I’m curious, you apparently didn’t vote for Bush in '04, McCain in '08, or Romney in '12 (and presumably not Trump in '16). If Romney and McCain didn’t qualify as “some Republicans who can credibly promise to vote against Trump”, I’m having difficulty imagining how anyone could get over the hurdle you’ve set. So my question is this: Why didn’t you vote for McCain in '08 or Romney in '12?
They’re not “pissing on the law”, at least not in the case of the Arpaio pardon. As noted earlier in this thread, it was a perfectly Constitutional exercise of President Trump’s power to pardon.
So why did you call it “the obvious approach”?
And yet it was still pissing on the law. Joe CERTAINLY has been pissing on the law, and Trump endorses that.
It is of course the case that use of the pardon power always carries the risk of being considered an attack on the law (because it explicitly is - it takes the entire judicial process and throws it out), but it’s hard to get more flagrant about it than backing Ole’ boy Joe.
If “Fuck you ha ha, we support crime, racism, and tyranny and are super-happy that the current president does as well” is the position one is presented with, the obvious approach is to respond with the similar mindset.
You have a point, though I’m sure steps could be taken to mitigate this. Kidnap him and take him across state lines first, perhaps? The president could post an instructional video on how to murder somebody and get away with it scott-free, with the final step being “If I was annoyed by whoever you killed, I’ll totally pardon you. Here’s a (long) list.”
I think the state could still charge and convict, even if the federal charge was pardoned.
That’s unless it’s a state like NY, which recognizes federal pardons.
Because the cancer consuming the Republican party didn’t pop up out of nowhere on November 8, 2016. Trump is just the culmination of it.
Hey, you wanna run some reasonable Republicans in the future that I’ll consider voting for, knock yourself out. But the problem with this is that any decent up and coming people are going to have to align themselves with Trump to have a future in the Republican Party. If you can’t stomach that, your options are to sit on the sidelines, or sign up with the Democrats.
Anyway, if you don’t like being smeared by Trump’s broad brush just because you vote Republican, sux to be you.
The “reasonable Republicans” lost in '08 and '12 and Trump won. shrug
Arpaio walked this time, but he’ll end up back in the slammer sooner or later. His kind always does. [Law & Order Dunk-Dunk sound effect]
His rate is what, something like one offense per 80 years?
Given that you don’t have to be convicted to have an “offense”, he’s racked up a few more than that.
So your response is to go all-in supporting the unreasonable Republicans.
See, it all depends on whether you actually want what you say you want. Your embrace of Trump proves…well, it proves what it proves. I could go on, but this thread isn’t in the pit and isn’t about Trump exactly.
To get back to the OP, the pardon was perfectly constitutional. Unwise and ridiculous doesn’t mean unconstitutional. The President can do all sorts of things that are unwise and ridiculous that aren’t unconstitutional or illegal. But when we elect an conman as president, this is what happens.
I don’t know what this means. You have to be convicted to “end up back in the slammer”, don’t you?
It means that you’re not going to convince anyone that Joe is an innocent angel. I was flabbergasted that you even wrote something so astoundingly stupid.
He’s a pardoned angel, and he’s out of office, so the odds of him doing something to “end up back in the slammer” at this point seem vanishingly small.
Oh, I’m not saying he’ll be back in the slammer. I was objecting to your outrageous claim that he’d only committed one offense in his entire life.
Hell, I’ve committed more offenses than that just counting speeding (though I’ve never actually been ticketed for that). Joe’s done a bit more than speed.
By that metric, Bull Connor is preferable to Sheriff Joe.
My “outrageous claim” was in response to Bryan Ekers prediction that “he’ll end up back in the slammer sooner or later. His kind always does.” In that context, I thought it was obvious that “offense” referred to a criminal offense. Apparently not for some though?
I’m sure that given enough time the dude would do something illegal. His kind always does. Unlike Bryan Ekers, though, I’m not at all confident the dude won’t die before he does something egregious enough to attract attention. (Especially given how normalized racism and such are becoming nowadays.)
That’s the point. His winning doesn’t create any obligation for Republicans to vote with him. And, as long as they do, anyone who doesn’t support Trump should vote against the Republicans.
That Trump won the primaries, which was mostly Republicans voting, tells us the problems in your party. That the reasonable Republicans lost is a condemnation of your party.