pineapplemike wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:45 pm
just for the record, i'm on team i dont think the president should be allowed to pardon him or herself. fuck em
Agreed. 100 %.
We would have to transport ourselves back to the coup of the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia to do anything about it, however.
What good reason is there for a president to have the pardoning power, at all?
Why should the "president" do anything other than preside over meetings of the legislature/parliament?
Last edited by Fife on Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SuburbanFarmer wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:02 pm
If you can hear me up there, could you please remind me what vote I should have cast that was “anti-war”?
While you’re at it, could you remind me which of “my friends” you’re talking about?
One more thing... are you proposing nuclear annihalation of any terrorist “threat”, or uppity dictator from now on? Because that’s what Total War means now.
I'm speaking to you as an average American citizen.
Less than 1% serve and see the working end of US foreign policy.
Nuclear weapons have more negatives that positives for our current force.
But they are in the arsenal and can be used if necessary.
Again, if you had total control over the results, which candidates were the “anti-war” choices?
And we’re already spending over half the national budget on 1% of the population serving. You think we should increase that number?
Long Low intensity Wars serve the Banksters and Military Contractors, short violent wars not so much.
No, I was thinking more that it would bolster strong, traditional marriages and encourage presidents to be good role models.
...because I can name more than a few where the First Lady might have been like “Nah, book ‘em, Danno”
DBTrek wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:10 pm
No, I was thinking more that it would bolster strong, traditional marriages and encourage presidents to be good role models.
...because I can name more than a few where the First Lady might have been like “Nah, book ‘em, Danno”
This whole thing strikes me as some kind of concern troll at this point. On the one hand it would be cool to just fuck off millions of dollars of investigations over a which hunt with a simple amnesty however, that's not really what the pardon is intended for. Not that it was ever intended as anything other than an appeal to the jewdiciary anyway.
Fife wrote: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:23 pm
FLOTUS > POTUS is a fantastic idea, DB.
Why do Americans GAF about an executive pooh-bah in the first place?
Is there an explanation more complicated than the feckless c---ery of G.W.?
Flouts has no power unless POTUS gives it to her by requiring a pardon. You’re overreacting as the excitable and simple mountain people of your humble hamlet are apt to do.
