RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BoscoX -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 10:40:18 AM)


The sheriff was elected, but the left just cannot abide by free and fair elections - so they sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued until they finally won one to thwart the voter's decision




Nnanji -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 10:42:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: bostonpolarbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

He violated constitutional rights, he is a racist pig, and trump is giving him a pass...
who is surprised,



His crime was enforcing the laws that Obama refused to enforce....



When did violating constitutional rights become "the law".

Pardons are for mercy or for those who were treated unfairly by the law. Arpaio was a sheriff, whose duty was to follow the law, who *unfairly treated" others by using "the law" illegally.

. . .



Arpaio didn't violate anyone's constitution rights. He violated the far left's sense of hate. In your world when a Deputy Sheriff pulls over a Latino who can't speak English and has no drivers license he should let that guy go or it's racist hate. It's not in mine.

Typical righty. You and your political buddies get to cherry pic just what court rulings are ok and based on the judge being a lefty or black or latino and again typically, your partisan, political prejudices.


On the contrary, you're making things up again. Sheriff Arpaio, as the highest elected official in the county with over 35 years of law enforcement experience made that determination and performed to his conscience. Too, it's too bad the pardon came now so that an appeal couldn't determine if a more reasonable court might agree. Also, if you have read a lot, as you say, then you know that the judge in the case didn't agree with the charges the prosecutors brought forth but had no say in that issue.

Edited to add: Frankly your thesis about conservative and courts is completely overshadowed by the left cherry picking friendly courts in which to bring political lawsuits.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 10:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that didn't matter to Donald Trump as he pushed a shiv through the heart of the American justice [Just-us] system.



oh yes the JUST-US system of extortion collusion rico and constitutional destruction.

Typical of the devoutly cynical. The court and justice system has broken down, so let's tear it down some more.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 10:59:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Obama pardoned 1,715 felons during his tenure, more that any previous president. 273 federal inmates in one day. You or Vincent didn't seem to have a problem with that.

According to what I've read and a lot so far, this is unprecedented. No person found to have violated a federal court order has ever been pardoned before.

Now officers all over the country know they can go very far in their ruthlessness even then violate a future federal court order...and very likely, get away with it while Trump is in office.



then take the powers of presidential pardon away, since he acted within standing law.

I didn't write it was illegal, I wrote that it was unprecedented.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:02:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Obama pardoned 1,715 felons during his tenure, more that any previous president. 273 federal inmates in one day. You or Vincent didn't seem to have a problem with that.


Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

Oscar Lopez was one of the most violent extremists of his time. The fact that Obama commuted his sentence doesn’t speak well of U.S. politics.


On January 17, 2017, as one of the final acts of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55-year conviction for the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” as well as attempted robbery, explosives and vehicle-theft charges. Thanks to Obama’s intercession, Lopez will be freed in May.

In some quarters, Obama’s decision was greeted with elation. Spontaneous celebrations broke out in San Juan. Luis Gutiérrez, a Democratic congressman from Illinois who represents the West Side Chicago neighborhood in which Lopez grew up, said in a statement that he was “overjoyed and overwhelmed” by Lopez’s release. “Oscar is a friend, a mentor, and family to me,” wrote Gutierrez. According to the New York Daily News, Melissa Mark-Viverito, the speaker of the New York City Council and a rising Democratic Party star, cried when she heard the news, calling Lopez’s release “incredible” and a “morale boost” for Puerto Rico. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who lobbied hard for Lopez’s commutation, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio both offered Obama their thanks. And Lin Manuel Miranda, who has been a vocal proponent for Lopez, tweeted that he was “sobbing with gratitude.” (He furthermore added that he would reprise his role in “Hamilton” for one night in Chicago in Lopez’s honor.)


Lopez’s supporters refer to him as a “political prisoner” or “independence activist,” and characterize him as a man unfairly and harshly targeted by the U.S. government for his beliefs. He has even been called “Puerto Rico’s Nelson Mandela.”

The truth, alas, is considerably darker than that.

Most Americans may not have heard of Lopez, or the organization he helped lead, the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a radical Marxist Puerto Rican independence group. With the focus of post-9/11 terrorism falling almost exclusively on Islamist radicals, the violent nationalists of yesteryear—Puerto Rican, Cuban, Croatian and Jewish—have faded into obscurity. But during the FALN’s explosive heyday under Lopez’s leadership, the group was anything but obscure. In fact, from 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.

