jump to last post 1-50 of 52 discussions (323 posts)

Trump just pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio...

  1. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    What is your reaction to this latest news?

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Jack, I don't see the big deal.  American presidents have been pardoning people since the time of George Washington.  Obama pardoned 212 people.  Clinton pardoned 396 people.  Obama even pardoned a convicted terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera whose FALN group are responsible for killing six people and injuring dozens.  Bill Clinton pardoned Weather Underground terrorists Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans who killed two state troopers and a security guard. So, what's the big deal?  What President Trump did was legal and very mild compared to previous presidents of the Democrat party. Again, I can't take the immense ignorance of liberals serious.  Liberalism equals double standards and hypocrisy and this is just one more example of it.

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely correct.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
          Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          especially as president Donald Trump has an interest in protecting the country from the invasion of people who shouldn't be here, since they did not bother to come in the proper way: legally. Those who come in the proper way are welcomed. Those who don't, not so much.
          Is this so hard to understand?

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Interesting how certain people can post something factual and rational but then end it with two sentences of pure political hate.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image82
          Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          promisem - Political hate? Truth...  Arpaio's crime was minor compared to the "thousands" Obama pardoned. Google the list, you will be shocked at some of the people he pardoned. TRuth is truth, but it's very clear liberals have their own way of dismissing anything that makes them uncomfortable.

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "I can't take the immense ignorance of liberals serious.  Liberalism equals double standards and hypocrisy and this is just one more example of it."

            My post doesn't take a stance on the pardon. In fact, it compliments him for being factual and rational except for the last two sentences. I'm just wondering why fake conservatives need to hate anyone who disagrees with them.

          2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
            Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Promisem: And here they did it again.

            The problem, conservatives, is that this was a close friend. Smacks of conflict of interest.

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Interesting how some people can post on HP asking Trump supporters to repent with no idea they're being  pompous and arrogant.  "I can't take the immense ignorance of liberals serious.  Liberalism equals double standards and hypocrisy and this is just one more example of it."  All I can say is  thank you for proving my point.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I think these alt-left judges have been working overtime to subvert our country, I think this was one more sign of a Judge overstepping his bounds, perhaps like other lower judges that have recently injected their opinions/politics into their judgements, against precedence, against the Executive Office, even the authority of Congress.

      This was something the President should have done, the Sheriff spoke out on behalf of Trump during the campaign, its possible the Judge acted alone, or at the behest of those in the Obama Administration, either way... this judgement & case against the Sheriff was politically motivated, all the man was trying to do was uphold State and Federal laws... the very laws Obama was telling the Border Agencies to ignore.

      This was another Trump F-U to the Neo-Liberals trying to destroy the sovereignty of the nation, the laws of the nation, the people who oppose this decision oppose Trump, and oppose American exceptionalism in favor of one-world global eradication of Nation rights... they don't want to empower the people of America, they want to destroy their independence and ability to defend their liberties.

      Take note again who is speaking out against this... like McCain and Ryan, they are corrupt establishment cronies that are part of the problem, and the reason why nothing positive for the people ever gets done in D.C.

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Well said. I totally agree.

    3. Misfit Chick profile image72
      Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Five REAL Reasons Racist Sheriff Joe Arpaio Should Not Receive a Presidential Pardon
      https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-ri … ial-pardon

      Outlined for you all nice & clear - and easily backed up by testimonies that obviously CONVINCED a court of law in the GOP state of AZ by Republican judges.

      Trump was WAY out of line for pardoning this man; and T-fans are just fine with continuing to support him. It is the reason why you're losing what little respect you had for voting for his divisive crap in the first place. Just fyi.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Good try, MC. But they see all facts as fake news, doncha know?

      2. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You rely your unbiased information from the ACLU?
        Here is the real history of this organization.
        - http://historyhalf.com/the-real-history-of-the-aclu/

        I wonder if you knew it was the ACLU that represented the white supremist group that demostrated in the Virginia statue case?
        Just curious...

        1. Misfit Chick profile image72
          Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Dang Jack, I couldn't get through this entire article (cring, cring, cring, ha!) - what an excellent example of distorted right-wing BS. I did notice that the grossest offenses listed are OLD. Here is a really good blurb from someone in the comments:

          "While Roger Baldwin in 1935 said what he said, the ACLU has in no way acted in this way. Nearly all of the comments, and even the article itself, is about feelings and come from partisan opinions. The attempt to associate words with actions reeks of desperation. The comments are even more desperate.
          The ACLU has been overwhelmingly consistent in trying to help protect civil liberties for all. This article does not take away from that fact. And, if anything, the article is totally hyperbolic. Classic words like “leftist,” and “liberal” are used to get an emotional response from the readers. This stuff is easy to spot. But only if you’re not some ideologue looking to inflate your ego."

          Black Lives Matter is the same way... You're all so SURE that it was formed by an evil Billionaire; and people of color actually have NOTHING more to worry about than white people do.

          Both of these offensive opinions are good excuses to NOT CARE.

          Here is a current case that just happened in Seattle, recently. They shot this black lady with FOUR KIDS - SEVEN times and even managed to shoot her fetus - Charleena Lyles Wasn’t On Drugs Or Medication When Seattle Police Shot Her
          http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/charl … -and-back/

      3. Ken Burgess profile image87
        Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The ACLU is a horrible source for any information (it should be called Misinformation), and if that is your only "solid" source, and it is likely your only "solid" source because I too did a search to find more information on this, then you have no argument.

        The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated:
        "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)

        The ACLU is destructive to the fabric of our society. 
        Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
        the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
        the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
        the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
        the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
        opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)
        and the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).

        --------------------------------
        You can willfully choose to remain ignorant of the truth, or you can seek out.

        Those looking to rewrite America will create “disorder” so the people will demand “order”. The price of “order” always entails a handing over of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of “chaos” comes “order” ...THEIR order.

        The trick of creating chaos and then seizing power under the pretense of putting things back in order is a tried and true method of deception and manipulation. It’s the meaning behind the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO meaning ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.

        Others have described it as: PROBLEM — REACTION — SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn’t have been able to achieve under normal circumstances.

        “A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get."
        - Ian Williams Goddard

  2. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

    If the federal government has no respect for the laws of the federal government are we foolish to be surprised when the public follows suit?

  3. William F. Torpey profile image76
    William F. Torpeyposted 3 months ago

    Impeach Trumpery.

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Impeach on what basis? Do you even know our Constitution? You TDS is showing and it makes you look bad...

  4. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 3 months ago

    If a criminal is to be pardoned at all, I can't think of any better than the victim of courts playing political games.

  5. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    He was not convicted for 'doing his job' - that's total B.S.  It is hard to name a more lawless lawman.

    "He was gratuitously cruel to inmates even before he began to be unconstitutionally cruel to his Hispanic constituents. And the sad punchline is that he continues to this day to be the darling of conservatives despite the fact that he became so obsessed with harassing undocumented immigrants (and lawful ones, too) that his investigators failed to investigate violent sex crimes. Hundreds of them. " - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po … io-pardon/

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry; he was convicted of criminal contempt for ignoring the court order to stop detaining those people that exhibited likelihood of being illegal aliens.

      Not for being gratuitously cruel, not for being unconstitutionally cruel to Hispanics and not for harassing illegal aliens.

      For ignoring a court order to stop enforcing immigration laws, because that court found that arresting hispanics in the country illegally was "racist".

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes you are.....

  6. abwilliams profile image20
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    What was his crime? I do not recall him going to jail. I definitely missed this story!

    1. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      criminal contempt

      The country had several lawsuits over the decades from Arpaio's practices. Arpaio was arresting individuals not because they were breaking the law but under the belief that they were in the country illegally.  The court ordered him to stop. He did not stop. He continued. The crime for which Trump pardoned him for was for not obeying a court order to cease and desist racial profiling.  Arpaio had demonstrated a “flagrant disregard” for the court order. His defiance of orders led him to his conviction.

      None of Judge Snow's orders was followed; in fact, Arpaio arrogantly bragged to the press that he'd continue conducting sweeps, which he did. After months of stonewalling and noncompliance by Arpaio's office, during which he destroyed evidence, the judge finally had enough and scheduled a contempt of court hearing for April 21. It is that contempt charge, as well as the original profiling indictments, that Sheriff Arpaio admitted to this week. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/0 … -won-t-fly

      He has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees, lawsuits, attorneys fees, settlements, judgments, photographs of himself, videos of himself, and maintaining his personal public relations staff.

      Mary Rose Wilcox was one of several county supervisors, essentially the sheriff's bosses, who criticized his police state tactics, especially during the time Arpaio, Senate President Russell Pearce and County Attorney Andrew Thomas were enacting and approving laws that sanctioned Arpaio's discriminatory policies. Because Wilcox spoke out, she and her husband were targeted; she eventually sued the sheriff for "his systematic campaign of intimidation, abuse and malfeasance," and was awarded $975,000.

      Just your basic locking up the innocent, arresting his critics * racial profiling.

      The "unlawful and unconstitutional" targeting and detention of people because of their "race, color or national-origin." The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has created "a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos" that "reaches the highest levels of the agency."

      2009 interview with Arpaio by NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa included pivotal point: of 669 people arrested by the Sheriff's special units, 665 of them were Latinos, most stopped for traffic violations. Yet there were no records to be found or seen of other people stopped for traffic violations. i.e., racist harassment.

      Trump pardoned abuse of the legal system by those with power and money.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        How did one senate member, the sheriff and county attorney "enact and approve" any laws at all?  Particularly the "enact" part?

      2. abwilliams profile image20
        abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The Daily Kos? Sorry ptosis, you'll have to do better than that. I'll need to find a reliable source.
        I've always known that Sheriff Arpaio is tough on crime (someone has to be, right? Otherwise, can you imagine?)
        I'll do a little homework. Also curious about the Judge now.

        1. Misfit Chick profile image72
          Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, do more homework - don't just listen to the daily-grind of T-fans. I'm sure you probably don't like the Washington Post, either:

          I was one of Joe Arpaio’s victims. He doesn’t deserve a pardon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 738fb8cd6f

          Check out a diverse selection of media sources and try to think your own thoughts instead of letting any one source 'lead' your opinion. I know that I am particularly enjoying a few of the legal interpretations of this 'illegal yet barely legal' move.

          For instance, did you know that people are usually pardoned AFTER they are sentenced - and not 'immediately'? SOME time is usually served. And, they are usually done for a good reason that doesn't have anything AT ALL to do with impressing a minor, disjointed, politically-fringed & hyped base.

          I'm sure most of Trump's fans are feeling pretty damn good about this 'decision'. Mission accomplished while proliferating yet more & deeper divisions. I'm not sure how far thin this country can be stretched; but Trump is obviously going to make sure that he pushes us all to the limit - and then blame 'leeberals' when/if he finally succeeds in causing us to implode.

          1. abwilliams profile image20
            abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            As I stated, I will do some homework!
            I am sorry that you were a victim.
            I was a victim of mistaken identity a couple of years ago. I had guns pointed at me. Scary stuff!
            Would not want the job of making life or death decisions within a matter of seconds, as Police Officers are often asked to do.
            Here in Florida, we recently had two Police Officers shot down approaching a group of men. The Officers obviously did not feel threatened, they never went for their weapons. They are both dead now.

            1. Misfit Chick profile image72
              Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              This is a perfect example of how T-fans read stuff. I wrote my opinion on the first page of this discussion; and "I'm sorry you were a victim" was the RESPONSE after I left this link of someone ELSE'S story!!! (Btw, I live in the City of Seattle and am WELL AWARE of the increase in violence in most big cities JUST since Trump was elected - as if they weren't contentious enough, before.)

              I was one of Joe Arpaio’s victims. He doesn’t deserve a pardon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 29e92d3391

              Are you all really so sure that you've got this story in perspective - OR are you simply regurgitating what you've heard through your politically-motivated media sources that you stick with?

              ACTUAL PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS - for anyone who actually gives a crap about the truth:

              Barack Obama (2009 to 2017)    64
              George W. Bush (2001 to 2009)    176
              Bill Clinton (1993 to 2001)    456
              George H.W. Bush (1989 to 1993)    77
              Ronald Reagan (1981 to 1989)    406
              Jimmy Carter (1977 to 1981)    566
              Gerald Ford (1974 to 1977)    409
              Richard Nixon (1969 to 1974)    926
              Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 to 1969)    1,187

              Here's more information for you: The FIVE most controversial acts of clemency by US presidents
              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … rdons-ever

              Again... 'pardons' are not done this way. A judge's sentence is carried out because people DO get CONVICTED and HAVE to pay their sentence. A pardon occurs LATER - usually LONG AFTER sentencing (Arpaio hadn't even been sentenced, yet).

              T-fans obviously don't trust America's justice system - and frankly, the rest of the country isn't always that wild about it, either. Anyone else still angry about 'corporations being people'?!!

              The problem comes in when a divisive, hate-mongerer decides to take matters into his own hands - as if he is a KING!!

              Like I've said... We'll see what Texas voters have to say in their upcoming election. I know Trump has been trying to influence voters down there. But, Texas voters voted Arpaio OUT last time - even if they voted Trump IN... And if you think there are no American-Latino voters (or sympathizers) in Texas to influence that election, think again. Trump has just p*ssed in their faces - don't count on him getting away with this.

              There are just so many other ways Trump could deal with the things he wants to change instead of forcing them down the country's throat the rude, harmful way he does. But, he doesn't even try. Trump whips people up real good in negative ways. It is anti-T-fans biggest complaint about him.

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Your stats do not include commutation of sentences. Please go check that and come back with the whole truth...

                1. Misfit Chick profile image72
                  Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I think you can do your own homework, Jack. I shouldn't have to feed you every single little bit of important information - that is why I have suggested that you DIVERSIFY your media sources and learn to think your own thoughts.

                  SO SORRY if you can't read or respond to the rest of this JUST because some information you want to pick on is missing...

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                "And if you think there are no American-Latino voters (or sympathizers) in Texas to influence that election, think again."

                Comments from most Hispanics (immigrant or natural born American citizens) indicate that they are no more happy with illegal aliens than I.  Whether those illegals are Asian, Hispanic, European or anything else, they aren't happy with them.

                So yes, we may see just what American citizens think about it all.

                1. Misfit Chick profile image72
                  Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I am well-aware that some American-Latinos support a more strict border & immigration policies, etc. What they DON'T support is an extremist like Arpaio who targets them inappropriately. Go read some of their stories. He hasn't been a 'responsible Sherrif' - he's been acting like a mafia goon!

                  Big difference... most of us also support a more secure border (not necessarily via a wall), as well as better immigration policies. (For instance, I actually SUPPORT Trump's new 'restrictions' on immigrants being able to support themselves better before being allowed in - with the exception of refugees & people who are seeking assylum for good reasons. SHOCKER! No, I'm NOT a leeberal! LoL!)

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    "Big difference... most of us also support a more secure border (not necessarily via a wall), as well as better immigration policies."

                    I disagree - if we did we would have had it decades ago.  Instead we listen to sob stories about illegals that "only want a better life" and make up such things as it's racist to ask anyone appearing Hispanic in Arizona for ID.

