And so, instead of holding criminals responsible for their crimes, they should be excused.
I’m still going with, “Nah.”
I think we all know what his portrait would be:
Yes, it’s called an election.
Myself thought it was bleedingly obvious in 2016 but next available opportunity would do in a pinch.
I didn’t support them so I don’t have to pretend. War criminals.
And Republicans would never lie. Too moral, too upright.
You just argued that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions because they…might be held accountable for actions.
Unimportant.
First, I don’t care what has little appeal to you. It’s not about you. You do not matter. Second, it’s not losing elections that should result in prosecution, it’s committing crimes. I don’t even understand why you jumped from “prosecuting war crimes” to “prosecuting political opposition”. Is this projection on your part?
I think yes. Or maybe I think maybe. Or maybe I think that’s not relevant.
Okay.
nm (wrong thread)
Trump is not a piece of shit. He is an entire shit. He is the grand daddy of all shit.
No one said anything about political prisoners. They’re talking about criminals convicted of crimes in a court of law serving their time.
I made a mistake in bringing this up. If locking up Trump becomes a big internet theme, Trump will get hundreds of thousands of votes from people who don’t like Donald but don’t want him jailed.
I am nostalgic for no drama Obama.
Their respect for the office is highly dependent on who the occupant is. They don’t respect the presidency equally. Trump voters see the world through a tribal lens. James Carville said it right on election night 2016: the people who voted for Trump don’t want to be united; they want the world to live by its terms. Part of their contempt for Obama, beyond his ethnicity, was his worldview of inclusion - a worldview that embraces the idea that America’s not just a country for white Christians, but also Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, gays, immigrants, women, and others.
Respecting the office means prosecuting all of the criminals who are part of this corrupt cabal. Otherwise, the message going forward will be that criminals who occupy the white house will invariably be exonerated by virtue of political tradition which says “We don’t prosecute our political rivals.” That’s the sticky wicket we’re in now. We’re forced to confront the assault on our democracy, but confronting that assault means prosecuting political rivals. The apolitical among us might assume that Democrats are just trying to get even.
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
I can only hope his successor unveils his protrait and lets me paint it. Like that, if I may attempt to be so tasteless as he is.
This hard to argue with. But he’s also smaller pieces. “Donald Trump: Piece Of Shit” is a true statement, as well as your’s is, too.
This got me looking at past portraits of Presidents. For Bush I, it is below. Looked at several sites, trying to find out who those generals are, I assume they are generals, in the background painting. One would think that would be part of the description of an offical portrait of a President.
In any case, was not a big fan of Obama’s portrait, just seemed a little too cutting edge. Not serious enough. But after seeing some of the other President’s portraits, Obama’s portrait is, sorry, growing on me.
I was not a fan of Obama’s portrait either – agreed that it was too edgy.
The painting in the background is *The Peacemakers *by George P.A. Healy.
Looks just like him, though. I’d hang it in my home.
ETA: assuming he’d sign it.
Thanks. I thought it was Grant. You would think in the official sites about the portrait there would be an explanation. Just like the official description of Obama’s portrait should be- “No, he is not sitting in the outfield of Wrigley Field.”