Will Trump pardon Joe Arpaio tonight ?

[Kelly the Dog]

Then I take it you are fine with the ratio of Blacks, Whites and Hispanics locked up in our prison system?

Of course not. I was specifically and only referring to Phx and Arpaio. Otherwise the profiling hypothetical is on a case by case basis. Profiling often is racist and often it is not.

[grinreaper]

Of course not. I was specifically and only referring to Phx and Arpaio. Otherwise the profiling hypothetical is on a case by case basis. Profiling often is racist and often it is not.

So, you must be of the belief that the lockup rates somehow must unfairly target Blacks and Hispanics?

[TakeYouToTasker]

How is it not racist when the article specifically refers to the charge he was using racist tactics and then flaunted that he wasn't going to follow federal law that doesn't allow him to practice such racist tactics? It says right in same article that the officers had written orders to specifically target and pull over Hispanics. How is that not racist?

Because profiling isn't de facto racist.

 

He wasn't targeting Hispanics because they were Hispanic, eschewing pulling over other racial groups who could have been equally guilty per capita. He was targeting Hispanics because of his focus on immigration crimes in the Southwest of the United States, the perpetrators of which are overwhelmingly Hispanic.

 

That isn't racist. It's racial, but not racist.

 

Racist would be if he was targeting Hispanics, because "!@#$ Hispanics".

Edited August 30, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc Brown]

It's difficult to determine if a person is racist or not because it is often subjective on whether a person fits that definition. The problem is when you label anyone that disagrees with you a racist that word becomes less meaningful. Based on what's been reported and his birther nonsense my personal opinion is that Arpaio is a racist, but I can't prove that.

[DC Tom]

Because profiling isn't de facto racist.

 

He wasn't targeting Hispanics because they were Hispanic, eschewing pulling over other racial groups who could have been equally guilty per capita. He was targeting Hispanics because of his focus on immigration crimes in the Southwest of the United States, the perpetrators of which are overwhelmingly Hispanic.

 

That isn't racist. It's racial, but not racist.

 

Racist would be if he was targeting Hispanics, because "!@#$ Hispanics".

 

Of course, the difference between "racial" and "racist" is another discussion this country's never had, and a distinction that's been warped beyond all usefulness. If I witness and factually and accurately report a young black man stole my car, it is perfectly to expect law enforcement to limit their investigation to young black men and not include old white ladies out of some misbegotten sense of "fairness." On the other hand, if a cop sees a stolen car at a gas pump, it is not reasonable for him to arrest the black kid at the McDonalds drive-through across the street for stealing it (an actual incident I know of). Too many people these days equate the former with the latter.

 

And it shouldn't even be that difficult a distinction to make: a presumption of guilt based on prejudice and not on facts in evidence is racist. But that distinction gets a hell of a lot murkier when you're talking about crimes that themselves have strong demographic biases, such as immigration in the southwest (where not only are the vast majority of illegal immigrants of a given race, but so are the vast majority of legal immigrants).

It's difficult to determine if a person is racist or not because it is often subjective on whether a person fits that definition. The problem is when you label anyone that disagrees with you a racist that word becomes less meaningful. Based on what's been reported and his birther nonsense my personal opinion is that Arpaio is a racist, but I can't prove that.

 

That's why we need to use objective measures like "Are you white?", "Are you reading a book about a Confederate general?", "Do you support freedom of speech for everyone, no matter how reprehensible?" or "Are you a hurricane that predominately targets minority neighborhoods?"

 

(All definitions I've heard the past two weeks. The first two I've experienced first-hand.)

[Kelly the Dog]

Because profiling isn't de facto racist.

 

He wasn't targeting Hispanics because they were Hispanic, eschewing pulling over other racial groups who could have been equally guilty per capita. He was targeting Hispanics because of his focus on immigration crimes in the Southwest of the United States, the perpetrators of which are overwhelmingly Hispanic.

 

That isn't racist. It's racial, but not racist.

 

Racist would be if he was targeting Hispanics, because "!@#$ Hispanics".

But that is the law. You cannot do that. Because the law considers that racist. Regardless of whether or not there are more Hispanics. People arguing this back and forth also conflate the definition of the word racist. You are saying, mostly correctly IMO, that he is not saying !@#$ Hispanics because that would mean he thinks Hispanics are somewhat inferior to Whites. I happen to think he is that kind of racist, too, and you don't. That's a fair argument. But it is also the definition of racist and racism to simply see a Hispanic in a car and assume they may be an illegal. That is clearly "racist" and "racism" by definition but not the "I can't stand Mexicans" definition of racism.

 

But it's still racist the same way that thinking Asian women are bad drivers.

 

Which they, of course, are.

