LOL, it must absolutely suck for the idiots on the left watching in horror as the illegal aliens they never shut up about are getting rounded up and thrown out. Watching federal immigration law get enforced has to be an absolute nightmare for them
LOL, it must absolutely suck for the idiots on the left watching in horror as the illegal aliens they never shut up about are getting rounded up and thrown out. Watching federal immigration law get enforced has to be an absolute nightmare for them
Down here in FL their a dime a dozen. There was a time that they used to congregate in the big box store parking lots looking for work but for the last 15 years or so they work for building/construction companies. I see lots of them doing roofing down here and the crew that did my house was Spanish speaking so go figure.To my knowledge I have never even seen an illegal alien except on TV and I think those are really just actors bused in by GOP organizers. Fake news. The right needs enemies; can't really have open season on black people unless you're a cop so brown people are good enough.
But what about the Clinton pardons. 140 pardons and 36 commutations on his last day of office, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
Some of those pardoned seem a lot more scandalous. Also, a lot less topical or relevant, but yolo, right? As we know, marriage makes two one, etc., so it's probably 100% what we'd expect from Hillary.
I bet Trump will have far fewer pardons by the time he's done. He doesn't know enough peeps, or have those kinds of contacts. There are only so many joes. Trump won't be lobbied by international drug dealers. He'll just pardon a couple conservative cliches, and he'll do it to get support, not for cash or personal favor, which seems less offensive.
Basically, good job on electing Trump, gais.
Its odd that you would link to something called bill Clinton pardon controversy as cover for trumps pardon.
Whataboutism doesn't make something right or ok.
A guy who deliberately violated a federal judges order to cease and desist with his illegal behavior. Deplorable indeed.I know, right? Trump's first pardon is for a tin pot facist pig & all his fanbois go "Oh Goody!"
Following that link led me to browse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...lemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States
Which I found an interesting angle on US history. I guess someone could write a book on the history of the country based largely on that list.
The assorted crooked pals of various Presidents (including Bill Clinton's) seem to be merely a sordid backdrop of very low-grade minor corruption, compared to the more political ones. I'd put Joe Arpaio in the more heinous category along with William Calley
But, awkwardly, there also seem to be plenty that could be justified as being the result of unjust laws or overly harsh sentences in the first place (in which latter category I'd place Chelsea Manning).
I think it's great that the conservative nazi/klan defense force are showing support for their guy. We need more @Starbuck1975 and @realibrad and @Jaskalas in here, too.
But what about the Clinton pardons. 140 pardons and 36 commutations on his last day of office, apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy
Some of those pardoned seem a lot more scandalous. Also, a lot less topical or relevant, but yolo, right? As we know, marriage makes two one, etc., so it's probably 100% what we'd expect from Hillary.
I bet Trump will have far fewer pardons by the time he's done. He doesn't know enough peeps, or have those kinds of contacts. There are only so many joes. Trump won't be lobbied by international drug dealers. He'll just pardon a couple conservative cliches, and he'll do it to get support, not for cash or personal favor, which seems less offensive.
Basically, good job on electing Trump, gais.
Contempt of court? The guy will no longer be Sheriff, right? I'm assuming his ouster will not be undone. Therefore I consider it settled and Trump probably did the right thing here. An 85 year old, who is not violent, will not be wasting his last years in prison. Maybe he can pay for his own nursing home.
You have a problem with that? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you hold yet another Republican trait if you think we need to increase our prison population over this.
Contempt of court? The guy will no longer be Sheriff, right? I'm assuming his ouster will not be undone. Therefore I consider it settled and Trump probably did the right thing here. An 85 year old, who is not violent, will not be wasting his last years in prison. Maybe he can pay for his own nursing home.
You have a problem with that? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you hold yet another Republican trait if you think we need to increase our prison population over this.
Please. It was an act of political grandstanding to the Alt-right, not an act of mercy. Trump endorsed Arpaio & his unconstitutional methods in no uncertain terms-
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/president-trump-pardons-sheriff-joe-arpaio
Had Trump waited until sentencing & commuted any jail time on humanitarian grounds I could agree with you. He did not. He praised Arpaio & basically endorsed the same sort of behavior from other cop shops which is utterly wrong & we both know it.
Last time I checked, evil doesn't have an age.1: I would not let anyone over 70 run for office.
2: Non violent offenders, in general, do not belong in prison. Especially for those 80+.
Combine the two thoughts, and I don't care what other messages people wish to take from this action. I might have issue with it if Arpaio was younger and/or had any future.
1: I would not let anyone over 70 run for office.
2: Non violent offenders, in general, do not belong in prison. Especially for those 80+.
Combine the two thoughts, and I don't care what other messages people wish to take from this action. I might have issue with it if Arpaio was younger and/or had any future.
I have to say I strongly disagree with you here. If you read into what Arpaio did during his tenure as sheriff it was horrifying.
I have to say I strongly disagree with you here. If you read into what Arpaio did during his tenure as sheriff it was horrifying. In this case the only reason he was headed to jail to begin with was because he adamantly refused to stop using his powers as sheriff to attack his own constituents because they were Hispanic. He was given tons and tons of opportunities to stop and he wouldn't and frankly, the criminal contempt of court he was convicted for pales in comparison to the other crimes he committed. He is a monster.
Our prisons are terribly overused overall but if there's one thing we should be willing to build entirely new prisons to house it's public officials who abuse their powers to harm their own constituents out of pure racism.
Was he convicted of torture or abuse? If not, then am I to judge people on hearsay?
And no, I really have no idea the details of what Arpaio did.
I've long known the Republican sponsored sound bite of him protecting the border. I also know Democrats will scream bloody murder to personally oust any person who fits that standard. Therefore I've not been moved by any headlines of accusations against Arpaio. I'd need to actually dig into the details and judge the stories for myself.
Given my lack of interest in the topic, prior to Agent Orange summoning me, I have not spent any time looking it up. You genuinely think there is something to protest here, so that piques my interest. Arpaio was guilty of contempt of court.... anything else? If so... why isn't he charged with those crimes? I'd at least like to pass judgement on guilty people first, before simply saying they deserve prison.
My considerations are thus. Contempt of court is not a violent act. The man no longer holds office. He is no longer a threat to society if he ever was. He is also 85 years old. I'll need to weigh his abuse and/or torture of others if such charges are real and not merely slander. But then I'd be hung up on the lack of conviction for those crimes.
Was he convicted of torture or abuse? If not, then am I to judge people on hearsay?
And no, I really have no idea the details of what Arpaio did.
I've long known the Republican sponsored sound bite of him protecting the border. I also know Democrats will scream bloody murder to personally oust any person who fits that standard. Therefore I've not been moved by any headlines of accusations against Arpaio. I'd need to actually dig into the details and judge the stories for myself.
Given my lack of interest in the topic, prior to Agent Orange summoning me, I have not spent any time looking it up. You genuinely think there is something to protest here, so that piques my interest. Arpaio was guilty of contempt of court.... anything else? If so... why isn't he charged with those crimes? I'd at least like to pass judgement on guilty people first, before simply saying they deserve prison.
My considerations are thus. Contempt of court is not a violent act. The man no longer holds office. He is no longer a threat to society if he ever was. He is also 85 years old. I'll need to weigh his abuse and/or torture of others if such charges are real and not merely slander. But then I'd be hung up on the lack of conviction for those crimes.
Another thing to consider is that Trump used this as an opportunity to signal to his staff that they should not fear possible charges from Mueller because Trump is willing to use his power to help his friends out. At least in part this pardon was done to prove to his staff that they do not need to turn on him to protect themselves. It is why Mueller has turned to state's Attorney Generals because the President (probably) can not pardon people for crimes charged at a state level.