- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
PepeSilvia
| Favorite team: | Winthrop |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 387 |
| Registered on: | 4/11/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 12:06 pm to NytroBud
quote:
Damn I though you were takling about Pedo Joe pardoning his criminal family members at fist
That’s a good one. I’ve got one for you.
What would a powerful, sex trafficking, child molester do if they knew they were in the Epstein files?
Whatever Donald Trump’s doing. (Badumpbump Bish)
2
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 10:09 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Ahh so you personally get to dictate the severity of laws.....and consequences. Tell us more.
Personally? No. I’m not a judge, just a regular citizen.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 10:08 am to Bourre
quote:
Wait till you find out about all the criminals democrats let out of jail who go on to commit more crimes. I know, that’s (d)ifferent for leftist like you
You’re assuming I support that. I don’t. If criminal convictions were arrived at with correct application of law, I don’t think criminals should arbitrarily be released, particularly, violent criminals.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 10:05 am to Jax-Tiger
quote:
Let's try this: Interfere passively in an ICE operation - $10k fine and 6 months.
Violently interfere - $50k and 4 years in the booth.
Provide funding by paying agitators and providing bricks, fireworks, and intel - life in prison
I think you need define “interfere passively”.
I think your punishment for “violently interfere” is fair upon proof. Still, there should be some metric here. Accidentally knocking over an ICE agent because you yourself were pushed into the agent while attending a protest shouldn’t be considered. Actively punching, throwing projectiles at, assaulting with weapons, etc. Sure.
The provide funding for is going to be difficult. One reason, SCOTUS has already decided that money, or how it’s spent is projected speech. I would assume that organizations that would be funding “violence” in a protest wouldn’t draw up a formal document specifying that. There’s a whole lot of avenues to plausible deniability. Even with bricks and fireworks, easy plausible deniability. Intel? Probably go back to protected speech.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:53 am to Jugbow
quote:
We should halt all immigration. People have had a year to leave. I also wouldn’t be here if it meant I was going to be rounded up. Only the brightest you’re defending here.
Halting all immigration, considering birth rate declines, forecast to lower than death rates by 2030, seems like a recipe for disaster. But what do I know?
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:50 am to lurking
quote:
Thanks. I knew you were a hypocrite and really just want to imprison indefinitely those that disagree with your party.
The ones that actually committed crimes on J6 l, yes. Granny waddling around the Capitol after following the crowd, no.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:48 am to Jugbow
quote:
You’re a moron. If someone is here illegally they need removed.
Sorry man. With the dysfunction is the immigration system painting with that broad of a brush does not work. There are people that came here legally, but haven’t been able to renew visas in a timely manner due to that dysfunction. There are people that came illegal, but are protected under asylum laws, and waiting for adjudication of their status. There are people that came here as children, and were protected under DACA, but those protections are now in question.
So, yeah broad brushes are kind of shite.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:41 am to lurking
quote:
Cool. Now do illegals.
Ok. Illegally crossing the border is a federal misdemeanor, and doesn’t merit the sort of sweeping bullshite that is currently going on in our nation.
Illegally crossing the border and committing crimes against persons or property should be met with immediate deportation to the alien’s home country after appropriate due process under the law.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:34 am to stout
quote:
Oh, I see...you're in favor of lawfare against political enemies.
I’m in favor of an application of law based in reality. There were likely a lot of folks charged for J6 that weren’t really committing anything more than a misdemeanor. There were also a lot of folks there that were committing crimes that shouldn’t have been pardoned.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I mean, pardoning him for a specific criminal act is completely unrelated and irrelevant to a subsequent illegal act. Kind of silly argument
True. I’ll eat crow on this take.
re: This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:30 am to stout
quote:
You don't understand why all January 6th participants were mass pardoned for that particular crime?
I understand the fiction Trump folks concocted to support the pardons.
quote:
The crime was committed in 2024. Was Trump supposed to know this guy would later diddle a child and therefore leave only him in jail on Democrats' bullshite charges?
That’s fair. Shouldn’t have been pardoned in the first place, but fair.
This is why you don’t do blanket pardons
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:24 am
It’s lazy, and projects an air of “we don’t really give a frick whether or not we’re releasing shitbags”.
Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Andrew Johnson to face criminal trial for child molestation
LINK
Pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Andrew Johnson to face criminal trial for child molestation
LINK
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 9:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Which war will be fought over Greenland, exactly?
The one with our former NATO allies is a possibility if there is no acquiescence to Trump’s whims, and he decides to take it à la Venezuela.
quote:
What is it you think is going to happen?
Best case scenario, I think the US doesn’t end up with Greenland. Trump gets a favorably upgraded agreement regarding US military installations, and maybe some US companies get access to mineral rights they didn’t previously have.
