Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
He broke the law. He should be deported.
Author Message
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1
He broke the law. He should be deported.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2017 08:40 PM by JOwl.)
08-25-2017 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
Send him back to Massachusetts?
08-25-2017 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #3
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
it is a foreign country to most. why not?

wait. be careful. im sure there is a dog whistle going off somewhere...
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2017 09:20 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-25-2017 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #4
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is

"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)

But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."
08-29-2017 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
On what grounds should he be deported? I'd be interested to hear that argument.
08-29-2017 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is
"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)
But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."

That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 11:16 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-29-2017 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #7
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is
"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)
But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."

That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

I think all points of view point to him having broken the law, and he should have at least done some time. Go ahead and commute him so he has at least spent time in jail and has it on his record.
08-29-2017 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tomball Owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,233
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Comal County
Post: #8
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
It's not like all Presidents don't pardon some pretty questionable characters.
08-29-2017 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #9
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

Sorry, but no. Read up on the things he's actually done. A decent human being knowledgeable in the actual things he did can not disagree that he's a horrible human being.

Edit: The article I linked to is a good place to start. Seriously, if someone can read about the things he's done and have been done under his guidance and think of him as anything other than reprehensible, I don't even know what to say.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 03:55 PM by JustAnotherAustinOwl.)
08-29-2017 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #10
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is
"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)
But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."

That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

I think all points of view point to him having broken the law, and he should have at least done some time. Go ahead and commute him so he has at least spent time in jail and has it on his record.

Funny thing is that the DOJ was content with civil contempt and recommended that. They were overruled by the Obama administration and ordered to move with criminal contempt. And those charges were brought, a scant less than two weeks in front of the election.

But hell, overlook that chain of events, why dont we.

To be blunt, Sheriff Joe *should* have faced the issue the issue of defying a court order with civil contempt --- no pushback from me on that point.

Criminal contempt is pushing the limits all to hell for this.

But that is what the Obama administration wanted, *and* overruled the DOJ recommendation to get.

But again, the nuance is in the details. Much easier to just tag him as the 'evil criminal de jour' irrespective of those lil stupid ancillary details I guess.
08-29-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is
"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)
But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."

That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

I think all points of view point to him having broken the law, and he should have at least done some time. Go ahead and commute him so he has at least spent time in jail and has it on his record.

Funny thing is that the DOJ was content with civil contempt and recommended that. They were overruled by the Obama administration and ordered to move with criminal contempt. And those charges were brought, a scant less than two weeks in front of the election.

But hell, overlook that chain of events, why dont we.

To be blunt, Sheriff Joe *should* have faced the issue the issue of defying a court order with civil contempt --- no pushback from me on that point.

Criminal contempt is pushing the limits all to hell for this.

But that is what the Obama administration wanted, *and* overruled the DOJ recommendation to get.

But again, the nuance is in the details. Much easier to just tag him as the 'evil criminal de jour' irrespective of those lil stupid ancillary details I guess.

A judge ruled he was guilty of criminal contempt. How does which administration pushed for that charge or when that charge was levied matter to my point?

I get that this is a favorite talking point at the moment for those on the right, BUT, to my point about Arpaio being found guilty of a crime, all of those circumstances are irrelevant.
08-29-2017 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 10:27 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I really don't think most people get what a horrible human being Arpaio is:
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...his-man-is
"If you are a Trump supporter, the president has just pardoned “America’s toughest sheriff,” a man who was willing to fight illegal immigration using any means at his disposal. If you are a liberal, Trump has pardoned a despicable racist, a man who spent decades casually violating the civil liberties of Latinos. And if you are a balanced and neutral news organization, Trump has pardoned a “controversial” sheriff who faced “accusations of abuse” and “defied a court order.” These are the terms on which the debate about Arpaio is had: is he a vindictive bigot who neglected his prisoners or a steely lawman who dared to enforce immigration policy when the Feds wouldn’t? (Perhaps we’ll just call him “polarizing.”)
But none of these perspectives actually capture the full truth about Joe Arpaio. And I am worried that even those who detest Trump and are appalled by this pardon do not entirely appreciate the depth of Arpaio’s evil, or understand quite how indefensible what Donald Trump just has done is. Frankly I think even Trump may not fully realize the extent of the wrongdoing that he has just signaled his approval of. And I think it’s very important to be clear: the things Joe Arpaio is nationally infamous for, the immigration crackdown and the tent city, these are only the beginning. The word “racist” isn’t enough. The word “abusive” isn’t enough. Joe Arpaio’s actions over the course of his time in office were monstrous and sickening."
...
"As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century."

That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

I think all points of view point to him having broken the law, and he should have at least done some time. Go ahead and commute him so he has at least spent time in jail and has it on his record.

Funny thing is that the DOJ was content with civil contempt and recommended that. They were overruled by the Obama administration and ordered to move with criminal contempt. And those charges were brought, a scant less than two weeks in front of the election.

But hell, overlook that chain of events, why dont we.

To be blunt, Sheriff Joe *should* have faced the issue the issue of defying a court order with civil contempt --- no pushback from me on that point.

Criminal contempt is pushing the limits all to hell for this.

But that is what the Obama administration wanted, *and* overruled the DOJ recommendation to get.

But again, the nuance is in the details. Much easier to just tag him as the 'evil criminal de jour' irrespective of those lil stupid ancillary details I guess.

A judge ruled he was guilty of criminal contempt. How does which administration pushed for that charge or when that charge was levied matter to my point?

I get that this is a favorite talking point at the moment for those on the right, BUT, to my point about Arpaio being found guilty of a crime, all of those circumstances are irrelevant.

Or view it as a politically instigated end to a politically instigated up-charge. Seems about right and closes that circle decently to me....
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 06:13 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-29-2017 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #13
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 06:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point of view of one extreme. The other extreme has a different point of view.

He's a horrible human being because he disagrees with your point of view on an issue?

I don't agree with the law that he thought he was enforcing. But that doesn't make him a horrible human being.

I think all points of view point to him having broken the law, and he should have at least done some time. Go ahead and commute him so he has at least spent time in jail and has it on his record.

Funny thing is that the DOJ was content with civil contempt and recommended that. They were overruled by the Obama administration and ordered to move with criminal contempt. And those charges were brought, a scant less than two weeks in front of the election.

But hell, overlook that chain of events, why dont we.

To be blunt, Sheriff Joe *should* have faced the issue the issue of defying a court order with civil contempt --- no pushback from me on that point.

Criminal contempt is pushing the limits all to hell for this.

But that is what the Obama administration wanted, *and* overruled the DOJ recommendation to get.

But again, the nuance is in the details. Much easier to just tag him as the 'evil criminal de jour' irrespective of those lil stupid ancillary details I guess.

A judge ruled he was guilty of criminal contempt. How does which administration pushed for that charge or when that charge was levied matter to my point?

I get that this is a favorite talking point at the moment for those on the right, BUT, to my point about Arpaio being found guilty of a crime, all of those circumstances are irrelevant.

Or view it as a politically instigated end to a politically instigated up-charge. Seems about right and closes that circle decently to me....

No.

A federally appointed judge made a ruling. So unless you're trying to make an argument that the judge was politically motivated (and I don't see any evidence of that yet), my points still stand, and yours are not germane.

I understand the consternation and criticism of leveling the criminal charges so close to the election, but the timing of that action has no connection to the outcome of the trial, but I would love to see the mental gymnastics that would be needed to make that connection.

And you state that you believe he should have faced civil charges, so perhaps the overreach (in your eyes) was not justified. But I imagine that a judge would consider that in their ruling, and if they felt a criminal charge was not warranted, they wouldn't rule that way. Court cases are lost all the time due to prosecutorial overreach, and if this really was overreach, I would believe that you would have seen a similar result.
08-29-2017 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #14
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2017 09:58 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-29-2017 08:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #15
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.

I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.
08-29-2017 10:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

The other issue is did the judge decide the case correctly. If not, then presumably she would get reversed on appeal at some point. Judges decide cases incorrectly every day, there's nothing unusual or unique about that. If Trump reasonably believes that the conviction would get reversed on appeal, then a pardon is entirely within reason.
08-29-2017 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #17
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.

I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.

I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.
08-30-2017 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 10:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

The other issue is did the judge decide the case correctly. If not, then presumably she would get reversed on appeal at some point. Judges decide cases incorrectly every day, there's nothing unusual or unique about that. If Trump reasonably believes that the conviction would get reversed on appeal, then a pardon is entirely within reason.

I wouldnt necessarily agree with the phrase 'trumped up'. They may actually be valid (and, in the case of civil contempt, are most likely valid).

My issue is with equal application of the law issues. Similar circumstances should (at least to this fing retard) merit equal application of charges. But because Joe was such a 'polarizing' figure (libs will substitute 'racist' for polarizing I imagine) (is 'polarizing' now a prog "dog-whistle"?), the concept of equal application got thrown out the window. And to be blunt the concept of equal application of the law to equal circumstances seemed to be a huge shortcoming overall of the Obama administration (in all aspects, bringing up-charges, not bringing charges, and seeking maximal sentences).

I am not a huge fan of the pardon and clemency powers -- they have led to such crap as as Marc Rich, (whatever the hell the current first name) Manning, Oscar López Rivera, and maybe even the evil uber-criminal Sheriff Joe.

Arpaio’s legal team argued that the judge’s order wasn’t clear and that Arpaio received mixed signals from the judiciary and the federal government about what his office could and couldn’t do. The Wall Street Journal’s editors, who actually oppose the pardon, acknowledge the accuracy of this argument. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-arpaio-...1503873081

In the case of Sheriff Joe, there is a measure of closure. The pardon thus (at least to this stupid as **** redneck) represents a fitting political end to an equally political case.
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2017 08:03 AM by tanqtonic.)
08-30-2017 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #19
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-30-2017 07:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 10:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-29-2017 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think the Obama had a serious hard on for Joe. They overtly twisted arms at DOJ to throw the book at him due to his political leanings, notwithstanding that in similar cases they were perfectly okay with lesser charges. Understand now?

I will take it you dont seemingly have an issue with that. Good for you.

But consistency in charging (or not charging for that matter, or seeking maximal sentences) based on political considerations was seemingly not a highlight of the Obama years imo.

And, as I have said (now for the third time) a political end to this fits in nicely with the apparent political beginning (based on the overt pressure to go full right side of the bell curve on the charging scale) to up-charge him. And you dont apparently have an issue with such selective enforcement policies.

On that note, since I have had to repeat my position (for a third time), I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

btw: You will note that I havent *even* touched upon that the issues in question were brought about with the stark background of an immense lack of zealousness on the part of the Obama administration to *actually* enforce the immigration laws. (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534381348/...s-on-trial) The judge found Arpaio couldn’t detain those who lack legal status because that’s the federal government’s job. But the feds hadn’t been and were not doing that job in the slightest.

So, no. When the Obama administration absolutely abdicates an obligation under the fing law, then turns around and charges the party who enforces it, and then strong arms the DOJ to upcharge the civil contempt to a criminal contempt, yeah.... this is political end to a ****** up political situation and a ****** up political upcharge *based* on the contempt, and based in no small part of the utter failure of the Obama administration to even to attempt to enforce the immigration laws at the center of the contempt issue.

But enforcing what a law says under the Obama administration, or an even handed attempt to enforce laws, wasnt the Obama administration's strong point by any fing measure imo.

I understand your position. Your position just has nothing to do with my original comment. You're underlying issue is with the court case itself and the charges that were brought - I get it.

So yes, let's agree that you are not actually addressing the issue at hand, which is what the judge's ruling was, and that you are quibbling over how and when the case was brought before the court.

I *am* addressing simply the one singular fact (for the fourth time) at hand. IIRC, the issue was *how* bad the pardon was, correct? In my view it (the pardon) is a political end to a politically based up-charge. My apologies for the temerity of actually injecting context into my answer to your original comment.

So (again in view of your original comment on the 'terribleness' (or somefink like that) of Trump, Arrapaio, and the pardon) when I consider the context if it, I do not have a problem with it. Hate to tell you the 'how and when' the case was brought to court goes a long way to the "terribleness (or lack thereof)" of the pardon for me. Especially when it that stupid lil' ol' 'how and when' goes to the equal application of law.

I fail to see how the timing of the case has ANYTHING to do with the charges and rationale behind pardoning. I see how that affects an election, but it is completely disconnected from the merits of the charges or application of law. How does when the charges were brought affect the application of the law?

The only logical qualm in respect to the charges and subsequent pardoning that is valid is that you believe the charges were trumped up. But again, that quickly falls apart because a judge, who was not involved with bringing the charges, ruled that Arpaio was guilty. But since it sounds like you think the judge made a mistake, I understand the logic behind why the so-called trumped up charges were problematic.

But you're also misunderstanding my comment - I didn't but delve into how terrible Arpaio was/is. I simply said that we can all agree he broke the law (hence the guilty verdict). And that because he was found guilty, he should have done time and been commuted, not outright pardoned. Pardoning him after the fact means that you are usurping law and order and projecting one's own personal feelings about the entire situation.
08-30-2017 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #20
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 10:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

The other issue is did the judge decide the case correctly. If not, then presumably she would get reversed on appeal at some point. Judges decide cases incorrectly every day, there's nothing unusual or unique about that. If Trump reasonably believes that the conviction would get reversed on appeal, then a pardon is entirely within reason.

Then let the case go to appeals. What legal training does Trump have to make the determination? I agree that judges make mistakes, but that is what the appeal process is for.

And your first argument cuts both ways, doesn't it not? Is it acceptable behavior to ignore the rule of law and pardon people from punishment to suit a political agenda? That is why I think commuting the sentence would have been the better and much less politically polarizing decision.
08-30-2017 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.