PINO trump just pardoned kkk, alt right Arpaio

[monkrules]

And there are boat-loads of republican emails filled with hate and racism, so you have no point. Deflect much?

But, listen closely: this thread is about the Orange Racist Maggot, and his choice to pardon another racist maggot. it's no accident that both are racists AND republicans..

I am staying on topic by pointing out that is only your opinion that Trump and Arpaio are racists.

I am sure there may be some racist Republicans but only the Democrats were stupid, careless, and incompetent enough to have their racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semetic personal e-mails exposed to the world.

And what I'm saying is that republicans have had thousands of racist emails made public in just the last nine years while Obama was in office. Please, be rational. These were shown in newspapers and online. All you have to do is a few simple searches. Those racist email are some of the most vile you'll ever see. So don't try to paint republicans as angels; they're far, far, from it. Try to be honest for once in your life.

And, now, let's drop this stupid exchange. You're a hard-head, and so partisan, there is no hope of anyone being able to carry on any kind of sensible conversation. Have a good day.

 

[monkrules]

Had Democrats not been exposed by their own personal e-mails to be racists, sexists, homophobes, and anti-Semites normal people might actually have taken them serious....

And there are boat-loads of republican emails filled with hate and racism, so you have no point. Deflect much?

But, listen closely: this thread is about the Orange Racist Maggot, and his choice to pardon another racist maggot. it's no accident that both are racists AND republicans.

Please try to stay on topic.

Really? Loads? Where?

If you would learn to read you wouldn't have to ask.

Two isn't loads. And that's assuming your characterization of the two was accurate. Its not btw

If you learned to write persuasively I wouldn't have to ask you questions you can't answer

Don't blame my writing for you inability to comprehend what you read. Take responsibility for your own ignorance or you'll never improve your knowledge base.

Want prove there are loads of racist republican emails floating around. Just do a simple Google search, ask any child how to do it, they'll show you. Cover the last nine years, while Obama was President.

Now go on your way like a nice little boy, and do your own fucking research. I'm not your daddy.

 

[bripat9643]

‘"Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course," Flake tweeted Friday night, in an acknowledgment of the political fallout of Trump's pardoning of Arpaio.

Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, said in a statement on the pardon that "no one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold."

"Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge's orders," McCain said. "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."’

Trump makes a mess for Arizona GOP with Arpaio pardon - CNNPolitics

At least two Republicans get it.

You aren't helping your case by citing the two biggest Republican weasels in the Senate.

‘"Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course," Flake tweeted Friday night, in an acknowledgment of the political fallout of Trump's pardoning of Arpaio.

Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, said in a statement on the pardon that "no one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold."

"Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge's orders," McCain said. "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."’

Trump makes a mess for Arizona GOP with Arpaio pardon - CNNPolitics

At least two Republicans get it.

You aren't helping your case by citing the two biggest Republican weasels in the Senate.

The biggest Republican weasels in the Senate are Republicans who claim to be conservatives then support Trump. McCain won his Senate race easily while Trump narrowly won.

Incumbent Senators almost always win their seats easily, dumbass. The advantages of incumbency are just too great. That's why Americans want to put term limits on them.

Probably at least half the votes McCain gets are from Democrats. That's why he's such a douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

And there are boat-loads of republican emails filled with hate and racism, so you have no point. Deflect much?

But, listen closely: this thread is about the Orange Racist Maggot, and his choice to pardon another racist maggot. it's no accident that both are racists AND republicans..

I am staying on topic by pointing out that is only your opinion that Trump and Arpaio are racists.

I am sure there may be some racist Republicans but only the Democrats were stupid, careless, and incompetent enough to have their racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semetic personal e-mails exposed to the world.

And what I'm saying is that republicans have had thousands of racist emails made public in just the last nine years while Obama was in office. Please, be rational. These were shown in newspapers and online. All you have to do is a few simple searches. Those racist email are some of the most vile you'll ever see. So don't try to paint republicans as angels; they're far, far, from it. Try to be honest for once in your life.

And, now, let's drop this stupid exchange. You're a hard-head, and so partisan, there is no hope of anyone being able to carry on any kind of sensible conversation. Have a good day.

What "racist" emails are those? I haven't heard of any.

 

[bripat9643]

Had Democrats not been exposed by their own personal e-mails to be racists, sexists, homophobes, and anti-Semites normal people might actually have taken them serious....

And there are boat-loads of republican emails filled with hate and racism, so you have no point. Deflect much?

But, listen closely: this thread is about the Orange Racist Maggot, and his choice to pardon another racist maggot. it's no accident that both are racists AND republicans.

Please try to stay on topic.

Really? Loads? Where?

If you would learn to read you wouldn't have to ask.

Two isn't loads. And that's assuming your characterization of the two was accurate. Its not btw

If you learned to write persuasively I wouldn't have to ask you questions you can't answer

Don't blame my writing for you inability to comprehend what you read. Take responsibility for your own ignorance or you'll never improve your knowledge base.

Want prove there are loads of racist republican emails floating around. Just do a simple Google search, ask any child how to do it, they'll show you. Cover the last nine years, while Obama was President.

Now go on your way like a nice little boy, and do your own fucking research. I'm not your daddy.

It's your job to prove it, not his. It seems the first thing any snowflake in this forum does is call you stupid because you want prove his points for him.

 

[bripat9643]

‘"Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course," Flake tweeted Friday night, in an acknowledgment of the political fallout of Trump's pardoning of Arpaio.

Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, said in a statement on the pardon that "no one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold."

"Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge's orders," McCain said. "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."’

Trump makes a mess for Arizona GOP with Arpaio pardon - CNNPolitics

At least two Republicans get it.

You aren't helping your case by citing the two biggest Republican weasels in the Senate.

‘"Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course," Flake tweeted Friday night, in an acknowledgment of the political fallout of Trump's pardoning of Arpaio.

Arizona's senior senator, Republican John McCain, said in a statement on the pardon that "no one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold."

"Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge's orders," McCain said. "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."’

Trump makes a mess for Arizona GOP with Arpaio pardon - CNNPolitics

At least two Republicans get it.

You aren't helping your case by citing the two biggest Republican weasels in the Senate.

The biggest Republican weasels in the Senate are Republicans who claim to be conservatives then support Trump. McCain won his Senate race easily while Trump narrowly won.

No, those are the true conservatives. RINOs vote against repealing Obamacare and against funding the border wall.

 

[bripat9643]

‘Arizona's largest newspaper issued a scathing rebuke of President Trump's decision to pardon former Maricopa Counter Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, calling the action an "insult" and a "slap to the Latino community."

The Arizona Republic's editorial board argued that the pardoning of Arpaio is a sign that Trump is not backing down from his populist, tough-on-immigration stances.

The editorial calls Trump's Friday pardon of the controversial former sheriff an "insult" to the Latino community, as well as the legal community.

"The vast majority of Latinos in Arizona are not undocumented, yet they all fell under heightened scrutiny as Arpaio honed his image," the editorial reads.

"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," the piece continued.’

Arizona's largest newspaper slams Arpaio pardon

True.

Hispanic Americans where subject to Arpaio’s bigotry and hate, their only ‘crime’ being Latino.

Oh oh oh! A liberal rag doesn't like Trump's pardon? that's unusual. Who would have seen that coming?

Anyone or thing that speaks the truth about Trump is a liberal. Kool-Aid drinkers like you don't have the ability to think for yourself. If Trump told you to drink poisoned Kool-Aid, you would do it without question.

As always, the truth is exactly the opposite of what you post. Most of it is so stupid that not even other snowflakes believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

Since the President is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the nation, if he says Arpaio is innocent of all charges, he is innocent. Case closed.

You're an idiot. POTUS is not the highest LEO in the nation - he isn't even an LEO. Jeff Sessions is the highest LEO in the nation. And he can't make someone innocent by declaring it, either.

You're the idiot. What you said is exactly 100% wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if a poster comes along who says that Trump was wrong to pardon Arpaio, AND that poster also says that Obama was wrong to pardon so and so, AND Clinton was wrong to pardon so and so,

that proves that Trump was in fact wrong to pardon Arpaio?

It shows consistency, why would it be okay to pardon a Marc Rich a Scooter Libby and not Arpaio who's crime was much less?

Because he was a law enforcement official who violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. He believed he was above the Constitution and above the law.

BS, so Clinton pardoning a FBI's top ten most wanted list is okay but a sheriff that was in contempt of court is worse. It was okay for the leader of the country to lie under oath however a sheriff in contempt of court should serve time.

Your politics is showing.

Your politics is showing. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Your defense is Clinton did this and Obama did that. Just because they did it does not mean it is okay for Trump to do it.

So it is okay to be outraged over Trump, but not Clinton, because, lol!

Here's the fallacy of your argument explained. Sorry that I couldn't find a more dumbed down version:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.[2]

An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

See also circumstantial ad hominem

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a sheriff in Arizona tries to uphold federal laws and the left has a cow. Nothing new, pardon the guy and move on.

The left believes enforcing the laws approved by a majority vote is a crime against humanity.

Those of us who are constitutional conservatives know that a majority cannot deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sheriffs are not above the law and should be held accountable when they violate people's constitutional rights.

In order to have Constitutional rights ,you need to become a Citizen first.

Arpaio harassed American citizens who are of Hispanic descent. He violated their rights.

We do confer rights on non-citizens as well. Even if a person is being extradited on a murder charge, they can fight the extradition and can have a hearing as well.

Like I said, a 22 year witch hunt of bogas made up charges and there was no evidence or charges because he didn't harass American Citizens.

lol, are you aware that Arpaio's defense lawyers LOST that argument in a court of law?

 

[Papageorgio]

It shows consistency, why would it be okay to pardon a Marc Rich a Scooter Libby and not Arpaio who's crime was much less?

Because he was a law enforcement official who violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. He believed he was above the Constitution and above the law.

BS, so Clinton pardoning a FBI's top ten most wanted list is okay but a sheriff that was in contempt of court is worse. It was okay for the leader of the country to lie under oath however a sheriff in contempt of court should serve time.

Your politics is showing.

Your politics is showing. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Your defense is Clinton did this and Obama did that. Just because they did it does not mean it is okay for Trump to do it.

So it is okay to be outraged over Trump, but not Clinton, because, lol!

Here's the fallacy of your argument explained. Sorry that I couldn't find a more dumbed down version:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.[2]

An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

See also circumstantial ad hominem

Didn't say what Trump did was right or wrong. I am asking why when one President pardons a person it is fine and when another President pardon someone who has done worse things, it's okay. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Be honest answer the question. At least busybee defended his position, you can't defend your position so you divert.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because he was a law enforcement official who violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. He believed he was above the Constitution and above the law.

BS, so Clinton pardoning a FBI's top ten most wanted list is okay but a sheriff that was in contempt of court is worse. It was okay for the leader of the country to lie under oath however a sheriff in contempt of court should serve time.

Your politics is showing.

Your politics is showing. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Your defense is Clinton did this and Obama did that. Just because they did it does not mean it is okay for Trump to do it.

So it is okay to be outraged over Trump, but not Clinton, because, lol!

Here's the fallacy of your argument explained. Sorry that I couldn't find a more dumbed down version:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.[2]

An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

See also circumstantial ad hominem

Didn't say what Trump did was right or wrong. I am asking why when one President pardons a person it is fine and when another President pardon someone who has done worse things, it's okay. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Be honest answer the question. At least busybee defended his position, you can't defend your position so you divert.

IOW you're just trying to hijack the topic of the thread.

And what exactly is my position that I'm not defending?

 

[peach174]

The left believes enforcing the laws approved by a majority vote is a crime against humanity.

Those of us who are constitutional conservatives know that a majority cannot deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sheriffs are not above the law and should be held accountable when they violate people's constitutional rights.

In order to have Constitutional rights ,you need to become a Citizen first.

Arpaio harassed American citizens who are of Hispanic descent. He violated their rights.

We do confer rights on non-citizens as well. Even if a person is being extradited on a murder charge, they can fight the extradition and can have a hearing as well.

