PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 26, 2017, 02:23:56 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4826344/John-McCain-slams-Trump-s-decision-pardon-Joe-Arpaio.html
So says a man that was part of the Keating Five. What a fucking hypocrite this guy has become.
-
This was not above the law. The sheriff defied the court and was found guilty. The President is empowered to pardon anyone he chooses to.
This is not called being above the law. It IS the law Senator.
-
This was not above the law. The sheriff defied the court and was found guilty. The President is empowered to pardon anyone he chooses to.
This is not called being above the law. It IS the law Senator.
The guy is brain damaged.
-
Arpaio did in fact violate a court order and was held responsible for it. The president also has the power to pardon whomever he chooses. The best was the tweet from Ben Rhodes:
Obama used his pardon and commutation power to give a second chance to people who deserved empathy, not racists who showed none.
Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, who leaked classified information.
-
I guess the only good pardons are those given to drug dealers....
-
The swamp is Paul Ryan and Joh McCain. Seeing those two clowns attacking Trump for pardoning Arapaho makes me want to puke.
What assholes.
-
A collection of brain dead zombies here. Pardons should be used for common sense leniency where someone's sentence doesn't fit the crime. Not for a criminal like Joe.
-
A collection of brain dead zombies here. Pardons should be used for common sense leniency where someone's sentence doesn't fit the crime. Not for a criminal like Joe.
Gee, I missed that part in the Constitution. Care to cite that language to us?
And speaking of "common sense leniency", a person commits treason against the US, one of the most serious crimes out there. Is giving he/she a pardon "common sense leniency" just because that individual is a Trans gender?
How about a guy like Marc Rich? Tax evader wanted for massive tax fraud and a few other insundry crimes. Was it "common sense leniency" to give him a pardon when he contributed a half million dollars to Clinton's library and a $150,000 to Hillary's senate campaign? Or can we summize that was a pardon bought and paid for? Where in the constitution does it say pardons go to the highest bidder?
Or do you want to comment on your hero BHO for setting the record on issuing pardons, and some of the people he pardoned and their crimes? I think if you go there the definition of "common sense leniency" will be thrown out the window.
The Sunday Morning news talk shows will start shortly. Get on CNN and MSNBC so you can get the latest talking points, then you can come back with your "outrage" and amuse everyone.
-
This is for our drive by liberal progressive flame throwers. Please read this over then come back and tell us how each one of these pardons falls under "common sense leiniency".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executive_clemency_by_Barack_Obama
-
Gee, I missed that part in the Constitution. Care to cite that language to us?
And speaking of "common sense leniency", a person commits treason against the US, one of the most serious crimes out there. Is giving he/she a pardon "common sense leniency" just because that individual is a Trans gender?
How about a guy like Marc Rich? Tax evader wanted for massive tax fraud and a few other insundry crimes. Was it "common sense leniency" to give him a pardon when he contributed a half million dollars to Clinton's library and a $150,000 to Hillary's senate campaign? Or can we summize that was a pardon bought and paid for? Where in the constitution does it say pardons go to the highest bidder?
Or do you want to comment on your hero BHO for setting the record on issuing pardons, and some of the people he pardoned and their crimes? I think if you go there the definition of "common sense leniency" will be thrown out the window.
The Sunday Morning news talk shows will start shortly. Get on CNN and MSNBC so you can get the latest talking points, then you can come back with your "outrage" and amuse everyone.
I understand what you're saying (in fact I mentioned Chelsea Manning in my above post), but we should be careful about "whataboutism."
In this case, whataboutism is itself dishonesty — it’s pretending to care about the sins of the Left in order to justify the sins of the Right. It actually throws into sharp relief the hypocrisy of the Right: we complained endlessly and justifiably about Loretta Lynch meeting secretly with Bill Clinton, but we’re fine with Donald Trump Jr. meeting secretly with Natalia Veselnitskaya; we ripped President Obama’s “flexibility” hot mic moment, but we’re fine with President Trump saying that America has killed people just like Putin; we correctly targeted Clinton over Chinagate, but now we’re happy to use Chinagate as an excuse to avoid talking about Russiagate. This isn’t conservative. It’s not even moral. Kindergarteners learn that “but he did it, too” isn’t an excuse for bad behavior.
The Right often embraces this form of “whataboutism” because many people believe that fighting the Left requires tossing out morality of means in favor of morality of ends. Fight fire with fire! Since that was the animating principle behind much of the conservative support for the Trump campaign, this form of "whataboutism" has also become the most common form.
...
We ought to be careful about how we utilize “whataboutism.” The goal should be to reinforce moral standards, not to undermine them. But that goal seems to be receding into the distance as we use “whataboutism” as a club directed at destroying principles rather than a shield for defending them.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18511/whataboutism-and-its-moral-hazards-ben-shapiro
Note that in the article, Ben doesn't suggest not using the "whataboutism" defense but rather discusses how and when it should be used. It's a slippery slope and one that must be carefully used. Conservatives are supposed to be better than progressives/liberals. Trump isn't a conservative, but he is the de facto leader of the Republican party (whether anyone likes it or not) and we all should be mindful of the traps.
-
I understand what you're saying (in fact I mentioned Chelsea Manning in my above post), but we should be careful about "whataboutism."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18511/whataboutism-and-its-moral-hazards-ben-shapiro
Note that in the article, Ben doesn't suggest not using the "whataboutism" defense but rather discusses how and when it should be used. It's a slippery slope and one that must be carefully used. Conservatives are supposed to be better than progressives/liberals. Trump isn't a conservative, but he is the de facto leader of the Republican party (whether anyone likes it or not) and we all should be mindful of the traps.
In other words, you want people and their opinions silenced. And to that I call bullshit.
This president (Trump) has issued one pardon so far (just one) and it is a pardon for a politically motivated conviction. Now we watch as the establishment and the progressives feign "outrage" and begin citing non existent laws and passages in the constitution. Yet there is no mention, no comparison of the previous presidents (both R and D) on how they applied their constitutional authority in similar pardons.
I'm not going to sit back and let some drive by flamethrowers tell us about "common sense leiniency" (a non existent legal term) and attempt to smear the President with their inane drivel and diatribes. If they want to come back and debate facts instead of ignorant talking points I'm all in for it. But as usual they won't because they know they have nothing.
-
In other words, you want people and their opinions silenced. And to that I call bullshit.
That's a stretch, even for you.
This president (Trump) has issued one pardon so far (just one) and it is a pardon for a politically motivated conviction. Now we watch as the establishment and the progressives feign "outrage" and begin citing non existent laws and passages in the constitution. Yet there is no mention, no comparison of the previous presidents (both R and D) on how they applied their constitutional authority in similar pardons.
I stated in my first post in this thread that the president has the authority to grant pardons. I understand this is only one pardon and isn't on the same level as someone such as Obama (or others, on both sides, I'm sure). But if your only argument is "but Obama!" then at some point that argument isn't going to work anymore, especially if we're supposed to be the ones with the higher moral ground. Also note that I posted a link to an article that discusses how and when to use that defense, not an article about why it should never be used.
It's absolutely true that Obama, Clinton and others pardoned all sorts of people for a variety of reasons and nobody is disputing whether the president has the power to pardon someone. The left can try and use arguments about non-existent legal theories all they want, but it won't hold water.
-
That's a stretch, even for you.
I stated in my first post in this thread that the president has the authority to grant pardons. I understand this is only one pardon and isn't on the same level as someone such as Obama (or others, on both sides, I'm sure). But if your only argument is "but Obama!" then at some point that argument isn't going to work anymore, especially if we're supposed to be the ones with the higher moral ground. Also note that I posted a link to an article that discusses how and when to use that defense, not an article about why it should never be used.
It's absolutely true that Obama, Clinton and others pardoned all sorts of people for a variety of reasons and nobody is disputing whether the president has the power to pardon someone. The left can try and use arguments about non-existent legal theories all they want, but it won't hold water.
Talking about "stretches", nowhere did I state "but Obama!" I laid out FACTS using precedences of previous presidents (I assume you know how precedences work in the legal world). Everything I posted was FACTUAL to show how the laws have been applied in recent history. And all our liberal flamethrowers can do is toss about non existent legal terms based on MSM talking points.
I used FACTS to back up my assertion. Let's now see if the drive by's come back and want to debate this. I'm awaiting how they can justify a President pardoning a group of terrorist who committed murder as "common sense leniency".
-
A collection of brain dead zombies here. Pardons should be used for common sense leniency where someone's sentence doesn't fit the crime. Not for a criminal like Joe.
When all you have are insults, it is obvious you have nothing meaningful to contribute, but hate. Maybe hate speech should be banned? I'm sure you think so, but I still don't. Feel free to insult, and make yourself look bad.
-
A collection of brain dead zombies here. Pardons should be used for common sense leniency where someone's sentence doesn't fit the crime. Not for a criminal like Joe.
So now a misdemeanor (first offense) labels someone as a criminal?
-
So now a misdemeanor (first offense) labels someone as a criminal?
That is, by definition, correct.
Oxford Dictionary:
Noun. A person who has committed a crime.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of criminal
1
: relating to, involving, or being a crime criminal neglect a criminal organization
2
: relating to crime or to the prosecution of suspects in a crime criminal statistics brought criminal action the criminal justice system
3
: guilty of crime; also : of or befitting a criminal a criminal mind
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal
-
That is, by definition, correct.
Oxford Dictionary:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/criminal
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminal
So you contend that a person found in contempt of court and fined for such can be labeled a criminal?
-
So you contend that a person found in contempt of court and fined for such can be labeled a criminal?
If said person was found guilty by a court of violating a criminal law at the state or federal level, then yes, that meets the criteria to be labeled as a criminal.
