• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio; he

Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Tanngrisnir said:
You haven't shown that you're right, sport. You've just stomped your feet, tried to pretend that a campaign spokesperson's accusations have been substantiated when they haven't been and generally just brayed. And you're so confused that you think I questioned the release dates when you actually did.

I'll take that as your admission that you can't back up your claim to any meaningful degree.
Click to expand...


So you claim the dates of the announcements of the court are wrong.?

You should note, I have said nothing about the court rulings as being right or wrong. I just questioned the timing in regards to elections.
It is you who has jumped to conclusions , provide no source to back up your opinion.

Think we can be done. You have nothing intelligent to say.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

mike2810 said:
So you claim the dates of the announcements of the court are wrong.?
Click to expand...

LOL! Where did I claim that?
You should note, I have said nothing about the court rulings as being right or wrong. I just questioned the timing in regards to elections.
It is you who has jumped to conclusions , provide no source to back up your opinion.
Click to expand...

No, it's you who questioned the timing and then to tried and pass it off as somehow meaningful, quoting a campaign spokesman. IOW, as I stated, empty and vacuous speculation with nothing to substantiate it. Like every post you've made here so far.
Think we can be done. You have nothing intelligent to say.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have exposed your utter lack of any rational argument.

You may now return to your worship of Arpaio.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

eohrnberger said:
Enforcing the border, since the fed won't / don't / can't be bothered is now a crime?

Where as a president exceeding his authority in his EOs and pushing prosecutorial discretion beyond it's absolute limit is acceptable somehow?

Up is down, and down is Up. Right is wrong and wrong is right. WTF?
Click to expand...

When you stop people simply because they look "Mexican", you are breaking the law. "Vee must see your paperz". Where have we heard that before?
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

danarhea said:
When you stop people simply because they look "Mexican", you are breaking the law. "Vee must see your paperz". Where have we heard that before?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that law enforcement choice really depend on the prevalence of illegal aliens in the area?

Or are we to send out law enforcement to enforce the laws ill-equipped, deaf, dumb and blind?

So what's your solution? How would you handle the large influx and high prevalence of illegal aliens in the area better?
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

eohrnberger said:
Wouldn't that law enforcement choice really depend on the prevalence of illegal aliens in the area?

Or are we to send out law enforcement to enforce the laws ill-equipped, deaf, dumb and blind?

So what's your solution? How would you handle the large influx and high prevalence of illegal aliens in the area better?
Click to expand...

You send out law enforcement officers who have been trained in the needs of their duties. Just as "stop and frisk" focused on a specific demographic despite the fact that when white males were stopped they were found to be in violation of some law more frequently than the black and brown men who were being harassed, stopping people because of their skin colour in Arizona meant that some of those stopped had far deeper ties to the land than the LEOs.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Somerville said:
You send out law enforcement officers who have been trained in the needs of their duties. Just as "stop and frisk" focused on a specific demographic despite the fact that when white males were stopped they were found to be in violation of some law more frequently than the black and brown men who were being harassed, stopping people because of their skin colour in Arizona meant that some of those stopped had far deeper ties to the land than the LEOs.
Click to expand...

I'm hearing talking points, and not really any sort of solution, all rather ambiguous.

What solutions to the problem are you really talking about here?
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Tanngrisnir said:
Fantastic news.

He's been one of the most untouchable, corrupt lunatics in elected office for far too long now.

He's only looking at 6 months in Club Fed (unfortunately not dressed in pink in his own jail), but I hope he gets the full stretch.

It would be a fitting place for him to expire.
Click to expand...
You're worried about corruption? Where we're you during the email server scandal?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

American said:
You're worried about corruption? Where we're you during the email server scandal?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your pathological need to make everything about Clinton duly noted.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

American said:
You're worried about corruption? Where we're you during the email server scandal?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What email scandal?
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Somerville said:
One can only hope this clown goes down this time. He's such a good 'conservative'. To date he has only cost Maricopa County $50 million because of law suits he has lost.
Click to expand...

So the DOJ will indict someone who enforces the law, but not someone who breaks it?

But then again, we are talking about Loretta Lynch. Just as corrupt as her boss and her friends the Clintons.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Erod said:
Why is Loretta constantly looking for conservatives to lynch?
Click to expand...

Because she's a corrupt Obama lackey, that's why
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Tanngrisnir said:
Your pathological need to make everything about Clinton duly noted.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it demonstrates your hypocrisy.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

American said:
Yes, because it demonstrates your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

LOL! Whatever you have to tell yourself to maintain your fantasy.

Hope it's warm and cozy in your safe space!
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

Fenton said:
Second thread on this and of-course the corrupt Obama DOJ is targeting Arpaio.

Tin pot third world corrutpion on a unprecented scale brought to American by the Democrat party
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was "corruption" to prosecute someone for criminal conduct. I guess only when it's a wingnut folk hero who has consistently and repeatedly thumbed his nose at federal law.
 
Re: Federal government to pursue criminal-contempt charge against Sheriff Joe Arpaio;

So many people supporting enforcement of the laws they like while ignoring the laws they don't like. Enforce them all. We can call it "All laws matter"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom