Trump just pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio...
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.
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?
Interesting how certain people can post something factual and rational but then end it with two sentences of pure political hate.
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.
"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.Promisem: And here they did it again.
The problem, conservatives, is that this was a close friend. Smacks of conflict of interest.
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.
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.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.Good try, MC. But they see all facts as fake news, doncha know?
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...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/
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
The "latest" ones, of course are his recent pardons of:
1. Fellow corrupt politicians who support him
2. Completing his bargain with people who refused to tell the truth about him. (These I expect to be challenged in court as being illegal pardons that are part of a criminal enterprise)
3. And ones no human being with a soul can condone, the pardon of four terrorist mercenaries we used in Iraq and two border guards who attempted to murder a couple of illegals.Presidential pardons when leaving office is quite common.
obama had over 200
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardonsI didn't say, or even imply, they were uncommon; if fact Trump is on the low side so far.
What is uncommon is who Trump pardoned. Some are simply disgusting (the Blackwater terrorists and almost murderous border agents) while others are probably criminal (payoffs for keeping silent).So what? Bill Clinton pardoned people who had been convicted of domestic terrorism. These are individuals who are responsible for killing police. obama pardoned the traitor Chelsa Manning as well as the Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera. He is responsible for 130 attacks and six deaths. I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture.
How do any of those people have ties to Clinton or anyone working for him?
They'll never see or acknowledge what kind of man Trump truly is. They'll keep listening to him even after he's out of office. Some right-wing news outlet that peddles lies and conspiracy theories will use him as their megaphone and Trump will continue to profit from his cult.
I figures you would try to deflect like that. But, no, Bill Clinton did not pardon someone convicted of domestic terrorism. You either made that up or repeated some fake news from one of your right-wing media outlets.
Instead, he commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN who were convicted of killing nobody, not even police (you do recognize there IS a difference between killing dozens of people in a town square and killing nobody at all, don't you?).
Further, the commutation came only after lobbying by ten Nobel Laureates and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico. (Granted, it was opposed by law enforcement of all types)
Again, you appear to not understand the difference between a "commutation" and a "pardon". I advise you to look it up so you can be accurate in what you claim.
Again, Rivera's sentence (which was not for homicide as you falsely claim) was commuted by Obama, not pardoned. It was at the behest of Multiple groups, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus (whom I assume you think are enemies of the state)
Chelsea Manning's sentence was not pardoned, as you again falsely claim, it was commuted. It is interesting you pick this one because the common thread between Manning and Trump is Julian Assange, you know, the guy Trump was counting on, via the now pardoned by Trump Roger Stone, to help him win the election against Clinton.Funny how you are okay with people running around the United States blowing things up. Sorry, they are terrorists. I doubt there is a "blowing things up sport" for fun and profit. At the time they were sentenced there were no laws on the books to charge someone with terrorism. Obama pardoned many people who had been convicted of violent gun crimes. I have no problem with people convicted of process crimes. Terrorists do bother me and people who commit violence with guns is troubling.
If you compare the two...those President Donald Trump pardoned really were nothing compared to what obama and clinton pardoned.
The double standards and hypocrisy of the left knows no boundaries. It's actually getting to be quite comical.The Blackwater guys who murdered innocent women and children were nothing? I'm actually in agreement that Rivera, although not tied directly to any of the bombings, was a domestic terrorist 36 years ago.
The difference is that people former presidents pardoned had no personal connections to their administrations.Blackwater guys ...I looked into that and I would say the fault lies with the enemy who were shooting at soldiers and using those women and children as shields. They were defending themselves. I would have returned fire as well.
Well, after they shot an Iraqi policeman, the enemy firing on blackwater was other Iraqi police.
Then, during the chaotic incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. It is unclear whether the team-member mistook the civilians for insurgents. The incident was allegedly resolved only after another Blackwater contractor pointed his weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.
Three Blackwater guards who witnessed the incident later said that they believed the shootings were unjustified.
In two separate trials, one of the accused was found guilty of murder in both cases.Here's what I got from Wikipedia
"A State Department spot report published the same day as the incident stated that eight to ten attackers opened fire on Raven 23 "from multiple nearby locations, with some aggressors dressed in civilian apparel and others in Iraqi police uniforms" after the convoy had entered Nisour Square,[24] starting at 12:08 p.m.[25] The report added that another Blackwater Tactical Support Team (TST 22), who had escorted the officials and TST 4 back to the Green Zone, was redirected to support Raven 23. Raven 23 "returned defensive fire" and withdrew from Nisour Square with one of its BearCat vehicles in tow. As Raven 23 was departing Nisour Square, several members continued to discharge their weapons, causing additional civilian deaths and injuries.[26] TST 22 arrived at Nisour Square after Raven 23 had left; when TST 22 tried to withdraw, its route was blocked by Iraqi Army and Police vehicles.[24][25] A U.S. Army convoy arrived at 12:39 p.m., backed by air cover, to escort TST 22 back to the Green Zone.[24][27]"
I would say they were running on pure adrenaline after what they had just experienced. I'm not saying what they did was right...but I think if people were put in their situation...they'd understand better. When your desire to survive takes over, things get crazy.You cherry picked the friendliest part of that wiki page. Skip down to the actual trials to get the under testimony facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre""A State Department spot report published the same day as the incident stated that eight to ten attackers opened fire " - the "spot" report was later found not to be accurate.
"when TST 22 tried to withdraw, its route was blocked by Iraqi Army and Police vehicles." - of course they were, their teammates just massacred a bunch of innocent Iraqi civilians.
This is why America should never employ mercenaries.
THen why were they convicted by an American jury of murder and other crimes? Don't you believe in America's jury system?
Also, you must have looked at a fake news right-wing site. Here are the facts surrounding the case, it is a long list proving that you would have been convicted as well:
1. There is no evidence they were attack other than the Blackwater commanders assertion.
2. "The U.S. State Department has said that "innocent life was lost""
3. "a military report appeared to corroborate "the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault"
4. "Just before noon on September 16, 2007, a car bomb exploded near the Izdihar Compound where US and Iraqi officials were meeting,"
4.1 "A 19-man Blackwater Tactical Support Team consisting of a convoy of four trucks, answering to the call sign "Raven 23", took up positions on the south side of Nisour Square to secure an evacuation route for the US officials and another Blackwater team providing security for them."
4.2 "The Blackwater commander, Jimmy Watson, had received an order to stand by and not leave the Green Zone"
4.3 "Upon reaching a checkpoint, but he made a "tactical decision" [meaning he disobeyed orders] to advance to Nisour Square after waiting for a few minutes"
4.4 Upon informing the Blackwater Tactical Operations Center, he was ordered to return to the Green Zone
4.5 "However, after "Raven 23" entered Nisour Square [again disobeying orders], Watson was ordered to "lock down the traffic circle to expedite the travel of the other Blackwater team".
4.6 "Shortly after assuming their positions, "Raven 23" began firing on civilians in response to an approaching car, killing fourteen and wounding twenty more."
4.7 "During opening arguments for a criminal trial held in 2014, defense lawyers representing former Blackwater members of Raven 23 argued the men felt the approaching Kia was a credible threat as a possible car bomb, and opened fire in self-defense. "
4.8 "Prosecutors argued the men did not face hostile gunfire when they began shooting, and continued to shoot despite the lack of threats" (note - the jury believed the prosecution)
4.9 They attacked the Kia with bullets and grenades killing the driver and his mother. The car was incinerated but did not blow up because there were no explosives
5. "An Interior Ministry spokesman said Iraqi authorities had completed their investigation into the shooting and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths. U.S. military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the incident."
6. On October 4, 2007, U.S. military reports indicated Blackwater's guards had opened fire without provocation and used excessive force. "It was obviously excessive"
7. On October 13, 2007, the FBI reported that it had concluded that at least 14 of the 17 Iraqis who died in the square had been killed without cause.
8. In October 2007, the United Nations released a two-year study that stated that private contractors, although hired as "security guards", were performing military duties. The report found that the use of contractors such as Blackwater was a "new form of mercenary activity" and illegal under international law; however, the United States is not a signatory of the 1989 UN Mercenary Convention banning the use of mercenaries.
What is actually funny is you falsely saying "Funny how you are okay with people running around the United States blowing things up. " You made that up, along with a lot of other things you write. Where did I say that.
But, I expect that kind of retort from you when I prove you wrong.
You did say one true thing, however, "If you compare the two...those President Donald Trump pardoned really were nothing compared to what obama and clinton pardoned. " - You are right, the ones that Trump "pardoned" are much, much worse than the ones which Obama and Clinton "commuted" (still having trouble with English definitions, I see).
And now to switch subjects slightly and focus on another despicable person - Trump. His latest abomination can be captured in this nutshell- "Insistent his own government is working against him by ignoring false claims of voter fraud, he's dangling the prospect of shutting it down as he enjoys a winter holiday in South Florida and the country records its deadliest month since the pandemic's start with more than 63,000 Americans having died from Covid-19 in December so far."
Add to that is Trump just cut off unemployment insurance (a lot of which goes to the people who voted for him; maybe you, who knows) and is set to let process start for millions to get evicted from their homes come Jan 1. Santa his not. He is president in name only. Human being he his not. BUT, of course you don't care about because you unbelievably think he has nothing wrong.
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?
Impeach on what basis? Do you even know our Constitution? You TDS is showing and it makes you look bad...
If a criminal is to be pardoned at all, I can't think of any better than the victim of courts playing political games.
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/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".
What was his crime? I do not recall him going to jail. I definitely missed this story!
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.How did one senate member, the sheriff and county attorney "enact and approve" any laws at all? Particularly the "enact" part?
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.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.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.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.Your stats do not include commutation of sentences. Please go check that and come back with the whole truth...
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...
"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.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!)"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."and make up such things as it's racist to ask anyone appearing Hispanic in Arizona for ID"
What are you talking about, now, Wilderness? Has it occurred to you that people who appear to be Hispanic are American citizens? Of course, it is racist, how could be interpreted as anything else? You can't simply ask me for an ID merely because I don't look white anglo/saxon. Is this the level that conservative values and reasoning have declined to?"You can't simply ask me for an ID merely because I don't look white anglo/saxon."
Unless I'm confusing states/sheriffs (and I might be) there was no "merely" about it. Guidelines were made, requiring much more than "merely" looking Hispanic, and did not even mention race, but somehow it is still "racist" because the large majority of illegals in the area ARE Hispanic. It's as if he should have made sure that he checked equal numbers of Asians, Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks and even American Indians...when nearly 100% of illegals there are Hispanic. Pretty obvious the object isn't to reject racism; it's to allow illegals to remain.
So far pretty much everything I've seen here concerns Arpaio's supposed racism...when he was pardoned for a completely different offense. In other words, "I don't like him, so he shouldn't be pardoned for anything at all".
I said earlier that I'm not a fan of pardons in general, but if one is to pardon someone, make it for being convicted of the "crime" of defying a politically motivated court.So Arpaio has been involved in the following:
==================================
The criminal conviction grew out of a lawsuit filed a decade ago charging that the sheriff’s office regularly violated the rights of Latinos, stopping people based on racial profiling, detaining them based solely on the suspicion that they were in the country illegally and turning them over to the immigration authorities.
A federal district judge hearing the case ordered Mr. Arpaio in 2011 to stop detaining people based solely on suspicion of their immigration status, when there was no evidence that a state law had been broken. But the sheriff insisted that his tactics were legal and that he would continue employing them.
He was convicted last month of criminal contempt of court for defying the order, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.
==========================
Ok, Wilderness, what guidelines?
If the Sheriff was operating under HIS guidelines, the court said that it was not appropriate. Also, why is it that any court that does not spew forth right wing edicts otherwise 'politically motivated'?
He defied a court order to cease and desist, why do you continue to sugar coat this matter?
He is not an immigration officer, he could only detain people based on probable cause that a violation of state law or city ordinance had been broken. He should keep his damnable suspicions to himself.
Just because I or anyone else does not like him does not give him authority break the law as defined by the court.
I don't care about either the old man Sheriff or the pardon.
But, Trump in not acknowledging that a law has been broken, and the court order not complied with, he becomes complicit in the attitude that one may consider oneself as "above the law"
Also, this will enamor Trump among the Hispanics and the Black Community as one who has no problem with the concept racial profiling, just another nail in his coffin.I refer to Arizona state law SB1070. Some comments on that law:
"Furthermore, they require 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."
"More importantly, the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text implies that law enforcement must not consider race, national origin, or color when enforcing these provisions..."
"The law explicitly states that law enforcement officers cannot stop an individual because of suspicion of unlawful activity, rather than because of national origin, race, or color. "
http://immigration.laws.com/arizona-immigration-law
Some of the training requirements for police, concerning that law:
"Lack of identification
Possession of foreign identification
Flight from police
Voluntary statements (of a person not in custody for Miranda purposes)
Foreign vehicle registration
Being in the company of other unlawfully present aliens
Being in a location known for unlawfully present aliens
Being in an overcrowded vehicle
Inability to provide an address
Dress
Demeanor (unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact)
Significant difficulty communicating in English"
<nowhere in that list will you find that race is an acceptable reason for suspicion>
"Police should be able to justify any questioning about status under the guidelines: "Officers must be able to list the specific facts and circumstances that lead them to suspect that the person is unlawfully present. It is the totality of the circumstances that determines whether there is reasonable suspicion."
"Not all of these elements are necessary to prove reasonable suspicion. They are not the only elements," said Villaseñor."
"The statewide law enforcement training center produced the 90-minute video and training documents for distribution to all Arizona police agencies. The SB 1070 training course was released to the public on Thursday morning."
"In establishing whether reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and unlawfully present, the officer may consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including:
Lack of identification (if otherwise required by law)
Possession of foreign identification
Flight and/or preparation for flight
Engaging in evasive maneuvers, in vehicle, on foot, etc.
Voluntary statements by the person regarding his or her citizenship or unlawful presence Note that if the person is in custody for purposes of Miranda, he or she may not be questioned about immigration status until after the reading and waiver of Miranda rights.
Foreign vehicle registration
Counter-surveillance or lookout activity
In company of other unlawfully present aliens
Location, including for example: A place where unlawfully present aliens are known to congregate looking for work A location known for human smuggling or known smuggling routes
Traveling in tandem
Vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily
Passengers in vehicle attempt to hide or avoid detection
Prior information about the person
Inability to provide his or her residential address
Claim of not knowing others in same vehicle or at same location
Providing inconsistent or illogical information
Dress
Demeanor - for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact
Significant difficulty communicating in English"
<Again, nowhere do we find that race is cause for suspicion>
Personally I find nothing whatsoever "racist" in any of this; indeed the law and the intent goes to considerable length NOT to be racist even though the vast majority of illegals in Arizona are Hispanic. Yet the courts decided, in a purely political decision, that it WAS racist and ordered Arpaio not to follow state law. Which he declined to do and was convicted of contempt as a result.
I would also point out that EVERY pardon refuses to acknowledge that a law was broken, yet somehow Trump is the only president that "becomes complicit in the attitude that one may consider oneself as "above the law". Your prejudice of the GOP is showing, badly. As it does in the next statement that blacks and Hispanics will accept the pardon as racist, as that is completely irrelevant to giving pardon for contempt of a court order not to follow state law.Two things, this one you said above: "Guidelines were made, requiring much more than "merely" looking Hispanic, and did not even mention race..."
