Sheriff Joe Arpaio wins pardon from Trump
also keep in mind criminal contempt means he failed to follow a court order. the reason why there was a court order is because the court found that he was being illegally racist in the way he was doing his job. the contempt is because he kept doing it after he was told to stop. so, even if you believe the contempt conviction is some conspiracy theory, the order finding that he was a racist sheriff was already in place. among other similar decisions. unless all of those were "fixed" too.
also keep in mind criminal contempt means he failed to follow a court order. the reason why there was a court order is because the court found that he was being illegally racist in the way he was doing his job. the contempt is because he kept doing it after he was told to stop. so, even if you believe the contempt conviction is some conspiracy theory, the order finding that he was a racist sheriff was already in place. among other similar decisions. unless all of those were "fixed" too.
if you research this guy's resume, the criminal contempt conviction is just the tip of the iceberg. he's been sued for constitutional violations and been found to have abused his office, racial profiling, and other garbage for years. and these are different courts and judges and agencies finding that he's done this. if this is some big conspiracy theory, there must be a lot of different people involved.
also keep in mind criminal contempt means he failed to follow a court order. the reason why there was a court order is because the court found that he was being illegally racist in the way he was doing his job. the contempt is because he kept doing it after he was told to stop. so, even if you believe the contempt conviction is some conspiracy theory, the order finding that he was a racist sheriff was already in place. among other similar decisions. unless all of those were "fixed" too.
if you research this guy's resume, the criminal contempt conviction is just the tip of the iceberg. he's been sued for constitutional violations and been found to have abused his office, racial profiling, and other garbage for years. and these are different courts and judges and agencies finding that he's done this. if this is some big conspiracy theory, there must be a lot of different people involved.
also keep in mind criminal contempt means he failed to follow a court order. the reason why there was a court order is because the court found that he was being illegally racist in the way he was doing his job. the contempt is because he kept doing it after he was told to stop. so, even if you believe the contempt conviction is some conspiracy theory, the order finding that he was a racist sheriff was already in place. among other similar decisions. unless all of those were "fixed" too.
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
US justice department filed a lawsuit against Arpaio who oversaw the worst racial profiling in US history. Courts found Arpaio illegally violated civil rights of innocent people. He received a fair trial and justifiable conviction. Arpaio should reimburse millions to taxpayers for his illegal behavior.
No one should be above the law. Pardoning Arpaio confirms that Trump lacks moral authority and doesn't respect the rule of law. Afterall, he has a long history of legal problems.
US justice department filed a lawsuit against Arpaio who oversaw the worst racial profiling in US history. Courts found Arpaio illegally violated civil rights of innocent people. He received a fair trial and justifiable conviction. Arpaio should reimburse millions to taxpayers for his illegal behavior.
No one should be above the law. Pardoning Arpaio confirms that Trump lacks moral authority and doesn't respect the rule of law. Afterall, he has a long history of legal problems.
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
I just see it a lot differently. He apparently defied a court order and continued to racially profile in order to keep the citizens under his jurisdiction safe. I would never hold that against anybody. I believe that there are people that lived in his area of operation that agree with me.
I just see it a lot differently. He apparently defied a court order and continued to racially profile in order to keep the citizens under his jurisdiction safe. I would never hold that against anybody. I believe that there are people that lived in his area of operation that agree with me.
Did he abuse Americans with a legitimate US birth certificate?
That was the only question I saw that he asked. Of course, it was only answered tangentially. I thought maybe he had some others from a related thread about this that I had not seen.
As far as your attitude---sure, I think you should be more civil. Simply because you are a linesman here. I think you should be able to discuss things here without being belligerent about it is all. Whenever we have discussed a topic you have never resorted to name-calling and calling paste and copy names and accusing me of generalities. I think you are one of the few Liberals on here that try to have a decent conversation about things. I did not think his question or implied questions were out of line. I feel the conversation should always start by gently telling someone how and why you disagree is all. Anyone can get frustrated because someone disagrees with their point of view. I just feel it is appropriate to civilly discuss it first. People are more apt to understand your viewpoint if you do that instead of resorting to ranting and raving and putting them down.
So, since you live there, what would you prefer to see done to curtail the problem with the illegals? I really do understand when Liberals do not want a group of folks profiled. I also understand the Conservative point of why frisk granny in the airport view point. I even get that some people want open borders.
So what do you suggest should be done? And from a political point, citizen point, and policing point?
Details and examples would be nice as well.
I understand you are very passionate about this. So, could you explain your point of view? I truly would like to hear it. I used to be in and out of Tucson when I would go back and forth to Mexico --- and I used to wonder about this from time to time. So, someone that lives there may have a solution.
Thanks. ![]()
Did he abuse Americans with a legitimate US birth certificate?
That was the only question I saw that he asked. Of course, it was only answered tangentially. I thought maybe he had some others from a related thread about this that I had not seen.
As far as your attitude---sure, I think you should be more civil. Simply because you are a linesman here. I think you should be able to discuss things here without being belligerent about it is all. Whenever we have discussed a topic you have never resorted to name-calling and calling paste and copy names and accusing me of generalities. I think you are one of the few Liberals on here that try to have a decent conversation about things. I did not think his question or implied questions were out of line. I feel the conversation should always start by gently telling someone how and why you disagree is all. Anyone can get frustrated because someone disagrees with their point of view. I just feel it is appropriate to civilly discuss it first. People are more apt to understand your viewpoint if you do that instead of resorting to ranting and raving and putting them down.
So, since you live there, what would you prefer to see done to curtail the problem with the illegals? I really do understand when Liberals do not want a group of folks profiled. I also understand the Conservative point of why frisk granny in the airport view point. I even get that some people want open borders.
So what do you suggest should be done? And from a political point, citizen point, and policing point?
Details and examples would be nice as well.
I understand you are very passionate about this. So, could you explain your point of view? I truly would like to hear it. I used to be in and out of Tucson when I would go back and forth to Mexico --- and I used to wonder about this from time to time. So, someone that lives there may have a solution.
Thanks. ![]()
For example, I would have tempered or changed some of those bold words.
And sometimes it is not as simple as researching and forming opinions. Why does it have to be opinion? Why not fact? If it is fact-based, a lot of opinion-forming can be left out. That is why I said you should cite sources for him. Otherwise, he can simply say your sources are biased as well. Right?
It would seem to go over so much better by saying you are closer to the situation and such-and-such is your viewpoint from there.
At any rate---Thanks for discussing. Because I am interested in this subject as well. ![]()
For example, I would have tempered or changed some of those bold words.
And sometimes it is not as simple as researching and forming opinions. Why does it have to be opinion? Why not fact? If it is fact-based, a lot of opinion-forming can be left out. That is why I said you should cite sources for him. Otherwise, he can simply say your sources are biased as well. Right?
It would seem to go over so much better by saying you are closer to the situation and such-and-such is your viewpoint from there.
At any rate---Thanks for discussing. Because I am interested in this subject as well. ![]()
God bless Sheriff Joe.
God bless Sheriff Joe.
as i mentioned, it's not an exact line, it's an entire post where lovethedough expressed his white supremacy in a different htread. several people saw t, dj warned him that he was on the verge of getting banned for it and lovethedough acknowledged it and lovethedough said he'd do better. it's not really up for debate and i'd be surprised if lovethedough denied it. i'm not that interetsed in hunting down the thread for you. if you want to find it, it's probably in one of the threads started by scalabrine or related to black people that set white supremacists off. this thread is just an extension of that as a white supremacist would naturally be a huge fan of someone who has been found to be a racist in multiple court proceedings. that's why locvethedough wrote four consecutive posts about it in this thread and that's what i commented on here.
as to your other comments, it's funny that tyou say i don't know anyone who fights terrorism or immigration as i'm guessing im the only or one of the few in here who know many. since i've worked in criminal law and with people in immigration for about two decades now.
but none of that really matters. arpaio was found guilty in a criminal court for being a racist and found responsible for being a racist in a civil proceeding costing the taxpayers millions. legally and in our society, there's really not any more of an objective standard in this country to determine someone is a racist than that. you guys can whine about that and throw out your conspiracy theories and deflect to obama this and obama that, but it's already been decided twice by the methods we use in this country to decide such things.
as i mentioned, it's not an exact line, it's an entire post where lovethedough expressed his white supremacy in a different htread. several people saw t, dj warned him that he was on the verge of getting banned for it and lovethedough acknowledged it and lovethedough said he'd do better. it's not really up for debate and i'd be surprised if lovethedough denied it. i'm not that interetsed in hunting down the thread for you. if you want to find it, it's probably in one of the threads started by scalabrine or related to black people that set white supremacists off. this thread is just an extension of that as a white supremacist would naturally be a huge fan of someone who has been found to be a racist in multiple court proceedings. that's why locvethedough wrote four consecutive posts about it in this thread and that's what i commented on here.
as to your other comments, it's funny that tyou say i don't know anyone who fights terrorism or immigration as i'm guessing im the only or one of the few in here who know many. since i've worked in criminal law and with people in immigration for about two decades now.
but none of that really matters. arpaio was found guilty in a criminal court for being a racist and found responsible for being a racist in a civil proceeding costing the taxpayers millions. legally and in our society, there's really not any more of an objective standard in this country to determine someone is a racist than that. you guys can whine about that and throw out your conspiracy theories and deflect to obama this and obama that, but it's already been decided twice by the methods we use in this country to decide such things.
To recap I asked for evidence and you gave me none regarding lovesthedough being a white supremacist. I asked stump and dj a question and got crickets so at least give you credit for responding even if it was utter nonsense.
I am sure why he didnt reply and why I also did not. You completely miss the point and the topic you bring up.
To recap I asked for evidence and you gave me none regarding lovesthedough being a white supremacist. I asked stump and dj a question and got crickets so at least give you credit for responding even if it was utter nonsense.
I am sure why he didnt reply and why I also did not. You completely miss the point and the topic you bring up.
So, since you live there, what would you prefer to see done to curtail the problem with the illegals? I really do understand when Liberals do not want a group of folks profiled. I also understand the Conservative point of why frisk granny in the airport view point. I even get that some people want open borders.
So what do you suggest should be done? And from a political point, citizen point, and policing point?
Details and examples would be nice as well.
I understand you are very passionate about this. So, could you explain your point of view? I truly would like to hear it. I used to be in and out of Tucson when I would go back and forth to Mexico --- and I used to wonder about this from time to time. So, someone that lives there may have a solution.
Thanks. ![]()
So, since you live there, what would you prefer to see done to curtail the problem with the illegals? I really do understand when Liberals do not want a group of folks profiled. I also understand the Conservative point of why frisk granny in the airport view point. I even get that some people want open borders.
So what do you suggest should be done? And from a political point, citizen point, and policing point?
Details and examples would be nice as well.
I understand you are very passionate about this. So, could you explain your point of view? I truly would like to hear it. I used to be in and out of Tucson when I would go back and forth to Mexico --- and I used to wonder about this from time to time. So, someone that lives there may have a solution.
Thanks. ![]()
I am sure why he didnt reply and why I also did not. You completely miss the point and the topic you bring up.
I am sure why he didnt reply and why I also did not. You completely miss the point and the topic you bring up.
If ANYONE has explaining to do, it is the judge who denied a man the right to be tried by a jury of his peers.
This travesty misdemeanor conviction was riddled with inconsistences and questionable bench action. It was likely to be overturned on appeal anyway.
If ANYONE has explaining to do, it is the judge who denied a man the right to be tried by a jury of his peers.
This travesty misdemeanor conviction was riddled with inconsistences and questionable bench action. It was likely to be overturned on appeal anyway.
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
you probably know about all of these but look at this one.
this guy is insane. no wonder trump loves him.
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/a-phony-murder-plot-against-joe-arpaio-winds-up-costing-taxpayers-11-million-6629798
Hot Forum Topics
- Thursday 10/22/2026 935
- 🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets 279,953
- Patriots vs Bears in-game live TNF 1,944
- NFL LOCKED IN! 109,719
- Patriots@Bears discussion 3,638
- NFL THREAD * 151 * 27,058
- Thursday”s POD 2,699
- Public Indicator Calculations 2026 23,657
- Week 8 Money 7,494
- Republicans push back against the lunatic Trump and his team of liars. 23,327
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
