So you couldn't answer my question. 

Got it.

He was investigated and found to be illegally profiling, and told to stop. By a federal judge. What proof do you have to the contrary?

Illegal profiling is not the same as profiling by skin color, which was your original claim. Cops profile all of the time using their experience, and some judges are willing to call that illegal. Judges are people, and have political viewpoints. Or are you saying that judges never find innocent people guilty or make incorrect rulings based on their political bent? 

 In this case I'd guess that the profiling had more to do with the ability to speak English, but I don't know for sure.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated that only whites can be guilty of hate crimes. So no, I don't accept the findings of the Obama-filled Justice Department, especially on racial matters.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The judge was a Clinton appointee and the AG doesn't direct the decisions of judges, so the straws you grasp are irrelevant.

Sent from my LG-V520 using Tapatalk

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There is no right or wrong. There is no moral compass. Trump's America is very simple.

If he does something that "liberals" don't like, cry foul, freak out about, in the eyes of his supporters, it is universally and unquestionably "good."

Even if half of the Republican party also does not like it, it is still good by default. [BLEEP] the Constitution. [BLEEP] personal and civil rights. It is all about ticking off those who didn't vote for Trump in the popular vote.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Hyperbole is strong in this one.

No one is saying that it's OK to illegally detain a person. It is within the right of the police to detain a person suspected of committing a crime. Maybe that needs to be changed, but that's another matter entirely.

No one on this board has said that "marching with tiki torches while chanting Nazi slogans makes you a very fine person." Neither did Trump, although that's the leftist media spin on his statement. 

I saw some Soviet flags and Communist slogans in the [BLEEP]-hat march. Does that mean that everyone in the march was a Communist? Would you say that someone who said that there are some fine people in that march was saying that marching with a Soviet flag makes you a fine person?

Trump is a blustering boob, but his actual policy decisions, rather than his statements, have not been a problem. Maybe Pence would have done as well, maybe not. I do know that Pence would have gotten the same treatment from the mainstream media, making every little faux pas into a national crisis.

---

Do you have an example of a legal immigrant being detained by Arpaio merely because of his skin color?

No, because they were eventually released, which is not the point. These were traffic stops. The U.S. Constitution requires probable cause. Is brown skin probable cause? Is evidence discovered in an unwarranted search and seizure admissible in court?

Do you think it's ok for an officer of the court to openly defy a court order?

Under the prior administration, exactly that happened. ICE was effectively shut down by the babbling buffoon.

---

To add, there is a procedure in place to immigrate to the US LEGALLY. Those who don't choose that path are breaking the law. Arizona is inundated with illegal aliens. If a LEGAL immigrant is pulled over and checked, they have nothing to worry about.

This is no difference than police watching known drug houses, and pulling over cars that leave that place.

It goes back to the old saying, if you do no wrong, no wrong will come to you.

Papers, please.

---

The judge was a Clinton appointee and the AG doesn't direct the decisions of judges, so the straws you grasp are irrelevant.

Sent from my LG-V520 using Tapatalk

You mentioned the Justice Dept. as a source of your info ... without providing any actual info. 

A Clinton appointed judge is mostly likely a partisan Dem, most of whom defend illegal entry. I don't see how that changes my comment about partisan judges.

I have no sympathy for Arpaio, who seems to me like a stereotypical overzealous cop, but I'd like to see some actual facts before I judge whether or not it was a mistake to pardon him.

I asked. So far you have responded with nothing. In particular you haven't provided any evidence that skin color was the factor in who was detained, which was your original claim. Profiling based on skin color is unconstitutional. Profiling based on ability to speak English is not. If the profiling was based on the latter (which I deem much more likely, since Mexicans come in all colors) then the judge was acting as a partisan rather than an objective protector of the law.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There is no right or wrong. There is no moral compass. Trump's America is very simple.

If he does something that "liberals" don't like, cry foul, freak out about, in the eyes of his supporters, it is universally and unquestionably "good."

Even if half of the Republican party also does not like it, it is still good by default. [BLEEP] the Constitution. [BLEEP] personal and civil rights. It is all about ticking off those who didn't vote for Trump in the popular vote.

Get ahold of yourself.

---

 

There is no right or wrong. There is no moral compass. Trump's America is very simple.

If he does something that "liberals" don't like, cry foul, freak out about, in the eyes of his supporters, it is universally and unquestionably "good."

Even if half of the Republican party also does not like it, it is still good by default. [BLEEP] the Constitution. [BLEEP] personal and civil rights. It is all about ticking off those who didn't vote for Trump in the popular vote.

Trump going hard for the White Man vote. Supporting Trump gives cover. Not surprising he is heavily supported in north Florida.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

The judge was a Clinton appointee and the AG doesn't direct the decisions of judges, so the straws you grasp are irrelevant.

Sent from my LG-V520 using Tapatalk

You mentioned the Justice Dept. as a source of your info ... without providing any actual info. 

A Clinton appointed judge is mostly likely a partisan Dem, most of whom defend illegal entry. I don't see how that changes my comment about partisan judges.

I have no sympathy for Arpaio, who seems to me like a stereotypical overzealous cop, but I'd like to see some actual facts before I judge whether or not it was a mistake to pardon him.

I asked. So far you have responded with nothing. In particular you haven't provided any evidence that skin color was the factor in who was detained, which was your original claim. Profiling based on skin color is unconstitutional. Profiling based on ability to speak English is not. If the profiling was based on the latter (which I deem much more likely, since Mexicans come in all colors) then the judge was acting as a partisan rather than an objective protector of the law.

I never mentioned the Justice Dept., I referred to the judge's decision, you conflated judges with the AG.

Ok, I will concede your point, there is no evidence I can find anyone was detained solely because their skin color was brown. I meant it as a euphamism, but you got me on a technicality. Bravo. But, despite your attempt to discredit the judge as partisan, the fact is enough evidence of illegal profiling was presented for a federal judge to order Arpaio to stop, which he openly defied.

Arpaio wasn't merely a typical overzealous cop, he was Trump's kind of cop. Check him out, let it sink in.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

There is no right or wrong. There is no moral compass. Trump's America is very simple.

If he does something that "liberals" don't like, cry foul, freak out about, in the eyes of his supporters, it is universally and unquestionably "good."

Even if half of the Republican party also does not like it, it is still good by default. [BLEEP] the Constitution. [BLEEP] personal and civil rights. It is all about ticking off those who didn't vote for Trump in the popular vote.

Trump going hard for the White Man vote. Supporting Trump gives cover. Not surprising he is heavily supported in north Florida.

You're an idiot.  You do know there are a lot of people that voted for Trump, "support him", but would not vote for him again, right?

---

 

Trump going hard for the White Man vote. Supporting Trump gives cover. Not surprising he is heavily supported in north Florida.

You're an idiot.  You do know there are a lot of people that voted for Trump, "support him", but would not vote for him again, right?

I would imagine that group is very large.

There's also a large group of young people who weren't of age to vote who will make sure they do in 2020.

---

You want an ultra conservative in Office? Because that's what he is. Either way we're screwed just as we have been for the past couple of decades.

Pence is, at least publicly, a gentleman who understands how to lead and govern, regardless of his agenda.

Trump is a playground bully. He's given a platform, credibility and an endorsement to white nationalism. He's made us a laughingstock and a pariah around the world, and it's only the calming influence of James "Mad Dog" Mattis and Rex Tillerson that's kept us off the brink with North Korea. I don't know any of his supporters here by name, and I wouldn't venture to slap the Nazi, alt-right or racist labels on them, but I will say that when people can continue to stand behind and rally around a President who has done more to support the 1% of this country that are overt racists and white nationalists than he has for the other 99% of us, it gives you pause.

So yes, if my choice is Trump or Pence, give me Pence any day. It doesn't matter. The Republican Party has been subverted into the party of white nationalism. It's a dead party walking, destined to fade away as its leader's actions continue to alienate the middle and push the party to the fringe. The Democrats are going to stomp the life out of the Republican Party in 2018, and whiz all over its remains in 2020. And, I mean, the only thing better than Trump wearing a white hood on the White House lawn is an unchallenged Thought Police Party, right?

The Republican party is the strongest party there is...The Dems are destroying themselves from within and will probably end up melding with the snowflake liberal party...Nancy Pelosi and her counterparts can't stop making their disconnection from the people even bigger...

---

Once again, how do you know it was "brown skin" that was the reason? Not all illegals (or even Mexicans) have brown skin. Cops develop a judgement based on extensive experience, and that, rather than skin color, was probably the factor that determined who was detained.

And judges should not be ceded dictatorial power.

You are either willfully ignorant or incredibly naive. I know you'll discount anything done by the Obama era DoJ, but Arpaio was a bad actor.

You mentioned the Justice Dept. as a source of your info ... without providing any actual info. 

A Clinton appointed judge is mostly likely a partisan Dem, most of whom defend illegal entry. I don't see how that changes my comment about partisan judges.

I have no sympathy for Arpaio, who seems to me like a stereotypical overzealous cop, but I'd like to see some actual facts before I judge whether or not it was a mistake to pardon him.

I asked. So far you have responded with nothing. In particular you haven't provided any evidence that skin color was the factor in who was detained, which was your original claim. Profiling based on skin color is unconstitutional. Profiling based on ability to speak English is not. If the profiling was based on the latter (which I deem much more likely, since Mexicans come in all colors) then the judge was acting as a partisan rather than an objective protector of the law.

I never mentioned the Justice Dept., I referred to the judge's decision, you conflated judges with the AG.

Ok, I will concede your point, there is no evidence I can find anyone was detained solely because their skin color was brown. I meant it as a euphamism, but you got me on a technicality. Bravo. But, despite your attempt to discredit the judge as partisan, the fact is enough evidence of illegal profiling was presented for a federal judge  to order Arpaio to stop, which he openly defied.

Arpaio wasn't merely a typical overzealous cop, he was Trump's kind of cop. Check him out, let it sink in.

See your quote about the DoJ. You were right, I discount anything claimed by the Obama-era DoJ, especially with regards to race (although neither Mexican nor Illegal Immigrant is a race, Obama's DoJ treated them that way).

How do you know what "Trump's kind of cop" is? Trump is pretty left wing on social issues. I doubt Trump approves of Arpaio's policing methods. Trump probably only knows of Arpaio's emphasis on deporting foreigners illegally in the US. Frequently Trump doesn't delve deeply into issues to get the full story (at least that's my impression), and the full story of Arpaio is much worse than just rounding up foreign invaders. As I read more about Arpaio I agree that he deserves jail time, and shouldn't have been pardoned.

My point was that what one judge calls "illegal profiling" may not actually be illegal in spite of the overwhelming evidence of profiling. Not all profiling is illegal, but there are judges who consider all profiling illegal. Profiling by skin color is illegal.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Edit: damn thing took out the quote from Malabar saying that Trump is left-wing on social issues.

---

You are either willfully ignorant or incredibly naive. I know you'll discount anything done by the Obama era DoJ, but Arpaio was a bad actor.

I never mentioned the Justice Dept., I referred to the judge's decision, you conflated judges with the AG.

Ok, I will concede your point, there is no evidence I can find anyone was detained solely because their skin color was brown. I meant it as a euphamism, but you got me on a technicality. Bravo. But, despite your attempt to discredit the judge as partisan, the fact is enough evidence of illegal profiling was presented for a federal judge  to order Arpaio to stop, which he openly defied.

Arpaio wasn't merely a typical overzealous cop, he was Trump's kind of cop. Check him out, let it sink in.

See your quote about the DoJ. You were right, I discount anything claimed by the Obama-era DoJ, especially with regards to race (although neither Mexican nor Illegal Immigrant is a race, Obama's DoJ treated them that way).

How do you know what "Trump's kind of cop" is? Trump is pretty left wing on social issues. I doubt Trump approves of Arpaio's policing methods. Trump probably only knows of Arpaio's emphasis on deporting foreigners illegally in the US. Frequently Trump doesn't delve deeply into issues to get the full story (at least that's my impression), and the full story of Arpaio is much worse than just rounding up foreign invaders. As I read more about Arpaio I agree that he deserves jail time, and shouldn't have been pardoned.

My point was that what one judge calls "illegal profiling" may not actually be illegal in spite of the overwhelming evidence of profiling. Not all profiling is illegal, but there are judges who consider all profiling illegal. Profiling by skin color is illegal.

You're leaving out a key word - it was illegal RACIAL profiling, of which skin color is a major factor.

Sadly, Trump was very likely unaware of the facts surrounding Arpaio, which is almost as bad as if he was. Still, he lauded the man.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley