• 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!

President Trump grants pardon to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona. [W:1067]

Somerville said:
One must wonder why those who label themselves "Conservative" and who generally hate government waste of taxpayer dollars continued to vote for a man who cost them millions.
Click to expand...

It's simple, we actually look at it and put in perspective rather than see that number and suddenly go nuts. See he was the sheriff of the 4th largest county in the USA for 24 years. When we talk about the number of murders in Chicago, everyone decides that proportionally Chicago is this safe city because it has so many people compared to the number of murders. Maricopa County may have a big dollar amount during the time he was in office but he was in office a quarter of a century. How much did other cities pay out during that time? Any pay more?
 
Southern Dad said:
It's simple, we actually look at it and put in perspective rather than see that number and suddenly go nuts. See he was the sheriff of the 4th largest county in the USA for 24 years. When we talk about the number of murders in Chicago, everyone decides that proportionally Chicago is this safe city because it has so many people compared to the number of murders. Maricopa County may have a big dollar amount during the time he was in office but he was in office a quarter of a century. How much did other cities pay out during that time? Any pay more?
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at diversion.

To make a proper comparison, one must first find a similar size metropolitan area which had a chief of police or county sheriff in office for 24 years. Then one must look at lawsuits filed against that metro area to see if the long term LEO was the subject of said lawsuits. Only then could one make a fair correlation.
 
Meh. All presidents issue pardons. Some of them are typically political or controversial. Nothing new here.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you're claiming that he did receive privileged treatment, don't you have to prove that? In an honest discussion?

Manning was kept in solitary for way over a year as I recall. And he was made to stand for inspection, while in solitary, naked. You call that special treatment in a good way? You're not quite "well informed" on that matter.

In that he exposed the crimes of government, he is/was a hero, a patriot.
Click to expand...

He took an oath, like many of us did. Then he betrayed that trust afforded to him by all his brothers, and sisters in uniform. Not only endangering the lives of our people, but the lives of those helping us as well.

That really doesn't sound like a hero to me.
 
Oborosen said:
He took an oath, like many of us did. Then he betrayed that trust afforded to him by all his brothers, and sisters in uniform. Not only endangering the lives of our people, but the lives of those helping us as well.

That really doesn't sound like a hero to me.
Click to expand...

Do you recall that he took an oath to the US Constitution? And therefore to its principles?

Do you recall that the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception, and therefore in violation of numerous international laws? That our invasion of those countries amounted to military aggression and illegal under international law?

What obligation did he have to go along with such violations of law? Why should he remain silent when US troops shoot up civilians including children, and joke about it on the radio?

He exposed to the world the crimes of government, and that makes him a patriot.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Do you recall that he took an oath to the US Constitution? And therefore to its principles?

Do you recall that the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception, and therefore in violation of numerous international laws? That our invasion of those countries amounted to military aggression and illegal under international law?

What obligation did he have to go along with such violations of law? Why should he remain silent when US troops shoot up civilians including children, and joke about it on the radio?

He exposed to the world the crimes of government, and that makes him a patriot.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with what you say about the Iraq invasion under GW, I don't agree that our initial invasion of Afghanistan was in violation of various international laws. At that time, Osama bin Laden was in the country under the protection of the ruling Taliban. The problem with Afghanistan came when the Bush, or more likely Cheney, people, decided to ramp up their attacks against Saddam Hussein and pulled resources from the effort to take down bin Laden.

This is an off topic comment.
 
disneydude said:
Dude....you can pull any definition up that you want.....it doesn't change the facts. Use a little bit of logic. WHY would Arpaio's lawyer say that he was going to file a petition and go to court in order to GET THE CONVICTION REMOVED now that Trump has issued the pardon.....if the pardon removed the conviction? DOH! I think Arpaio's lawyer might just know a little teeny bit more about the effect of the pardon that you are pretending to know.
Click to expand...

Yawn.......
 
Thoreau72 said:
Do you recall that he took an oath to the US Constitution? And therefore to its principles?

Do you recall that the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception, and therefore in violation of numerous international laws? That our invasion of those countries amounted to military aggression and illegal under international law?

What obligation did he have to go along with such violations of law? Why should he remain silent when US troops shoot up civilians including children, and joke about it on the radio?

He exposed to the world the crimes of government, and that makes him a patriot.
Click to expand...

Those invasion are mirrored by dozens of other countries, and while demonstrable can still be handled without making the entire country look completely complicit. As with the mistreatment of civilians lives, and the aforementioned invasions. There were people who were going to pay for such things, that they committed.

But that still doesn't change the fact that he not only blew the whistle on that, but also revealed more then enough secret information to impede our work on multiple fronts.

In this occasion if he had just revealed the mistreatment of civilian lives, which was already known to those who knew where to look, not to mention the misuse of power by the heads of military branches then I would have been fine with it. But the moment he endangered even more civilian lives, and the lives of our own servicemen & allies. It moved past the point of him just breaking his oath to the united states, but he played his own part in the loss of life, and liberties as a whole.
 
Oborosen said:
Those invasion are mirrored by dozens of other countries, and while demonstrable can still be handled without making the entire country look completely complicit. As with the mistreatment of civilians lives, and the aforementioned invasions. There were people who were going to pay for such things, that they committed.

But that still doesn't change the fact that he not only blew the whistle on that, but also revealed more then enough secret information to impede our work on multiple fronts.

In this occasion if he had just revealed the mistreatment of civilian lives, which was already known to those who knew where to look, not to mention the misuse of power by the heads of military branches then I would have been fine with it. But the moment he endangered even more civilian lives, and the lives of our own servicemen & allies. It moved past the point of him just breaking his oath to the united states, but he played his own part in the loss of life, and liberties as a whole.
Click to expand...

Your claim all these years later that Manning "revealed enough secret information to impede our work on multiple fronts" is contradicted at the time, FWIW, by Robert Gates himself. He said words to the effect that no US persons or property were harmed by the material Manning released.

Exposing the crimes of government is ALWAYS an act of patriotism.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your claim all these years later that Manning "revealed enough secret information to impede our work on multiple fronts" is contradicted at the time, FWIW, by Robert Gates himself. He said words to the effect that no US persons or property were harmed by the material Manning released.

Exposing the crimes of government is ALWAYS an act of patriotism.
Click to expand...

The list exposed names, and locations of undercover operatives within its pages. Do you really think they would tell us if those people got killed or not, have of the things that they were questioned about during the whole leak were not even touched on. Gates himself has been used as a mouthpiece in the past, and I don't doubt for a second that he was used as such this time around.

The US is at fault here yes, but it does not changed the fact that Manning deserves the fate of a traitor. If not for the fact that he broke his oath, then for what he caused in revealing all of that information.
 
Oborosen said:
The list exposed names, and locations of undercover operatives within its pages. Do you really think they would tell us if those people got killed or not, have of the things that they were questioned about during the whole leak were not even touched on. Gates himself has been used as a mouthpiece in the past, and I don't doubt for a second that he was used as such this time around.

The US is at fault here yes, but it does not changed the fact that Manning deserves the fate of a traitor. If not for the fact that he broke his oath, then for what he caused in revealing all of that information.
Click to expand...

I presume you know that treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, and that you can search the document to find that definition.

Considering the fraudulent nature of our invasion there, and the absolute absence of constitutional authority for those invasions, exposing the crimes of government IS NOT one of the elements of treason.

Rather, it is an element of civic responsibility and duty. Thank you Chelsea Manning, for sacrificing some years of your life to shine a light on the crooks in charge.

Just curious, if I may ask, as to just who it is you think Gates was being used by, as a mouthpiece?
 
Cardinal said:
President Trump grants pardon to former Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona - ABC News

Since he has shown his willingness to pardon Arpaio, two things should be clear:

1) Acceptance of a pardon is acceptance of guilt. Therefore, Arpaio is guilty of the crime he was convicted of.
2) His willingness to pardon one of his staunchest supporters infers a willingness to grant other pardons, such as for friends, family and associates connected with the Russia investigation. The controversy of pardoning Arpaio will not dissuade him from granting other controversial pardons.

Although a disgusting move, Arpaio is relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but the important point is that it gets people used to the exercise of pardoning, and leads the way for possible pardons of Flynn, Manafort, and Kushner.
Click to expand...


"Small potatoes" gives Trump his excuses that we suck up. Trump is all about committing more and greater penalties than the last in order to keep on.
 
Redress said:
So today Trump pardoned a criminal and banned trans people from joining the military. In Trump's America, criminals are rewarded, people wanting to serve their country, not so much.
Click to expand...

Producing smart well conceived remarks won't kill anyone. But hay, why take the chance, right?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I presume you know that treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, and that you can search the document to find that definition.

Considering the fraudulent nature of our invasion there, and the absolute absence of constitutional authority for those invasions, exposing the crimes of government IS NOT one of the elements of treason.

Rather, it is an element of civic responsibility and duty. Thank you Chelsea Manning, for sacrificing some years of your life to shine a light on the crooks in charge.

Just curious, if I may ask, as to just who it is you think Gates was being used by, as a mouthpiece?
Click to expand...

I got more then enough stupidity out of Gates during Bush Jr's run as president, not to mention lending ink to anything Bush and his cronies wanted.

I have no trouble with admitting that it is crimes that the US should have been called out, its the fact that Manning still broke an oath that he took. The only correlation I am even pressed to draw between him and Arpaio, is that were people can claim Manning was doing his duty. Arpaio was just doing his job, and he still got punished for it.

I hate how people say this man getting pardoned is some sort of proof of a white supremacist motive, or some other inane crap.

Just getting tired of people looking for their own form of evidence, in a non-existent place.
 
Oborosen said:
I got more then enough stupidity out of Gates during Bush Jr's run as president, not to mention lending ink to anything Bush and his cronies wanted.

I have no trouble with admitting that it is crimes that the US should have been called out, its the fact that Manning still broke an oath that he took. The only correlation I am even pressed to draw between him and Arpaio, is that were people can claim Manning was doing his duty. Arpaio was just doing his job, and he still got punished for it.

I hate how people say this man getting pardoned is some sort of proof of a white supremacist motive, or some other inane crap.

Just getting tired of people looking for their own form of evidence, in a non-existent place.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think I understand your point better now. Somehow we got side tracked on the Manning thing, maybe my fault.

I think it was wrong to pardon Arpaio because the net effect was against the Judiciary and in favor of The Unitary Executive.

I paid only moderate attention to the Arpaio case as it played out over the years, and I disapproved of his methods, from a distance and with no emotions. Then, when the court instructed him to do a certain thing, he refused. I thought the contempt charge was appropriate, and I think the pardon by Trump showed his typical lack of class regarding the rule of law.

As for Bob Gates, he is just another crook in the Gang Of Crooks that is Bush & Co. That said, even he is capable of making a true statement, and I thought his comments about any damage done by Manning were probably pretty close to the truth.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thanks, I think I understand your point better now. Somehow we got side tracked on the Manning thing, maybe my fault.

I think it was wrong to pardon Arpaio because the net effect was against the Judiciary and in favor of The Unitary Executive.

I paid only moderate attention to the Arpaio case as it played out over the years, and I disapproved of his methods, from a distance and with no emotions. Then, when the court instructed him to do a certain thing, he refused. I thought the contempt charge was appropriate, and I think the pardon by Trump showed his typical lack of class regarding the rule of law.

As for Bob Gates, he is just another crook in the Gang Of Crooks that is Bush & Co. That said, even he is capable of making a true statement, and I thought his comments about any damage done by Manning were probably pretty close to the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand, and we both share equal blame on the sidetracking business here.

I find the identity politics being thrown around by people trying to say its Trump defending his racist allies, increasingly infuriating. So I can get rather defensive when people just easily label it as such, then turning a blind eye. Arpaio was a hard man yes, his methods were not without reason however, and I will not deny that him being pardoned was just a political move on his part.

Gates on the other hand is a whole new issue for me. I served under Bush, and I got to see how the whole issue between their groups played out from time to time.

I would just rather not give him the time of day now.
Him, and people like Maxine Waters are proof that there should be term limits on more then just a few government seats.
 
Oborosen said:
Yes I understand, and we both share equal blame on the sidetracking business here.

I find the identity politics being thrown around by people trying to say its Trump defending his racist allies, increasingly infuriating. So I can get rather defensive when people just easily label it as such, then turning a blind eye. Arpaio was a hard man yes, his methods were not without reason however, and I will not deny that him being pardoned was just a political move on his part.

Gates on the other hand is a whole new issue for me. I served under Bush, and I got to see how the whole issue between their groups played out from time to time.

I would just rather not give him the time of day now.
Him, and people like Maxine Waters are proof that there should be term limits on more then just a few government seats.
Click to expand...

I have followed Gates I put him at the top of the food chain on ability and honesty, understanding that the quality tends to suck.

What Sir is wrong with him?

If you start a thread I will follow, kindly send me a link.
 
Oborosen said:
I got more then enough stupidity out of Gates during Bush Jr's run as president, not to mention lending ink to anything Bush and his cronies wanted.

I have no trouble with admitting that it is crimes that the US should have been called out, its the fact that Manning still broke an oath that he took. The only correlation I am even pressed to draw between him and Arpaio, is that were people can claim Manning was doing his duty. Arpaio was just doing his job, and he still got punished for it.

I hate how people say this man getting pardoned is some sort of proof of a white supremacist motive, or some other inane crap.

Just getting tired of people looking for their own form of evidence, in a non-existent place.
Click to expand...

Yes, Sheriff Arpaio was doing his job as a law enforcement officer, but it was the way he was doing it that got him in trouble.

*Indiscriminate racial profiling of people of Hispanic decent whether they were illegal aliens or not.
*Unlawful detention without giving the detainee the opportunity to prove their lawful entry into the country.
*Holding detainees and inmates in harsh environmental conditions with little or no reprieve.
*Seeking out illegal aliens outside his jurisdictional authority.

It would've been one thing if county Sheriffs and/or Deputies were picking up these people on lawful traffic violations or for other minor/major crimes (i.e., drug possession, vagrancy, physical abuse, thief/robbery, fleeing the scene of a crime, etc., etc.), but that wasn't what was happening. He's county mountees were effectively picking up anyone who didn't look like they belonged and throwing them in jail for untold period of time - basically until he was done with them. That is a problem because not only was Sheriff Arpaio over-stepping is bounds; he was also violating the detainee's basic human rights.
 
Objective Voice said:
Yes, Sheriff Arpaio was doing his job as a law enforcement officer, but it was the way he was doing it that got him in trouble.

*Indiscriminate racial profiling of people of Hispanic decent whether they were illegal aliens or not.
*Unlawful detention without giving the detainee the opportunity to prove their lawful entry into the country.
*Holding detainees and inmates in harsh environmental conditions with little or no reprieve.
*Seeking out illegal aliens outside his jurisdictional authority.

It would've been one thing if county Sheriffs and/or Deputies were picking up these people on lawful traffic violations or for other minor/major crimes (i.e., drug possession, vagrancy, physical abuse, thief/robbery, fleeing the scene of a crime, etc., etc.), but that wasn't what was happening. He's county mountees were effectively picking up anyone who didn't look like they belonged and throwing them in jail for untold period of time - basically until he was done with them. That is a problem because not only was Sheriff Arpaio over-stepping is bounds; he was also violating the detainee's basic human rights.
Click to expand...

*When your jurisdiction has such a high demographic of one race, illegal & legal. You are going to run into more then one of that person. Not to mention when you are given a profile for a suspected criminal, and the profile is as vague as "short/medium build/black hair/Hispanic" Then you are going to be looking for people who fit that profile.
*When you fight back against the inspecting officer, then that gives them reason to call your claim into question, especially when you refuse to show proof. I keep three forms of identification on me at most times for just that purpose. Not to mention when they have reason to search after you have been so adamant about not proving citizenship. They can still search your vehicle, just not locked containers, and when they find narcotics, or weapons (which has been a majority of the time in those cases). Its not the arresting officers fault when things escalate at that point.
*When your prison population is so high that you have to resort to using outside tents, then its a rather easy thing to justify. Not to mention when you are a detained illegal, it means you are not a civilian, so many of the normal rights that apply to citizens does not readily apply to you. Though that whole topic is a grey area anyway, so its still just a point of contention.
*(I don't recall hearing anything about that) But it could coincide with his deputies perusing fleeing suspects into the nearby districts. That is the only information that I have heard concerning the matter.


Also, if anyone tells you they were just going around picking people up indiscriminately. Then they are not telling you the whole truth, or just outright lying to you.
 
Oborosen said:
*When your jurisdiction has such a high demographic of one race, illegal & legal. You are going to run into more then one of that person. Not to mention when you are given a profile for a suspected criminal, and the profile is as vague as "short/medium build/black hair/Hispanic" Then you are going to be looking for people who fit that profile.
*When you fight back against the inspecting officer, then that gives them reason to call your claim into question, especially when you refuse to show proof. I keep three forms of identification on me at most times for just that purpose. Not to mention when they have reason to search after you have been so adamant about not proving citizenship. They can still search your vehicle, just not locked containers, and when they find narcotics, or weapons (which has been a majority of the time in those cases). Its not the arresting officers fault when things escalate at that point.
*When your prison population is so high that you have to resort to using outside tents, then its a rather easy thing to justify. Not to mention when you are a detained illegal, it means you are not a civilian, so many of the normal rights that apply to citizens does not readily apply to you. Though that whole topic is a grey area anyway, so its still just a point of contention.
*(I don't recall hearing anything about that) But it could coincide with his deputies perusing fleeing suspects into the nearby districts. That is the only information that I have heard concerning the matter.