Obviously, you have not read any of the complaints or what he was actually doing - unapologetically. Like I said earlier, do a search on some of them if you don't like the link I included here. FIND OUT exactly what this guy was doing for so many people to be so mad at this situation right now - yet another situation (I will remind you) where politicians on BOTH SIDES of the political isle, including his own GOP party, are upset.
"I would also point out that EVERY pardon refuses to acknowledge that a law was broken"
That is totally wrong - dang! It is an acknowledgement that a law WAS broken; BUT they are being pardoned despite it for whatever reason.
DEFINITION of PARDON: the action of forgiving or being forgiven for an error or offense; forgive or excuse (a person, error, or offense)."hat is totally wrong - dang! It is an acknowledgement that a law WAS broken; BUT they are being pardoned despite it for whatever reason."
But that post was written in response to: "But, Trump in not acknowledging that a law has been broken, and the court order not complied with, he becomes complicit in the attitude that one may consider oneself as "above the law" as if giving a pardon always makes the POTUS complicit in the crime. It doesn't.
"Obviously, you have not read any of the complaints or what he was actually doing - unapologetically."
But you would deny pardon because of something else that was (allegedly) done, that had nothing to do with the crime he was convicted for. I said before that I'm mostly against pardons, but this one seems at least half way reasonable. The man refused an order that was based on politics, an order to ignore state law in favor of political maneuvering and an absolutely trumped up claim of racism. And because of that, if there was ever a man deserving a pardon, he's the one. He may be guilty of the sin of other things, but they should not impact on his being pardoned for such a "crime" as he was charged with.
I refer to Arizona state law SB1070. Some comments on that law:
"Furthermore, they require 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."
"More importantly, the Arizona immigration law SB1070 text implies that law enforcement must not consider race, national origin, or color when enforcing these provisions..."
"The law explicitly states that law enforcement officers cannot stop an individual because of suspicion of unlawful activity, rather than because of national origin, race, or color. "
http://immigration.laws.com/arizona-immigration-law
Some of the training requirements for police, concerning that law:
"Lack of identification
Possession of foreign identification
Flight from police
Voluntary statements (of a person not in custody for Miranda purposes)
Foreign vehicle registration
Being in the company of other unlawfully present aliens
Being in a location known for unlawfully present aliens
Being in an overcrowded vehicle
Inability to provide an address
Dress
Demeanor (unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact)
Significant difficulty communicating in English"
<nowhere in that list will you find that race is an acceptable reason for suspicion>
"Police should be able to justify any questioning about status under the guidelines: "Officers must be able to list the specific facts and circumstances that lead them to suspect that the person is unlawfully present. It is the totality of the circumstances that determines whether there is reasonable suspicion."
"Not all of these elements are necessary to prove reasonable suspicion. They are not the only elements," said Villaseñor."
"The statewide law enforcement training center produced the 90-minute video and training documents for distribution to all Arizona police agencies. The SB 1070 training course was released to the public on Thursday morning."
"In establishing whether reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and unlawfully present, the officer may consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including:
Lack of identification (if otherwise required by law)
Possession of foreign identification
Flight and/or preparation for flight
Engaging in evasive maneuvers, in vehicle, on foot, etc.
Voluntary statements by the person regarding his or her citizenship or unlawful presence Note that if the person is in custody for purposes of Miranda, he or she may not be questioned about immigration status until after the reading and waiver of Miranda rights.
Foreign vehicle registration
Counter-surveillance or lookout activity
In company of other unlawfully present aliens
Location, including for example: A place where unlawfully present aliens are known to congregate looking for work A location known for human smuggling or known smuggling routes
Traveling in tandem
Vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily
Passengers in vehicle attempt to hide or avoid detection
Prior information about the person
Inability to provide his or her residential address
Claim of not knowing others in same vehicle or at same location
Providing inconsistent or illogical information
Dress
Demeanor - for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic behavior, refusal to make eye contact
Significant difficulty communicating in English"
<Again, nowhere do we find that race is cause for suspicion>
Personally I find nothing whatsoever "racist" in any of this; indeed the law and the intent goes to considerable length NOT to be racist even though the vast majority of illegals in Arizona are Hispanic. Yet the courts decided, in a purely political decision, that it WAS racist and ordered Arpaio not to follow state law. Which he declined to do and was convicted of contempt as a result.
-------------
I KNOW that YOU find nothing racist in it.....
With all the possibilities of what is defined as reasonable suspicion, above, it gives cops the ability to stop any one any time they want and the so called prohibition against racial profiling in the law is just fluff and bull shyte. The power to intercept citizens for virtually any reason is there, saying that no discrimation is allowed is just like saying 'put your hand on a hot stove, but you are ordered not to burn'.
--------------------
I would also point out that EVERY pardon refuses to acknowledge that a law was broken, yet somehow Trump is the only president that "becomes complicit in the attitude that one may consider oneself as "above the law".
As MC mentioned earlier, your definition of "pardon" is incorrect.
--------------
Your prejudice of the GOP is showing, badly. As it does in the next statement that blacks and Hispanics will accept the pardon as racist, as that is completely irrelevant to giving pardon for contempt of a court order not to follow state law.
No, it is not irrelevant, what was the basis of the pardon and the offense involved?"I KNOW that YOU find nothing racist in it"
Just as I recognize that you will find overt racism by every caucasian in the country, and for every imagined slight or action. Perhaps you should go back and re-read a little, particularly the quote "It is the totality of the circumstances that determines whether there is reasonable suspicion". Which clearly takes it away from what you'd like to claim - that if any one of that long list fits then there is a reasonable suspicion. Driving a Mexican registered car isn't suspicion, and neither is being where illegal aliens gather to find work. But both, combined with attempts to run, no address, previous information and an inability to speak English IS. And it doesn't matter one whit that the suspect is Hispanic or any other race. A group of Asians exhibiting these characteristics should raise a flag in any competent cop.
When you learn that your built in prejudice and perception does not necessarily agree with reality, that NOT everything that degrades or persecutes blacks and there can actually be reasons with no connection to racism you will have come a long way."No, it is not irrelevant, what was the basis of the pardon and the offense involved?"
How the devil would I know? Consult your mind reading crystal ball and you can tell all of us. Except that I do know (I think) that it was the offense of contempt of a court's orders - orders that were based on the non-existent racism in Arizona laws."orders that were based on the non-existent racism in Arizona laws."
DUH!!!
That is the POINT - he broke AZ's non-racist AZ laws, over & over & over again.
He was going to jail over contempt of court issues because he CONTINUED his obviously-racial profiling instead of abiding by the court's order to FOLLOW AZ'S EXISTING LAWS!!!
What the hell else can be said?! How many times do I have to suggest that you GO READ THE COMPLAINTS against him? There was an official lawsuit BEFORE he got contempt of court thrown at him - go read the stories of those people who brought that lawsuit against him.
"if we did we would have had it decades ago"
You're kidding, right?
Since WHEN does this country have ALL the most basic things it needs WHILE the two main political parties FIGHT about how to do them, why to do them, and how much money to put towards it?!!
This is not the first time building a border wall has been brought up in Congress.
They have always fought about everything and nothing gets done - and they also have always blamed each other, using that 'blame' to win/lose elections INSTEAD of putting their energies toward ACTUALLY figuring out the solutions this country needs.
I am seriously thinking about starting a #ProtestTheVote campaign when the next GOP & Dem candidates start running for their parties for postus. That would make BOTH parties heads reel and put a serious kink in their dysfunctional agendas. I'd like to think it would give them all a wake-up-call to rethink how they do politics and manipulate 'we the people' from one extreme to the other - while they ALL continue to FAIL. (Fyi - I am about as UNHAPPY with Elizabeth Warren's latest speech as I am with Trump, LoL!)
I just don't know if I want to expend that much energy toward it, LoL!The hope, for a great many people, is that the election of Trump has already sent the message that we think the political policies of both parties stink. Although Trump is labeled GOP, he is almost as far from that party as the Democratic one.
That, and the absolute disgrace that the Dem's produced as a candidate, is why I voted for him, and I don't think I was alone. It is long, long past time that our "representatives" performed the task they were elected for and if they continue to refuse to do so then "We the People" will find someone else. Trump will (probably) not be the person we need, but he can't do any worse than we've seen from Congress for decades.I totally believe everything you just said here... The difference between what you 'think' you have accomplished; and what you have actually accomplished are somewhat different. While you HAVE accomplished 'letting politicians know' that you are unhappy with whatever - Trump has basically turned you into a 'group of deplorables' to be ignored, like politicians are starting to try to ignore him, now. Neither Ryan nor McConnell will ever do anything to try and rid the country of this divisive jerk - they will continue to try and give the appearance that all GOP are on a united front, no matter what - while ignoring their own conscious (along with 'the majority' of the people in this country) regarding him.
I love reminding people that Obama was elected in 2008 for the same exact reasons you voted Trump in this time (he even defeated 'the favorite' Hillary)... Dems had a LOT of #NeverObamas in their midst, they just didn't come up with such a catchy hashtag; and their 'oddball' candidate didn't talk at the American people and stir up hard feelings & HATE like Trump does - that would be a big difference between them.
If Trump had stepped into that office and become what you were hoping for him to become - things would be different; but he didn't - same 'ol divisive crap every damn day! What few successes he has accomplished PALE in comparison to how much stink he as caused across our beloved country!
And the GOP allows all the BS to continue as MUCH as the Dems do... Nothing is different this time around (although I am HAPPY that there are supposedly some bipartisan talks going on regarding healthcare, now - FINALLY!!!).
Trump has changed things for the better, I totally agree... Not because he was a good candidate for potus; but because he has inspired such an incredible, collective 'push' against how bad for us (as a collective representative of us all) that he has been.
'Bad' always inspires good - eventually, when we get sick of it and start to motivate ourselves to do something about it... that is just one simple concept within the Universal Law of Attraction. Growing from this 'bad' experience in some 'good' way is inevidable for us all - but, we aren't all necessarily 'learning' the same lessons.
A good example is this new #ProtestTheVote idea that Trump and his supporters have 'inspired' - New forum post titled, All Opinions Wanted: is #ProtestTheVote for next POTUS a good idea?
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1427 … ost2908360Obama was elected because he was not one of the political crowd? Because he was never a politician? Because he had no political pull anywhere? Because his chosen party was solidly behind him? Now that's a quaint notion!
As far as all the "deplorables" that voted GOP; I suppose we are...to a group that likes the political status quo, that hates the idea of anything conservative, that hates Donald Trump with a passion that precludes the idea that some good could come of his ideas or actions, that takes offense at anything Trump says without regard to truth or meaning. Yes, the rest of us are definitely "deplorable". It's a catchy phrase that fits will into the name calling category and raises ire and emotions rather than using fact and reason. Most common in today's political discussions, yes?
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.
"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.
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."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.Gosh, but that is another long damn conversation between us - and we've had it a few times, I know. Let's stick to the current topic.
Just poking a stick, that's all!
You keep asking for what you found impossible, knowing that no one else could do it either. As if failure to do the impossible somehow leaves blame behind.
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.
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.
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#commentsFunny 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
McCain has no credibility left after what he did to undermine the repeal of the ACA...
- Will Apseposted 7 years ago
0Oscar 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. Your comparison is not even close. Joe and terrorist are not in the same camp.
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.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.pdfTurning 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."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 AMERICANSMaybe 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 RACISTThis 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"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...Maybe dem did criticize YEARS ago when it happened. Quit distracting with whataboutism as if 2 wrongs make a right
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.
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.I reported this comment as hate speech. Because it is a disgrace.
See how it goes.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?
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.
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.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...Just because you enjoy wearing pink underwear doesn't mean the rest of us do.
"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
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/
From thee tweets you can tell Joe Arpao, born 1932, is a real villainous character.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realsheriffjoeGood luck to the new sheriff: Paul Penzone. Hope he can keep crime down as much as Joe did.
- Onusonusposted 7 years ago0
Did he release a bunch of Al-qaeda terrorists from Gitmo? No? Still not the worst...
... 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.
YRFUBARLink, 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).
You disagreeing with a judge is not my kuleani. Go argue with the judge. Smh
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.
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- Will Apseposted 7 years ago0
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.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/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.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.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/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.
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?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.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.One would think that makes perfect sense.
This I agree with: http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/blac … -they-want
This I do not: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Er … 05731.html
As of right now, I cannot see the good in BLM so long as they are tied in any way to the chanting, calling for, or acting out murdering of police.
They have been around for more than a generation or two, and they have been really successful haven't they?
Here is the difference between you and I, I say they are a hate group, a bunch of extremists, and I don't make excuses for them. I also point out who is behind making them 'big news' rather than minimizing them and treating them like the very small minority of people, without any real power, that they are.
You defend and support BLM, and you feel justified in doing so... me, I would want nothing to do with any group that is marching around calling for the murdering of Police, and the acting out of such.
And I would say, you have shown me that you are one of 'THEM' someone willing to accept and support any extremism, any evil, to achieve your 'goal' be that retribution for past crimes on past generations, or achieving a superior position over those you felt have held a superior position over 'your race'... whatever you want to see it as, or label it... yes in the end it just means you are a dupe to those who have always pitted one group of people against the other.
United we stand, divided we fall... as a nation when 'we the people' fall, it isn't the international corporations or banks that will be hurt, it is Mr. Average American. It will be our children's lives, and their children that pay the price for the social upheaval and economic decline being fostered upon us.
Look I get that you don't want to see it, its a hard thing to wrap your head around, its a far bigger, far more problematic issue to try and tackle than say, a few fringe extremist yahoos who think they are 'superior' because of their skin color.You have been shafted by the rich and you blame the Mexicans or the Blacks or the Muslims, lol.
Racism is pretty much the only thing the far right have to offer people. The far right will not give you a better life. Or more opportunities. Or a better wage. The right wing impulse to scapegoat and lash out will certainly not bring you any happiness.
All the right can offer is a target for the rage that right wing policies inevitably bring. Unfortunately, the sadistic thrill of targeting vulnerable minorities fades fast.
It is such a neat, self-supporting package. Without a glimmer of hope or any opportunity to escape...You are so very wrong Will. What (we on the Right) care about is; our Founding Documents, not being trampled on, Government staying out of our way, so that we can make a decent living for our ourselves and our families, a strong military and first responders, seeing that we are safe as we self-sufficiently go about our daily business.
Yesterday, last night, today, tomorrow, next week.....for as long as it takes... (the Right) along with (the Left) will be out with our trucks and our boats, not caring about the money we are not making. Not seeing skin color, but only fellow Americans suffering. We'll be doing, as we always do, when anyone in the world is suffering, donating; food, money, shelter, OUR TIME! That is how we roll!!
Enough!
I'm sorry that you see horns when you see me, should probably get your eyes checked.
God Bless and Keep all of those impacted by this horrendous storm.
God Bless and Keep the United States of America!You are in your own delusional little world if you extrapolate from anything I have typed 'my blaming Mexicans, Blacks and Muslims' for being 'shafted'.
Here is an interesting video, I will let this intelligent articulate woman explain what is really going on, and what happened to her, its quite interesting... might even be relevant to your 'comment'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085u0NnAgjAYou equate BLM with cop killers. That just makes you a typical racist.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the end of exploring the psychological wasteland that led to the election of Trump.
Right wing populism in the US is just as tawdry, sad and misguided as it is in any other part of the world.In response to left progressive policies of Barack Obama, the common people saw the light, held their nose and voted for some one who stands up for America. - Trump.
Like him or not, he is reversing the downward slide under Obama for the last 8 years.
If that is racist in your mind, too bad.
It is not the perception that matters but reality.The "common" people as you call them have nothing in "common" with the one they held their noses and voted for, Jack. Trump has never had to do anything laborious in his life except perhaps, reaching up a skirt or two. LOL!
I would suggest you do so. The reason why he is there is because of you and people like you, but mostly because of the continued support given to a corrupt government and their One World government efforts by you and those like you rather than holding them accountable for their lies and deceit.
No, BLM equates itself with cop killers... in their actions, deeds, and words. The willingly ignorant can turn away from it and call me whatever they want, but it doesn't change the facts, and it is there for anyone to see if they want to see the reality.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … s-n1934308
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/polic … s-shooting
http://www.eurweb.com/2016/07/5-police- … m-protest/
One would think that makes perfect sense.
This I agree with: http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/blac … -they-want
This I do not: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Er … 05731.html
I agree with your assessment of the differing sites, but to think that a few chanting men, represents the foundation and the principles behind BLM is bizarre. I think that the 10 points are exactly what all of US want. I think that it is not asking much. There are plenty on the Right that would take the one extreme and tragic situation as a basis to squash the entire concept, just what they have always wanted? There has been plenty of BLM protests around the country, why focus on one tragedy thinking it is the rule rather than the exception? Mc Veigh was a White Nationalist who killed hundreds of people, it doesn't take much, sounds pretty successful to me. BLM has not even begun to approach this level of mayhem, right?
=======================================
They have been around for more than a generation or two, and they have been really successful haven't they?
Here is the difference between you and I, I say they are a hate group, a bunch of extremists, and I don't make excuses for them. I also point out who is behind making them 'big news' rather than minimizing them and treating them like the very small minority of people, without any real power, that they are.
I need to make sure that they STAY unsuccessful by not underestimating them. Because within my lifetime they were pretty successful in intimidating entire communities. With Trump in office and considering the current political climate, who is to say that a resurgence is not possible?
=======================================
You defend and support BLM, and you feel justified in doing so... me, I would want nothing to do with any group that is marching around calling for the murdering of Police, and the acting out of such.
As you ask me to do in regards to the white nationalist, you can do in recognizing that a few chanting men does not undermine the principles and the need for the movement.
================================
You are coming off as one of THEM, eloquent and reasonable sounding, all the same. I am not worried about Soros and the relative purity of the Left in today's times.
=========================
Did not mean to intimidate you in this regard, but the very nature of evil and extremism also has the ability to misdirect and confused those who are its victims.
I saw this article in Forbes magazine, a mainstream and responsible business publication.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma … 989a5d5b61
You and others that are Trump supporters talk some sort of apocalypse that his being in office is supposed to help prevent. I don't have to look at hypotheticals and deep state, and 'globalist stuff' to see that Trump is screwing the middle and working classes over, today, here and now. It is not pie in the sky, but as real as the computer I am typing on. So where do you think my concerns are going to be directed?
=================================
And I would say, you have shown me that you are one of 'THEM' someone willing to accept and support any extremism, any evil, to achieve your 'goal' be that retribution for past crimes on past generations, or achieving a superior position over those you felt have held a superior position over 'your race'... whatever you want to see it as, or label it... yes in the end it just means you are a dupe to those who have always pitted one group of people against the other.
We are just trying to maintain parity and not lose in areas where progress has come at such a high price. Why do you put Trump on some sort of pedestal, the plutocrat of plutocrats, as he is not on his OWN SIDE and that side is malevolent for most of the people?
==============================================
United we stand, divided we fall... as a nation when 'we the people' fall, it isn't the international corporations or banks that will be hurt, it is Mr. Average American. It will be our children's lives, and their children that pay the price for the social upheaval and economic decline being fostered upon us.
We have the same goal, get after the people and institutions that are dividing us as a people, but do really think that Trump and his entourage is representative of that? The difference is that I don't believe that is the case.
=============================================
Look I get that you don't want to see it, its a hard thing to wrap your head around, its a far bigger, far more problematic issue to try and tackle than say, a few fringe extremist yahoos who think they are 'superior' because of their skin color.
Not at all, where is the definitive proof that Trumpism is really going to benefit the man in the street, besides all the theoretical postulations? It is a big problem when Trump and the yahoos who think they are superior are operating from the same playbook. That is new and different for any administration in modern times.
Thanks, Ken..I agree, the extremes of the 'right' are more than happy to take any action by the extremes of the 'left' and try and raise holy heck about it. And hence keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
I happen to feel too many of the acts BLM has been associated with have become violent, even deadly... similar to Charleston, but the amount of public chastising and denouncing for those acts have not been the same, and the hate speech and biased statements from BLM are tolerated even given a platform, where the WP/KKK types are not.
And no, I am not asking you to see 'white nationalists' in a positive, or even acceptable light.
And I would appreciate it if you would stop with the "you put Trump on some sort of pedestal" "you are one of them" generalizations.
There is a difference between my understanding WHY tens of millions of hard working, screwed over Americans went and voted for him. There is a difference between even me HOPING he has a fair amount of success in exposing and draining the swamp, and me putting Trump on a pedestal, or me being a staunch supporter.
Now if you said that I empathize with, and even defend the position of 'Trumpsters', that may be much closer to hitting the target. In the same way you support BLM, but I doubt you are advocating the random murder of police, which some of 'them' are indeed advocating.
I don't want to get sucked into the us VS them, I'm not going to support one extremist group over another, I try and redirect people to focusing on Congress, on corruption, on the real causes of our strife and struggles.
I have to laugh sometimes at the generalizations slung at me by people on here that have no clue, not meaning you so much as others. The thought process must be something like: "He's a white guy, he seems to be defending Trump, he's a racist sexist pig!"
I guess that depends on what qualifies a person in their opinion. For some just being a man is enough to condemn the person. For others its just being white. And right now, not declaring Trump the greatest threat to humanity that ever lived, means I am one of 'them' to many people.
I have traveled all over the world, got along wonderfully in countries like Egypt, Korea, Israel and Panama. One thing I am confident about, the 'Hispanic migrant crisis' is not a threat to our country, but the millions of workers streaming into the country ARE a threat to unemployed 'blue collar' Americans being able to fill those jobs themselves.
See I see that side of it too... if illegals are filling 100,000 construction jobs in the nation, that is 100,000 Americans that could be working that are not, they are left to struggle and stew because the people running the country aren't serving their interests, they are serving the interests of the corporations, and billionaire social experimenters who want to redesign the world to suit their interests.
I'm not a racist, just an American that thinks in terms of what is best for the Nation, its people, and the prosperity and opportunity that will be available for my children.... I agree, the extremes of the 'right' are more than happy to take any action by the extremes of the 'left' and try and raise holy heck about it. And hence keep us fighting amongst ourselves.
It is also a tendency of the right to try to equate the murderous white nationalists, KKK or Nazis with the BLM. All one has to do is look at the body counts between the groups to be convinced. White nationalists killing of hundreds of people in a single heinous act, (April, 1995) make BLM look like amateurs. I don’t see the voices of a few men chanting as having anything to do with the organization objectives or the goals of BLM which are admirable and long overdue.
=====================================
I happen to feel too many of the acts BLM has been associated with have become violent, even deadly... similar to Charleston, but the amount of public chastising and denouncing for those acts have not been the same, and the hate speech and biased statements from BLM are tolerated even given a platform, where the WP/KKK types are not.
And no, I am not asking you to see 'white nationalists' in a positive, or even acceptable light.
And I would appreciate it if you would stop with the "you put Trump on some sort of pedestal" "you are one of them" generalizations.
--
Who is a greater cheerleader for Trump than you? He could shoot the Pope and it seems that you would find some way to justify or excuse it. That is my observation following you around on varied threads.
==================================================================
There is a difference between my understanding WHY tens of millions of hard working, screwed over Americans went and voted for him. There is a difference between even me HOPING he has a fair amount of success in exposing and draining the swamp, and me putting Trump on a pedestal, or me being a staunch supporter.
You are in for a big disappointment.
========================================================
Now if you said that I empathize with, and even defend the position of 'Trumpsters', that may be much closer to hitting the target. In the same way you support BLM, but I doubt you are advocating the random murder of police, which some of 'them' are indeed advocating.
Like I said I don’t see the chanting as a threat compared to a history of murder and mayhem from the white supremacist groups.
=================================
I don't want to get sucked into the us VS them, I'm not going to support one extremist group over another, I try and redirect people to focusing on Congress, on corruption, on the real causes of our strife and struggles.
I have to laugh sometimes at the generalizations slung at me by people on here that have no clue, not meaning you so much as others. The thought process must be something like: "He's a white guy, he seems to be defending Trump, he's a racist sexist pig!"
I guess that depends on what qualifies a person in their opinion. For some just being a man is enough to condemn the person. For others its just being white. And right now, not declaring Trump the greatest threat to humanity that ever lived, means I am one of 'them' to many people.
I have traveled all over the world, got along wonderfully in countries like Egypt, Korea, Israel and Panama. One thing I am confident about, the 'Hispanic migrant crisis' is not a threat to our country, but the millions of workers streaming into the country ARE a threat to unemployed 'blue collar' Americans being able to fill those jobs themselves.
See I see that side of it too... if illegals are filling 100,000 construction jobs in the nation, that is 100,000 Americans that could be working that are not, they are left to struggle and stew because the people running the country aren't serving their interests, they are serving the interests of the corporations, and billionaire social experimenters who want to redesign the world to suit their interests.
===================================
I have a revelation here, Ken. What is this whole immigration thing but just more race baiting theatre from Trump? I mean you and Wilderness have made the point. Why all this fuss about immigration, while harassing brown skinned men for effect? Trump has been doing this race baiting thing to Hispanics and other minority groups as part of his campaign. If he is so tough on the topic of illegal immigrants, where are the penalties to be meted out to all those employers who are hiring the 100,000 illegals for construction jobs? Instead of blaming the people looking for work, blame the people that hire them. Trump is part of this, this is the way he does business worldwide, having his work done for virtually slave labor around the world. It certainly is not Soros, but it is the basic idea of undermining the wages of American workers by looking the other way when the perpetrators are standing right in front of us. Who is behind that besides the corporate class,(the Right) of which Trump is a part? This is pure rightwing, absolutely pure.
==================
I'm not a racist, just an American that thinks in terms of what is best for the Nation, its people, and the prosperity and opportunity that will be available for my children...
Of course you are not a racist, never thought that, but it is just that I also, as an American, have a different basis for what is best for the Nation, its people and the prosperity and opportunity that will be available for my progeny, (Have no children)The first is based unfortunately on partial information, yes when it was between Trump and Clinton, I was an advocate. When it is Trump vs the media, or Congress, I am usually coming to the defense... often because the issue is offensive.
Just for an example, when we have decades long politicians standing in Congress and calling him a White Supremacist and calling for his impeachment (Waters & Pelosi) in his first week in office, its so over the top, people in the media calling for him to be murdered, showing no professionalism or respect... so I can see why I could appear to be his biggest fan.
But you also seem to ignore the times when I have said I would have latched onto Condoleezza Rice and busted my butt to see her elected, as an example. Sometimes there is a right time, and a right place, for certain people... and 2016 was a great time and place for Rice, for her experience in International Affairs, D.C. and life experiences.
----
The second, I have said this time and again, to solve the problem of over-immigration, simply enforce the laws on the companies that are hiring them by the thousands, and take away the illegal immigration welfare and support by removing access via 'anchor-baby' benefits.
This is why I try and redirect, the problem is with Congress, it always has been... and I have always pointed this out. The Mortgage/Recession on '07 ... Congress... Glass Steagall. The calamity that the health care costs have become for so many Americans... Congress... the Affordable Care Act... written by the Insurance and Pharma companies to make themselves richer, at our expense. The stagnation in wages for the past 3 decades... Congress... NAFTA, CAFTA, no Tariffs on China's products, etc.
----
The third, having kids changes everything, for those who are involved and caring parents anyways, not all are. It is a heck of a lot easier to discuss/champion social upheavals and the reconstruction of civilization when all you have to do is worry about yourself. Stability, consistency and long term dependability become far more important when you have children and you consider their future."Why all this fuss about immigration, while harassing brown skinned men for effect?"
Back to the race thing, eh? Drop it Credence; the whole planet is not about picking on brown (or black or yellow or red or white) people. Nobody is "baiting brown skinned men" by wanting an end to illegal occupation of our country. You can try to turn it into that because the majority of illegals are brown skinned, but it isn't and never was about race. It's about people, white, brown, red, yellow, green or purple that have decided the law doesn't apply to them; that they can violate it with impunity.
I wish I could retract my previous reply, and just present this link instead. I would say this woman is advocating my positions on the matter of discussion fairly well. I know you can't see one bit of logic or fact that I present because in your eyes I am one of 'them'... maybe you will be able to grasp her telling it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQXW2Ob1PU
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S2TZOdXAtQ
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)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'.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.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.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?
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.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.
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.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?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...
ABwilliams, I agree with you completely! I know there are more people like us and I hope they begin speaking up and being heard!
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?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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!)
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.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.
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.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.
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?
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?
GAI 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
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.
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.
GAI 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.
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.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...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'.
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.
GAHi 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/"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."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.
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.
GAYou 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.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!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."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."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.
This approach of the immigration debate is where the pressure points belong. Trump is supposed to be tough on immigration, why don't I hear more about this most sensible approach from him? We agree, hit the employers in such a way, that the consequences can easily put them out of business. There is no claim for racism, because those that have no identification and are caught trying to obtain a job or drivers' license without possessing a valid Social Security number can be considered as providing probable cause for law enforcement supporting the fact that they are here illegally. I am not discriminating and rounding up brown skin people merely because of the possibility that they are here illegally, but those proven illegal aliens, who just happen to be Hispanic. It does not discriminate, if a Swede fails to present the proper identification to support his citizenship, then he or she is subject to arrest and deportation. NOW, it has nothing to do with color. That is the difference. I am after illegal aliens, not brown skinned people(because they are not necessarily the same) and our detection techniques needs to be that of a snipers bullet and not a shotgun. I would not make a fuss about that. I also wrote an article on the subject, btw.
================================================================
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.
I am denying jobs to those that cannot properly document on an application information that supports their being a citizen of the United States and without having any other provision (green card) supporting their being here legally. So, I am not denying jobs to Hispanics, but to illegal aliens. That is the difference.
- Will Apseposted 7 years ago0
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.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.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.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...
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!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.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.
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
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.htmlBut 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.
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:
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.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.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.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.
Oh. Then the sheriff didn't do any torture in spite of the claim he did.
But...link please, showing a conviction for torturing people to death? Because if they did they are surely in jail!
(A search for Norberg reveals "Norberg is a locality and the seat of Norberg Municipality in Västmanland County, Sweden " and "Johan Norberg is a Swedish author and historian, devoted to promoting economic globalization and... " but I don't think either one is what your information is giving you.)Who said he was convicted? I never did. He has escaped prosecution because he destroys evidence or pays out huge settlements.
And I think I'm done with you. You're just a troll. Any idiot could type in Norberg and Arpaio and see that there was an 8.25 million dollar settlement paid out in the brutal death. Read the details, it was a clear case of torture by the MCSO.A settlement does not mean guilt, as I'm sure you know. Especially when it wasn't even paid by the person you claim was guilty! You'd like to think so, and you will certainly present it as so, but it often doesn't. But even more than that, it doesn't even begin to address that Arpaio was guilty of anything in spite of your claim he is guilty of torture.
I found something written by "overthrow Arpaio". Is that your source? And something else, by a free rag calling itself the "Phoenix New Times" and publishing grossly exaggerated and spun crap. Is that your source?
Valeant, you don't seem to understand what constitutes proof, using anything on the internet you can find that you agree with and then refusing to produce it (because you know it's worthless?). When you make the claim that Arpaio participated in torture, ordered torture or actually had anything at all to do with torture, you really need solid proof. Not some website or free rag that exists on position statements and editorials. And certainly not a slanderous statement that he escapes prosecution because he destroys evidence, which you also can't prove!
This kind of thing is why I've drug my feet on accepting the evils of Arpaio as truth. I've seen a lot of them here, but so far not a single person has produced anything even approaching fact that can back them up. Including you. And, just maybe, it's why I and others have commented that we can't find anything either - because it doesn't exist.There's more to the story if you dig deeper. Why did the autopsy x-rays disappear? Why did Norberg's Larynx disappear? His Larynx! Turns out one of the guards kicked him there and they destroyed the evidence in violation of their own regulations.
And look at the body and all the bruises, the photos are out there, and try and tell me he wasn't tortured to death.
This situation is the Department of Justice trying to halt these human rights violations under Arpaio. And Arpaio stubbornly continuing with business as usual which had led to many deaths.
And who pays out $8.25 million dollars when someone is not culpable? You really trying to insinuate that the MCSO wasn't liable? 'My guards did nothing wrong,' claimed Arpaio. The policies of that department have led to this death and so many others. So much so that they have had to pay out $43 million dollars in settlements. That's called culpability.
And then there's Brian Crenshaw. $2 million dollar settlement where the digital video disappeared and the injuries were inconsistent with the story. It was concluded that he was beaten to death. He was legally blind and mentally disabled. His crime - shoplifting. He was beaten to death because he shoplifted.
The more I research, the more vile I find those that can defend the pardoning of a man that ran his department in such a manner. Deaths from beatings, suicides, and exposure to the elements. Failure to investigate sexual abuse claims.Only Trump voters can totally disregard the crimes committed by this man.
Unfortunately, the only "crime" I can see so far is that of contempt of a court order. Nothing else, not a single claim of criminal activity, has shown to be true. I was truly interested, given the uproar that he has caused now and in the past, but have found nothing but empty claims and really stupid web sites by people that hate the man.
Sorry dude, I thought contempt of court WAS a crime. My bad...so why was he pardoned? Unfortunate for whom?
Unfortunately I haven't found anywhere to dig and all my requests for information are ignored while more empty, unproven claims are made. And here are yet more, still without a shred of evidence; just empty claims that you refuse to prove.
But I'll try just once more. "And who pays out $8.25 million dollars when someone is not culpable? You really trying to insinuate that the MCSO wasn't liable?"
I didn't say he wasn't guilty, I didn't say anything at all about MCSO. All I've said is that his guilt is unproven, and it most certainly is. But you have said he was guilty and offer as proof that the county chose to settle a court claim. I said before that settlements are made every day, without admission of guilt, but you continue to claim it IS just such an admission. It isn't, and all you cries of "who else makes settlements" just doesn't carry any water. I'll also repeat that your guesses, your insinuations, your assumptions; none of these are proof of guilt. All the claims in the world aren't proof and all the really pathetic web sites making them aren't proof.
When you have proof, come back. But don't bother to come with an assumption that informants were paid off, that mafia tactics were used to intimidate witnesses or that court settlements prove guilt. They don't cut it in court and they don't cut it with me. Think, think hard, about just why OJ Simpson was declared innocent in a criminal trial (but not a civil one) and then apply that concept to Arpaio. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and from a unanimous decision of 12 people, not guilty because you think circumstantial evidence tends to point that way.
Criminal versus culpable. There are $43 million worth of examples of the MCSO being culpable of wrong doing that led to deaths. And many examples of them lying about it or destroying evidence that would likely prove the criminality portion.
You mean more settlements, I assume. I already mentioned that settlements are not admission of guilt.
As far as lying, prove it. And the same for destroying evidence. Show where someone was found guilty of that, that it would prove criminality and that the someone was Joe Arpaio. Or are you now accusing the entire county of criminal activity?
You do understand what culpable means, right? It means they were responsible for the deaths. If they weren't, there wouldn't be a money settlement.
I've never said they were criminally responsible. I've said they committed human rights violations that included the torture of prisoners. That fact, I think I've proved without a doubt by the culpable settlement judgements paid out to the families of the victims.
As for proof, it was proven in the Norberg case that they destroyed evidence. That's part of why the settlement was so large. And in the Crenshaw case, do you think the digital video walked away on its own?
You're so hung up with the criminality part. Are you saying you support the violation of a person's human rights and torture? Are you in favor of neglecting sexual abuse victims? Because your defense of this man certainly makes it appear that way. Are those things you stand for?Love is blind.
And Wilderness is smitten.
Old Joe...
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right.
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.
"Concentration style tent cities." Seriously?
Good grief. I'm out.That was a quote for Arapio himself. Good Grief - which state are you from? Not Arizona!
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.
"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.
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....
You may as well, how many almost nude Hispanics have you observed? All are not dark brown, but you probably didn't know that....
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.This is one of the few things we can agree on, Jack.
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!
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!
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.
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"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=1Apparently 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."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.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.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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"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!"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.
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...
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.
If you don't know, why did you make the claim? Braggadocio?
Because it is being investigated as you obviously are unaware of. Why would I brag on a buffoon getting caught in any lie? That's your department!
No, my department is calling people who make claims (Trump has business deals in Russia) that they can't support. Which I did.
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.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."
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".Randy, I got news for you. All politicians lie including the ones in your party...do you doubt that statement?
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.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").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.
"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!LOL! As if the SP cannot recognize when someone is "Probably guilty" enough to get an early morning, no knock, search warrant.
Not to mention the judge himself having to approve it..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.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...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 You said it better than I could. Thanks.
^^ GA has that flair, makes reading his posts an enjoyable exercise even if I am in disagreement with his position.
Not to say I am disagreeing with his position, on this he is spot on.
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.
"I don't mind if you guys take up for either Ole Joe or The Don."
Even after a clear description, you still missed the point by a country mile. Nobody's taking up for Joe or the President; they're taking up for truth and justice rather than unsupported opinion. The person involved, whether Joe, the President, Clinton or Charlie Brown is irrelevant - what matters is the propensity today to make allegations we cannot support and calling them "facts".I hope you were a Reagan fan Randy, 'cause this one is his most classic....
"There you go again..."
After all of that effort, wearing my poor hunt n' peck fingers to the nub on that comment. Straining my aged mind for just the right phrases that would promote clarity, and... here you are again saying "we" are defending "Ole Joe" and "The Don."
I am wore right out Randy, so it's your turn. Show me one of those statements of mine, (I am hesitant about sticking my neck out for Wilderness, (he's in Idaho, you know)), that is defending the Sheriff or The Don.
GAI don't know how involved you were in the Ole Joe discussion, I think I threw in a few sharp jabs, but apparently we see things a bit differently, about both Ole Joe and The Don. I seldom claim any news item or story will convict Trump, but to ignore the spaghetti trail of Russian fingers pointing at Trump is simply wrong. As for Joe, Trump is just ignorant about the pardoning process.
I use a person's past Presidential voting history to see how astute they are on any political view. Anyone who voted for Dubya--even once--I care not for their political views. If they voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, even worse. It seems every time a Republican President leaves office there's a mess to clean up, both environmentally and economically, ala the Dubya Recession Obama inherited.
As I said, I'm not saying there's proof of Trump's criminality.....yet. Sorry about your nubby fingers.I really don't mean this to be insulting, but if you think there was a difference between Gore and Bush, or Obama and McCain... I mean, REAL difference, change the direction the country is moving difference, you are far more in the dark than even your posts hint at.
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
I won't tell you who that is quoted above, an astute individual such as yourself should know. However it appears to me you are the very definition of what is being warned about.
Sadly, like so many that think as you do, you are blindly defending the very institutions that are constantly lying to you, and doing a vast amount of Americans wrong, against the very people trying to fight their wrongdoing and expose it.
I again, defer to someone who is far more articulate at laying out this message than I am:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWGUIjterF4I had respect for McCain, and still do, Ken. If it hadn't been for that dingbat Palin, I may have voted for him. Don't worry about insulting me Ken, I learn about people who insult me as much as I do about their voting history.
Randy, your use of one's voting record as a measure of their political astuteness is a measure I would not feel safe to use.
Besides the point that it requires assumptions only validated by whether or not they agree with your perspectives, it also requires a narrowness of interpretation that, I think, is more liable to error than understanding.
This will be my last lash to an already well-beaten horse, and I offer it good-naturedly, but I don't think I have offered enough evidence for you to conclude anything about my standings regarding the Sheriff or Pres. Trump.
GARandy Quote: "I use a person's past Presidential voting history to see how astute they are on any political view. Anyone who voted for Dubya--even once--I care not for their political views. If they voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, even worse."
I'd say 'astute' is too-harsh of a word to use; and this comment is not entirely accurate - for instance, I used to be a right-wing Conservative; and have voted for GOP candidates in the past based on dogmatic Christian reasoning. I would have LOVED Sarah Palin as a teenager, ha! I no longer vote like that, and haven't for years.
However, I can totally grasp this point of view... While I completely understand that some people actually voted for Trump just because his policy ideals agreed with theirs (or just to be spiteful) - most conservative folks who voted for Trump were from the same ilk as Sarah Palin fans (which does not automatically-include all Christians, many Christians do not view SP as being a spokesperson for them - kind of like not all Christian conservatives were for Trump. Reminder: #NeverTrump).
These types of people also really like 'strong' politically-motivated women like Michele Bachmann & Anne Coulter; as well as their beloved white, male pundits who like to twist things - such as Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck, etc. (I know that Liberals have their white, male pundits who like to twist things, too - stay with me here.)
If you have just met someone, and they reveal themselves as 'being an admirer' of people with their (Michelle, Anne, Rush's, etc.) ideals - it is pretty easy for me to determine that I don't have a very good shot of developing a very good relationship with that person. And, I feel really REALLY sorry for any Moderate or Liberal (or whatever) who is already in a personal relationship - either with someone like that, or someone who turned their attention toward that way of thinking, later. That has got to be a really rough phase to be in as a couple; and I can't imagine it - LoL!
Trump has really done a number on all kinds of personal relationships across our country (boss/employee, couples, siblings, friends, etc.) - because he puts a glaring spotlight on our differences in divisive ways that instigate unrest & infighting among us.
I'm relatively Okay with it because I am well-aware that Trump has many good & varying lessons for us all - despite how he (and his supporters) are so good at stirring up [what appear to be] ugly emotional reactions.
I honestly think that one of the things we are learning individually in a collective way across the country and our world - is that 'hype' doesn't equal reality. We're learning not only that 'fake news' exists; but that all media outlets slant stories to suit their audiences in an attempt to bring in the most money. We're learning how ALL politicians use manipulative talk - and stuff like that. Spirituality is always about the simple stuff that 'gets you there' - not about the resulting gargantuan mess, LoL!
MC, I agree that having Trump as President may be terrible but it may teach some of his voters a lesson in being humble for some time in the future. Perhaps they'll learn a lesson about being fooled by a snake oil salesman who lies on a regular basis and promises the world. And I see you became more "astute" when you got older.
I was hoping that Congress would assert power as co-equal branch of the gov't and put some limitation on the Executive branch, not just for this guy, but all future Presidents. EO is too powerful.
I agree, Ptosis! We don't need or want a person with the power of a king in America. Especially one like Trump.
Glenn Beck? ... you mean the emotional delusional train wreck that was so far out there against Trump he made the hacks at MSNBC seem sane in comparison?
There is a reason why Beck is going bankrupt.
Hah, I'm sure for some people politics is like a religion, and they are fanatical about it. Sadly, those fanatics are just as sad as the Jihadists that are ok with blowing people up.
But for any Moderate, down the middle person, in other words, not an extremist, not on the fringe, they probably don't care all that much.
For the intellectuals, they realize it doesn't matter, ever notice how nothing changes in the direction this country has gone in despite going from Bush to Obama?
Obama ran on stopping the wars, not starting new ones, etc. etc. ... but the bombs kept dropping the overthrow of nations continued, nothing changed.
Trump ran on a lot of things as well... to his credit he actually got a couple of them done... but you will see that curtailed and the country marching right along the same path it has been for 30 years, now that they have booted his supporters and surrounded him with the same cronies that have been controlling things for decades...
Anyone that can't put politics aside, or that will forego a relationship with someone they like because of it, is only shortchanging their own lives.
And the only divisiveness I have seen is made up stories in the news, and occasionally these protestors that show up, beat the crap out of each other, and then wait for the next idiotic gathering to do it all over again. 99% of the country has moved on and doesn't let it effect their lives. Unless your in college, I suppose there are plenty of campuses out there that are scary to walk around in.I deleted most of your comment in the quote because I just wanted to focus on one thing. You assert that 99% of people are not affected. Does that mean not bothered? Not distressed? Just like 911 had people across the country - even in Hawaii concerned- doesn't mean it had zero emotional mental distress. Yes?
All I know is since Charlotte - I noticed kahaki pants more ... And I don't like some hate group taking over innocuous office clothes and changing it onto a hate symbol.
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."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!)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.""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?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.
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.
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.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.
"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."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."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."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.
" 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.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.
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 … 520690f499What 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.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)."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).
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. CourtWhere 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...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.
Only "crimes against the US", huh? Seems that concept went out 200 years ago.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2908991
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.
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: ?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.How about you provide proof that Arpaio engaged in sexual child abuse as claimed here? - classic misquote.
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.
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.
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"does not expunge a crime " - case closed. It will be another item in the bill of impeachment. The list is becoming quite lengthy.
Related Discussions
- 40
How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
by Credence2 3 weeks ago
This was an interesting topic and as usual I will weigh in with my opinion.I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.The Trump administration wants through an executive order to blatantly change the explicit words and meaning of...
- 39
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 13 days ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 3 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 202
2016 Election - Clinton's "victory" was all California voters!
by John Wilson 8 years ago
Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes. Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide. The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing it's will on the rest of the nation - which is why it was put into place when the...
- 573
Trump, the Art of the Deal, Negotiations 101 & Tariffs
by Tim Mitchell 13 days ago
Negotiations Expert Explains Why Trump Fails To Get Deals Done at Daily Kos (Mar 7, 2025)https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3 … -Get-DealsAn intro to Distributive Bargaining (Trump) vs. Integrative BargainingThoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
- 38
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have protection from prosecution
by Readmikenow 11 months ago
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply...