View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Wilt LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002 Posts: 13711
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
It only reinforces that he's an opportunist that believes in nothing. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
The Lebrons Star Player
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 Posts: 4778
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wilt wrote: |
It only reinforces that he's an opportunist that believes in nothing. |
There's only one qualification needed to work for Trump, and he has it in spades. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if this has been mentioned.
I've pondered the possibility of the administration leaking the story of Trump looking into pardons as a vehicle to further his fake news narrative.
He's saying he's not looking into pardons because there's nothing or anyone to pardon.
He'll find a way to spin this into fake news. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90299 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | It boggles my mind that there are possibly laws on the books that would allow Trump to pardon himself.
President Trump is considering pardoning himself. I asked 15 experts if that's legal.
LINK
Quote: | I reached out to 15 legal experts and asked them if the president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. As it turns out, this is something of a legal gray area. The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn’t clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected. |
| i think i asked this a few pages ago.
How can a president pardon himself if he was previously impeached?
This is why i say impeach him first "if you can."
Then hit him with other criminal charges. or is it illegal to convict an ex president?
This would be my entire aim if I'm right about the timing of it.
impeach first.. then hit all of them with criminal charges. |
On what grounds? High Crimes and Misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment. Where does Trump fit in the criteria?
I think Mueller is working on collusion but that is so difficult to prove. In court it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. |
And in an impeachment, it's not what you can prove, it is what is politically imperative for each member. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Omar Little wrote: | jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | It boggles my mind that there are possibly laws on the books that would allow Trump to pardon himself.
President Trump is considering pardoning himself. I asked 15 experts if that's legal.
LINK
Quote: | I reached out to 15 legal experts and asked them if the president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. As it turns out, this is something of a legal gray area. The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn’t clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected. |
| i think i asked this a few pages ago.
How can a president pardon himself if he was previously impeached?
This is why i say impeach him first "if you can."
Then hit him with other criminal charges. or is it illegal to convict an ex president?
This would be my entire aim if I'm right about the timing of it.
impeach first.. then hit all of them with criminal charges. |
On what grounds? High Crimes and Misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment. Where does Trump fit in the criteria?
I think Mueller is working on collusion but that is so difficult to prove. In court it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. |
And in an impeachment, it's not what you can prove, it is what is politically imperative for each member. |
This is what makes impeachment so improbable. It's so obvious Trumps bulling tactics are keeping so many in line. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | LA_Lakers_Rule wrote: | ContagiousInspiration wrote: | If Treason is the charge and it sticks can something that (bleep) serious be Pardoned?
Better not or our founding fathers and every other politician are low iq dolts | I am not singling this comment out over any others to be sure but just intending to reply to the mantra regarding the outlandish references to "treason" in this topic.
LINK - U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Note: each of the "treason" links state the following: Quote: | Treason -
treason n the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war Source: NMW |
The last time I checked we have not declared war on Russia (the presumed focus of all of the inane media obsession regarding Trump that is presumably the impetus behind the hyperbole that predominates this topic) or did I miss something?
Really.... some (or might a say many) of the comments throughout this topic are WAY WAY over the top.
Not enough for you? There is another article under the Constitution regarding "treason" which also makes clear the term is in reference to "acts of war" and includes numerous historical Supreme Court rulings on to this fact (some of which I've included below).
From NY Times: Section 110 of Article III. of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason."
Excerpts from article: In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief-Justice MARSHALL said: Quote: | "To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the Court have been commuted, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the Government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war. and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by an assemblage of men for a purpose, treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed." |
Mr. Justice CHASE said on the trial, and stated the opinion of the Court to be, Quote: | "That if a body of people, conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens or increases the crime -- whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial;" |
Chief-Justice MARSHALL said: Quote: | "There is no difficulty in affirming that there must be a war, or the crime of levying it cannot exist; but there would often be considerable difficulty in affirming that a particular act did or did not involve the person committing it in the guilt and in the fact of levying war..... |
PLEASE read the entire NY Times article for any of those who doubt that (comment taken from article) "Treason has ever been deemed the highest crime which can be committed in civil society; since its aim is an overthrow of the Government and a public resistance by force of its just powers, its tendency is to create universal danger and alarm, and on this account it has often been visited with the deepest public resentment."
I know you're going to be able to find media blather to support this ludicrous notion of bringing the charge of "treason" against a sitting President, but let's try and be rational. This type of blatant hyperbole gets us nowhere really. Do any of you really understand the incredible destructiveness of even contemplating the remote possibility of a trail of "treason" against a sitting President of the United States and what it all involves? What I have provided here from the NY Times (surely a source that none of you would have a problem with) is based on constitutional law supported by rulings from our Supreme Court. We are all Americans, we need to try and stop with all the outrageously divisive references to terms that are simply way over-the-top.
Seriously people, we need to lower the rhetoric --- don't you think? | sounds good. treason is not the only thing he can get the boot for you do realize that right?
So since you're providing us with the legal intel. How's about you find something that he could get the axe for and lets discuss that. I'll wait. | It's interesting you ask me this.... I'd say the reason you are asking this question is the fact that there isn't any evidence yet available that could lead to his getting "the axe".... It takes some kind of involvement in a CRIME to impeach and so far there is no evidence of any CRIME that has taken place.... Look it up as far as what is impeachable in regards to the President of the United States. Nixon tried to cover-up a break-in, that obviously involved a CRIME. In regards to all this talk of "collusion" the media is obsessed with; the fact is "collusion" is in-and-of-itself NOT a CRIME (look that up too). If one "colludes" to commit a crime then yes then that's different, but meetings with foreign dignitaries (which is all that has been proven) is NOT a CRIME. Until we find that a CRIME has taken place the whole thing is a nothing-burger. I would add on more thing, special prosecutors (in this case it has been termed a "special counsel" to avoid specific expectations but it's the same thing) are required to name the crime to be investigated. No crime has been named, on that basis this is commonly termed a "fishing" expedition.... Do we really want a government that willy-nilly goes on "fishing" exhibitions simply because one side doesn't particularly happen to like the current President residing in the White House at the time. I would be against such action REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! Think about it, this kind of thing is a very dangerous precedent to set, PERIOD --- wouldn't you say?
Let me be clear once again, I'm not coming from any one-side, I'm simply coming from the side of FACTS as opposed to unfounded innuendo. Do you see anything wrong in that? | no where did i say he deserved to legally get the axe due to a crime we know he has committed. I asked you a simple question and you went all fox news/#fakenews on me.
I was really asking you a legit question. and i did so for a reason. I wanted you as an american citizen to try to imagine a scenario where he could be guilty of something(not that we have proof yet. just based on current day speculation based on what we've heard so far.) Because as an American citizen. if you can't even entertain that idea after what we do know. You're in denial about our current day oval office situation. now maybe it isnt trump, maybe it isnt Jr. maybe its someone else. we dont know yet or may never know. but anyone with a brain can see this stuff looks extra suspect right about now. at what point do all american citizens use their own noses to admit their's something fishy going on in the white house.
The white house wreaks of fish. You see a van with the words "Fresh Fish" parked at the white house>" No there is no guarantee that it actually held fish. the fish smell could be something else and not fish at all. COULD BE. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jodeke wrote: | Omar Little wrote: | jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | It boggles my mind that there are possibly laws on the books that would allow Trump to pardon himself.
President Trump is considering pardoning himself. I asked 15 experts if that's legal.
LINK
Quote: | I reached out to 15 legal experts and asked them if the president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. As it turns out, this is something of a legal gray area. The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn’t clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected. |
| i think i asked this a few pages ago.
How can a president pardon himself if he was previously impeached?
This is why i say impeach him first "if you can."
Then hit him with other criminal charges. or is it illegal to convict an ex president?
This would be my entire aim if I'm right about the timing of it.
impeach first.. then hit all of them with criminal charges. |
On what grounds? High Crimes and Misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment. Where does Trump fit in the criteria?
I think Mueller is working on collusion but that is so difficult to prove. In court it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. |
And in an impeachment, it's not what you can prove, it is what is politically imperative for each member. |
This is what makes impeachment so improbable. It's so obvious Trumps bulling tactics are keeping so many in line. | Joe... i'm was speaking hypothetically. not in reality. we dont have any criminal case that has shown trump was convicted and therefore could be impeached at the moment. at the moment is the key phrase here. So just play along. if he did have something that he could be impeached for.
Could he be impeached first. Then anyone else in his clan that they already know are most likely going to be convicted due to so much evidence and an open and shut case. could they then have trump no longer as the sitting president, then take down his anyone else involved so he could not use his power to pardon? that was my question |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 5234 Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | Omar Little wrote: | jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | It boggles my mind that there are possibly laws on the books that would allow Trump to pardon himself.
President Trump is considering pardoning himself. I asked 15 experts if that's legal.
LINK
Quote: | I reached out to 15 legal experts and asked them if the president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. As it turns out, this is something of a legal gray area. The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn’t clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected. |
| i think i asked this a few pages ago.
How can a president pardon himself if he was previously impeached?
This is why i say impeach him first "if you can."
Then hit him with other criminal charges. or is it illegal to convict an ex president?
This would be my entire aim if I'm right about the timing of it.
impeach first.. then hit all of them with criminal charges. |
On what grounds? High Crimes and Misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment. Where does Trump fit in the criteria?
I think Mueller is working on collusion but that is so difficult to prove. In court it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. |
And in an impeachment, it's not what you can prove, it is what is politically imperative for each member. |
This is what makes impeachment so improbable. It's so obvious Trumps bulling tactics are keeping so many in line. | Joe... i'm was speaking hypothetically. not in reality. we dont have any criminal case that has shown trump was convicted and therefore could be impeached at the moment. at the moment is the key phrase here. So just play along. if he did have something that he could be impeached for.
Could he be impeached first. Then anyone else in his clan that they already know are most likely going to be convicted due to so much evidence and an open and shut case. could they then have trump no longer as the sitting president, then take down his anyone else involved so he could not use his power to pardon? that was my question |
Self explanatory. If he's no longer president, he'd have no pardoning power. He can be impeached and still have power to pardon until convicted and removed from office. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | Omar Little wrote: | jodeke wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | jodeke wrote: | It boggles my mind that there are possibly laws on the books that would allow Trump to pardon himself.
President Trump is considering pardoning himself. I asked 15 experts if that's legal.
LINK
Quote: | I reached out to 15 legal experts and asked them if the president has the constitutional authority to pardon himself. As it turns out, this is something of a legal gray area. The overwhelming consensus was that Trump could make a plausible legal argument that his pardoning powers extend to himself, mostly because the Constitution isn’t clear about this — and, frankly, because this is just not a situation the framers expected. |
| i think i asked this a few pages ago.
How can a president pardon himself if he was previously impeached?
This is why i say impeach him first "if you can."
Then hit him with other criminal charges. or is it illegal to convict an ex president?
This would be my entire aim if I'm right about the timing of it.
impeach first.. then hit all of them with criminal charges. |
On what grounds? High Crimes and Misdemeanors are grounds for impeachment. Where does Trump fit in the criteria?
I think Mueller is working on collusion but that is so difficult to prove. In court it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. |
And in an impeachment, it's not what you can prove, it is what is politically imperative for each member. |
This is what makes impeachment so improbable. It's so obvious Trumps bulling tactics are keeping so many in line. | Joe... i'm was speaking hypothetically. not in reality. we dont have any criminal case that has shown trump was convicted and therefore could be impeached at the moment. at the moment is the key phrase here. So just play along. if he did have something that he could be impeached for.
Could he be impeached first. Then anyone else in his clan that they already know are most likely going to be convicted due to so much evidence and an open and shut case. could they then have trump no longer as the sitting president, then take down his anyone else involved so he could not use his power to pardon? that was my question |
Self explanatory. If he's no longer president, he'd have no pardoning power. He can be impeached and still have power to pardon until convicted and removed from office. | Thank you for the response. I was just making sure that were the case. You never know i may have missed some legal loophole or something. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm smiling while submitting this post. I'm thinking, Donald must think he's on the TV show The Apprentice and can just arbitrarily say; YOU'RE FIRED!!!
Donald Trump may be thinking of replacing Jeff Sessions with Rudy Giuliani: report
LINK
Quote: | It is well known that Trump and Sessions are currently on poor terms, with the president even lashing out at his attorney general in a Monday morning tweet. Now it appears that Trump is suggesting firing Sessions and replacing him with Giuliani, according to a report by Axios. |
_________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Donald Trump: Obamacare Wreaked Havoc On America For “17 Years”
LINK
For the 17 years?????
God Bless You and God Bless America. Who the hell does he think he is Mays Gilliam?
What's next, I know you are but what am i??? _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jodeke wrote: | I'm smiling while submitting this post. I'm thinking, Donald must think he's on the TV show The Apprentice and can just arbitrarily say; YOU'RE FIRED!!!
Donald Trump may be thinking of replacing Jeff Sessions with Rudy Giuliani: report
LINK
Quote: | It is well known that Trump and Sessions are currently on poor terms, with the president even lashing out at his attorney general in a Monday morning tweet. Now it appears that Trump is suggesting firing Sessions and replacing him with Giuliani, according to a report by Axios. |
| and here's the thing. anyone who takes a position working under trump at this moment in time is a scumbag selfish idiot. reason being. why on earth would you take that risk of getting caught up with this guy at this point in time? let the dust settle then come in. but people are just out for themselves. not caring about what COULD happen. they are willing to take that risk. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tlim Star Player
Joined: 26 Jun 2002 Posts: 6648
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jodeke wrote: | I'm smiling while submitting this post. I'm thinking, Donald must think he's on the TV show The Apprentice and can just arbitrarily say; YOU'RE FIRED!!!
Donald Trump may be thinking of replacing Jeff Sessions with Rudy Giuliani: report
LINK
Quote: | It is well known that Trump and Sessions are currently on poor terms, with the president even lashing out at his attorney general in a Monday morning tweet. Now it appears that Trump is suggesting firing Sessions and replacing him with Giuliani, according to a report by Axios. |
|
The same Guliani who decided to retrieve the gold from the basement of the towers, lied about it, and said that he wanted to retrieve the bodies of the victims, but then stopped it immediately after pulling out all the gold?
The guy who lied about the toxicity of the air after 9/11 in NYC?
We are now going to trust that guy to be the guy who protects us? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
32 Retired Number
Joined: 04 Nov 2009 Posts: 73038
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Burgess Everett @burgessev
Cornyn says they are trying to get doctor approval for McCain to come back tomorrow for healthcare vote (!) _________________ Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AY2043 Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Feb 2012 Posts: 10620
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would Giuliani actually have any shot whatsoever at getting confirmed by the Senate? The act of firing Sessions would already be shady as hell, and then nominating Giuliani in his place?
There has to be at least a few republicans who give a damn... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 24113 Location: Boston
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
32 wrote: | Burgess Everett @burgessev
Cornyn says they are trying to get doctor approval for McCain to come back tomorrow for healthcare vote (!) |
McCain trying to get doctor approval to vote on taking away ability to see a doctor for 30 million Americans. This is the GOP in a nutshell.
And no, that's not hyperbole. That's the reality. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jodeke Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67313 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
32 wrote: | Burgess Everett @burgessev
Cornyn says they are trying to get doctor approval for McCain to come back tomorrow for healthcare vote (!) |
They posted a picture of him hiking with his daughter. I believe he's well enough to vote. I hope he has the energy to read and digest the changes in the bill. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EldenCampbell Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 939
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AY2043 wrote: | Would Giuliani actually have any shot whatsoever at getting confirmed by the Senate? The act of firing Sessions would already be shady as hell, and then nominating Giuliani in his place?
There has to be at least a few republicans who give a damn... |
Trump could fire Sessions during the Senate recess, and make a recess appointment of Giuliani (or anyone else). They wouldn't need to be confirmed until the end of 2018. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006 Posts: 24113 Location: Boston
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Christopher HayesVerified account @chrislhayes
How bad does a piece of legislation have to be that it can't survive a week delay while your colleague w/ brain cancer recovers? |
They are supposed to be voting on the bill tomorrow. It still hasn't been released and no Senators have read it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChefLinda wrote: | 32 wrote: | Burgess Everett @burgessev
Cornyn says they are trying to get doctor approval for McCain to come back tomorrow for healthcare vote (!) |
McCain trying to get doctor approval to vote on taking away ability to see a doctor for 30 million Americans. This is the GOP in a nutshell.
And no, that's not hyperbole. That's the reality. | that needs to be a DEM poster. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001 Posts: 32730
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas is angry with some fellow Republicans in the Senate who are balking at parts of legislation to overturn "Obamacare." After GOP promises to repeal the law, that "is just repugnant to me," he says.
Who's to blame?
"Some of the people that are opposed to this, there are some female senators from the Northeast," Farenthold said.
And it's a good thing they're women, according to the congressman from Corpus Christi.
"If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask them to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style," he said. That was a reference to the 1804 firearms duel in which Vice President Aaron Burr killed former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/burr-hamilton-angry-lawmaker-singles-out-female-senators |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52624 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was disgusting enough that Trump went on another incoherent rant about Obama care being "death" today. The fact that he did so in front a collection of smiling children was truly disgusting. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014 Posts: 13811 Location: Boulder ;)
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
angrypuppy wrote: | Quote: | GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas is angry with some fellow Republicans in the Senate who are balking at parts of legislation to overturn "Obamacare." After GOP promises to repeal the law, that "is just repugnant to me," he says.
Who's to blame?
"Some of the people that are opposed to this, there are some female senators from the Northeast," Farenthold said.
And it's a good thing they're women, according to the congressman from Corpus Christi.
"If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask them to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style," he said. That was a reference to the 1804 firearms duel in which Vice President Aaron Burr killed former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/burr-hamilton-angry-lawmaker-singles-out-female-senators |
That is so sad.. he sold his soul for money and political power
It would be nice to see a few thousand woman block his entrance to work tomorrow.... tell him he isn't allowed to enter his office anymore
This is frightening... He is a (bleep) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SweetP Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 6054 Location: My own little piece of reality
|
Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
angrypuppy wrote: | Quote: | GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas is angry with some fellow Republicans in the Senate who are balking at parts of legislation to overturn "Obamacare." After GOP promises to repeal the law, that "is just repugnant to me," he says.
Who's to blame?
"Some of the people that are opposed to this, there are some female senators from the Northeast," Farenthold said.
And it's a good thing they're women, according to the congressman from Corpus Christi.
"If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask them to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style," he said. That was a reference to the 1804 firearms duel in which Vice President Aaron Burr killed former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. |
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/burr-hamilton-angry-lawmaker-singles-out-female-senators |
I bet Susan Collins could take that fat turd. _________________ “There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|