[DC Tom]

But that is the law. You cannot do that. Because the law considers that racist. Regardless of whether or not there are more Hispanics. People arguing this back and forth also conflate the definition of the word racist. You are saying, mostly correctly IMO, that he is not saying !@#$ Hispanics because that would mean he thinks Hispanics are somewhat inferior to Whites. I happen to think he is that kind of racist, too, and you don't. That's a fair argument. But it is also the definition of racist and racism to simply see a Hispanic in a car and assume they may be an illegal. That is clearly "racist" and "racism" by definition but not the "I can't stand Mexicans" definition of racism.

 

But it's still racist the same way that thinking Asian women are bad drivers.

 

Which they, of course, are.

 

No. they're not. They're very careful and cautious, never going so much as a single mile per hour over the speed limit, in whatever lane they're in, and very carefully coming to a complete stop at the most minute indication of risk.

 

Drives me up the !@#$ing wall.

[TakeYouToTasker]

But that is the law. You cannot do that. Because the law considers that racist. Regardless of whether or not there are more Hispanics. People arguing this back and forth also conflate the definition of the word racist. You are saying, mostly correctly IMO, that he is not saying !@#$ Hispanics because that would mean he thinks Hispanics are somewhat inferior to Whites. I happen to think he is that kind of racist, too, and you don't. That's a fair argument. But it is also the definition of racist and racism to simply see a Hispanic in a car and assume they may be an illegal. That is clearly "racist" and "racism" by definition but not the "I can't stand Mexicans" definition of racism.

 

But it's still racist the same way that thinking Asian women are bad drivers.

 

Which they, of course, are.

Again, he wasn't targeting Hispanics because of some innate quality, or lack there of, that he believed was unique to Hispanics. He was targeting a group of criminals which is comprised of almost entirely Hispanics. That's how profiling works, and law enforcement would be just about impossible without it. There is nothing racist at all about it, as it doesn't assume guilt, but is rather a narrowing down of suspects.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, he wasn't targeting Hispanics because of some innate quality, or lack there of, that he believed was unique to Hispanics. He was targeting a group of criminals which is comprised of almost entirely Hispanics. That's how profiling works, and law enforcement would be just about impossible without it. There is nothing racist at all about it, as it doesn't assume guilt, but is rather a narrowing down of suspects.

But you can't do that in the United States. That's why he was accused of and convicted of not following federal rules on not being able to do that.

[boyst]

Of course not. I was specifically and only referring to Phx and Arpaio. Otherwise the profiling hypothetical is on a case by case basis. Profiling often is racist and often it is not.

why is this issue you're so big on?

[TakeYouToTasker]

But you can't do that in the United States. That's why he was accused of and convicted of not following federal rules on not being able to do that.

No, he was accused and convicted of Contempt of Court as relates to his decision to enforce federal immigration law in the absence of federal enforcement. The only issue was that Arpaio persisted with practices which the Court deemed an extra-Constitutional usurpation of a specifically enumerated federal authority.

 

The parts of the law dealing with investigation the immigration status of detainees was left to stand.

[DC Tom]

Again, he wasn't targeting Hispanics because of some innate quality, or lack there of, that he believed was unique to Hispanics. He was targeting a group of criminals which is comprised of almost entirely Hispanics. That's how profiling works, and law enforcement would be just about impossible without it. There is nothing racist at all about it, as it doesn't assume guilt, but is rather a narrowing down of suspects.

 

But he was targeting them based on a presumption of guilt for being Hispanics.

No, he was accused and convicted of Contempt of Court as relates to his decision to enforce federal immigration law in the absence of federal enforcement. The only issue was that Arpaio persisted with practices which the Court deemed an extra-Constitutional usurpation of a specifically enumerated federal authority.

 

The parts of the law dealing with investigation the immigration status of detainees was left to stand.

 

Actually, the issue was that Arpaio persisted with enforcing laws that the DOJ stripped him of the authority to enforce.

 

Again getting back to the fundamental !@#$ed-upness of immigration law. Law enforcement has to be explicitly authorized to enforce immigration law, and can be explicitly deauthorized from enforcing it. Arpaio's conviction is a criminal contempt conviction stemming from a civil contempt charge stemming from his ignoring a court order that he cease ignoring a DOJ order to cease enforcing the law stemming from an administrative finding that he was engaged in racial profiling...again, in a situation where some form of racial profiling is unavoidable, but we can't have an honest discussion about that.

 

I'm willing to listen to arguments that he was treated unfairly...but only in as much as the legal and social context he operated within is itself is patently ridiculous. And even then, he was at worst treated no less fairly than the immigrants who operate under the same legal and social context.

 

Even more so than the ACA, immigration law needs to be blown up and rewritten...but instead, we get "build a wall." We are so !@#$ed.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

But he was targeting them based on a presumption of guilt for being Hispanics.

 

Actually, the issue was that Arpaio persisted with enforcing laws that the DOJ stripped him of the authority to enforce.