-
If said person was found guilty by a court of violating a criminal law at the state or federal level, then yes, that meets the criteria to be labeled as a criminal.
Ok, fine. So you agree that former President Bill Clinton is indeed a criminal, correct?
On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.
-
Ok, fine. So you agree that former President Bill Clinton is indeed a criminal, correct?
If he was convicted of a criminal statute, then yes.
I'm not understanding where you're going with this. Do you think I'm a liberal or something?
-
A collection of brain dead zombies here. Pardons should be used for common sense leniency where someone's sentence doesn't fit the crime. Not for a criminal like Joe.
Inherent in your statement is that you believe only you can correctly judge what is and is not common sense and that only you can correctly judge when pardons should be used. Your sh*t stinks too, don't try to pretend otherwise.
Pardons can be given for any reason that the president decides. You and I do not get to sit in judgement of whether or not they are good reasons. We certainly have opinions and they mean nothing to anyone else.
I believe that you formulate your position to justify your opinion of the president and I think that because what you wrote is a load of crap.
-
If he was convicted of a criminal statute, then yes.
It's not an "if", it's fact.
I'm not understanding where you're going with this. Do you think I'm a liberal or something?
You posted the definition and defended the OP use of it. I was just confirming your use of the word.
-
Gerhardt is projecting as usual, because, let's face it, projection and ignorance is really all the left has left...
-
There's an article out today from the editors of the National Review regarding the Arpaio pardon and they raise some interesting points.
We are mindful of the hypocrisy of the Left regarding abuse of the president’s constitutional pardon power. President Clinton put it on sale for the benefit of donors and cronies. President Obama used it to effectively rewrite Congress’s narcotics statutes, for the benefit of drug felons and in circumvention of his duty to execute the laws faithfully. Both commuted the sentences of anti-American terrorists from the FALN and the Weathermen. These were disgraceful acts.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450891/joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon-lawless-sheriff-premature-bad-decision
-
This whole thing is pretty rich coming from a guy who was accused of showing incredibly poor judgement, who failed to properly report AND pay back 'gifts' from wealthy donors seeking favor from the House, who was nearly hammered by the House Ethics committee and whose primary lack of prosecution stems from breaking the rules as a Congressman and then getting elected Senator such that neither body claimed responsibility for holding him accountable.
Fast forward to the Keating 5 and he began his long history of self-preservation at any cost and being a media darling who just happens to be at or very near the center of most leak scandals, especially those that damage his reportedly 'fellow' Republicans.
I have grown to the point I cannot stand McCain, he is a reliable fellow traveller for the Left, and a dangerous but utterly predictable self-centered fake bestie to the Republicans. His response to being tainted by Keating 5 was to join with Russ Feingold to try and control the money flowing into politics, instead of controlling the behavior of the despicable congresscritters themselves - literally rewriting long standing concepts of freedom of speech to remove the temptation rather than force politicians to behave ethically.
He cannot retire to attend to his health fast enough.
'Gimp
-
This whole thing is pretty rich coming from a guy who was accused of showing incredibly poor judgement, who failed to properly report AND pay back 'gifts' from wealthy donors seeking favor from the House, who was nearly hammered by the House Ethics committee and whose primary lack of prosecution stems from breaking the rules as a Congressman and then getting elected Senator such that neither body claimed responsibility for holding him accountable.
Fast forward to the Keating 5 and he began his long history of self-preservation at any cost and being a media darling who just happens to be at or very near the center of most leak scandals, especially those that damage his reportedly 'fellow' Republicans.
I have grown to the point I cannot stand McCain, he is a reliable fellow traveller for the Left, and a dangerous but utterly predictable self-centered fake bestie to the Republicans. His response to being tainted by Keating 5 was to join with Russ Feingold to try and control the money flowing into politics, instead of controlling the behavior of the despicable congresscritters themselves - literally rewriting long standing concepts of freedom of speech to remove the temptation rather than force politicians to behave ethically.
He cannot retire to attend to his health fast enough.
'Gimp
^^^^^This!
As for McCain/Feingold anti-first amendment legislation, you are spot on. He basically said that Congress can't be controlled, to which I say to McCain and others: "quit, and go fuck yourself."
-
God is going to retire JM shortly.
The arrogance of this guy to hold his seat and keep stirring crap for the American people is unreal. He should realize his time and what he has left to spend it with family, turn off the TV's and enjoy life.
-
God is going to retire JM shortly.
The arrogance of this guy to hold his seat and keep stirring crap for the American people is unreal. He should realize his time and what he has left to spend it with family, turn off the TV's and enjoy life.
Im convinced he wants to die while in office, with all the pomp and circumstance involved, vs passing away as a former senator.
-
Im convinced he wants to die while in office, with all the pomp and circumstance involved, vs passing away as a former senator.
Agreed.
I've gone through the exact same situation with a family member. Right now JM is not in a mental condition to hold office or making decisions. He really needs to step down.