Worst case scenario, Trump persists to the point that the EU dumps their US assets in an attempt to further reduce US economic dominance. That triggers Trump into double, and triple downs. NATO ceases to function, and Trump moves on Greenland military, encouraging China to make their move on Taiwan. I could also see India and Pakistan heating up. Pretty soon it’s global conflict, new alliances, new axes, and the majority of us the worse for it.
It obviously could end anywhere along that spectrum.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/20/26 at 8:52 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The rare Earth elements there are also a significant foreign policy/security concern, so that we don't have to depend on China for them. Greenland is thought to have one of the largest untapped mineral supplies in the world right now.
Are we going back to early 2000s attitudes towards wars for resources? We did a good job of temporarily convincing ourselves that WMDs were a great reason to enter Iraq, when it was really just an oil war. Is strategic military benefit (SMB?) the WMD of the mid-2020’s?
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 1:16 pm to Twix 23
quote:
So you don’t necessarily have a problem with Trump’s policies, just his supporters?
I wouldn’t if they were good policies. Just seems like a bunch of chaos from my vantage point. Our domestic and foreign policies are a mess, and our country is in decline under Trump. His supporters is another story. They’ll support whatever he tells them to support. It could be a complete 180 from their previous position.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 12:43 pm to lurking
quote:
Do you agree that the inflationary impact, rising costs, higher unemployment and economic stagnation the pearl clutchers guaranteed hasn’t materialized?
Not entirely. Inflation has been higher than it was before took office, but only moderately so.
Unemployment has also ticked up moderately.
Other than Q1 GDP has been decent, but we’re don’t have the total annual numbers yet, only a forecast.
So, did the sky fall? No. Did the average citizen gain economic ground? Not really.
The brightest spot, economically, has been the stock market, but every team always uses the “stock market isn’t the economy” idiom when it’s beneficial to their narrative. I’ll take my personal gains though.
quote:
At a basic level, tariffs work to protect domestic industries. This objectively has been accomplished. Trillions have been invested in our industries by foreign governments/conglomerates.
That seems like a nice sentiment, but vague and not really supported. Look at manufacturing. Total US manufacturing jobs were significantly down in 2025. Take a look at the ISM index. It indicates weakness, and contraction in manufacturing, where one would expect successful economic policy to result in the opposite.
quote:
Beyond that, tariffs are a powerful negotiating tool. There isn’t a country/industry anywhere in the world that doesn’t depend on American markets. They risk insolvency without it. Canada is in the process of finding this out.
The US is a powerhouse market, and just about every country benefits from selling goods to US consumers, but that situation could be in flux. We’re seeing nations like Canada, and EU members strike more permissive trade agreements with China. If that accelerates, does US powerfully negotiate themselves out of beneficial trade alliances? I don’t know, but shitting on your friends seems like a bad play.
Also, it seems like Trump pussies out on the aggressive China tariffs pretty regularly. His hand seems to be growing weaker at the global poker table.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 10:03 am to lurking
quote:
It has been effective. Anyone arguing it hasn’t doesn’t understand the intended outcome.
Ok. What’s the intended outcome? I’m willing to change on this.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 9:55 am to bbvdd
quote:
Andrew Johnson was the 1st president to float the idea of buying Greenland in 1867. It’s only “crazy” because its Trump.
What’s crazy isn’t offering to buy it, but throwing an aggressive tantrum when told it’s not for sale.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 9:45 am to lurking
quote:
You disagree, clearly.
My disagreement with you is mostly about method. Destroying alliances that have been mutually beneficial, even if somewhat imbalanced, appears to me to be a bad method for checking Chinese/Russian expansion. Look at the trade situation. The whole tariff thing could be effective if applied specifically to China, but Trump went full moron, and tariffed our closest partners as well. China’s trade surplus has actually grown as a result.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 9:37 am to Twix 23
quote:
When has Trump ever been an isolationist?
I don’t believe He ever has been, but when it was soothing for his supporters to pretend that he was, they did. Isolationism had been a pretty large component of the MAGA attitude until it was necessary to shift.
It’s the same with the pedo stuff. MAGA was really vocal about their anti-pedo stance until it began to look like Trump’s administration was going to protect pedos. Now it’s all “pay no attention to the child rapist behind the curtain”.
No real principles whatsoever.
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted by PepeSilvia on 1/19/26 at 9:29 am to lurking
It’s so odd how changeable you guys are. Last year MAGA was isolationist, anti war, America first, blah, blah, blah. This year is invade for oil interests, expansionist, war is good, blah, blah, blah. It’s almost like MAGA has no principles, except those that Trump tells them to have. Enjoy that yummy boot flavor boys.
Popular
33