Also, if anyone tells you they were just going around picking people up indiscriminately. Then they are not telling you the whole truth, or just outright lying to you.
Click to expand...

What you've outlined goes counter to everything I mentioned in my post. It wasn't that Sheriff Arpiao was profiling Hispanics and using general descriptions as probable cause to detain and subsequently arrest people. It was the fact that he did so whether these people acted suspicious or not. It didn't matter if the guy or gal fit the description of a traffic offender or a robbery suspect or even a murder suspect. IT DID NOT MATTER. He and his Deputies pulled people over for the simple fact that they looked Hispanic or Mexican. The individual could have just been walking down the street, shopping at Walmart or driving to work and he'd "Stop and Frisk" until he "found" an excuse to further detain or arrest them. Your very argument that some "resisted" lends itself to how easy it is for law enforcement officers to claim "assault against a police officer, resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order" and all sorts of other trumped up charges cops use as tactics to go further than just detaining someone. While I understand the root of your counter-argument, "If you have nothing to hide, why not just cooperate with the law?" the other side of the argument is "If I've done nothing wrong, why are you harassing me?".

To be clear: Sheriff Arpiao wasn't stopping these people because they committed a crime or were suspected of committing a crime. He stopped them because he wanted to round-up as many people he could who appeared to be of Hispanic decent in an effort to get as many illegal aliens out of his town as he could, and he used the racial profiling tactic known as "Stop and Frisk" under the guise of "probable cause" to do it.

My problem isn't in that he felt compelled to target certain people who met certain physical characteristics who he believed were causing a high volume of crime within his jurisdiction. It's the fact that he harassed and unlawfully detained people who although they may have fit the profile, he didn't afford them due process.
 
Last edited:
Question. Whats the difference between Joe Arpaio investigating illegal immigration targeting the most likely population groups (as does the INS/ICE teams) and New York Gov Cuomo targeting a school where likely gang participation occurs?
 
Objective Voice said:
What you've outlined goes counter to everything I mentioned in my post. It wasn't that Sheriff Arpiao was profiling Hispanics and using general descriptions as probable cause to detain and subsequently arrest people. It was the fact that he did so whether these people acted suspicious or not. It didn't matter if the guy or gal fit the description of a traffic offender or a robbery suspect or even a murder suspect. IT DID NOT MATTER. He and his Deputies pulled people over for the simple fact that they looked Hispanic or Mexican. The individual could have just been walking down the street, shopping at Walmart or driving to work and he'd "Stop and Frisk" until he "found" an excuse to further detain or arrest them. Your very argument that some "resisted" lends itself to how easy it is for law enforcement officers to claim "assault against a police officer, resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order" and all sorts of other trumped up charges cops use as tactics to go further than just detaining someone. While I understand the root of your counter-argument, "If you have nothing to hide, why not just cooperate with the law?" the other side of the argument is "If I've done nothing wrong, why are you harassing me?".

To be clear: Sheriff Arpiao wasn't stopping these people because they committed a crime or were suspected of committing a crime. He stopped them because he wanted to round-up as many people he could who appeared to be of Hispanic decent in an effort to get as many illegal aliens out of his town as he could, and he used the racial profiling tactic known as "Stop and Frisk" under the guise of "probable cause" to do it.

My problem isn't in that he felt compelled to target certain people who met certain physical characteristics who he believed were causing a high volume of crime within his jurisdiction. It's the fact that he harassed and unlawfully detained people who although they may have fit the profile, he didn't afford them due process.
Click to expand...

But right there is the problem, they did get due process.
You are also saying that he did this all with a motive that no one at this point has been able to prove, past the point of speculation.

The man was doing his job, just like any other man in his position. All the accusations I have seen leveled at this man from the get go, is that he is racist "with no evidence" or that he is crooked "with no evidence".
It started as just another attack on someone who was standing up for Trump, and has simply evolved into this.
 
If "they got due process", why were they detained indefinitely and never had a trial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom