General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYet another thread on how to shut down an argument with a rabid, mouth breathing Trump lover...
On the legality of the Special Counsel and the president's power to pardon one's self (thereby crowning himself God and King of all that can be seen)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/donald-trump-pardon-tweet/index.html
Simply listen to their unhinged and 'unhindered by the constraints of reality' argument. When they have finished and are attempting to wipe the spittle from the corners of their mouth, simply ask "So, you would have afforded these powers to Hillary Clinton as well concerning the email scandal should she have been elected? And what about Bill? Should he have pardoned himself to end the inquiry into his consensual relationship with Miss Lewinski?"
If their answer is yes, they most likely will be embarrassed into silence. If the answer is no, simply point out they are now supporting the authoritarian/dictatorial style of non-representational government they have spent their life arguing against. (You may have to use smaller words so they can comprehend...)
I would love to hear a synopsis of any responses should anyone have a conversation such as this.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,719 posts)I think the chances that they might be coherent are slim to none. And they know it........so they would refuse with an outpouring of obscenities.
kmla
(4,047 posts)They typically associate the volume of their statements and the number of obscenities with the truthiness of their points in the debate.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,049 posts)Trump would not be where is and the conversation would not be necessary.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)Who has time to argue with idiots?
kmla
(4,047 posts)But around where I live, there are so damn many of them...
*sigh*