must be construed to prevent such a violation.

I admit that this is a novel theory. There’s no Supreme Court decision, at least that I know of, that deals specifically with the extent to which the president may employ his pardon power in this way.

But if the president can immunize his agents in this manner, the courts will effectively lose any meaningful authority to protect constitutional rights against invasion by the executive branch. This is surely not the result contemplated by those who drafted and ratified the Fifth Amendment, and surely not the result dictated by precepts of constitutional democracy. All that would remain to the courts by way of enforcement would be the possibility of civil damage awards, hardly an effective means of stopping or deterring invasions of the right to liberty.

Anyone who has read the Federalist Papers knows how obsessed the framers were with the need to prevent tyranny. They were all too aware of the sad fate of all the republics that had preceded ours — rapid degeneration into tyranny. One of the most effective means of preventing tyranny was the vesting of the power of judicial review in a court system insulated from direct political pressures. Subsequent enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included the Fifth Amendment and its due process clause, only strengthened the nation’s resolve to prevent tyranny.

It has long been recognized that the greatest threat of tyranny derives from the executive branch, where the commander in chief sits, overseeing not just the military but a vast and growing network of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation didn’t even provide for an executive, for fear of what dangerous power he might exercise.

While the Constitution, in contrast, recognizes the very practical need for an executive, that doesn’t mean its framers feared the growth of tyranny any less. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of neutral judicial process before deprivation of liberty cannot function with a weaponized pardon power that enables President Trump, or any president, to circumvent judicial protections of constitutional rights.

This entire thought process at best is delusional...irrational, insane, fantasy land, silly. Welcome to the Obama years for conservatives. I realize that Canadians and the rest of the world are irrelevant to our system, even if you guys don't but yes this is how we felt. We hated every choice the man made, we hated his methods, his morals, his lies and his whole administration....and then trump won election.

As BHO once said, elections have consequences and you libtards lost!!!! You lost the house , senate and pres, you lost states, gov's and and locals. You have had you asses beat every election since 2010.....suck it up bitches you lost - deal with it.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian"

Henry Ford

#1419 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 26 August 2017 - 06:45 PM

Well, I mean, the dems won the presidency in 2012. So your post doesn't really ring true.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#1420 GOCUBSGO

GOCUBSGO

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IA
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL MTT's

Posted 26 August 2017 - 07:43 PM

If you haven't noticed, BG and Scuuda aren't really concerned with facts.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users