Like I said, a 22 year witch hunt of bogas made up charges and there was no evidence or charges because he didn't harass American Citizens.

He did harass American citizens. He denied them of their 4th amendment rights. Nazi Trump supporters like you don't give a damn about the rights of American citizens.

You think protecting americans property from illegal invasion isn't giving a damn ?
You also don't recognize real fascism and communism.
Enforcing immigration laws is not NAZI fascism.

 

[PredFan]

It's incredible. Profiling is what we all do, we all look at situations and the facts and put them together and assess them in a fitting matter. It's too bad THAT those facts offend people, but you can't afford to overlook them because of fickle politics and sentiments.

So a county cop should enforce federal law he has no jurisdiction in?

Federal law covers his county, dickhead.

The Supreme Court laid out how much latitude local law enforcement has in enforcing immigration law. Arpaio violated those constraints. You clearly do not believe in people's constitutional rights.

No, he did not. That is what the criminal 0bama appointed judge made up.

Nothing was made up. You cannot ask someone for their papers based of their ethnicity. Their constitutional rights were violated. Even conservatives like Justin Amash agree.

That's what was made up. He didn't ask them for their papers based on their ethnicity. The judge made that up. Illegals have no constitutional rights and no American Citizens rights were violated. that was fabricated by a corrupt judge.

 

[PredFan]

‘Arizona's largest newspaper issued a scathing rebuke of President Trump's decision to pardon former Maricopa Counter Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Friday, calling the action an "insult" and a "slap to the Latino community."

The Arizona Republic's editorial board argued that the pardoning of Arpaio is a sign that Trump is not backing down from his populist, tough-on-immigration stances.

The editorial calls Trump's Friday pardon of the controversial former sheriff an "insult" to the Latino community, as well as the legal community.

"The vast majority of Latinos in Arizona are not undocumented, yet they all fell under heightened scrutiny as Arpaio honed his image," the editorial reads.

"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," the piece continued.’

Arizona's largest newspaper slams Arpaio pardon

True.

Hispanic Americans where subject to Arpaio’s bigotry and hate, their only ‘crime’ being Latino.

Oh oh oh! A liberal rag doesn't like Trump's pardon? that's unusual. Who would have seen that coming?

Anyone or thing that speaks the truth about Trump is a liberal. Kool-Aid drinkers like you don't have the ability to think for yourself. If Trump told you to drink poisoned Kool-Aid, you would do it without question.

That's a liberal rag, even they don't deny it. Try educating yourself before your post.

 

[PredFan]

The left believes enforcing the laws approved by a majority vote is a crime against humanity.

Those of us who are constitutional conservatives know that a majority cannot deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sheriffs are not above the law and should be held accountable when they violate people's constitutional rights.

In order to have Constitutional rights ,you need to become a Citizen first.

Arpaio harassed American citizens who are of Hispanic descent. He violated their rights.

We do confer rights on non-citizens as well. Even if a person is being extradited on a murder charge, they can fight the extradition and can have a hearing as well.

Like I said, a 22 year witch hunt of bogas made up charges and there was no evidence or charges because he didn't harass American Citizens.

lol, are you aware that Arpaio's defense lawyers LOST that argument in a court of law?

By an 0bama appointed judge who doesn't follow law but liberal agenda.

 

[PredFan]

Because he was a law enforcement official who violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. He believed he was above the Constitution and above the law.

BS, so Clinton pardoning a FBI's top ten most wanted list is okay but a sheriff that was in contempt of court is worse. It was okay for the leader of the country to lie under oath however a sheriff in contempt of court should serve time.

Your politics is showing.

Your politics is showing. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Your defense is Clinton did this and Obama did that. Just because they did it does not mean it is okay for Trump to do it.

So it is okay to be outraged over Trump, but not Clinton, because, lol!

Here's the fallacy of your argument explained. Sorry that I couldn't find a more dumbed down version:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.[2]

An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

See also circumstantial ad hominem

Didn't say what Trump did was right or wrong. I am asking why when one President pardons a person it is fine and when another President pardon someone who has done worse things, it's okay. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Be honest answer the question. At least busybee defended his position, you can't defend your position so you divert.