The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period, including the January 1975 explosion in Manhattan’s historic Fraunces Tavern, which killed four and wounded 63. In October of that year, it set off, all within the span of an hour, 10 bombs in three cities, causing nearly a million dollars in damage. In August 1977, the FALN set off a series of bombs in Manhattan, forcing 100,000 workers to evacuate their offices; one person was killed, and six were injured. In 1979, the group even threatened to blow up the Indian Point nuclear energy facility located north of New York City. It later sent a communiqué warning the U.S. to “remember … that you have never experienced war on your vitals and that you have many nuclear reactors.” In 1980, FALN members stormed the Carter-Mondale election headquarters in Chicago, and the George H.W. Bush campaign headquarters in New York, holding employees there hostage at gunpoint. In 1981, they plotted to kidnap President Reagan’s son Ron. Plainly, the group was deadly serious about its objectives—a free, independent and socialist Puerto Rico—and zealous in its pursuit of them.

According to court documents, thoughout this time, Lopez, a Vietnam War veteran, was part of FALN’s “Central Command”—a member of the “triumvirate” that led the organization. In 1976, Lopez became a fugitive when federal investigators discovered a “bomb factory” in an apartment he had rented in Chicago. He would evade arrest for the next five years, actively planning robberies and training FALN members. According to the summary of the testimony of Alfredo Mendez, an FALN member who later became a government witness, Lopez even gave new members bomb-making lessons.

More


He did 35 fucking years. Just what was he supposed to do ? It was not a pardon but a commutation.




in substance the same thing, you are arguing over timing.

No, a pardon is a legal form of forgiveness for your crimes. A commutation is legally stopping in its tracks, the wheels of justice and is not a pardon.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:05:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The people have the rightful authority and are the final judge of the judges.


Since when ?




Nnanji -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:08:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The people have the rightful authority and are the final judge of the judges.


Since when ?

Actually, since always. The House, as the people's representatives, have the authority to impeach a judge.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:10:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


The sheriff was elected, but the left just cannot abide by free and fair elections - so they sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued until they finally won one to thwart the voter's decision

Typically irrelevant.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:20:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: bostonpolarbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

He violated constitutional rights, he is a racist pig, and trump is giving him a pass...
who is surprised,



His crime was enforcing the laws that Obama refused to enforce....



When did violating constitutional rights become "the law".

Pardons are for mercy or for those who were treated unfairly by the law. Arpaio was a sheriff, whose duty was to follow the law, who *unfairly treated" others by using "the law" illegally.

. . .



Arpaio didn't violate anyone's constitution rights. He violated the far left's sense of hate. In your world when a Deputy Sheriff pulls over a Latino who can't speak English and has no drivers license he should let that guy go or it's racist hate. It's not in mine.

Typical righty. You and your political buddies get to cherry pic just what court rulings are ok and based on the judge being a lefty or black or latino and again typically, your partisan, political prejudices.


On the contrary, you're making things up again. Sheriff Arpaio, as the highest elected official in the county with over 35 years of law enforcement experience made that determination and performed to his conscience. Too, it too bad the pardon came now so that an appeal couldn't determine if a more reasonable court might agree. Also, if you have read a lot, as you say, then you know that the judge in the case didn't agree with the charges the prosecutors brought forth but had no say in that issue.

Peoples' rights are being violated regularly in the US. So you get to pick when law enforcement gets to use their experience and operate in 'good conscience' even if in the case of the court, the sheriff...went to far.

In the end, it doesn't matter what peripheral issues were involved. The court ruled just like all other courts, even the courts for which you seem to hold no prejudice.

That's just one of the real problems of the right today, having this consistent urge to look (at anything and as far back as necessary) at the politics of the courts and law to justify your the cherry picking.




MrRodgers -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:25:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The people have the rightful authority and are the final judge of the judges.


Since when ?

Actually, since always. The House, as the people's representatives, have the authority to impeach a judge.

I think you can count on 1 hand how many judges that have been impeached in our history. The 'people' have no power to change a judge's ruling.




Nnanji -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:28:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: bostonpolarbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

He violated constitutional rights, he is a racist pig, and trump is giving him a pass...
who is surprised,



His crime was enforcing the laws that Obama refused to enforce....



When did violating constitutional rights become "the law".

Pardons are for mercy or for those who were treated unfairly by the law. Arpaio was a sheriff, whose duty was to follow the law, who *unfairly treated" others by using "the law" illegally.

. . .



Arpaio didn't violate anyone's constitution rights. He violated the far left's sense of hate. In your world when a Deputy Sheriff pulls over a Latino who can't speak English and has no drivers license he should let that guy go or it's racist hate. It's not in mine.

Typical righty. You and your political buddies get to cherry pic just what court rulings are ok and based on the judge being a lefty or black or latino and again typically, your partisan, political prejudices.


On the contrary, you're making things up again. Sheriff Arpaio, as the highest elected official in the county with over 35 years of law enforcement experience made that determination and performed to his conscience. Too, it too bad the pardon came now so that an appeal couldn't determine if a more reasonable court might agree. Also, if you have read a lot, as you say, then you know that the judge in the case didn't agree with the charges the prosecutors brought forth but had no say in that issue.

Peoples' rights are being violated regularly in the US. So you get to pick when law enforcement gets to use their experience and operate in 'good conscience' even if in the case of the court, the sheriff...went to far.

In the end, it doesn't matter what peripheral issues were involved. The court ruled just like all other courts, even the courts for which you seem to hold no prejudice.

That's just one of the real problems of the right today, having this consistent urge to look (at anything and as far back as necessary) at the politics of the courts and law to justify your the cherry picking.

See this is how your brain sees conspiracies. Where...anywhere...did I say anything like what you are arguing? I corrected a misstatement by you. Which, probably was going toward a conspiracy. Your argument here is pure BS.




vincentML -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 11:58:14 AM)

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

A sensitive and diplomatic move by the President, doubtless done to calm burgeoning racial tensions and hostility towards state institutions in the USA; demonstrating, once again, his political wisdom and acuity. [:)]

Your comment might be the only lefty comment so far that actually has some sense to it.

No, that has to be sarcasm!

quote:

I understood Peon and accepted the point. Sorry you missed that, but I do, from time to time accept dissenting opinion.

Yes, I know you do. However for some reason I missed it in your response this time. Apologies.




vincentML -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:07:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


The sheriff was elected, but the left just cannot abide by free and fair elections - so they sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued, sued until they finally won one to thwart the voter's decision

Between elections, during the period of governance, the power of the people to assure that their rights are not violated lies either in the courts or in the streets. I think the courts are a preferable alternative.




Musicmystery -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:16:05 PM)

And being elected is not free rein to flaunt the law.

Though I can see why a Trump supporter would miss that point.




PonyGroom -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:34:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And being elected is not free rein to flaunt the law.

Though I can see why a Trump supporter would miss that point.

I see this coming up again and again.

Why don't they like the rule of law? They seem to think elections are about voting in a King, who can then do as he pleases.





Danemora -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:36:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

~FRing it~

What I think is that how we all view Trump pardoning Arpaio might not matter as much as the feelings of those who were targets of Arpaio's policies when he headed the MCSO. Hispanics are a pretty huge voting bloc


Yeah, I know. Good point. You are such a deep thinker, I am in awe

A Republican could never win without the Hispanic vote

The Republicans might want to consider abandoning white voters altogether, just like the Democrats have done

Go no-borders Marxists all the way


Not much else that can be said. Think what you want, sweetie. You will anyway




BoscoX -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:39:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And being elected is not free rein to flaunt the law.

Though I can see why a Trump supporter would miss that point.


Flaunt the law, as in welcome illegals because they will likely vote Democrat?

The IRS scandal?

Operation Fast & Furious?

Keeping emails on an illegal server to get around FOIA laws, etc?

Your wild-eyed stupidity would't be so crazy if you were referring to King Obama and your Pussyhat Queen




servantforuse -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:44:39 PM)

If they are here illegally, they don't have rights. They are not supposed to be here.




Musicmystery -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 12:56:02 PM)

We still have laws. That includes sheriffs.

Or it used to before Trump.




Nnanji -> RE: Trump pardoning Arpaio (8/26/2017 1:00:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The people have the rightful authority and are the final judge of the judges.


Since when ?

Actually, since always. The House, as the people's representatives, have the authority to impeach a judge.

I think you can count on 1 hand how many judges that have been impeached in our history. The 'people' have no power to change a judge's ruling.

Again, once you get an idea in your head you can't see beyond your blinders, or you'll say anything to win an argument. Which ever. The topic was not over turning a judges decision. The topic was judging the judges and my comment stands.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625