              3. Ken Burgess profile image87
                Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Has there been one week of news that hasn't been about Trump?

                Every major event, even those things he has had no control over, becomes about what side of the aisle you fall on, in regards to Trump.

                Who is responsible for that?

                Why is this the main focal point day after day for the media?

                Why are people who normally would be focused on policy or lack of performance by our Congress, and our government programs spending all their time debating every tweet Trump makes?

                Makes me wonder, when Trump is gone four years from now (or 8) we are all going to look around and realize that the world moved on despite all the Trump protests, all the pay-for-protestors clashes, and will be left trying to figure out how so much had changed without our noticing.

                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13675764_f1024.jpg

                1. Misfit Chick profile image72
                  Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  "Why are people who normally would be focused on policy or lack of performance by our Congress, and our government programs spending all their time debating every tweet Trump makes?"

                  It isn't the tweeting, its what he says in his tweets. Someone in here said it best, somewhere. I'll see if I can remember:

                  Regarding Trump's tweets - they attack, but don't justify; they accuse with no validation (that isn't exact - if the original person who said that is in here, fix it please. smile

                  In other words, he does a lot of bullying (which, in case you didn't know - is uncool). Do the media bully him right back? YOU BETCHA! And he deserves it; he asks for it (practically throws a fit for), and even insists on it - LoL! I'll also remind you that he is crossing his own party more & more, lately.

                  You and I have went 'round & 'round about Trump's disposition, Ken... and I realize that you have never seen much wrong with it. Some people's standards are just a lot lower than others. Like I've told you & Wilderness, both before, you could have WENT OUT AND FOUND a real spokesperson for your causes. Continuing to support Trump in the face of such blantant disrespect for the American people and this country, in general - doesn't leave much room to respect you for those of us who CAN see what's wrong with his disposition and its harmful affects.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    "Like I've told you & Wilderness, both before, you could have WENT OUT AND FOUND a real spokesperson for your causes. "

                    Might I ask why you didn't do the same?  Regardless of where your vote went (Dem, GOP, ind, no vote at all), why didn't you find a decent candidate for the office?  If I'm not being too bold.

          2. Jean Bakula profile image99
            Jean Bakulaposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            A pardon does carry a presumption of guilt though. I am aware of all the people Arapaio harassed who just looked Hispanic and were actually U.S. citizens. I have a friend who lives in that area and have heard stories that curl my hair.

      3. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The way I understand it, Arpiao was charge with contempt of court because he was tough on illegal immigration and President Obama was not. You have a state vs Federal situation where. The federal law on illegal immigration was not enforced at the federal level, while states that want to enforce these stringent rules were taken to court by the Obama Administration. Arpiao was caught on the wrong side and The courts went after him big time. He was made an example as some lawman refusing to cave to Obama's executive order...
        Trump was trying to right a wrong done to him by a liberal court. He had every right under our Constitution to pardon who ever he want. It is the right of a sitting president. In fact, Obama pardoned and commuted sentences of more people than all other previous presidents combined, many were drug offenders.

  7. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Comment from : FGCX1835 7:25 AM MST
    The "patriot" bigots cheering Trump's decision to pardon Joe Arpaio have no idea how much damage his decision has done to the concept of the rule of law upon which our whole system of justice and law enforcement is based. 

    Arpaio wasn't a private citizen,he was an elected official who defied a federal court order that he stop violating people’s constitutional rights. He was found in contempt of that court. By pardoning him, Trump further amplified his contempt for the American court system and its only means of enforcing the law. He sent a message to other executive officials throughout the nation that they may flout court orders also.

    Courts in our system of justice do not have the power to enforce their own decisions. They depend on the executive branch to do that at every level of government. That includes local mayors, governors and other state law enforcement officials, Federal law enforcement officials, and ultimately, the Chief Law Enforcer of the US, the President, who swore an oath to "faithfully execute" the Constitution and the laws of the United States when he was inaugurated. That includes court orders.

    If the president refuses to uphold an order of a Federal court, it invites similar behavior among chief executives then the others below him. If they won't uphold the the law, then court orders at every level of government are in jeopardy of being ignored. If that happens, then our entire system of judicial authority as a co-equal branch of government is dead - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … 4#comments

    1. abwilliams profile image20
      abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Funny that you'd bring up "the concept of the rule of law" P, every single Sanctuary City harboring illegal Law Breakers, is under the direction of a Liberal Dem, all while they thumb their noses at our Laws!

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        law

        Distraction.  whataboutism

  8. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 3 months ago

    Not to give up my liberal flag, but if Bill Clinton can pardon Marc Rich, who really cares? Apparently Presidents just give pardons as stunts or political favors. I'm not a fan of Sheriff Joe, but it doesn't seem that big a deal.

    1. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I agree.  With all of the BS Trump has pulled the last 6 months this isn't that big of a deal except it does send a message to anyone embroiled in the Russian investigation that Trump can and will pardon without regard to the law.  I'm not surprised.  This man has no regard to the rule of law.  It is another attack on our judicial system.

  9. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    The sheriff was convicted of violating constitutional rights, in defiance of a court order involving racial profiling. Trump signaled that governmental agents who violate judicial injunctions are likely to be pardoned, even though their behavior violated constitutional rights.- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opin … eriff.html


    By usurping the court’s authority, the president thumbed his nose at the system of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution. As Bob Bauer wrote at Lawfareblog on August 24, “An act of this kind cannot fail to affect Mueller and his team as they investigate obstruction of justice and evaluate evidence bearing on the President’s motives and respect for law."

    "The pardon was a slap to those who worked through the judicial system to make Arpaio accountable, too. It robbed the people hurt by his policies of justice – even before a judge could mete out a sentence,"

    Donald Trump’s pardon elevates Arpaio once again to the pantheon of those who see institutional racism as something that made America great. By pardoning Arpaio, Trump made it clear that institutional racism is not just OK with him. It is a goal.

    — PhoenixNewTimes (@phoenixnewtimes) August 26, 2017 Twitter thread all-in-one:
    We’ve been covering Joe Arpaio for more than 20 years. Here’s a couple of things you should know about him

        He ran a jail that he described as a “concentration camp.”

        Prisoners there died at an alarming rate, often without explanation.

        One of his jailers nearly broke the neck of a paraplegic guy who had the temerity to ask for a catheter.

        One time, as a publicity stunt, he marched Latino prisoners into a segregated area with electric fencing.

        He ran an ongoing “mugshot of the day” contest on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office website.

        He falsley arrested New Times reporters for covering him resulting in a $3.75 million settlement for that one

        Under him, the MCSO failed to investigate hundreds of sex abuse cases, many of which involved children.

        But he somehow found time and money to send a deputy to Hawaii to look for Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

        Oh, and one time he staged an assassination attempt against himself? That was weird.

        In 2013, a federal judge confirmed what literally everyone in Phoenix knew: he’d been racially profiling Latinos.

        So naturally, he hired a PI to investigate the judge and his wife.

        He also kept on profiling people, which is why he got charged with contempt of court (and was found to be guilty AF)

        He also tried to destroy some of the hard drives containing material that was supposed to be turned over the court.

        By 2015, his fondness for racial profiling had cost the county more $44 million. On top of, you know, ruining lives.

        He also paid millions to settle lawsuits like this one, where deputies stood by as an inmate was brutally beaten.

        Because this is the Old West or something, he had a “Sheriff’s Posse.” One member got arrested on child porn charges

        His office was responsible for countless fiascos like this botched SWAT raid, where deputies set a puppy on fire.

        So, yeah, that’s who Trump just pardoned - the guy whose tent city can go up to 125 degrees  during the day time & where medical care is so abysmal that it has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.  His jail is rated on of the top 10 worst and the meals costs are the cheapest in USA which are 15 and 40 cents per meal.

    The facility is a jail. Most of the people held there are awaiting trial, not yet convicted. Under the law, jails should not be punitive, but Tent City clearly comes across that way.


    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13674837.png
    WHY DID DJT PARDON  ARPAIO?

    It is a  highly unorthodox and breaks with the Justice Department’s guidelines for clemency. It’s very rare for a president to pardon a misdemeanor offense. The Justice Department even has a policy against processing clemency petitions from people with misdemeanor convictions, saying it prefers to focus on felony convictions.

    Arpaio has not applied to the Justice Department for a pardon, another break in protocol. Generally, prisoners and ex-Conservatives petition for a commutation or pardon to the Justice Department, which processes the petitions and sends its recommendations to the White House Counsel’s Office.

    The pardon was met with swift and widespread condemnation, drawing comparisons to Bill Clinton's infamous pardon of Marc Rich. The two Republican senators from Arpaio's home state of Arizona, John McCain and Jeff Flake, suggested the move showed a lack of respect by Trump for law and order.

    "The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions," McCain said in a statement.

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I don't see the problem.  Clinton and Obama pardoned terrorists who killed people.  I think this was the right thing to do.  If you're going to be upset, be upset with the victims killed by those who Clinton and Obama pardoned.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image72
        Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        What a typical T-fan response: blame it on Obama (and/or Clinton - either Clinton, and if you can get both in, WOOT!) - cuz we don't hold Trump to the same standards as previous presidents. Not even sort of. In fact, the more he twists things and causes harder & harder feelings among us - THE BETTER!!!

        Of course you don't see the problem. I'm sure you only stick with people & media that feel familiar as a buddy. That's all you can do. T-fans, like Trump, have absolutely no desire to unite. You are all obviously enjoying the chaos you have created.

        We'll see what Texas voters think, soon.

        1. abwilliams profile image20
          abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Ted Cruz!!!

      2. Will Apse profile image93
        Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Which terrorists were these then?

        Edit: I'm not really expecting an answer here, lol. But someone has to ask. It's the duty of the sane.

      3. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        That makes as much sense as a soup sandwich.

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13675466.png

    2. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      McCain has no credibility left after what he did to undermine the repeal of the ACA...

  10. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    Oscar Lopez Rivera had his sentence commuted. He was not pardoned. He served 35 years for 'seditious conspiracy' whatever that is. Sounds a little like thought crime.

    Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, members of the radical Weather Underground organization, both had sentences for possession of weapons and explosives charges commuted. They were not pardoned. Nonsense about murdering state troopers is just that. Nonsense.

    Incidentally, Linda Evans was convicted of buying guns illegally and got 40 years. I thought it was every American's patriotic duty to get guns however they can?

    Rosenberg had explosives but never used them. She got 58 years. Maybe that is future crime.

    Anyway, both Good ole Joe and poor Oscar show how politicized 'justice' in the US is.

  11. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    Your comparison is not even close. Joe and terrorist are not in the same camp.

    1. Will Apse profile image93
      Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Joe terrorized Latinos. Suppose that's OK.

      Interesting that he made his prisoners wear pink underwear. I suppose the reasoning went: pink underwear will humiliate them on a sexual level. Dunno if it worked.

      Wonder if Good ole Joe has anxiety issues around his virility? lol.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Tent City helped to alleviate over-crowding in the jails. The underwear was pink, but so were other accessories.
        Joe declared that Tent City, as a punishment/consequence for breaking laws, was a deterrent to crime. Who wants to end up in Tent City where you live under Korean Army tents, it's really hot and you have to wear pink underwear??

        https://www.mcso.org/Multimedia/PressRe … 0Tents.pdf

        1. Will Apse profile image93
          Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Turning prisoners lives into a sort of cruel show to give Joe and his fans a thrill did not help anyone but Joe.

          The US really needs to take a long hard look at its predilection for sadism. Your social problems will continue to multiply and you will building more and more jails otherwise.

          Deprivation of liberty can be time for reflection and repentance (religious or secular). Inhuman treatment just delivers more hatred, more adjustment issues, more crime and more violence.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "Arpaio’s ongoing legal battles did not hurt him in Tuesday’s primary election in Arizona, where he easily beat out his three Republican challengers, according to early results.

            Legal experts said Snow’s referral was a symbolic one: Even if Arpaio is prosecuted, contempt of court is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum of six months in jail, and it is not likely that Arpaio would spend much time behind (his own) bars."
            FROM https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … ;tid=a_inl

            He was elected and re-elected for years by the people. He must've been doing something right for his community. FROM the above link: "Love him or hate him, over the past 23 years, nothing has seemed to tarnish Arpaio’s popularity in Maricopa County, where he has been handily reelected sheriff."

            Joe said, “We have terrorists coming over our border, infiltrating our communities and causing massive destruction and mayhem. We have criminals penetrating our weak border security system and committing serious crime,” Arpaio told cheering convention-goers. “I am supporting Donald Trump because he is a leader. He produces results and is the only candidate for president ready to get tough in order to protect Americans.”

            TO PROTECT AMERICANS

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Maybe if the Mexico/Arizona border hadn't been so porous … BUT IT WAS!
              I just don't get why some like the idea of letting in illegal people. Mexico needs to work on its own problems and Mexico needs to find ways to help its people and Mexico needs to figure out how to educate and enlighten its population and create conditions so that so many don't have to resort to sneaking across the border to find a way of life conducive to human happiness. 



              BTW: Trumps goal is not racism, for gosh sakes! Trump's goal is to protect Americans from invading ilegal aliens and terrorists.

              President Donald Trump is NOT racist.

              Repeating: TRUMP IS NOT RACIST

            2. Will Apse profile image93
              Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              This is what I mean, lol. You just dig yourselves deeper and deeper into a hole everyday. Trump and Arpaio, the dream ticket for your descent into hell.

              And I have to point out that Trump has demonstrated his racism on many occasions.

              Most relevant:

              He claimed a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”

              He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”

              He called Latino immigrants "criminals" And "rapists"

              1. jackclee lm profile image80
                jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain just came out to criticize this pardon by Trump.
                This is one more example of how politics play a big role in everything with immigration...
                These GOP leaders are spineless. They put their finger up to the wind and see which way the wind blows. They have no sense of integrity or justice. No wonder we have a broken government.

                Where were the Democratic leaders criticizing Obama's numerous pardons and Bill Clinton's controvertial pardon's? Silence...

                1. ptosis profile image81
                  ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Maybe dem did criticize YEARS ago when it happened. Quit distracting with whataboutism as if 2 wrongs make a right

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Stop with the patronizing comments...
                    You are not consistent which is why there is no equivalence between the left and the right...
                    We conservatives call it out when it is wrong no matter who does it...
                    THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Surely you can do better than this, Will.

                "Mexican" is not a race and disliking Mexicans is not racist.  You know this.

                Choosing a single Latino to pick on does not make one "racist".  Racism is a long term, continual thing - not a single incident.

                No he didn't: he said some illegal aliens - citizens of another country illegally residing in the US - were criminals.  And that, too, is not racist.

                1. Will Apse profile image93
                  Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I reported this comment as hate speech. Because it is a disgrace.

                  See how it goes.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image80
                    jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    How is an intellectual discussion about a current topic hate speech? Do you even know what is hate speech? Are you a snow flake that can't handle a live discussion on the internet? Do we need a free speech zone here at HubPages?

          2. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Will,
            What do you think about the victims of illegals that died or maimed or sextually assulted...?
            What is the first responsibility of a sheriff?
            I feel bad for all people including illegal aliens that are exploited....
            I don't feel bad for criminals that are of any race. They belong in jail away from innocent citizens?
            Like him or not, Sherriff Arpiao was elected by the people of hos county. He is doing the work the Feds won't do.
            His town border on Mexico. If I live there I would support him. The judges who ruled against him does not live in that part of the world. If I had my way, I would insist all judges live in the area they preside over.

      2. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Wow.  Jails issuing pink underwear is now "terrorism". 

        Don't you think you're becoming just a little ridiculous, exaggerating things beyond anything that could possibly be called reasonable?  Because it isn't a "little" ridiculous, it's a whole lot ridiculous and completely destroys any actual point you might have.

        1. Onusonus profile image81
          Onusonusposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I can see how making people wear pink underwear is similar to setting off bombs in public areas, driving airplanes into buildings, massacring people.

          Practically the same thing...

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Just because you enjoy wearing pink underwear doesn't mean the rest of us do. tongue

    2. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "I know Trump pardoning Arpaio is disgusting, but don't forget Obama pardoned a terrorist and a traitor." - Ben Rhodes

      Well alrighty - that makes everything better then, DJT isn't the only asshole that held the office of  the Presidency.

      Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton blasted Trump for pardoning Joe Arpaio who he described as terrorizing Latino residents for decades.  - http://www.politicususa.com/tag/joe-arpaio-terrorist

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13675481_f1024.jpg

      Alejandra Gomez, co-executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), said: “President Trump pardoned a terrorist tonight. Joe Arpaio intentionally terrorized immigrant communities across Arizona for decades and traumatized an entire generation of Arizonans. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-stor … SKCN1B60RE

      Arpaio is a racist monster who terrorized brown skin people while letting child molesters walk around free. This is the guy who Donald Trump used his first presidential pardon on, and that decision reveals more about who Trump really is than it could ever say about the crimes committed by Arpaio. There is a reason why the White House has gone silent on the Arpaio pardon. The more people know the more outraged they will become. - http://myinforms.com/en-us/a/675150967- … oe-arpaio/

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago

    From thee tweets you can tell Joe Arpao, born 1932, is a real villainous character. roll
    https://mobile.twitter.com/realsheriffjoe

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 months ago

    Good luck to the new sheriff: Paul Penzone. Hope he can keep crime down as much as Joe did.

  14. Onusonus profile image81
    Onusonusposted 3 months ago

    Did he release a bunch of Al-qaeda terrorists from Gitmo? No? Still not the worst...

  15. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    ... law enforcement on both the state and local level to reasonably attempt to determine a person’s immigration status when the individual is being lawfully stopped or is either arrested or placed in detention."

    A federal judge had ruled in 2011 that Arpaio had engaged in illegal racial profiling, ordering him to stop detaining anyone NOT suspected of a state or federal crime.

    YRFUBAR

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Link, please, showing he failed to follow Arizona law and guidelines in making those stops?  (Have to add that being in the country illegally IS a crime).

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You disagreeing with a judge is not my kuleani. Go argue with the judge.  Smh

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Can't do it, eh?  Can't say I'm surprised.

          On a side note, I disagreed with the idiot judges that declared Trumps ban on travel from specific countries was racist, too (or violated freedom of religion, take your pick).  And for the same reasons the SCOTUS said it wasn't so, and for the same reasons I say the Arizona law isn't racist.

  16. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Trump asked Sessions about dropping the case against Arpaio offers a critical window into Trump's thinking & motives when he spoke to Comey about ending the investigation into Flynn one day after Flynn rresigned.

    Specifically, Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio is key to determining his intent.


    Mueller needs to prove in an obstruction of justice case is whether Trump acted with corrupt, or unlawful, intent when he asked the FBI director to drop the Flynn investigation

  17. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    Racism is so deep in the souls of rightwing Americans, they cannot even recognize it.

    Try some of these statements.

    "Irish" is not a race and disliking the Irish is not racist.
    "Filipino" is not a race and disliking Filipinos is not racist
    'Puerto Rican' is not a race and disliking Puerto Ricans is not racist
    "Jewish" is not a race and disliking Jews is not racist
    "Native American" is not a race and disliking Native Americans is not racist
    "Black American" is not a race and disliking Black Americans is not racist

    Then of course, Wildernesses original statement:

    'Mexican' is not a race and disliking Mexicans is not racist.

    I suppose if a country elects a racist President, any of the above statements can be embraced.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I think there are plenty of people who are working all to hard to make people become racist, or believe that others are racist and against them.  This is fact, and sadly something many higher learning institutions are all too filled with these days.

      https://www.amren.com/features/2017/02/ … ott-greer/

      1. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Ken, your link is a biased and despicable dirty rag and if you so subscribe to it then you are one of THEM, despite all of your spit and polish.

        This all becomes more transparent with each passing day, I am given more and more opportunity to sort the wheat from the chaff.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image87
          Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Credence that most certainly cuts both ways, someone who served their country yet wants to spit on it, someone who thrived based on the opportunity presented to him, but yet wants to tear down the very structure that made it possible for him to live such a prosperous life.

          I for one have no concerns if the economy tanks, if the system breaks, because it is all the people who are collecting their government pension checks, or their welfare checks, that will be out of their income, and when they have no means to support, and have to fear going to the grocery store because of the robberies and assaults... congratulations you have the country you deserve.

          And it will happen, you can't see it because we are in the midst of its occurrence, and most people can't project out, can't see beyond their own lives and biases.  Ten years ago Venezuela was heralded as a country we should emulate by President Obama, today it is one of the worst places to live in the world.  Soon that social and economical deconstruction will happen here in America if we stay the course.

          Because people like you are fostering it, buying in to the us VS them... looking at everyone not the same color as you with suspicion, convicting them of being a racist as soon as they say something that doesn't fit the Neo-Liberal agenda you have bought into.

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Credence that most certainly cuts both ways, someone who served their country yet wants to spit on it, someone who thrived based on the opportunity presented to him, but yet wants to tear down the very structure that made it possible for him to live such a prosperous life.
            =============================
            Ken, My point is when you make a point you should use sources that are clearly unbiased. I read Salon and Slate but will never use them as a reference because of supposed liberal bias. It reduces the credibility of the point that I have to make. This American Renaissance is among publications with a STRONG right wing bias.

            Part of my mission is to expose bigotry and unreasonably right wing attitudes shrouded by those that wish to appear as 'reasonable' people.

            You are saying that you take no side in the ideological struggle, perhaps you could tell me what "Mr. Rogers" is explaining to us all in the video under the "About Us" on this web site of yours?

            https://www.amren.com/about/

            The reactionary, rightwing attitude guarantees our destruction not our preservation. What I enjoy, I give credit to the left and its agitation for making sure that my rights in American society are respected. I never received that from conservatives. That is why Blacks, no matter how affluent, rarely if ever support conservatives' policies and ideals.
            ==============================
            I for one have no concerns if the economy tanks, if the system breaks, because it is all the people who are collecting their government pension checks, or their welfare checks, that will be out of their income, and when they have no means to support, and have to fear going to the grocery store because of the robberies and assaults... congratulations you have the country you deserve.

            Under those circumstances, how long do you think you will survive? We all want stability, but it never will come from the things you seem to advocate and the people you support, quite the contrary.
            ================================
            And it will happen, you can't see it because we are in the midst of its occurrence, and most people can't project out, can't see beyond their own lives and biases.  Ten years ago Venezuela was heralded as a country we should emulate by President Obama, today it is one of the worst places to live in the world.  Soon that social and economical deconstruction will happen here in America if we stay the course.

            Maybe, your own life and biases are the culprit, have you considered that? You are not the only one that takes time to read or study. So, things and circumstances change with time, what else is new?
            ==================================
            Because people like you are fostering it, buying in to the us VS them... looking at everyone not the same color as you with suspicion, convicting them of being a racist as soon as they say something that doesn't fit the Neo-Liberal agenda you have bought into.

            Rightwingers, once the white sheets and the blatant card carrying white nationalists are out of vogue, have far more subtle and sinister methods to distract the masses from the truth, IMHO.
            I just do not see your neutral stance in this struggle, I am sorry
            ========================================




            https://www.amren.com/about/

            1. Ken Burgess profile image87
              Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Point Taken, I read the article, paid little attention to anything more than that.  I am surprised that a google search brought that site up as a primary source of information, but I should have done atleast a cursory inspection of the site before using it.

              In spite of that, the information in the article is what I deemed pertinent.  In regards to the information it was providing, unfortunately what can be found on other sites like:

              http://college.usatoday.com/2017/01/23/ … white-men/

              Is little more than a gloss over with no significant information to add to a debate.

              Since we are on the topic of being aware of where we are getting our information, and what the true goals of the site/organizations are, let me ask you, what do you think of the SPLC site which after reviewing it, makes it seem as if there is a war going on and that extremists are taking over:

              https://www.splcenter.org/resources?key … amp;=Apply

              My point in this, is everyone is being pushed to one side or another, our society is being charged by organizations and the MSM to hate one another, to blame one another.  And in so doing we are all going to be victims to the corruption in D.C. and the corporations that control them.


              https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13677630.jpg

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Ken,

                I never have desired or wish for the institutes of higher learning to become hotbeds of political strife. Universities and colleges are naturally going to have a liberal bent, unless you attend a service academy or Liberty University in Virginia. Being young means questioning the status quo, orthodoxy and the indoctrination that  is associated with it, which is what the Right generally snuggles up to. I hear that Liberty University requires attendance at its assemblies so that Falwell Jr. can ideologically indoctrinate the students there. At least, with the left, you have a choice.

                I criticize the students for not respecting the 1st amendment, not allowing those of hateful ideologies and positions, from their perspective, to speak. Because if they are not permitted to speak, there are grounds to prevent me from speaking and I would not take kindly to that.  Nobody requires anyone's attendance when David Duke comes to campus to speak. Those that do attend though should be orderly and respectful of others who have come to hear him speak.

                Being involved  in the university system during the mid 1970's, it was just the beginning of much of the identity politics that the Right says has gotten so out of hand today. Well, perhaps it has gotten out of hand. But at the time I was a student, it was essential that the tired old story as told by the White man as how we all came to be needed to be reevaluated with fresh and new voices. Such, with Chicano, African American, and women's studies, to name a few. None of the contributions of others besides White Men were ever expounded upon while I was growing up. So what occurred during this period, was in fact, about time and long overdue. But, you can take a good thing too far, and that is what is happening now.
                ===================================

                Since we are on the topic of being aware of where we are getting our information, and what the true goals of the site/organizations are, let me ask you, what do you think of the SPLC site which after reviewing it, makes it seem as if there is a war going on and that extremists are taking over:

                Yes, the SPLC paints a bleak picture, but it is a bleak picture. In America, it has been for sometime. It's mission is to identify the troublesome groups preferably on both sides of the extremist divide. I, for one,  can never afford to be complacent and oblivious to what is going on, as a Black man particularly  so. I think that if certain legal and societal restraints were removed, there are plenty that would like to revert the country to a more comforting and assuring past state. But, depending on your perspective, that is not all good.  Trump is seen as representing that for many of us
                ==========================================


                My point in this, is everyone is being pushed to one side or another, our society is being charged by organizations and the MSM to hate one another, to blame one another.  And in so doing we are all going to be victims to the corruption in D.C. and the corporations that control them

                For minority groups it is and always has been US against THEM. That is our reality. Until we don't have as much disparity in economics, application of  law enforcement relative to our communities, just to mention a few issues, all else is just business as usual and nothing new.

                But you told me you were impartial, your cartoon seems to blame the problem protests and etc. on the left and George Soros. So who is funding the White Citizens councils, the Nazis, and the KKK? What are the Koch Brothers' role in funding their Right Wing constituency? How about depicting their role, as, I consider them much more dangerous?

                1. Ken Burgess profile image87
                  Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Fair questions, until very recently, these KKK like organizations have been non-factors or immaterial to the ambush/murders of police ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36742835 ) and the ongoing violence that has been in the streets, such as when these groups (BLM, Antifa) were attacking average citizens going to a Trump rally when he was running.

                  Now they (KKK, Nazis) are being elevated to the main talking point with MSM and with the likes of SPLC overblowing their threat, while ignoring these other groups.

                  Yes, I fear that dozens of these "neo-left or alt-left" are being funded by ONE MAN who seems hell bent on taking our nation to its knees. 

                  This was prophetically written back in 2012:
                  Billionaire investor George Soros, infamous for his lavish funding of big-government and globalist causes, dropped several bombshells during a recent interview with Newsweek including a bold forecast of potential Western economic collapse, massive civil unrest, and one of the most dangerous periods in modern history, describing it as a time of “evil.”
                  Riots on the streets of America are inevitable, the financier explained, expressing his thoughts on the subject in a manner Newsweek described as “almost gleefully.” And it will likely be used by authorities as an excuse to crack down on dissent.
                  The “strong-arm tactics” Soros predicts will be employed could even bring about a “repressive political system” in the U.S. where individual liberty is curtailed, he said.
                  “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening,” he told the magazine before heading off to the World Economic Forum in Davos, a yearly gathering of top central bankers, executives, and political figures.
                  Soros and other top “Insiders” have long been calling for what they label a “New World Order” — complete with a global currency managed by the International Monetary Fund. In late 2010, while accepting his "Globalist of the Year" award, the billionaire financier actually touted the mass-murdering communist dictatorship ruling mainland China as a leader for the new order he envisions.
                  END

                  He, Soros, is bringing it about himself, he is funding it, and getting the media to inflame it, make mountains out of mole hills.  He is pulling the strings, and if you are buying into the us VS them, the put down whitey, or put down straight men, or kill police, or no-free-speech SJWs then not only are you puppet, but you are no better than the KKK/Racists out there who are hating on people because of the color of their skin.

                  I wish the most dangerous threat to all of us was the KKK/Racists or extremists, but they are small fry, practically powerless entities that are drawing the attention away from the true crimes and real evil taking place.

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Fair questions, until very recently, these KKK like organizations have been non-factors or immaterial to the ambush/murders of police ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36742835 ) and the ongoing violence that has been in the streets, such as when these groups (BLM, Antifa) were attacking average citizens going to a Trump rally when he was running.
                    ======================
                    Wait a minute, Ken. You have one case of madman killing police and you want to use that broad brush to attack the BLM, which I support fully. There were 5 people injured in a shooting by whites into a crowd attending a BLM rally in Minneapolis last year. How many people were beaten up at Trump rallies? A few were televised, but that hardly covers it all.

                    I support BLM as a concept as bringing attention to police policies and procedures as it relates to minority neighborhood where there has been more abrasive relationships between the citizens and law enforcement.

                    These white supremacist groups have as their mantra the ultimate destruction or relocation of minority/nonwhite groups. They are just as dangerous if not more and have been instrumental in many killings over the past thirty years, am I just to ignore them?  They have been around more than just a generation or two. I don't see such a malevolent principle as the basis of BLM.
                    ========================================
                    Now they (KKK, Nazis) are being elevated to the main talking point with MSM and with the likes of SPLC overblowing their threat, while ignoring these other groups.

                    No, their threat is hardly overblown....
                    ========================================
                    Yes, I fear that dozens of these "neo-left or alt-left" are being funded by ONE MAN who seems hell bent on taking our nation to its knees. 

                    This was prophetically written back in 2012:
                    Billionaire investor George Soros, infamous for his lavish funding of big-government and globalist causes, dropped several bombshells during a recent interview with Newsweek including a bold forecast of potential Western economic collapse, massive civil unrest, and one of the most dangerous periods in modern history, describing it as a time of “evil.”
                    Riots on the streets of America are inevitable, the financier explained, expressing his thoughts on the subject in a manner Newsweek described as “almost gleefully.” And it will likely be used by authorities as an excuse to crack down on dissent.
                    The “strong-arm tactics” Soros predicts will be employed could even bring about a “repressive political system” in the U.S. where individual liberty is curtailed, he said.
                    “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening,” he told the magazine before heading off to the World Economic Forum in Davos, a yearly gathering of top central bankers, executives, and political figures.
                    Soros and other top “Insiders” have long been calling for what they label a “New World Order” — complete with a global currency managed by the International Monetary Fund. In late 2010, while accepting his "Globalist of the Year" award, the billionaire financier actually touted the mass-murdering communist dictatorship ruling mainland China as a leader for the new order he envisions.
                    END

                    Of course, I don't buy any of this. If there is a danger it is from the Right with its dreams of oligarchic controls for our society. I say, if there is trouble coming it is from the other side.
                    ======================================
                    He, Soros, is bringing it about himself, he is funding it, and getting the media to inflame it, make mountains out of mole hills.  He is pulling the strings, and if you are buying into the us VS them, the put down whitey, or put down straight men, or kill police, or no-free-speech SJWs then not only are you puppet, but you are no better than the KKK/Racists out there who are hating on people because of the color of their skin.

                    And the people that subscribe to the progressive way of things are mere dupes? What ever your position is, is it certainly NOT neutral. You are coming off as one of THEM, eloquent and reasonable sounding, all the same.  The people with the wealth and power in America are pulling the strings, they are going to continue to consolidate wealth to themselves and diminish everyone else in the process. They need to be restrained. Ultimately, you will become a slave and live by their terms, or you will starve. The RIGHT is the proponent of this outcome. I am not worried about Soros and the relative purity of the Left in today's times.
                    ================================================
                    I wish the most dangerous threat to all of us was the KKK/Racists or extremists, but they are small fry, practically powerless entities that are drawing the attention away from the true crimes and real evil taking place.
                    ================================

                    That is why we all have a right to our opinion.

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I take it you don't understand what "race" or "racist" means.  You might want to look that up. 

      (Hint: it has nothing to do with nationality or religion)

      1. Will Apse profile image93
        Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I understand perfectly well what racism means. Many of the people I have been most fond of have been targeted.

        And you are a racist if you think it is okay to lump together any group of people on the basis of ethnicity or skin tone and decide it is OK to target them.

        And don't hide behind the mealy mouthed word 'dislike'. Just get straight to 'hate'.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I see.  And Mexican, Puerto Rican, Irish and Filipino are all matters of skin tone.  Should we add American, Canadian, English and French as different races as well?  Followed by Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan, and Panamanian, all separate from Mexican of course?

          I repeat, you need to read up on what constitutes a "race".  As well as "racist", for recognizing that people that fit into the race of Black, Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian etc. (see, I'm giving you examples of race and not one of them is a nationality) does not make one a racist.  Not even if they are "targeting", for that term would include advertising, medical help, genetic coding, etc.

          1. Will Apse profile image93
            Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            You cannot intellectualize your way out of bigotry. Take a long hard look at why you need to group individuals together for the purpose of hating them.

            How does it serve you?

            How did it begin?

            What would happen if you acknowledged that those you despise are as human as you are?

            You have some serious work to do.

            Hope it works out.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Doesn't serve me at all.  Does it serve you to declare that those people believing in freedom are all racists as a result?  Does it serve your purposes, whatever they might be, to call people racist because they don't agree with your brand of socialism?  Does it make you feel good, deep inside, to name anyone from the political right as racist, pretending that if you call names it has to be true?

      2. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Hint: Quit trying to distract people with wild goose chases. Can't do it eh?  You lob something out, then assert 'prove me wrong' without stating your reasons for the original statement.


        You reframe an issue in UNTESTABLE ways.

        wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.


        I wonder if you are a bot using social media in the collection of tactical information about an adversary as well as the dissemination of propaganda. That's you. You gather info but never give any out. You make personal opinions as statements which are so extreme to appear to be disingenuous - or a freaking bot and we are all wasting time on you.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Really?  Do you, too, think that "race" consists of nationality; which artificial border drawn in the sand you live in?  That was the claim, after all, and what was responded to.  That and that all "right wingers" are racist.

  18. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    People defending Arpaio on here really need to read through this whole article:  https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/ … his-man-is

    You're defending a racist, sadistic man who ignored the acts of child molesters.  If that's you're idea of America, you literally disgust me.

    1. abwilliams profile image20
      abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      And you disgust me. You and others on this thread just love to throw around the racist word, while completely ignoring that we have laws for a reason and those laws must be obeyed.
      We cannot just sashay into any other Country, stay there indefinitely, asking for and expecting gifts in exchange for our mere existence, all while bad-mouthing,threatening and condemning that same gift-giving Country!!
      Am I wrong?
      Name the Country?

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely correct. The liberal left has no argument when it comes to illegal immigration. They always pull out the race card as a last resort. It is the signal they lost the argument...so pathetic...

      2. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        ABwilliams, I agree with you completely! I know there are more people like us and I hope they begin speaking up and being heard!

      3. Will Apse profile image93
        Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Arpaio ignored court orders telling him stop racial profiling. So exactly which laws are you talking about?

        As for gift giving, lol. What is that about?

        1. abwilliams profile image20
          abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Will, lol...you'd have to ask those that have broken our laws by entering this Country illegally, told in advance where to go and what to do in order to receive their gifts. 
          You'd have to ask a Democratic Mayor of one of our many Sanctuary Cities, about the additional gifts they give to honor the lawbreakers.
          I am much too busy working for every nickel that I receive. Does that concern you that I am put in a position to have to work to make my own way? What -ism should be applied to me, because I wouldn't want it any other way?

  19. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    The racist part of my statement was the least concerning part of it.  But that's all you two seemed to focus on.  How can you casually brush off the fact that Arpaio failed to investigate numerous sexual abuse claims, including those against children, while he was furthering his immigration policies?  That's the part that really confuses me about how people can defend this guy.

    1. abwilliams profile image20
      abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      If he knew for a fact that it was happening and intentionally ignored the sexual abuse of children, I'd have a very big problem with that! I'd have a big problem with any person that would be capable of something that horrific. I am a Mother and a Grandmother.
      At the same time, I am well aware that false accusations and fake News stories are all the rage, especially when it comes to very controversial public figures.
      You know nothing about me or about others on this thread and other threads that you've been so quick to label.  Because you've formed an opinion and labeled us, does that make it true?

      1. abwilliams profile image20
        abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        P.S. - Name the Country?

  20. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    And his men literally tortured people and were liable for wrongful deaths.  He admitted to running a concentration camp, he even called his tent city one openly.  Torture and concentration camps.  He was a human rights calamity.  And people are defending those things?

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The only thing I can find that verifies any of that statement is the ACLU website, and I trust that to be a fair and impartial telling of events about as much as I trust Kim Jong-in not to shoot a missile off and start WWIII.

      Now if you could provide a unbiased and non-politically charged newsource I would appreciate it.  I prefer knowing the facts, but my search isn't providing any legit source.

  21. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    The county paid a  $3.5 million settlement because Arpaio's department ignored evidence that confirmed a thirteen year old was being repeated sexually assaulted, and even told her she was making up the accusation.  This was one of about ninety such cases involving the lack of investigation into sexual abuse cases, the reporting on which earned the reporter a Pulitzer.  So, yeah, not fake news nor false.

    And I'm sorry that people who defend human rights violaters and those that do not do their job to protect children disgust me.  I guess I'm just sensitive that way.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Either you're sensitive or you're assuming that whatever claim you choose to make is automatically accepted by everyone else as true, factual and not exaggerated.

      I'm with Ken - even were I to decide that other "crimes" should have been considered in pardoning the contempt charge, I can't find any other crimes.  Lots of insinuations, lots of claims, but no testable facts.

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I'm sure you looked 'really' hard, (not!)

        Nope nothing to see here but us bots!

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          And a black space where links might be provided.

  22. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    I'm still waiting on someone defending Arpaio to defend the human rights violations - prisoner deaths and subhuman living conditions.  As well as the lack of enforcement of sexual abuse cases, including the children.  If you're so proud of those things, please speak up.

  23. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    Like Ptosis said earlier, you never find any facts.  I told you someone won the Pulitzer for the work they did uncovering the lack of investigation into sexual abuse cases and you still see that as doubt.  In the face of that, you're going to believe only what you wish to believe and nothing else, regardless of proof.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Then no one has investigated?  If they haven't, and there are no records of torture, etc., where do you get your information?

      Regardless of proof?  What proof are you offering that the sheriff was involved in torture and child abuse?  That there was never an investigation and therefore it's true?

  24. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    Going by witness testimony in court decisions where the MCSO was found liable and had to pay out millions and dollars in damages to the families of their victims.  That seems like cases that were proved, wouldn't you agree?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      What testimony?  What court decision/case?

      Links or at least news stories are required for proof.  We've all seen far, far too many baseless claims and statements on the internet to blindly believe anything.

      (Please use the "reply" button under a post to reply to that post.  Using the "post a reply" button at the bottom right of the screen indicates that you are addressing the OP, not another post somewhere else.  Thanks!)

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        No and no. I use the big button  on the bottom to ignore you. (except this time)

  25. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    Millions of Dollars*

  26. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    Wilderness, do you not have google search?  Why do we need to do this when a simple search would yield you the same factual information?  You're the skeptic here, I'm convinced. 

    I've read the information and feel like I have come to a solid conclusion on the type of human rights violator that Arpaio most certain is.  The same conclusion a federal judge arrived at after learning about the procedures he employed. 

    Like I said, you are making the choice not to investigate these claims so you're basing your defense without having all the information.  It's not my job to educate you.  You should want to learn this information if you're going to try and speak intelligently about the topic.

    1. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      This is what happens when the traditional sources of our news/media are painted to be "liberal" and "fake news".  When a blogger or a political pundit can give "alternate facts" that of course equals or trumps(pardon the pun) good old journalism.  Why?  Part of the Deep State? Part of the Matrix?  Who the heck knows.

    2. profile image60
      Jack freelandposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Of course he does.  Deflect, distort, and delay are all tactics to muddy the waters.  Arpaio is not someone anyone can defend.  His actions were deplorable.  He was repeatedly warned to stop and he always gave the middle finger to the judicial system.  Trump can relate and admires Appaio's authoritarian tactics.  Arpaio sent an investigator to Hawaii to find Obama's birth records.  He's a scumbag and now he's a pardoned scumbag. 

      Google Arpaio depositions.  Hear it from the horse's mouth, although I'm sure the Trumpians will claim it was doctored.

      1. Will Apse profile image93
        Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        The Department of Justice report is damning. The guy is a racist and a sadist who rode roughshod over US law and repeatedly violated the US constitution.

        https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/departme … f-s-office

        Of course, none of the contents of that report will matter to anyone who thinks that Latino's are untermensch.

    3. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I have google.  I have NOT found that the sheriff engaged in either torture or child abuse - the two most obvious exaggerations I have repeated asked for links to and the two you have steadfastly claimed are true without providing any proof.

      So I'll ask again - can you prove the allegations of torture and sexual child abuse you claim Arpaio engaged in?

  27. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 3 months ago

    Well, I am late to this thread, and am at page 4 - 29 hrs ago - comments, and I am thinking what the hell... then, just to be sure, (although I was sure I didn't need to),  I looked them up.

    It sounds to me like you folks are all talking about discrimination, because I haven't seen anything that says the Sheriff was doing what he was doing because he thought he was superior to to those 'other' folks - it seems to be all about immigration.

    Am I missing something? Or shouldn't all your charges be about discrimination - not racism? It sure seems like you folks are talking racism because it is the trending slander.

    Geez! It's discrimination you are discussing - not racism. Profiling is also a form of discrimination, not racism.

    So where are the "racism" factors of the Sheriff's actions?

    GA

    1. Will Apse profile image93
      Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      I would read the rest of the thread.

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        I did finish the thread Will, and I still did not see the needed "superiority" component needed for the racism charges. The actions I see discussed all seem to be relative to discrimination - to me.

        So, why the racism charges, instead of charges of discrimination?

        ps. I will ask, non-sarcastically, if you might point out an example of the "superiority" component I missed.

        GA

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, you could read the thread.  Where you will find that disliking Mexicans, Irish, Jews or any other nationality/religion is considered racist by some.  Or just accept that you already have it right.  Joe is considered to have discriminated because the vast majority of illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic and all the illegals he caught were Hispanic.

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Hey there bud, yes, I did think I was right. But, considering the caliber of the participants, I did give my reply some thought. I just didn't see any of the actions being criticized that included the 'feeling superior' component needed to meet the bar of racism.

        There were plenty of criticisms that could argue discrimination charges - but everyone was arguing racism. Why? The familiar posters that I noted all know better. Hence my "What the hell..." To do so seems the equivalent to arguing a point while wearing a tin-foil hat.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I would guess that the term has been bandied about so much lately that it has come, in some minds, to mean about anything that is considered wrong or evil.  Much like "terrorism", I guess.

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Where do you get that idea, GA?

      Yes I can discriminate between strawberry and chocolate ice cream. Discrimination where people are judged, evaluated and treated differently based solely on his or her race is racism.

      If you profile with the intent to discriminate and it is for the purpose I mentioned above, that is racism.

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        With that logic, will a police be charged with being a racist, if he target a group who is white supremacist in conducting his daily affairs?
        How about police targeting MS13 gang members active in Long Island NY?
        Or police targeting the mafia in NJ?

        The whole concept of profiling by police is good police work and that includes "discriminating" one group from another which might be more prone to conduct these type of crimes...

        Discrimination as a word is not always bad. It is only bad when you qualify the word with "based on...",
        For example discrimination based on race in hiring or housing is covered by the EEOC...

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          With that logic, will a police be charged with being a racist, if he target a group who is white supremacist in conducting his daily affairs?
          ========================
          Great, Jack. The probability of someone being a white supremacist and not being white is pretty remote. But the principle here is that not all white people are white supremacists. While being white is a factor, there should be other factors as part of a profile derived in the process of doing good police work that would narrow down suspects beyond the point of their just being white.

          Race is a factor, but it cannot be the sole factor. That is my problem with all of this.
          Do we want to proceed with the idea that if someone is Italian, they are automatically a member of the Mafia?
          ===========================
          The whole concept of profiling by police is good police work and that includes "discriminating" one group from another which might be more prone to conduct these type of crimes...

          Being more prone is not good enough, probable cause or reasonable suspicion involves more than targeting people solely because of their race or ethnicity.
          ======================================
          Discrimination as a word is not always bad. It is only bad when you qualify the word with "based on...",
          For example discrimination based on race in hiring or housing is covered by the EEOC...

          Discrimination based on legal and other factors proven to be causative and having validity and not subject to mere discretion by law officers which is too often ripe for biases, is what I prefer. I don't like being stopped and questioned by authorities without a valid reason for it. Being singled out and questioned at a public facility is embarrassing and you (the law officer) needs to have a good reason for it. The explanation better not be  'because I look like others that have been involved in crimes'.

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Cred, since you are forcing me to guess which idea you speak of, I will guess it is that discrimination does not equate to racism.

        Regardless of your ice cream preference, I still think you are wrong. I am not taking a position on whether the Sheriff's discriminatory, (if they are discriminatory),  practices were good or bad, only that they do not equal racism.

        Consider the reality of the situation. It would probably be fair to say that near 100% of illegal aliens in his territory of responsibility are Hispanic or Latino. So who else would you think he should suspect? Would you still consider his actions racist if he only stopped non-well-dressed Hispanics, and gave a pass to the well-heeled ones?

        I believe that his motivation, although apparently ethically-based, is far from racist. And I believe that, without resorting to the fact that Hispanics and Latinos are not defined as a race - which obviates your perceived support for your argument 

        Whether the other, (non-racist), criticisms of his actions are arguable is irrelevant to my argument that you are misapplying the racism charge as an unsupported slander because you don't like what he is doing. And the racist label is your weapon of choice.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Hi Cred, since you are forcing me to guess which idea you speak of, I will guess it is that discrimination does not equate to racism.

          Regardless of your ice cream preference, I still think you are wrong. I am not taking a position on whether the Sheriff's discriminatory, (if they are discriminatory),  practices were good or bad, only that they do not equal racism.

          Greetings, GA

          Lets clear this up? I will share with you another example. Do you recall all the controversy surrounding the "Stop and Frisk" policies of the NYPD in respect to black communities 3 for 4 years ago?
          We already know that if there were to be any perpetrators, most likely they would be Black. But rounding people up indiscriminately forcing them to sort themselves out as guilty until proven innocent,
          is not the idea.

          Such disregard for the rights of people, not allowing for the fact that not every Black man in the inner city is engaged in a crime, is in itself racist. That is certainly one of the prime reasons why "Stop and Frisk" was shot down by the courts. And, you know how much I love my courts. 
          ===========================

          Consider the reality of the situation. It would probably be fair to say that near 100% of illegal aliens in his territory of responsibility are Hispanic or Latino. So who else would you think he should suspect? Would you still consider his actions racist if he only stopped non-well-dressed Hispanics, and gave a pass to the well-heeled ones?

          You are right in the fact that it is most probable that near 100 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic or Latino, but what percent of Hispanic or Latino residents in Arizona are illegal aliens? That is the question and this is where the Sheriff gets into trouble. Good police work may mean more discrimination rather than less. The Sheriff's approach was shotgun and did not have enough safeguards to prevent those legal Hispanic citizens from being unfairly harassed and detained solely for the fact that they looked, or are Hispanic. The Hispanic community would interpret that as racism, and so do I. Being Hispanic is not against the law, being illegally in the country is. He did not bother to sort the wheat from the chaff.
          ====================================
          I believe that his motivation, although apparently ethically-based, is far from racist. And I believe that, without resorting to the fact that Hispanics and Latinos are not defined as a race - which obviates your perceived support for your argument 
          ================================
          GA, we all know that discrimination against Hispanic people has been and is a reality whether you define them as a race or ethnic group. Their generally darker complexions are how they are identified. If the Sheriff and his department abused their discretion and picked people out with brown skins for harassment willy-nilly, that is racist.
          ==================================
          Whether the other, (non-racist), criticisms of his actions are arguable is irrelevant to my argument that you are misapplying the racism charge as an unsupported slander because you don't like what he is doing. And the racist label is your weapon of choice.

          Au contraire, the label is quite appropriate. If he had have applied Arizona law in his processes, he would not have run afoul of the court in the first place. He is just as bad as everybody says. At his age, I can understand the pardon, but Trump needs to send a message about the sanctity of law, regardless. He supported the Sheriff's attitude and approach, when it was clearly determined as inappropriate by the Court/

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "Being Hispanic is not against the law, being illegally in the country is. He did not bother to sort the wheat from the chaff. "

            If he is not allowed to check or ask whether a suspect is wheat or chaff it would seem that the only alternative is to fling open the gates to illegals.  While that is the goal of a great many liberals in the country, it does not seem to have been the goal of the people that kept electing him.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "Being Hispanic is not against the law, being illegally in the country is. He did not bother to sort the wheat from the chaff. "

              If he is not allowed to check or ask whether a suspect is wheat or chaff it would seem that the only alternative is to fling open the gates to illegals.  While that is the goal of a great many liberals in the country, it does not seem to have been the goal of the people that kept electing him.
              =============================================
              The question is, how does he check? Does he detain the brown skinned man driving on the way to the market? What is the basis of the stop, is it just because he has brown skin? How can any Hispanic citizen have assurances that they or any member of their family would not become a suspect based merely on their skin color? You need better justification to support your stops and detentions. There are a lot Hispanic citizens in a state like Arizona. This is nasty and the courts, just like they did in the "Stop and Frisk" case in New York, shot the Sherriff down in his interpretation of 'law enforcement'. You can blame the press, activists courts or whatever as an excuse. But, this kind of stuff will not tolerated by the Hispanic community and certainly not by ours.

          2. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Ah geez Cred.  Linda, honey, just listen......

            You want to argue the illegality of the Sheriff's actions. You want to argue the intentional discrimination of his actions. And you have presented both statistical and "common-sense" support for those arguments - as you see it. I have offered no comment about those points - pro or con.

            You want to declare his actions racist, but, racism must include the motivation of feeling to be a superior race acting on an inferior race. You have offered no supporting evidence for that contention. Hell, the Sheriff may feel superior to everyone, but that is bigotry and egomania - not racism.

            I do not believe discrimination equals racism, but, I am open, relative to this thread, to be shown the error of my logic. What actions can you point to that show these actions were taken because the Sheriff thought Hispanics and Latinos were an inferior race? *and that is granting you latitude to declare that they are a race - which is not an accepted fact.

            ps. your "Stop & Frisk" example was also in error - it was not an example of racism, but one of discrimination.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

              You want to argue the illegality of the Sheriff's actions. You want to argue the intentional discrimination of his actions. And you have presented both statistical and "common-sense" support for those arguments - as you see it. I have offered no comment about those points - pro or con.

              You want to declare his actions racist, but, racism must include the motivation of feeling to be a superior race acting on an inferior race. You have offered no supporting evidence for that contention. Hell, the Sheriff may feel superior to everyone, but that is bigotry and egomania - not racism.
              --
              Interesting, in the way that you see this. What was Jim Crow, a form of de jure discrimination, right?
              What was the basis of that discrimination? Was not racism at the very foundation of that discrimination? Was that not the basic policy of the Southern people, actions of a superior race against an inferior one? So, discrimination is just another facet of racism, applied.
              =================================
              I do not believe discrimination equals racism, but, I am open, relative to this thread, to be shown the error of my logic. What actions can you point to that show these actions were taken because the Sheriff thought Hispanics and Latinos were an inferior race? *and that is granting you latitude to declare that they are a race - which is not an accepted fact.

              I would be delighted to show you the error of that logic. Discrimination does not necessarily mean racist. But, in this case it does.  I might believe that if the good Sheriff were willing to stop every blue eyed blond in the search for white supremacists if they were the only ones involved in crimes in Arizona. I doubt it. Racism has many facets and applications, which you don't seem to appreciate. Using a dragnet approach on any group of people on a  racial or ethnic basis, hoping to catch a criminal in the bunch is a form of racism as you subject people to this only because you believe they are less than you and therefore not entitled to consideration that you would afford your own group.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                And yet...nowhere in the Arizona guidelines for determining suspicion of illegal "immigration" is race mentioned.

                If, say, six of the pertinent traits are found does it make the suspicion racist simply because the suspect is Hispanic?  Even though race had nothing to do with the suspicion?  Or, just maybe, it is the result of the vast majority of people exhibiting those traits are Hispanic (in Arizona)?  That's like saying it is racist to arrest a Hispanic bank robber exiting the bank with bags of money because he is Hispanic.

                Would it be non-racist to ask a Hispanic to produce ID if an Asian, a Caucasian, an American Indian, a black, an eskimo and an Australian aborigine (all residing in Arizona) were all asked for each Hispanic checked?  That should certainly guarantee the illegals are left alone!

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  And yet...nowhere in the Arizona guidelines for determining suspicion of illegal "immigration" is race mentioned.

                  Understood, Wilderness, of course they are not going to mention race, that would be big trouble for sure. But the Sheriff of Nottinghead seems to have been operating beyond state guidelines and employing racial element to his police work. If he were truly following the Arizona guideline, why did he get into trouble with the court in regards to his methods?
                  ===========================
                  If, say, six of the pertinent traits are found does it make the suspicion racist simply because the suspect is Hispanic?  Even though race had nothing to do with the suspicion?  Or, just maybe, it is the result of the vast majority of people exhibiting those traits are Hispanic (in Arizona)?  That's like saying it is racist to arrest a Hispanic bank robber exiting the bank with bags of money because he is Hispanic.

                  Of course not, these pertinent traits are considered probable cause or reasonable suspicion such that should be defined in the Arizona law, so we know just what they are and do not have to rely on the good Sheriff to tell us what they are. But one thing is certain, just having a brown skin IN OF ITSELF, is NOT justification for harassment and detainment.  The analogy in your last sentence is not appropriate. It is racist to assume that every Hispanic man is a bank robber just because so many were involved in bank robberies. I am sure that whites would not allow themselves to be evaluated this way.
                  ====================================
                  Would it be non-racist to ask a Hispanic to produce ID if an Asian, a Caucasian, an American Indian, a black, an eskimo and an Australian aborigine (all residing in Arizona) were all asked for each Hispanic checked?  That should certainly guarantee the illegals are left alone!
                  ========================

                  Better to check everybody than to target a group

                  BTW...

                  This is how the Left deals with the issue and why we are better. Instead of intimidating people because of their skin color, how about attacking the demand side? If we increase penalties to an intolerable level for those that hire illegals, make it impossible for them to get drivers licenses and other identification without a Social Security number, checked from a national database. No verified social security number, no work.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with good border patrol and surveillance. I don't hear much about this from Trump, his being part of the corporate class himself, he is not going to get after his own constituency of those having Mexican gardeners or companies that exploit their labor.
                  If there is nothing to gain from coming then they won't come. If they are involved in narcotics, they can be detained and arrested on this basis as a violation of the law.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    "If he were truly following the Arizona guideline, why did he get into trouble with the court in regards to his methods? "

                    You already know this, I'm sure, but I'll answer anyway.  He got in trouble because the court found that using non-racial guidelines to determine suspicion (not guilt, just suspicion) was racist...because the huge majority of illegals are Hispanic and therefore the huge majority exhibiting suspicious activity are also Hispanic.  And said to quit using perfectly reasonable and useful non-racial guidelines to determine suspicion...whereupon Arpaio defied that stupid political ruling in favor of the state law.  But you know all this.

                    "But one thing is certain, just having a brown skin IN OF ITSELF, is NOT justification for harassment and detainment."

                    And was therefore not used.  We already know this, too - that's why the state was so careful in creating the training program and guidelines without any taint of race or racism.

                    "It is racist to assume that every Hispanic man is a bank robber just because so many were involved in bank robberies."

                    Absolutely.  But it is NOT racist, given that 99+% of illegals are Hispanic, to fail to question other races to anywhere the extent that Hispanics are questioned.  Or, if 99+% of bank robbers are Hispanic, to question/search for primarily Hispanic bank robbers.

                    "Better to check everybody than to target a group "

                    Why?  Because the goal is to find no illegals?  Because the goal is to turn the country into a "sanctuary country"?  Because the goal is to ignore law breakers?  Don't forget - the "group" you mention is those people that match the guidelines for suspicion, not just people that are Hispanic.  You're either trying to ignore that wee fact or to deny that the guidelines were used...without having a shred of evidence to support the claim.

                    "If we increase penalties to an intolerable level for those that hire illegals, make it impossible for them to get drivers licenses and other identification without a Social Security number, checked from a national database."

                    I don't know where that started (and don't care) but the fact now is that our politicians refuse to allow it to happen.  The law is already there, much of the information is there, but it isn't being done...by either side.  I've said this right along - hit the employers of illegals and hit them hard.  The illegals will disappear (either go home or go to jail) and we won't have to ask hardly anyone anywhere if they have legal ID.  Of course, at the end of it all the result is the same; illegals are sent back across the border and will absolutely claim racism because the huge majority will be Hispanic.  The basic idea was the primary offering I had in a hub I wrote years ago on illegal immigration.

                    What will you say then?  That it is OK to deny jobs to millions of Hispanics (and relatively few of any other race) but never to ask for proof of the legal right to either work or live here?  I confess I don't really see the difference.

  28. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    Weasel words just don't cut it. Own up to who and what you are.

    If you think it is okay to discriminate against women you are sexist.
    If you think it is okay to discriminate against older people you are ageist.
    If you think it is okay to discriminate against any ethnic group you are racist.

    As for the long and depressing history of how and why race and racism was constructed, I would recommend some reading. I ain't leading you through it.

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Discrimination is a term miss used by some to mean somthing that harm others when the word actually means to choose one over another. You can be discriminating in your taste of food or fashion...
      It is only bad and illegal when you use it to harm another based on race or some other attributes.
      For example, you can choose to have vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate flavor. There is no harm done. You can choose your friends accordingly...
      It only becomes "discrimination" when the person is harmed either financially or otherwise. If a landlord refuse to rent an apartment to a black person merely on his skin color, that is discrimination and you can take him to court...the same goes for hiring...
      I hope you understand and make the distinction.

      1. Will Apse profile image93
        Will Apseposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Just read about Arpaio's history of discrimination against Latinos in the Dept of Justice report.

        And then decide if you want to support a racist with no respect for your Constitution.

        1. jackclee lm profile image80
          jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Which DOJ would that be? The one that has Loretta Lynch as head?
          You and I well know how our government, in specific some agencies, can and have been abused for a political agenda, such as the IRS, the DOJ, the EPA...
          This Sheriff, like him or not, agreed with him or not, was elected by the people to a function. His job was hampered by the DOJ and Barack Obama who would not enforce federal laws with regard to illegal immigrants...

  29. abwilliams profile image20
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    We either have Rule of Law or we don't.
    We are either a Sovereign Nation or we are not.
    We can't have it both ways.
    Libs are so good at pointing fingers and bad-mouthing, while never offering up anything constructive. So good at passing judgement, while never offering up solutions.
    How would you Propose an Officer of the Law (not an activist, not the no-borders crowd, not the agitators) but, an Officer sworn to UPHOLD the Laws of the US of A...go about doing his or her job; for example, seeing to it that those here ILLEGALLY are sent to the back of the line (insensitive?) in order to enter this Country LEGALLY, as many, many others have managed to do over the years? Go!

    1. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      seeing to it that those here LEGALLY are not stopped and arrested for NO crime, because look Mexican.  See that was simple. Bot

  30. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    As a liberal, I'm all for deporting those here illegally.  We have a path to citizenship, and if you're not on it, you should be properly deported.

    What I'm not for is doing it at the expense of basic human rights.  Putting people into a concentration style tent city with substandard bathroom facilities, inadequate protection against the weather, and torturing them doesn't follow any rule of law this country stands for.  That is sadism, pure and simple.

    And enforcing one rule of law, immigration, at the expense of other laws, such as sexual abuse towards children, does not make one a good officer of the law.  It buys you a special place in hell.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Once more, please provide links or other proof that he tortured anyone at all.  Or sexually abused children.  Your credibility suffers badly when you cannot prove outlandish allegations that you make.

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        So the most trusted branch of the government, the judiciary is not a credible source? If you doubt the conviction never occurred, then how could there be a pardon?

        In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

        Are you denying that Arapio;

        " ... after years of scandals over a racial profiling verdict, hundreds of sex-crimes complaints that weren't properly investigated and racking up $141 million taxpayer-funded costs for defending him in lawsuits. He was soundly defeated in the November election by a Democrat in heavily Republican Maricopa county." - http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pard … n-49477008

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13674837.png

        You ask for credible sources, which once given, is dismissed as 'fake' news. Hey I can't find ANYTHING that supports what Arapio said as a defense, but then I didn't look that hard. - just like you - I cherry pick the -news - oh wait - never mind - you never give links - ever.  You just whip out opinions and make false assertions while dismissing out of hand references as non-credible.

        Perhaps you are not a bot and a deeply (****************) person but "a person who displays a  temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

        Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view." - http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/04/st … al_17.html

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          But he wasn't convicted for torture or child abuse.  You might try a reading comprehension course if you can't separate the meaning of language from what you want it to mean.  There is a difference; you don't get to put your own personal meaning onto what others say.

          1. ptosis profile image81
            ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I know what he was convicted of - quit trying to distract the argument. You know what he is convicted of. You said you disagreed with the judge's decision.  Then you pretended you didn't know any details and asked for background info, which was given and dismissed as non-credible Then you accuse me of confusion.  Nice work there pal.
            Nice 'work'.   You would make a great plumber.

            Here's YOUR full quote a few posts back:
            WILDERNESS WROTE:


            https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13678697.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Really, Ptosis, you need to spend a little more time reading the posts.  Both what I make and what I'm replying to.  Your own posts would make a lot more sense, and maybe the propensity to go off on a completely different tangent would slow or even stop.

              Valeants post:  "Putting people into a concentration style tent city with substandard bathroom facilities, inadequate protection against the weather, and torturing them doesn't follow any rule of law this country stands for.  That is sadism, pure and simple.

              And enforcing one rule of law, immigration, at the expense of other laws, such as sexual abuse towards children, does not make one a good officer of the law.  It buys you a special place in hell.

              My reply:
              "Once more, please provide links or other proof that he tortured anyone at all.  Or sexually abused children."

              Whereupon you go off on a tangent with :
              "If you doubt the conviction never occurred, then how could there be a pardon?"  No mention was made by either myself of Valeant about a pardon or whether a conviction occurred.  Just torture and sexual abuse of children.

              Now you follow with:
              "I know what he was convicted of - quit trying to distract the argument. "
              As you attempt to once more divert the conversation from proof of torture and child abuse into something totally different.  It's still about proof of torture, not contempt of court.

              Then you end with a lie that I said produced a stupid meme with a bunch of half sentences and lies. 

              Do try and stay on topic, and try really, really hard not to misquote people.  You might even consider giving links to what you're quoting - that way your mis-statements are glaringly obvious and perhaps you won't be tempted to make so many of them.  You can, you know, produce a link to a specific post: just use the "permalink" option.  If you can't understand how, ask and I'll walk you through it.

              1. Valeant profile image97
                Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Wilderness, you misread.  I never accused Arpaio of sexual abuse.  I accused him of ignoring investigations into sexual abuse, including those of children.  Research done into those cases earned the author a Pulitzer.  And damages from the child abuse case were awarded to that family.  It's common knowledge if you had google.

                And we all know what happens when we provide you links, you'll just state that our sources are fake news.  It's an endless circle with you and why I'm not even going to bother.  If you need convincing, do your own research like the rest of us have.  The court cases and damages awarded to the families are public record.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Then I misunderstood.  I read that post as the prize went to someone that wrote about the lack of investigation into sexual abuse.  Not that he had performed that investigation and no one paid attention.

                  And that doesn't begin to address your claim of torture.  Unless you are claiming pink underwear is torture?

                  You provide a completely one sided, liberal based, spun article and yes, I'll ignore it.  You provide a link to a court case and decision, and it will carry considerable weight.

                  1. Valeant profile image97
                    Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Norberg, Agster, and Vogel are three examples of Arpaio's men torturing prisoners that directly led to their deaths.  Read all about those three instances.  Read about Norberg especially.

  31. abwilliams profile image20
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    "Concentration style tent cities."  Seriously?

    Good grief. I'm out.

    1. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      That was a quote for Arapio himself. Good Grief - which state are you from? Not Arizona!

      1. abwilliams profile image20
        abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        It was an the answer given to a couple of serious questions, as if tent cities are some form of torture...I guess! Hard to follow your fellow Libs and no I am not.

    2. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "I already have a concentration camp...Andy, you gonna cover me on this, too? It's called Tent City." - Joe Arpaio

      (Btw,a liar too)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7reZOp2Qco

      When asked about the comment by the Guardian in July, Arpaio brushed it off as a joke. “But even if it was a concentration camp, what difference does it make? I still survived. I still kept getting re-elected,” he said.

      https://i.cbc.ca/1.4057054.1491427717!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_940/sawh970602059160.jpg
      http://ktar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tent-city.jpg
      https://azatty.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/tent-city-3.jpg

      1. abwilliams profile image20
        abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        There was mention of torture LB...Is it the pink gym shorts or the cots perhaps? Am I to pretend I do not see the pasty white guys? I am sorry....

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You may as well, how many almost nude Hispanics have you observed? All are not dark brown, but you probably didn't know that....

          1. jackclee lm profile image80
            jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I would like to ask all who commented here to check put Bill's latest hub on the situation in Houston Texas...with the tragedy of Hurricane Harvey.
            https://hubpages.com/politics/Reporting … -Hurricane

            Regardless of our political leanings,,,, we can all agree that there are many good people who are just trying to help our neighbors...there are many more of them than the few bigots.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              This is one of the few things we can agree on, Jack.

            2. abwilliams profile image20
              abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Amen Jack!

            3. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21106625_10203573791261772_4285313859611119735_n.jpg?oh=e7d779664bf6dc8ecaf773a330ec574c&oe=5A266087

          2. abwilliams profile image20
            abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Well, Randy, all I can say about that is...Libs are always pointing out that the Authorities are seeking out and intentionally stopping and discriminating against and, as Ptosis stated earlier in this thread, "are making arrests for the crime of looking Mexican". So, I'm just wondering about the majority in this 'Shared photo', being pasty white guys, that's all!

  32. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    You guy's words, what he called them.  And he had to get ordered by the courts to provide basic human services such as adequate bathroom access.  And I see you're still standing behind the guy who allowed the sexual abuse of children.  Yay you!

  33. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    You might try and do a simple search Wilderness and see the court cases where the MCSO was found liable for damages in the wrongful deaths of prisoners.  As well as the $3.5 million verdict towards the rape victim who was impregnated by her uncle after they neglected the rape kit and blood evidence.  The only person's credibility suffering here is yours because you cannot run a search to find the most basic of information.

  34. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

    Justice Department's new civil rights complaint Maricopa County and its sheriff, Joe Arpaio

    https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resourc … 376158.pdf

    Justice Department Reaches Settlement in Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Maricopa County, Arizona, and Maricopa County Sheriff

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/631271/download

  35. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

    "Both cases were among more than 400 sex-crimes reported to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office during a three-year period ending in 2007 -- including dozens of alleged child molestations -- that were inadequately investigated and in some instances were not worked at all, according to current and former police officers familiar with the cases.

    In El Mirage alone, where Arpaio's office was providing contract police services, officials discovered at least 32 reported child molestations -- with victims as young as 2 years old -- where the sheriff's office failed to follow through, even though suspects were known in all but six cases.

    Many of the victims, said a retired El Mirage police official who reviewed the files, were children of illegal immigrants.

    Arpaio's office was under contract to provide police services in El Mirage as the city struggled with its then dysfunctional department. After the contract ended and El Mirage was re-establishing its own police operation, the city spent a year sifting through layers of disturbingly incomplete casework.

    El Mirage Detective Jerry Laird, who reviewed some the investigations, learned from a sheriff's summary of 50 to 75 cases files he picked up from Arpaio's office that an overwhelming majority of them hadn't been worked.

    That meant there were no follow-up reports, no collection of additional forensic evidence and zero effort made after the initial report of the crime was taken...

    http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/a … es/?page=1

  36. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 months ago

    Good ole Joe, just doing his civic duty!  LOL!

  37. abwilliams profile image20
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    Thank you Wilderness. Love this!

  38. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 months ago

    Apparently you guys don't understand what a pardon means. It means good ole Joe was guilty as charged. You can't pardon an innocent person.  Gee whiz..

    By accepting the pardon from Trump, ole Joe admitted he was guilty.

  39. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 months ago

    Ole Joe sounds a bit like his "Pardoner In Chief."

  40. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 3 months ago

    Racist POS must stick together.

  41. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    "using non-racial guidelines to determine suspicion was racist

    W attributed a nonsensical and incoherent reason for the judge's decision. Why is it nonsensical and incoherent? The bot just prepended 'non-',  very simple lambda, probably coded in Python.  Another example of W's bot-like propaganda.

    using non-racial guidelines to determine suspicion () was racist.
    using racial guidelines to determine suspicion () was racist.

    &

    Arapio got in trouble for flaunting on TV that he was disobeying the court's order. Arapio's contempt of court charge stemmed from his refusal to obey a court order to abandon his department’s racial profiling policies.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      http://tribunist.com/news/sheriff-joe-a … rt-orders/

      I think that sums it up nicely in as unbiased a way as I read.

      Arapio was found in contempt, that's all the Feds needed to shut him down, which was the goal of the Federal prosecution. 

      The Feds, most likely following direction from the Obama Administration which by 2011/12 had made concise moves to let illegal immigration go unchecked.  This is not much different than the EU making decisions to allow a continual flow of immigrants up from Africa and the Middle East into Europe. 
      Its an entirely separate issue as to why the 'Western Civilized World' aka G8/G20 summit group aka World Economic Forum, etc. have decided to push this matter, other than social destabilization of those host nation states and/or the creation of a cheap labor force for a decade or more to come. 

      The problem is, how much of it was stemmed from political nonsense and local/state/federal power struggles, and how much of it is a result of true harmful, biased, or discriminatory practices.

      What this is at its core, is one government official trying to stem the flow of illegal immigration into his area of responsibility, and a higher institution enforcing its will on him to cease and desist all such efforts.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        And sadly, it worked.  Illegals can rest easy in Arizona and collect their entitlements without fear of the law.  It can no longer be enforced.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I think you're fairly safe from the illegals up your way Dan, and I certainly hope they don't get a cent of your "entitlements." Rest easy now...

          1. Valeant profile image97
            Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            What this is at its core is a man trying to stem the flow of illegal immigration, but in a way that violated the Constitution.  When told this, he felt he was above that Constitution and ignored the checks and balances in place in our society.  A federal judge appointed by Bush made that ruling, later one appointed by Clinton agreed.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              That I can agree with, with the caveat that the "violation" was defined as racism because most illegals (in Arizona) are Hispanic.  And he ignored the crap and continued to enforce Arizona law, which give rise to a conviction of contempt of a court playing political games.

              1. Valeant profile image97
                Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                The contempt order arose from his arresting a Mexican tourist with a valid travel visa and holding him for ten hours for no reason.  His practices were found to be discriminatory for a reason.  They were.  So if discrimination is a political game as you call it, I would, as always it seems, tend to disagree.  As did a judge appointed by a Republican President and one by a Democratic President, long before the Department of Justice got involved.

                1. Valeant profile image97
                  Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  And apparently one of the judges, Bolton,, just set a meeting to have the Trump team argue why Arpaio should be pardoned.  The states still have the right to pursue charges at the state level.

          2. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            LOL  A town just 10 miles away is half illegals.  Most of the jobs I've worked on had illegal crews on them.  We have multiple gangs composed of illegals.  And yes, they fill the welfare office, getting the food stamps I pay for and the kids fill the schools I pay for.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image87
              Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              This is fact, people that argue this have no real clue...  Pew says illegal immigrants are 9.4 percent of California’s labor force, second only to Nevada’s 10.2 percent.  Illegals make up 27.4% of the people on Welfare in California.

              In NY, they have seen an exodus over the course of more than a decade of more than 3.7 million people, the overwhelming majority of which were 'higher educated'.  They have been replaced in large part by illegal immigrants from the south and migrants from other parts of the world.

              In CA, more than 5 million have fled in the past decade, those persons also were replaced largely by illegal migrants.

              Stories all over the country, talk of towns and cities that over the course of the last fifteen filled with immigrants, where native born Americans are now the minority.

              And this reality has a major impact on the availability of jobs for Americans, all sorts of construction work, landscaping, trucking... blue collar jobs, some that used to be good paying jobs that Americans supported their families with, are now filled by undocumented workers.

              https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/es … s-10-years

              http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov … 99037.html

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                "In CA, more than 5 million have fled in the past decade, those persons also were replaced largely by illegal migrants. "

                Yeah, I know.  I think they all moved to Idaho, where they continually try to turn a beautiful state into another California!

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                "And this reality has a major impact on the availability of jobs for Americans, all sorts of construction work, landscaping, trucking... blue collar jobs, some that used to be good paying jobs that Americans supported their families with, are now filled by undocumented workers."

                And this, too, I know from personal observation.  Many of the less skilled construction jobs in my area are now filled with illegals...illegals earning half what the job used to pay.  I have had first hand experience with it - framing, sheetrock, landscape...the jobs that don't require lots of school time are now primarily going to illegals.  Illegals that watch for INS to show up and promptly disappear.  Seen it happen.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I'll wager it took you a long time to find out how many illegals were in that town, Dan. Did you question them personally and did they volunteer they were illegal? Inquiring minds and all that...

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Yep!  Went door to door, asking every person in every house and store.  Even hit some businesses.  And I KNOW how many there are.

                Just like you know what business deals Trump has made in Russia. big_smile

                1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                  Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't, but the SP does. yikes

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    If you don't know, why did you make the claim?  Braggadocio?

  42. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Dog Day Afternoon
    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/dog … on-6438729

    All of a sudden, he fires off a tear gas round into the upstairs window. Moments later, the situation deteriorated even further when the house erupted into flames.