All leftists have severe reading comprehension problems. I guess that's why they are still leftists.

 

[Papageorgio]

BS, so Clinton pardoning a FBI's top ten most wanted list is okay but a sheriff that was in contempt of court is worse. It was okay for the leader of the country to lie under oath however a sheriff in contempt of court should serve time.

Your politics is showing.

Your politics is showing. This has nothing to do with Clinton. Your defense is Clinton did this and Obama did that. Just because they did it does not mean it is okay for Trump to do it.

So it is okay to be outraged over Trump, but not Clinton, because, lol!

Here's the fallacy of your argument explained. Sorry that I couldn't find a more dumbed down version:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.[2]

An example would be

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

See also circumstantial ad hominem

Didn't say what Trump did was right or wrong. I am asking why when one President pardons a person it is fine and when another President pardon someone who has done worse things, it's okay. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Be honest answer the question. At least busybee defended his position, you can't defend your position so you divert.

IOW you're just trying to hijack the topic of the thread.

And what exactly is my position that I'm not defending?

If you aren't smart enough to figure it out and follow a thread, don't blame me for your stupidity.

 

[peach174]

So a sheriff in Arizona tries to uphold federal laws and the left has a cow. Nothing new, pardon the guy and move on.

The left believes enforcing the laws approved by a majority vote is a crime against humanity.

Those of us who are constitutional conservatives know that a majority cannot deprive people of their constitutional rights. Sheriffs are not above the law and should be held accountable when they violate people's constitutional rights.

In order to have Constitutional rights ,you need to become a Citizen first.

The USSC has ruled that non-citizens have rights as persons under the constitution on numerous occasions. See Chew v Colding:

Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges and distinction between citizens and resident aliens.

KWONG HAI CHEW v. COLDING | 344 U.S. 590 (1953) | Leagle.com

Wo v Hopkins:

The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Zadvydas v Davis:

Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS

There are certainly constitutional protections that are specific to citizens, and even where non-citizens are concerned, there sometimes seems to be ambiguity from the USSC, but it is not true that constitutional protections only apply to citizens, according to our history and the rulings of the USSC.

Yes
I know that.
All Joe did was enforce the State Law which was ruled in the Supreme Court later as one part being unconstitutional and it was changed.
Joe then enforced the new written law.
This was about a 22 year political witch hunt that ended when he defied a state court order by a Judge who ruled from Obamas administration policies.
Not their unconstitutional rights, which he was never convicted of.
The Dems never liked his tents, pink underwear and bologna sandwiches.
They also did not like the success statistics of many young people turning their lives around after getting out.
Once libs really looked into it themselves when they toured the place, they found out that his method was not abuse.
This has always been about political ideology.
Protecting American citizens property is not racist.
Just ask the Mexican American citizens who live in maricopa county, he is very popular there.

 

[toobfreak]

Since the President is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the nation, if he says Arpaio is innocent of all charges, he is innocent. Case closed.

You're an idiot. POTUS is not the highest LEO in the nation - he isn't even an LEO. Jeff Sessions is the highest LEO in the nation. And he can't make someone innocent by declaring it, either.

There's nothing worse than some dumb, poor deluded jackass going around calling others an idiot while not having a fucking clue himself what he's talking about! Do not pass go, do not collect $200 Alcoholic, do not refill your glass of rotgut whiskey, you better check your facts again once you sober up, the President IS the highest law officer in the land otherwise he could not give executive clemency, having authority over the Attorney General, all the Generals, Admirals, etc., in the military. They ALL answer to HIM. And I did not say Arpaio was innocent, I said that Trump had made him INNOCENT (free) OF ALL CHARGES. His misdemeanor conviction and sentencing for disobeying an unlawful judge's order has been removed from his record. Poor dumb bastard can't even frickin' read.

Isn't it funny how the Left feels that no judge can render a bad decision when it suits them? Just wait till Judge Gorsuch renders a decision------ I bet then every single one of them will be WRONG.