Koko78

That. Is. Fantastic!

I'd be willing to see how well I could get her to sing.

I don't know if I would agree with this. Obama could have set similar conditions, but didn't. According to Rodman (take it for what it's worth), Kim wanted to meet with Obama, and Obama ignored the request. Obama's policy of "strategic patience" wasn't meant to fix the problem; it was to ignore the problem.

It's Curling.

Based on what he's standing in front of: He's actually a Martian?

Musk's flamethrower would be great after downing some Fireball whiskey.

Let me be clear: The millionaires and billionaires must pay their fair share for having private jets.

You're trying to hard on this one.

Now, now. That was simply principled diplomacy. Trump's non-existent collusion, however, warrants impeachment and a severe beating.

No one likes sweats.

That would be a fun police retort to see on a video. Edit: I'd also love to see one of these cops point out that, as sovereign nations, they must have their sovereign UN representative take any human rights complaints before the relevant council.

The cake is a lie.

Praise be Obama!

Executive agreement. Don't believe the guy was that smart. He would actually write an incoherent manifesto all over the envelope, including drawings of the flag (to go along with the entertainment that was his actual letter), before paying the USPS to deliver it to city hall. I don't think he got the irony of using the US Postal Service to deliver his sovereign citizen nonsense.

Sovereign citizens are a hoot. There was a guy who kept trying to sue a city for trademark infringement... for using his name on his tax bill (which he also refused to pay, because he was his own country, therefore he believed he was tax exempt.)

You act as if someone can actually reject a pardon.

On? No. That's unhygienic. Word has it that it was recently packed full of organic matter, though.

Yes. Yes, I would.

Pardons are not ordinarily reviewable, however I think it could be reviewed by SCOTUS to answer whether or not you can pre-pardon a person under the Constitution, whether you need to specify what specific 'crimes against the United States' are being pardoned, or whether there must actually be an active prosecution first (regardless of whether or not there is a conviction at the point of pardon.) I suspect that it would be the latter.

While the dipschiff OP is trolling (and will likely just start calling us all racists again), this is an interesting Constitutional question. What did the framers intend? Nothing in the Constitution prevents self-pardoning by the President. Was that intentional, or an oversight? I think it was intentional. Federalist No. 69 indicates that they intended that impeachment by the House, followed by removal by the Senate, is the primary remedy when a president (or any other impeachable official) misbehaves while in office. This would make sense, as the president, being the head of the executive branch, effectively controls the federal prosecutors, and it keeps in line with the separation of powers/checks and balances doctrine. Impeachment does not prohibit further prosecution, absent a pardon, and pardons are ineffective against impeachment proceedings. There is no way for a president to escape at least some liability for "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

Trump campaigned on repealing Obamacare. You're not a "free thinker", you're just a dipschiff.

That was due to GOP obstructionism, when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

I, for one, am all for ending this prosperity nonsense. That will allow us to have the blue wave come in so that we can finally get back to a place of prosperity.

Trump defiantly demands TWO scoops of ice cream.

Oh wow, you guys see the way she's handling that lute?!?