No, what I mean is current popular opinion has already taken what the courts say into account, and that Arpaio is still somewhat popular, especially among the large segment of the population who views him as a symbol of their illegal-immigrant sentiment.
I am just basing this on the fact that I have heard about the profiling decision, and I am someone who makes zero effort to stay informed of Sheriff Joe drama.
The media should report on the decision, for sure. But what you are asking for is too demanding, will not work, and will probably backfire. Trump will not repudiate Arpaio, and the power of the media’s fake puritanical incredulity is waning fast. With good questions, you might coerce Trump to take some position on racial profiling in the context of the Arpaio case, he might even come out against racial profiling, on his own. But he isn’t going to acknowledge the premises of those who demand he repudiate Arpaio, let alone do it. It would come across as too weak.
No, I shouldn’t. I am not making demands of you to repudiate anyone am I? This is just a discussion forum. If you want my opinions on something and ask, I will be glad to tell you, but don’t act like you are entitled to conformance disclaimers from everyone.
No, I didn’t tell you any of those things, in fact.
I am telling you that a large segment of the population doesn’t take enough offense to the findings and accusations, or are skeptical enough of them, for them to keep Sheriff Joe from being an acceptable symbol of their anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment.
Once again, what the courts are deciding have little do with illegal immigration, it was part of it, but the lawsuits involved people that had a reason to complain, legal residents and citizens.
Bullshit, Obama did repudiate Wright and I also thought that was needed. Trump is only showing all that he does not care about how authoritarian his supporters are, that in fact he loves what he sees and will ignore the law and the court also once he becomes president.
As I pointed already I was OK with what Obama did, you should not have any problem repudiating the ones that only have contempt of the law and the courts when they go against what they want to do.
And regarding torture and other issues Trump is on the record of telling us that in his view the laws are just pieces of paper.
But even in those cases he was attempting to target illegal immigrants. So it doesn’t interrupt the narrative that makes Sheriff Joe a potent anti-illegal immigrant symbol. It just means he was all that more willing to be tough. That he both used racial profiling, and failed, in those cases, is a fine enough reason to criticize him, but it is something that is already well known.
Obama has to repudiate Wright because his views were so far out on the fringes. Sheriff Joe doesn’t come across as a traitor, and the statements he makes on the stump and what he has become a symbol for are consistent with Trump’s anti-illegal-immigrant position.
No, your expectation that counterparts in message board discussions should comply with demands to make repudiations is unreasonable.
The latest thing I saw him say on the issue was about following the law, but changing it.
Regardless, every time he is challenged on it it gives him a forum to use the gruesome brutality committed by Islamist terrorists to get votes, by calling out the political establishment for refusing to speak plainly to the American people about the contempt and hate that so many Muslims have for non-Muslims, especially Westerners.
So well known that you have to repeat what the point is not about. His contempt of court (and the contempt is not only about this case, what he was doing to inmates amounted to torture and the courts also put a stop to that, Trump still loves this guy) is so well known and Trump still did go to join Arpaio to the hip is what is appalling, and it is becoming clear that you do not care about that.
Avoidance of the contempt of court issue, and his attempts at intimidating the Judge noted again.
Bullshit again, I and many others have no problem condemning Wright. Ball is in your court and Trump’s.
And what Trump proposes is still wrong. Regardless of how popular something like that is.
Not very good at his job, but that is a feature. The Sheriff and his department is also under observation by the federal government for the abuses to the inmates in his jails. (incidentally, I’m on the record of approving the arrest of the protesters, because that is what any protester should expect, it is part of the deal; now, considering that we are talking about Arpaio’s jails and prisons here I have to say that I’m impressed at their bravery.)
IMHO just like with Carson, Arpaio is also supporting Trump because he expects Trump to support him. In his case he wants to see Trump to make executive orders to ease the eyes of the federal government so he will have the freedom to abuse inmates and immigrants like in the good old days.
I had to laugh at Joe when he was trying to refute Mrs. Sanders’s complaints about his tent jail, and he said, “She was apparently horrified to discover that all of these people are convicted of crimes.” Well, no, this is a county jail, not a prison, in a lot, if not most, of their cases, they are awaiting trial.
You seem to be under the illusion that others owe you certain types of responses or something. It doesn’t work that way. You aren’t conducting a deposition here. If you want to know my opinion on something specific then ask reasonably.
I am saying that even factoring in everything you are pointing out about Arpaio, the thing that he is a symbol of, more than anything, is someone who is tough on illegal immigration. That is what he is known for. Trump’s campaign has been making the judgement that the anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment is strong enough that featuring him during the primary will get them votes, despite the racial profiling and investigations, and it’s been working. That’s what I am saying.
What Arpaio is a symbol of depends a lot on who you ask. Just like to some, Trump is a brilliant thinker who would make a great president. To others, he’s a dangerous demagogue with no real strategy except self-promotion. And to many observers, Arapaio is a symbol of, more than anything else, the most vile kind of racist bigotry with little regard for the law or human rights. Precisely, in fact, the values of many of Trump’s followers.
"The point here was that Arpaio’ original lawsuit included legal residents and citizens that happened to be Hispanic, Arpaio with his racial profiling did run over their rights. I’m not talking here about illegal migration really. But Racial Profiling. And the fact that Arapio is back in court, but this time for contempt as he has tried to get around what the courts recommended as remedy.
And then He investigated the wife of the judge presiding in his contempt of court case."
You did avoid the question, so again but in other words:
No, *I *do not agree that racial profiling is just.
The racial profiling is a part of Arpaio’s public image, but it is not the dominant feature. Simply put, more than anything else, he is known as someone who is strong on illegal immigration. That is what is dominating the narrative, and demanding that Trump disavow someone who is an icon of a very popular cause which he is running on isn’t going to do any good. He will just use it to beat the drum one more time to reinforce the narrative that his immigration policy is too real for the media and establishment to handle.
And you are still thinking in just Republican primaries mode, I’m over that, what you are thinking what Trump will do will make the ads that will convince even more minorities to vote against Trump and so it will convince many Americans that do not think like just a good chunk of Republicans do.
What it needs to be understood is that just like Obama with the reverend, the repudiation did neutralize that issue with many independents and even moderate republicans that did began then to wonder how extreme the Republicans were getting or/and by offering bullshit politics with Sarah Palin as Vice president. The point stands, not repudiating Arpaio only tells minorities, most Democrats and even a significant number of Republicans that Trump is just as his friends are.
I don’t know how it is going to play out into the general. I very much doubt that he will back down and disavow Arpaio, though. That would be reactive, and Trump likes to make others react instead. If it became a prominent issue he would probably clarify in his vague way that he was against racial profiling but still supported Arpaio’s tough stance on illegal immigration.
Read it again, my last paragraph deals with that stance, that is what I do expect Trump to do, to continue to talk about his tough stance on immigration, because as usual you are ignoring that Trump also wants to get rid of the 14th amendment among other issues, the reality though is that most Americans do not agree with that, and most also are refuting Trump and the Republicans regarding what to do with undocumented immigrants.
As I noted, you are still thinking that all Americans are like the Republicans, what you think it will be meaningless for the Trump followers would had been meaningful to most Americans, refuting people like Arpaio; but if Trump wants to go down in flames by getting close to people like Arpaio, I will tell him to go ahead, as I do expect him to not find as much support as he is doing among just Republicans.
I’d go a bit farther. To most thoughtful Americans, Arpaio is simply the leading edge of a pure police state. One dedicated to power exercised by and for the benefit of whoever holds it.
If in the next 20 years we develop an SA, SD, or NKVD-like agency, Arpaio will be its first leader.
He and people who think like him are utterly unsuited to being allowed in a law enforcement role. The fundamental hazards of electing senior law enforcement officials is laid bare with this one.
He respects the law exactly zero. He totally respects his own power and lust for same. And that’s about it.
If the government even made an honest attempt to enforce our laws, there would be no Joe Arpaios. But when you uphold rule of men over rule of law, don’t be surprised when other men decide to rule their way.
Sure, even to the level of denying what they are doing in contempt of the law, and also to the level of investigating the wife of the judge that is judging you for that contempt.
Please learn about the trash you are defending before making posts like that one.
