Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Bruce Wayne]

See that's just a way of trying to smear a point of view, by painting it in colours of which you disapprove......

Is it Pete? Leaders who say and do some pretty awful things approve of Brexit, and you yourself both support Brexit and seem largely supportive of those same dubious characters (you've spoken previously in support of the Poles and have been supportive of Trump in this thread), whilst simultaneously suggesting the Germans are behaving like Hitler and Macron like Napolean. If you want to distance yourself from the people I mentioned above, perhaps a good start would be to stop supporting their policies?

 

[Raindog]

Of course it answers the question. Of course it is not a reasonable choice for pardon, because it shouldn't exist. I don't agree with any pardon of any person for any offence if it has not resulted from a decision by the judiciary.....

No, you have answered a different question again. Concentrate on the part in bold.

Given that the rule exists (i.e, operating within the laws which currently exist and have been approved in the jurisdiction in question), do you think it was a reasonable choice for pardon, irrespective of who granted it?

Edit: Reading back, you did literally answer the question I originally asked. Hopefully I've now made it unambiguous. I thought the question I implied was clear. My mistake,apologies.

 

[peteblue]

No, you have answered a different question again. Concentrate on the part in bold.

Given that the rule exists (i.e, operating within the laws which currently exist and have been approved in the jurisdiction in question), do you think it was a reasonable choice for pardon, irrespective of who granted it?

Edit: Reading back, you did literally answer the question I originally asked. Hopefully I've now made it unambiguous. I thought the question I implied was clear. My mistake,apologies.

Of course it answers the question. Of course it is not a reasonable choice for pardon, because it shouldn't exist. I don't agree with any pardon of any person for any offence if it has not resulted from a decision by the judiciary.....

I'm not sure where you wish this to go, but once again, It is not a reasonable choice for pardon.....

 

[peteblue]

Is it Pete? Leaders who say and do some pretty awful things approve of Brexit, and you yourself both support Brexit and seem largely supportive of those same dubious characters (you've spoken previously in support of the Poles and have been supportive of Trump in this thread), whilst simultaneously suggesting the Germans are behaving like Hitler and Macron like Napolean. If you want to distance yourself from the people I mentioned above, perhaps a good start would be to stop supporting their policies?

Those same Poles you mention are not in favour of Brexit. Obama was a remainer, but he was overtly anti-UK. Why are you trying to pin Brexit as somehow only approved of by 'bad people', and following your logic remainers, like Blair, are 'good people'.....this is not a logical argument Bruce......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Those same Poles you mention are not in favour of Brexit. Obama was a remainer, but he was overtly anti-UK. Why are you trying to pin Brexit as somehow only approved of by 'bad people', and following your logic remainers, like Blair, are 'good people'.....this is not a logical argument Bruce......

Is that one of those alternative facts we hear so much about? Law & Justice are heavily eurosceptic and want to use Brexit to further their own nationalistic policies. Why is it, do you think, that so many despots around the world are so supportive of Brexit?

 

[peteblue]

Is that one of those alternative facts we hear so much about? Law & Justice are heavily eurosceptic and want to use Brexit to further their own nationalistic policies. Why is it, do you think, that so many despots around the world are so supportive of Brexit?

Just because someone is Eurosceptic does not make them a supporter of the UK leaving the EU, but you know this....anyway this is the wrong thread......

 

[Raindog]

I'm not sure where you wish this to go, but once again, It is not a reasonable choice for pardon.....

I'll explain better. Again, my mistake.

You posted decrying the overtly negative stance people are takng on Trump. So I took one example of something which I think he has handled very badly, whether through political naivety, or conscious posturing, or something else entirely. To me, the message sent out by this pardon is wrong, or at best confusing when taking into account traditional American values such as tolerance, freedom and respect.

I asked whether you thought that this pardon was reasonable, in the context of pardons being permitted by law. You answered me twice that you don't agree with the pardon, not because of who or what, but because you don't agree with pardoning in general. The first time I understand I left the question open to interpretation to those so inclined. The second, not so. In fact your reply:

'Of course it is not a reasonable choice for pardon, because it shouldn't exist' (your highlghting)

is confusing.

Now it's my turn to highlight obfuscation, deliberate or otherwise. Am I to believe by your highlighting that I should only be reading that part? Are you saying it's unreasonable because you think the person receiving the pardon is a controversial choice? Or because, as the second clause in your sentence seems to indicate, that you are still sticking to the 'I don't believe in pardons' argument?

So I'll put it another way. Do you think Trump has made a good decision to publicly support such a person as Shf. Arpaio, knowng what we do about him?

Better?

p.s, I'm a little surprised at your inability to follow the thread of a debate, or answer a straightforwrd question. I'm starting to think you're doing it on purpose. I'm also wondering if you're going to answer my question:

Do you think pardoning Shf. Arpaio in any way legitimised the White Supremacists and Nazis present in Charlottesville and elsewhere?

among others.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just because someone is Eurosceptic does not make them a supporter of the UK leaving the EU, but you know this....anyway this is the wrong thread......

Just saying, you say often that you're not a supporter of Trump, yet you seem supportive of many people that are, and also of the policies that Trump supports. I'm inclined to think had you the option, you would have voted for him yourself.

 

[Raindog]

Just saying, you say often that you're not a supporter of Trump, yet you seem supportive of many people that are, and also of the policies that Trump supports. I'm inclined to think had you the option, you would have voted for him yourself.

Not sure I agree. I think for some reason he just wants to have a pop at people as by way of counter argument he has offered nothing.

Pete: Not a fan of Trump, and all the things you mention are bad, but stop picking on him.

Everyone else: Why?

Pete: I don't have an opinion.


Have yoy ever heard of Ken M?

 

[peteblue]

Just saying, you say often that you're not a supporter of Trump, yet you seem supportive of many people that are, and also of the policies that Trump supports. I'm inclined to think had you the option, you would have voted for him yourself.

I don't believe so.......it would be the equivalent of voting for Alan Sugar......

 

[peteblue]

I'll explain better. Again, my mistake.

You posted decrying the overtly negative stance people are takng on Trump. So I took one example of something which I think he has handled very badly, whether through political naivety, or conscious posturing, or something else entirely. To me, the message sent out by this pardon is wrong, or at best confusing when taking into account traditional American values such as tolerance, freedom and respect.

I asked whether you thought that this pardon was reasonable, in the context of pardons being permitted by law. You answered me twice that you don't agree with the pardon, not because of who or what, but because you don't agree with pardoning in general. The first time I understand I left the question open to interpretation to those so inclined. The second, not so. In fact your reply:

'Of course it is not a reasonable choice for pardon, because it shouldn't exist' (your highlghting)

is confusing.

Now it's my turn to highlight obfuscation, deliberate or otherwise. Am I to believe by your highlighting that I should only be reading that part? Are you saying it's unreasonable because you think the person receiving the pardon is a controversial choice? Or because, as the second clause in your sentence seems to indicate, that you are still sticking to the 'I don't believe in pardons' argument?

So I'll put it another way. Do you think Trump has made a good decision to publicly support such a person as Shf. Arpaio, knowng what we do about him?

Better?

p.s, I'm a little surprised at your inability to follow the thread of a debate, or answer a straightforwrd question. I'm starting to think you're doing it on purpose. I'm also wondering if you're going to answer my question:

Do you think pardoning Shf. Arpaio in any way legitimised the White Supremacists and Nazis present in Charlottesville and elsewhere?

among others.

No......

 

[Raindog]

No......

No?

No what?

No, it's not better?

No, it doesn't legitimise?

No, it's not a reasonable choice?

You, Sir, are on a massive wind-up.

 

[roydo]

@Raindog It seems to me that @peteblue is being crystal clear.

He thinks the pardon was wrong, and doesnt think it has legitimised white supremists or nazis.

I think.

 

[peteblue]

@Raindog It seems to me that @peteblue is being crystal clear.

He thinks the pardon was wrong, and doesnt think it has legitimised white supremists or nazis.

I think.

Yes......correct...

 

[Raindog]

@Raindog It seems to me that @peteblue is being crystal clear.

He thinks the pardon was wrong, and doesnt think it has legitimised white supremists or nazis.

I think.

But does he think the pardon is wrong because he thinks pardoning is wrong? Or because the pardoned is wrong?

Also, why doesn't pardoning an openly racist and violent sheriff legitimise the WS? What is the argument behind that?

And the big question, if he is seemingly at odds with Trumps actions and policies ('I think he's an idiot', remember?) why are people in the wrong in calling someone who votes for an idiot an idiot, and why does he attack people who take umbrage with the people who don't agree with Trump, EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T AGREE HIMSELF??!?

...while at the same time coming out with

'The USA used Swatikas the past'

'There are no Nazis in the US'

'Nazis invade countries and kill rake loads of people'

'War is ony war when lots of soldiers die'

'Well, Obama never bla bla bla etc...'