    • Just after the tear gas canisters were shot, a fire erupted and destroyed a $250,000 home plus all the contents inside

    • The armored personnel carrier careened down the street and smashed into a parked car after its brakes failed.

    • And in the ultimate display of cruelty, a SWAT team member drove a dog trying to flee the home back into the inferno, where it met an agonizing death.

    Deputies then reportedly laughed as the dog's owners came unglued as it perished in the blaze.

    "I was crying hysterically," Andrea Barker, one of the dog's owners, tells me. "I was so upset. They [deputies] were laughing at me."

    Given the overwhelming display of force deployed by Arpaio's deputies, one would have expected the arrest of a mass murderer.

    Instead, the crack SWAT boys nabbed 26-year-old Eric Kush, wanted on a misdemeanor warrant.

    Arpaio unleashed his SWAT team on Ahwatukee without bothering to give Phoenix police, which has primary jurisdiction in the community, a heads-up about his latest Joe Show.

    The Ahwatukee fiasco is just the latest in a long string of bumblings and constitutional breaches by Arpaio and his nimrods. This comes on the heels of last November's botched prostitution raid where Arpaio's bozo posse men got naked and, in some cases, had sexual relations with hookers -- leaving Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley little choice but to throw out the cases.

    Arpaio routinely uses his police powers to illegally investigate political opponents and silence any employee and, in some cases, any private citizen, who dares to criticize his office.

    _________________________________________________

        Arpaio's team will put out statement asking media to stop saying he is racist; he's been distressed by mischaracterization of reports     — YvonneWingettSanchez (@yvonnewingett) August 28, 2017

    “Distressed,” like getting shackled to a bed during childbirth “distressed”? “Distressed” like trying to survive 120-degree heat in Tent City “distressed”?

    You’re a racist, Joe Arpaio. No pardon will ever change that.

  43. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 months ago

    No, your department is electing a buffoon and a pathological liar to the office of POTUS. Does it bother you he lies so much? Or do you believe everything he says?  You might better tell the SP your inside info so he can call off the "witch hunt." tongue

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      About as much as it bothers me that millions of people on the net make nasty, vile claims they then decline to prove are true.  How about you - does it bother you to make claims that people are evil and then, when asked to show that your statements are true, back off and change the subject?  Does it bother you to be reduced to calling names (like "buffoon") or present your self as a psychologist making a diagnosis ("pathological liar") without having any credentials or expertise in the matter?

      I believe very little of what any politician says, including Trump.  Just as I believe very little of the exaggerated and outright false claims I read on the net.  How about you?  Did you believe when it was claimed Trump has business deals in Russia (my reaction was maybe he does, maybe not)?  Did you believe when it was claimed that Putin fixed the election (my reaction was that it is extremely difficult for Russia to have a significant effect, but possible)?  Did you believe unsupported claims or did you sit back and say "Wait a minute here - how about some proof before you make claims like that".

    2. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Randy,  I got news for you. All politicians lie including the ones in your party...do you doubt that statement?

  44. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 months ago

    I realized Trump was a buffoon long before he was elected by those who didn't. Go ahead, believe what you wish. I do not believe all the Russian connections are simply coincidental or that Trump's actions--firing Comey, appointing Flynn, getting rid of Manafort, etc. make him look innocent.

    Did you think the Benghazi/Hillary investigations and email controversies were all a "witch hunt" as well, or were you one of those who chanted along with Flynn to "Lock her up"?

    Did I think the Russians affected the election? Sure, but not by tampering with the voting machines, but by using fake stories about HRC on the net and by some nefarious cable news channels. All in Trump's favor of course, but this worked on many weak minded and uneducated people. The Russians didn't have to sway people's minds very much to make a difference in the outcome as HRC did indeed win the popular vote.

    And yes, I sat back and waited for all of the info and found out they did indeed interfere with the election in some ways.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      The you do believe Trump has "Russian connections"...without have a single bit of proof (defining "connection" as far more than a single meeting with a Russian that was never repeated and setting aside the claim of business deals).  And you believe the Russians set up fake news stories about HRC...without having a single bit of proof to support the tale, or any proof about the extent of "success" you give them in their alleged behavior.  I'm sorry for you is about all I can say to that.

      Benghazi - probably a witch hunt again.  Might have been nice to see what actions she actually took and what she actually said, but it went far beyond that.  Her emails, though, were proven to be true: she DID put classified information on her private server, and did it multiple times.  No witch hunt there!

      Randy, if you've been following the forums for the last few years you will have seen many, many instances where I've taken people to task for repeating (or simply making up) things without proof.  Not to defend the supposed action, but to tramp on unsupported allegations reported as factual.  I don't defend Arpaio, for instance if he tortured people or engaged in child abuse, but I absolutely condemn people for saying he did it while being unable to show any proof.  I don't defend police shootings (at least until after an investigation), but I DO tramp on people claiming it was murder, or racist, without any proof.  That's just the way I think - don't repeat stories without knowing if they're true.  Don't claim Russian business deals until you can prove they are there and don't claim even "connections" without being able to show them (no, meeting with a Russian about a possible building project is not a "connection").

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yes you are forever fair and balanced, Dan. You do realize Mueller had to have Probable Cause to get a search warrant for the early morning raid on Manaforts' home, don't you? I suppose he lied to the judge to get it, eh? Whatever, I'll talk to you again when Trump becomes Dump. Not long at all I hope. smile

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "You do realize Mueller had to have Probable Cause to get a search warrant for the early morning raid on Manaforts' home, don't you? "

          Ummm...you do realize that Probable Cause is not guilt, don't you?  Or is it just that an investigation equals guilt; that every case the cops bring to court results in a verdict of "guilty"?  One has to wonder why Trump is out of jail in that case, though, as there are certainly enough outlandish claims on the net to convict him of any and all possible criminal activity!

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            LOL! As if the SP cannot recognize when someone is "Probably guilty" enough to get an early morning, no knock, search warrant. tongue

            Not to mention the judge himself having to approve it..

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Ummm...you do understand that "probably guilty" is far, far removed from "guilty"?  That it isn't even close? That the difference is, after all, why we have trials by jury, that we are considered innocent until proven guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt" (criminal cases)?

              That appears to be the difference here, Randy - you're willing to accept part evidence, however poor and without any defense allowed at all, to determine guilt.  I'm not.  As you've seen, I'm not even particularly inclined to pass such declarations by without calling the speaker on it. 

              Ever sit on a jury, Randy?  I have, and I've listened to the evidence and I've watched as 12 people form different opinions on what that evidence means, let alone if it indicates guilt.  I've watched as what I considered to be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" produced doubt in some jurors to the point of a hung jury.  Perhaps it gives a different perspective when one watches as people have doubts about something perfectly clear, and we realize why we use juries and why a judge doesn't simply pronounce sentence without hearing both sides.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Yes I've sat on a jury, a Federal jury at that. A sheriff from a neighboring county was on trial and I had to drive over 80 miles a day for almost a week before it was finally settled. I'm not claiming there's enough evidence yet for Trump to go down, but I'm also not closing my eyes to things which point to his guilt. You know there are too many of the Don's cronies in touch with the Russians for him to be claiming no one he knew in his crowd was involved. No, he hasn't been caught yet, with an emphasis on the "yet."

                And even if he's caught red handed, you and the other's who put his....rear...in the Whitehouse will deny the evidence and cry foul. But perhaps I'm wrong about that...    roll

                1. GA Anderson profile image82
                  GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Hi Randy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I have been following this thread, and a part of your comment opens the door for a response.

                  You said; "I'm not claiming there's enough evidence yet for Trump to go down ...", now I am not presuming to speak for Wilderness, but I will offer a perspective.

                  As I have read the comments, it seems as if any non-supportive comment relative to the claims of malfeasance of the Sheriff has automatically labeled that poster as racist, and that any poster that did not jump on the "Trump is guilty" bandwagon" is an ignorant T-fan.

                  As I have read his comments, Wilderness is only standing on the demand of proof, not innuendo or accusations supported only by opinion. So how is it that you can admit there is not enough proof for you, (specifically, and as a generic reference) - yet, to declare guilt, but still declare guilt by preponderance of opinion, and anyone that doesn't agree is a fact-deficient T-fan? Or a twister or distorter of words spoken?

                  The problem, as I see it, and as I have spoken to in the past, is that all these declarations of "factual" proof really are nothing more than opinion, and if they had been declared as such - an opinion of guilt, then they would have obtained a much higher level of credibility. But... when opinion is declared to be fact, and when challenged, cannot be supported as fact - then the credibility of that opinion is easily discounted.

                  From my perspective, that has been the discourse in this thread.  Several have made claims of facts, (that were really just accusations), and when Wilderness challenged them for proof he was automatically labelled as a supporter of the object of the accusations - be it the Sheriff or Pres. Trump.

                  Were I in Wilderness' shoes, my challenge would be to show where I have defended against the claims made. I haven't seen evidence of that. All I have seen is a challenge to the claim that accusation equals guilt. And thank heaven there is a voice that holds that view, for it is the basis of our judicial system.

                  If you are familiar with the concept of The Innocence Project's" work, you can surely see why I am supportive of Wilderness' perspective.

                  Trail by Internet, and national direction by social media - no thank you.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    +1  You said it better than I could.  Thanks.

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't mind if you jump in at all, GA. I can also see where you, Dan, and others get your perspectives on these topics. I haven't claimed anyone is guilty to this point, just looking down the road and seeing all the crap going by, lies, denials, more lies, and so on. I don't mind if you guys take up for either Ole Joe or The Don. It'll be all the sweeter when the excretion finally hits the fan. smile

    2. Misfit Chick profile image72
      Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      We've all seen how T-fans appreciate alternative facts - its what they seem to live on. An in-your-face fact regarding Trump isn't something they are capable of comprehending - and yeah, wilderness, you are obviously toward the top of that list, LoL!

      You can't use 'facts' or 'proof' cuz T-fans don't respect those things. Every time we give them what they want in long, expressive explanations - the response is always the same: anti-Trump peeps have no proof and are just a bunch of big meanies!!

      Reason, logic & common sense are out, too. All you can really do is repeat things over and over - hoping they will eventually wake up...

      "We saw in the most substantive way the rebuke of the President with the Russian sanctions vote, which was unanimous in the Republican Party."

      WHY was it unanimous?

      I trust this politician WAY before Trump - GOP Rep. Will Hurd, not a lawyer, a former state senator or business tycoon. The Texas Republican cut his teeth on the streets of Afghanistan, India and Pakistan as a CIA operative. Hurd was a "spy master": Essentially he "ran spies" in each of these countries, but is careful not to discuss too much about his previous employment.
      "I was the guy that was collecting intelligence from individuals that were helping the United States with our threats overseas," he said.
      Engaging in legislative battles on Capitol Hill or fighting for his political life every two years seems trite given what Hurd saw during his time in the CIA and growing up in South Texas, the son of a black father and white mother in the late 1970s/1980s.

      ""Russia is our adversary. They are not our ally. The Russians, Vladimir Putin is very clear, he has one goal and that's to re-establish the territorial integrity of the USSR. And he can't do it militarily, he can't do it economically, he has to use asymmetrical warfare and that means eroding the trust in democratic institutions. That's the US That's the EU. That's NATO. And one of the issues, one of the ways that they do this is with disinformation or ... covert influence operations. Which means we, the United States, have to have a counter-covert influence strategy, which we don't have."

      AND

      "I stand behind the intelligence community assessment of this as well. The Russians were trying to manipulate our elections. Now, did they impact the vote tallying machines? No. So, President Trump won the election fair and square, but that doesn't change the fact that there was attempts of manipulation. The Russians have been doing this for decades in Europe, they're doing it now and they are going to continue to do that. ... I think it is frustrating when we allow the Russians to continue to win, and what do I mean by that? The Russians' goal in their activity was to sow, was to drive a wedge, whether real or perceived, between the President, the intelligence community, and the American people. And by the discord that continues, that allows those goals to continue to be achieved."

      Those last two sentences are basically what we are living, right now.

      Yeah, I trust this GOP Congressman's informative FACTS about this one subject, and others - FAR over anyone happily commited to a potus who only cares about dividing us as deep & wide as possible.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        "You can't use 'facts' or 'proof' cuz T-fans don't respect those things"

        You, then.  How about you provide proof that Arpaio engaged in sexual child abuse as claimed here?  Not an out-of-court settlement, not claims by someone else that it happened, not even a newspaper opinion piece that he did.  Actual proof that Arpaio engaged in the activity, like an admission of guilt or a jury verdict?  This is pretty strong claim and it should have pretty strong proof, after all. 

        How about it, Misfit - can you provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" of that activity?

        *edit* I don't doubt for a single instant that the Russian government tried to affect our election.  What I DO doubt is that Trump was a part of it OR that their efforts had a significant effect on the outcome.  Neither has been proven yet.  Not even by your quotes that a congressman says it happened without providing any data, either.

        (of course, I don't doubt that WE do the same thing!)

        1. ptosis profile image81
          ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Hey. I just went back to page 10 of this thread and nobody asserted that "Arpaio engaged in sexual child abuse as claimed here?"

          wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

          What I DID find was this:



          NOBODY in this entire thread ever said Arapio engaged in sexual abuse. Wilderness is lying. Again.  Perhaps W will use the 'confusion' tactic once more.


          What we got here with W is this:

          "Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. This leaves some points unanswered and allows the original speaker to try and claim his opponent lacks the counter-arguments."

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "Putting people into a concentration style tent city with substandard bathroom facilities, inadequate protection against the weather, and torturing them doesn't follow any rule of law this country stands for.  That is sadism, pure and simple.

            And enforcing one rule of law, immigration, at the expense of other laws, such as sexual abuse towards children, does not make one a good officer of the law.  It buys you a special place in hell."

            https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2908611

            Does that help you out?

            1. Misfit Chick profile image72
              Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Not really, so someone mentioned it - so what? YOU are currently using it to turn the conversation - a typical manipulation tactic that you are obviously very familiar with. Well done.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Well, you came in kind of late - that thread about torture and child abuse had been going on for some time and almost everything I posted was about it.  So no, I'm not trying to turn the conversation - I'm trying to keep it on track.  It's about making claims that cannot proved to be true, whether it's about Russia interference, Trump having business deals in Russia or Arpaio torturing Hispancis.  It's not really even about the truth of the statement, but only if the writer can prove it's true.

                1. Misfit Chick profile image72
                  Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  Like I've said OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN (*see above AGAIN)... prove, prove, prove... that word just oozes from your brain like pus; and every 'proof' has been 'said as salve' every which way - but it doesn't help. Its just too bad your brain is too hardened to comprehend.

                  Have a nice day. I'm done fighting with you again, for now. smile

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep!  Might as well - we will not agree on what constitutes proof, or even if it's necessary.  You accept an internet opinion piece; I want far more.  And in such cases as the charges being made against Arpaio it means "beyond a reasonable doubt", not that someone made a claim that I think it might be true.

        2. Misfit Chick profile image72
          Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "The Russians' goal in their activity was to sow, was to drive a wedge, whether real or perceived, between the President, the intelligence community, and the American people. And by the discord that continues, that allows those goals to continue to be achieved."

          It doesn't seem to you that this situation actually exists in our country at the moment - at least partially due to Russian propaganda manipulation?

          Of course it doesn't, as far as you are concerned - the Russians did us all a FAVOR by helping to expose all that email information surrounding Hillary. The GOP ranted & raved (for decades, literally!) about every one of Hillary's PALE-in-comparison scandals next to BOTH her white, male political peers AND Trump's MUCH longer list of evil deeds (plus, his non-PC rhetoric - WOOT).

          I'm guessing that you mentioned this 'child sexual abuse claim' stuff to jerk the conversation toward a more-irrelevant direction. Let's stick with the topic. We've given you all kinds of FACTS; and suggested that you actually GO READ some of the ORIGINAL complaints by people who participated in this lawsuit.

          I know, WHY would you do that, right? I mean, they are all just going to be by a bunch of whiners whose experiences you're not remotely interested in.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "It doesn't seem to you that this situation actually exists in our country at the moment - at least partially due to Russian propaganda manipulation?"

            Now all you have to do is prove that the Russians engaged in that.  I don't doubt that they did, but proving it, and proving that efforts were effective is another kettle of fish.

            " Russians did us all a FAVOR by helping to expose all that email information surrounding Hillary."

            And just how did they "help"?  Link, please, showing the Russians provided information that began the investigation?

            "I'm guessing that you mentioned this 'child sexual abuse claim' stuff to jerk the conversation toward a more-irrelevant direction."

            https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2908611

            "We've given you all kinds of FACTS; and suggested that you actually GO READ some of the ORIGINAL complaints by people who participated in this lawsuit."

            Well, you made claims, and suggested I re-read those same claims from someone else.  Personally, I don't see that as proof of anything except that you took the claims of someone and decided they were factual without ever checking them.  Remember, an out-of-court settlement by a third party (the county) is not an admission of guilt, and that's all that has been provided.

            1. Misfit Chick profile image72
              Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "Now all you have to do is prove that the Russians engaged in that.  I don't doubt that they did, but proving it, and proving that efforts were effective is another kettle of fish."

              *See my comments about T-fan's perspective of 'facts' & 'proof' above.

              I'll elaborate: 'proving their efforts were effective' - EVEN IF our govenment could flat-out prove exactly 'what stories' the Russians created and/or pushed to instigate chaos during our election, T-fans would insist that they had no affect on their decision. THEY all (each & every one) are immune to manipulative journalism - BUT, 'liberals', 'leftists' and 'snowflakes' are beyond help!!!

              Again, NONE of these arguments are NEW... its just the same stuff, updated & reformatted to fit a certain way into your brain to cause certain responses.

              You know what the really maddening thing from my perspective is? It is OBVIOUS that every single T-fan in here IS an intelligent, smart individual. When we talk about any other topic, you sound sane. I know, because I was following most of you long before Trump came along for at least one good reason.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                "T-fans would insist that they had no affect on their decision."

                Now why would anyone do that, particularly those intelligent T-fans?  That would be as foolish as insisting that we KNOW they DID have an effect, wouldn't it?

                "EVEN IF our govenment could flat-out prove exactly 'what stories' the Russians created and/or pushed to instigate chaos during our election"

                I take it from this that you don't know what stories the Russians created.  Which in turn means you don't know if they did anything at all.  Which is exactly what I've been saying; I'm seeing lots and lots of claims but no proof.

                Misfit, I've watched for years as the veracity on internet posts have gone down and down, and the election made it 10X worse than it ever was.  It is to the benefit of all that we ALL quite providing opinion pieces disguised as truth. 

                A few posts above I said that I don't doubt the Russians tried to have an effect.  I said that I doubt that Trump was involved or that Russian efforts accomplished anything.  But here's the key - I did NOT say that the Russians acted and I did NOT say that Trump was not involved or that there was no effect.  Only that I doubted it.  It was an opinion and was expressed as an opinion.

            2. Misfit Chick profile image72
              Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              " Russians did us all a FAVOR by helping to expose all that email information surrounding Hillary." And just how did they "help"?  Link, please, showing the Russians provided information that began the investigation?

              I was being sarcastic toward manipulated Hillary haters... I'm sure you know that. Just like you also know that the Russians didn't begin the investigation. Their illegal hands in our country's business has never been a concern of T-fans. This is one of our biggest complaints about you all - although, as you know, we have many. LoL!

              "Personally, I don't see that as proof of anything"

              Again... What YOU and T-man view as proof is obviously NOT the opinion of the judges who heard & ruled on this case. And THAT is what infuriates us about Trump's 'pardon': HE as potus does NOT have the RIGHT to 'overturn' a court's ruling. He didn't sit in on these proceedings. All he has done is exclaim & condone 'alt-right' & white supremist BS (that MOST conservatives don't agree with) - again.

              Something he has gotten pretty good at.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Sorry, I didn't catch the sarcasm.  My bad.

                "Again... What YOU and T-man view as proof is obviously NOT the opinion of the judges who heard & ruled on this case."

                The only ruling (I'm aware of) against Arpaio is that he was in contempt of court.  And yes, the president very much has the right to overturn a judge's ruling; there have been hundreds of cases of it in the past, all quite accepted as legal.  Could be wrong, but I think there was only one president that didn't make a single pardon.

                In the case of Trump's pardon, I said before that while I'm really questioning any presidential pardon as a good thing, if you're going to pardon someone, make it Arpaio.  The verdict was that he ignored a court order not to follow Arizona law - a law deemed unconstitutional by a court playing politics (IMO) rather than the reality of the situation Arizona faces with masses of Hispanics in the state illegally.  IMO, he committed a crime by refusing the follow an order that should never have been made in the first place - if you're going to pardon a crime, that one seems more reasonable than most.

  45. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Despite being such a broad and unique power, presidential pardons do have limitations

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution says: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

    Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins

    'Pardons also don't affect civil cases, or state or local cases. ." - http://people.howstuffworks.com/preside … ardon4.htm

    "    a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

    Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake.

    In other words, IF the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, THEN those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless

    " - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri … 520690f499

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      What kinds of crimes have been pardoned in the past?  What is the accepted thing, disregarding the hatred for Trump and intense desire to cancel anything he does?

      Just a few I can see:
      Daniel Vandersmith – a former judge, pardoned for forgery
      Ezra Heywood – Convicted of violating the 1873 Comstock Act; pardoned after 6 months
      Roy Olmstead – convicted for violating the National Prohibition Act
      George Caldwell – income tax evasion; pardoned
      Richard W. Leche – mail fraud; pardoned
      Andrew J. May – accepting bribes; pardoned
      Maurice Hutcheson – contempt of Congress; pardoned
      Richard Nixon – granted a full and unconditional pardon just before he could be indicted in the Watergate scandal
      Henry Cisneros – Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000.
      Susan McDougal – partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater deal. Guilty of contempt of court, she served her entire sentence and was then pardoned.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p … ted_States

      Seems to me there is a pretty solid historical precedent for this one.  It's not the first pardon for contempt, it's not the first for a misdemeanor.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image72
        Misfit Chickposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Wikipedia - nice, reliable source. I already gave a link that listed every single pardon done by every president. We all know that is one of the things almost every potus does. There is no argument there.

        What Trump did was pardon someone who had been convicted and NOT EVEN SENTENCED, yet. You'll notice that EVERY OTHER person who was EVER pardoned was done AFTER sentences; and almost always served at least part of their sentence.

        - and again, a pardon is NOT an admision that the person was not guilty. It is a crime that is FORGIVEN! (I think this is the hardest part for people who are still supporting Trump over this to comprehend.)

        Trump 'pardoned' Joe as if he was a KING with powers to overturn a court ruling - AS IF this sheriff was not guilty (which, he obviously was - again, ruled in a red state by red judges).

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "You'll notice that EVERY OTHER person who was EVER pardoned was done AFTER sentences"

          Not true.  "Richard Nixon – granted a full and unconditional pardon just before he could be indicted in the Watergate scandal".  Not even indicted, let alone convicted and sentenced. 

          Right - the crime was forgiven.  Which is why I say of all the possibilities, Arpaio might be the best subject as his crime was to ignore a court order that should never have been given; that was made only after a politically inspired decision that discrimination existed because most illegals were Hispanic.

          But I do fail to see why this pardon was different from any other - why it was as if a king overturned the verdict.  Trump did exactly what other presidents did - he pardoned a person.  And "President Zachary Taylor pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 38 people." and so did other presidents.  Andres Johnson pardoned all former confederates of the rebellion on Christmas day, and many were apparently never even charged. 

          There is, in fact, quite a list of people that were pardoned but never charged or convicted, and more whose conviction was rescinded (what it sounds like you're saying Trump did as King).

    2. ptosis profile image81
      ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Please don't tell me that because this is from Kos that it's all 'fake news' because if it is then please send me a link that differs from the following history. You can rewrite history if you like.  But the procedural history shows Sheriff Joe Arpaio thumbing his nose, in public, at the civil authority of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is all recorded in courts and TV Joe Shows.
      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8 … =emaildkre

      A President’s Pardon power is confined, by the words of the Constitution, to crimes against the United States.   Trump’s pardon of Arpaio has to be accepted by a U.S. District Judge, as proper grounds for dismissal of Arpaio’s conviction, in order for the case to go away. 

      It started with the filing, by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, of Melendres, et al. v. Penzone, in the U.S. District Court for Arizona.  The case challenged the frequent practice, by Sheriff Arpaio’s deputies, of stopping people without any suspicion of crime, solely to check immigration status, then turning undocumented detainees over to Federal immigration authorities.  Over the years, Arpaio’s office lost the civil suit and all appeals, spectacularly.

      Criminal contempt of court is the inherent prerogative of a co-equal and independent branch, to which the President’s Pardon Power does not apply.

      After October 4 we will know more about whether Trump’s pardon really gets Joe Arpaio of the hook for his blatant flaunting of the authority of U.S. Court

      1. jackclee lm profile image80
        jackclee lmposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Where did you get that idea about pardons? What about the pardon of Mark Rich? I can point to many others that does not fit your definition. What does that say about you and your views on this topic?
        Gime a break...

        1. ptosis profile image81
          ptosisposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which states as follows: The President…shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. ... However, a presidential pardon does not expunge a crime or remedy the past act.

          In Ex parte Garland, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 307, 380 (1855), which states:

          The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.

          The President's pardon power is limited to federal crimes, so no President may pardon or commute a state or foreign conviction. The nature of the pardon power, if any, with respect to state and local crimes is governed by each respective state constitution and varies rather considerably. -  https://law.stackexchange.com/questions … time/15308

          The President may use his clemency authority only for criminal penalties, not civil. Moreover, he may use his clemency authority to pardon federal offenses but not state offenses. - https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44571.html

          Obviously, the word "abuse" has an individual meaning, and to some, the political uses of the power during the Reconstruction period and the aftermath of Watergate may not connote abusive exercises.  - http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewc … ntext=wmlr


          Arapio's so-called 'pardon' is just another empty promise and distraction from 'Ol Bone Spurs.

          So the Presidential Pardon from General Incompetence is worthless like everything else coming from the Cheeto in Chief who doesn't know what the heck he's doing.

      2. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Only "crimes against the US", huh?  Seems that concept went out 200 years ago.

        https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2908991

  46. Luke Holm profile image96
    Luke Holmposted 3 months ago

    My reaction is that you are being brainwashed to care about things that don't actually matter in life.  The television is telling lies to your vision, distracting you from the present moment and those who are part of your direct experience.  Turn off the TV! It's sucking out your soul.

  47. Valeant profile image97
    Valeantposted 3 months ago

    Wilderness, you keep misquoting me about the sexual abuse issue.  What I said is that he put immigration enforcement at the expense of enforcement of sexual abuse cases.  Not that he ever personally engaged in the acts.  That he neglected to enforce and investigate those crimes, some of which were against children.

    And let's take a poll of those commenting here.  Who here thinks that if the County has to pay out to a plaintiff because of something Arpaio did, that he is culpable for something he did wrong?  Such as neglect or discrimination in many of those cases.

    Me:  Culpable
    Wilderness:  Not Proof of Culpability (thinks OJ didn't do it)
    Others:   ?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      No, I don't keep misquoting you.  I cut and pasted your comments after your explanation that it wasn't a claim of Arpaios abuse.  As far as you've shown his "crime" in the abuse was in not investigating (and haven't even shown that to the requirements of a guilty verdict), and though that doesn't say anything actually happened it doesn't show innocence in either the lack of investigation OR in no abuse by third parties.

      Take a poll all you like - polls show what people think, not what is.  That's my biggest problem here - you've made a decision of malfeasance based solely on lack of evidence of innocence.  Our system doesn't work that way.

      And finally, you now come up with another falsehood - that I think OJ didn't murder his wife.  Completely false as I think he DID do it - I'm just with the court system in that the punishment for such a crime requires more evidence and assurance than was provided.  It requires proof - proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that was not shown in either of his trials.  Only proof by a preponderance of the evidence.  You don't seem to understand the difference in these phrases means, but I certainly do and will stick with the requirement for any claimed crime of such magnitude.

      So take your poll...and make sure that from this point you present your opinions as just that - an opinion rather than a fact.  If you get 1,000 people to declare Arpaio is guilty of discrimination it remains an opinion, and not a proven fact.  He has been found guilty of contempt of court, nothing more, and your statements should reflect that fact.

      1. Valeant profile image97
        Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        How about you provide proof that Arpaio engaged in sexual child abuse as claimed here? - classic misquote.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "as claimed here"

          Where?

          1. Valeant profile image97
            Valeantposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I just quoted you, misquoting what I said.  Even that you don't take as proof.  Hahahahahahahaha!  You're a skeptic about even the things you say.  Classic.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              Hard to misquote when you cut and paste, don't you think?

              But I freely agree that I took your meaning wrong - going back and re-reading earlier posts than I quoted (accurately) I can see why you now say you intended something different than I took the words for.  Happens when conversations take days or hours to complete, and I do apologize.

  48. Onusonus profile image81
    Onusonusposted 3 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21150389_741904539338881_6116744388723216289_n.jpg?oh=420d4dcaa4ef9c13bd22aa3380636126&oe=5A24F05A

  49. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Trump was wrong to pardon Arapio, by reminding me that other presidents have given lousy pardons doesn't make the Arapio pardon smell any nicer. It stinks. It stinks BAD.

    Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

    Notorious Presidential Pardons

    Whiskey Rebels, 1794
    Brigham Young (1858)
    Citizens of the Confederate States, 1865
    Fitz John Porter (1886)
    Eugene V. Debs (1921)
    Jimmy Hoffa, 1971
    Richard Nixon, 1974
    Vietnam Draft Dodgers, 1977
    Mark Felt (a.k.a. Deep Throat) & Edward Miller, 1981
    George Steinbrenner, 1989
    Caspar Weinberger, 1992
    Patty Hearst, 2001
    Marc Rich, 2001

    "Obama used his pardon and commutation power to give a second chance to people who deserved empathy, not racists who showed none" - Ben Rhodes

  50. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months ago

    "does not expunge a crime "  - case closed.  It will be another item in the bill of impeachment.  The list is becoming quite lengthy.

 
working