 

Again getting back to the fundamental !@#$ed-upness of immigration law. Law enforcement has to be explicitly authorized to enforce immigration law, and can be explicitly deauthorized from enforcing it. Arpaio's conviction is a criminal contempt conviction stemming from a civil contempt charge stemming from his ignoring a court order that he cease ignoring a DOJ order to cease enforcing the law stemming from an administrative finding that he was engaged in racial profiling...again, in a situation where some form of racial profiling is unavoidable, but we can't have an honest discussion about that.

 

I'm willing to listen to arguments that he was treated unfairly...but only in as much as the legal and social context he operated within is itself is patently ridiculous. And even then, he was at worst treated no less fairly than the immigrants who operate under the same legal and social context.

 

Even more so than the ACA, immigration law needs to be blown up and rewritten...but instead, we get "build a wall." We are so !@#$ed.

Thank you.

No, he was accused and convicted of Contempt of Court as relates to his decision to enforce federal immigration law in the absence of federal enforcement. The only issue was that Arpaio persisted with practices which the Court deemed an extra-Constitutional usurpation of a specifically enumerated federal authority.

 

The parts of the law dealing with investigation the immigration status of detainees was left to stand.

Not true. See Tom's response.

[DC Tom]

Not true. See Tom's response.

 

Partially true. His first sentence was spot on. But the second..."Arpaio persisted with practices which the Court deemed an extra-Constitutional usurpation of a specifically enumerated federal authority."...is incorrect because the applicable law explicitly requires state and local law enforcement be explicitly authorized (by DOJ, I believe) to enforce the law. The court didn't "deem" anything as "extra-Constitutional," it applied a very literal interpretation of the applicable law.

 

Personally, I think it's a pretty ridiculous principle: can you imagine if the same standard was applied to bank robberies? "Sorry, federal crime, state police aren't authorized to respond." But it is the law, and both the statute and the court decision in this case are straightforward: Arpaio had the authority to enforce immigration law removed, and continued to do so anyway.

[Nanker]

Yes, all of it was like that. They all wore old time prison uniforms and pink underwear, they all worked in chain gangs. They all ate stale/moldy bologna sandwiches and drank warm hard water from the tap. They all suffered in 140 degree heat with zero amenities.

The death marches. You forgot to mention the death marches. No TRUE racist would not have death marches.

 

 

Partially true. His first sentence was spot on. But the second..."Arpaio persisted with practices which the Court deemed an extra-Constitutional usurpation of a specifically enumerated federal authority."...is incorrect because the applicable law explicitly requires state and local law enforcement be explicitly authorized (by DOJ, I believe) to enforce the law. The court didn't "deem" anything as "extra-Constitutional," it applied a very literal interpretation of the applicable law.

 

Personally, I think it's a pretty ridiculous principle: can you imagine if the same standard was applied to bank robberies? "Sorry, federal crime, state police aren't authorized to respond." But it is the law, and both the statute and the court decision in this case are straightforward: Arpaio had the authority to enforce immigration law removed, and continued to do so anyway.

 

 

By the way, welcome back KTFABD. You've singlehandedly elevated the left's collective IQ here by about 140 points.

[B-Man]

Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio upheld by court

 

Attempts by left-wing interest groups to overturn the pardon were frivolous, and Arpaio may file a motion for attorney’s fees.

[Tiberius]

Pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio upheld by court

 

Attempts by left-wing interest groups to overturn the pardon were frivolous, and Arpaio may file a motion for attorney’s fees.

That piece of trash ain't getting his fees back

[Cugalabanza]

Is Joe P. a piece of trash? yes

 

Is Trump a dick? yes

 

Did Trump pardon Joe P. as a wink and a nod and a reacharound to his creepy base? yes

 

Is it frivolous to try to get the pardon overturned? yes

 

Does the left look foolish for fighting a frivolous unwinnable battle like this? yes

 

Is the whole thing a huge clusterbannon where nobody wins or looks good? yes

 

 

I'm feeling optimistic. It's just a YES kind of day.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Cugalabanza

[fridge]

Is Joe P. a piece of trash? yes

 

Is Trump a dick? yes

 

Did Trump pardon Joe P. as a wink and a nod and a reacharound to his creepy base? yes

 

Is it frivolous to try to get the pardon overturned? yes

 

Does the left look foolish for fighting a frivolous unwinnable battle like this? yes

 

Is the whole thing a huge clusterbannon where nobody wins or looks good? yes

 

 

I'm feeling optimistic. It's just a YES kind of day.

Well said.

[boyst]

Is Joe P. a piece of trash? yes

 

Is Trump a dick? yes

 

Did Trump pardon Joe P. as a wink and a nod and a reacharound to his creepy base? yes

 

Is it frivolous to try to get the pardon overturned? yes

 

Does the left look foolish for fighting a frivolous unwinnable battle like this? yes

 

Is the whole thing a huge clusterbannon where nobody wins or looks good? yes

 

 

I'm feeling optimistic. It's just a YES kind of day.

it was a political witch Hunt to begin. With