Oh, so you know that I was about to support trump because I am a conservative even though I said I was not and have said he is a bad president. You know I'm a conservative even though I support liberal ideas that even you do not support.
Do you look at a potato and yell at everyone its a banana and you know its just pretending to be a potato?
Oh I am quite conservative. And I'm quite liberal. Over most things I am both conservative and liberal. Do you believe a person can feel two ways about something simultaneously which are not compatible with each other? And that their actions and beliefs may not be consistent with their other actions and stated beliefs or prior actions or stated beliefs?
Everyone has their own solutions to the oedipal complex. I think trying to project onto others that they have chosen definitively between mom and dad and induce them to identify with this projection is a particularly bad solution.
I never said we should throw him in jail for crimes he hasn't been convicted, in believe he should be prosecuted for those as well. His age is irrelevant, he's an unrepentant criminal and he should be in prison.
You're literally arguing for the end of the rule of law. You're trying to say that people can abuse their power, be convicted of a crime, and suffer no consequences. I'm not about to stand for that.
Do you understand just how badly this undermines the constitution?
That a due process would be involved is something I believed was missing from my interpretation of your prior statements. For how bad you believe THIS pardon is... based on those other things for which he has not been convinced. As if he should be serving time on those by prolonging his conviction on this. That this pardon stinks because of it.
I believe it should only be judged on its merits, for the actual crime that he was convinced. Which was pardoned. I'll state again, I believe it should have been a commuted sentence... and done at a later date.
The sheriff is no longer sheriff. There have already been consequences. If he were a younger person I'd lean heavily towards seeing him serve his time. As it stands, I wouldn't allow anyone his age to hold office. Nor would I see us pay for his nursing home if we can help avoid it. Arpaio is no threat to society. I view jailing the elderly as beating a dead horse.
As for the message it sends, that's more interesting. We could have a much longer chat regarding the Judaical branch. As for this, it's more symbolic than functional. These proceedings started in, what, 2012? Trump won't be President when any copycats face conviction. I'd say let them try. They're going to lose.
At what age exactly are you planning on becoming a "dead horse"? I ask so I can avoid the State you're in.That a due process would be involved is something I believed was missing from my interpretation of your prior statements. For how bad you believe THIS pardon is... based on those other things for which he has not been convinced. As if he should be serving time on those by prolonging his conviction on this. That this pardon stinks because of it.
I believe it should only be judged on its merits, for the actual crime that he was convinced. Which was pardoned. I'll state again, I believe it should have been a commuted sentence... and done at a later date.
The sheriff is no longer sheriff. There have already been consequences. If he were a younger person I'd lean heavily towards seeing him serve his time. As it stands, I wouldn't allow anyone his age to hold office. Nor would I see us pay for his nursing home if we can help avoid it. Arpaio is no threat to society. I view jailing the elderly as beating a dead horse.
As for the message it sends, that's more interesting. We could have a much longer chat regarding the Judaical branch. As for this, it's more symbolic than functional. These proceedings started in, what, 2012? Trump won't be President when any copycats face conviction. I'd say let them try. They're going to lose.
At what age exactly are you planning on becoming a "dead horse"? I ask so I can avoid the State you're in.
In the meanwhile, don't look like a Mexican in any copycat jurisdictions...
Yeah... like Trump and Sessions were ever going to be big on enforcing those laws.
Let me know when you're 70 so, you can be put out of your misery.I think 70 is a nice age limit for holding office / power. And then prison until 80 for non violent offenders. That's the general idea.
It's just a fact that you parrot the trump/alt-right party line, whether it's the nazi/klan or taxes/"socialism" or misogyny and the list goes on, but are smart enough to distance yourself from the trump brand per se. Pretending to support "liberal free speech" in the context of the nazis/klan just like your alt-right/conservative buddies speaks for itself.
I'd say you're somewhat smarter than realibrad about this, which is good enough for dumb enough democrats.
. If he were a younger person I'd lean heavily towards seeing him serve his time. As it stands, I wouldn't allow anyone his age to hold office. Nor would I see us pay for his nursing home if we can help avoid it. Arpaio is no threat to society. I view jailing the elderly as beating a dead horse.
That a due process would be involved is something I believed was missing from my interpretation of your prior statements. For how bad you believe THIS pardon is... based on those other things for which he has not been convicted. As if he should be serving time on those by prolonging his conviction on this. That this pardon stinks because of it.
I believe it should only be judged on its merits, for the actual crime that he was convicted. Which was pardoned. I'll state again, I believe it should have been a commuted sentence... and done at a later date.
The sheriff is no longer sheriff. There have already been consequences. If he were a younger person I'd lean heavily towards seeing him serve his time. As it stands, I wouldn't allow anyone his age to hold office. Nor would I see us pay for his nursing home if we can help avoid it. Arpaio is no threat to society. I view jailing the elderly as beating a dead horse.
As for the message it sends, that's more interesting. We could have a much longer chat regarding the Judaical branch. As for this, it's more symbolic than functional. These proceedings started in, what, 2012? Trump won't be President when any copycats face conviction. I'd say let them try. They're going to lose.
Fixed "convicted".
I would think the concept of justice demands that law have a long arm.
I have trouble with the notion of mercy for those who had none and remain unrepentant. The sincerity, of course, of those that do repent raises additional questions..
Right down to a preference for gender equality over traditional subject pronoun agreement, apparently. I think we should make a new word hierm for his or her. Their just jangles my nerves but if we can get used to chairperson we could get used to hierm. As to why my post produced your comment, I am in the dark despite trying to figure it out. It sounds like a fact of the ego so maybe you wanted to add that as an additional point??????Everyone is the hero of their own story.
Right down to a preference for gender equality over traditional subject pronoun agreement, apparently. I think we should make a new word hierm for his or her. Their just jangles my nerves but if we can get used to chairperson we could get used to hierm.
'They' has been used as a gender neutral singular pronoun for hundreds of years.
Sorry....it hasn't as "They" is a third person, PLURAL personal pronoun.
I, you, he, she, it are the singular personal pronouns.....first person, second person, third person respectively.
We, you, they are the plural personal pronouns.....first, second, third persons respectively.
I'm still waiting for Trump to posthumously pardon Adolf Hitler.