Joe Arpaio pardon

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yes, he HAS the power to do this and he did it.

That doesn't make it RIGHT.

You have a way of explaining that status quo that makes it sound like I'm stupid for pointing out it's moral problems, or naive for objecting to it.

Furthermore, we aren't throwing around the term "monster" here. Did you read the list of things he's done? Look at them and tell me Arpaio isn't a full-on Monster, a corrupt fiend, a committer of atrocities and squasher of basic human rights.

Saying "all politicians are corrupt to a degree so who cares" isn't a helpful attitude or a meaningful one. Yes, morality exists in shades of grey, but there's a big difference between Cigar Smoke Grey and Iron Grey.

What you have not said is a single thing in defense of Arpaio or his pardon, which if you're going to take this position you really should at least try to address.

I am sorry if you feel I am treating you like someone I find stupid; I am not. You are arguing from a position of principle that differs and so I don't call you naive either. Again, I am sorry if I made you feel that way.

I myself said I didn't have answers, I'm not being helpful. I assert that I have no ability to be helpful. Events will happen regardless of how you or I feel; the greater world does not care one whit for our opinion or our stance on things unless we have some clout, leverage or power and I know I am far removed from the wheelhouse of Tucson, let alone the nation.

Then why question is...why the gremplork are you arguing in this forum? You would bother to engage in debate if you didn't have a stake in it. You're arguing on one hand that we're all powerless and there's nothing we can do, and even that you can't make any meaningful or productive contribution, so why contribute? If you don't have something useful to say, then don't say it.

As for your defense...none of it addresses the problem. It's not that Joe is a "bad person", it's that he did really unjust things that had a harmful effect on the society he was supposed to protect. He didn't uphold the law, he broke it, twisted it, and abused it at every turn. He let child molesters go unpunished without even informing their family that these kids HAD been penetrated according to the test kit, because he was too busy staging fake assassination attempts and pushing Latinos into a sub-standard, abusive prison that HE HIMSELF described as a "concentration camp".

Saying he hasn't successfully been charged on those things, and is no longer in office, so pardoning him for the contempt of court is the "right" thing to do is nit-picking and legalese at the expense of actual justice and morality.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the other hand... it took you sorry assholes this long? The collusion with Russia to win the election wasn't enough? The boasting about molesting women wasn't enough? The President literally pardoning a man who set up a concentration camp for Latinos and defending Neo-Nazis is what it took?

The Russia thing doesn't bother them. Polling shows that Republicans overwhelmingly either don't care about it or believe it didn't happen. Unless Mueller comes back with something iron-clad, it isn't something that they fear will cause them electoral problems. The whole 'grab em' incident was certainly embaressing, but the fact is, it didn't really bother women very much. Yeah, Trump lost among women, but only by 3 points less than Romney. So they can comfortably ignore that too.

Three points can decide an election. Or turn a minor gap in support into an insurmountable one.

But this, combined with Charlottesville, is a much bigger danger. Trump can whip up big rallies by transforming the Republican party into the official vehicle for White Nationalism. He may even be able to make electoral gains in the short term. And he will be sorely tempted to do so, because he has no vision longer than his nose. But Ryan and McConnell, for all of their flaws, see the danger. American demographic change will doom that effort long term, and they risk losing an entire generation of voters.

Also... actions speak louder than words. If you want us to believe you really don't condone what Trump is doing, impeach him.

They can't. He's got an almost 80% approval rating among Republicans. They're hovering somewhere around 20%. He's flat out stronger than they are right now. I actually think they would LOVE to take Trump down, but when you shoot at the king, you'd better not miss.

None of these things are justifications. None of those things mean they can't impeach him, or that they couldn't have challenged him sooner.

All they mean is that they are too selfish and cowardly to put the good of their country ahead of their careers and their party (or, in some cases, that they actively sympathize with him). That they are derelict in their duty, and unfit for office.

[Robovski]

Yes, he HAS the power to do this and he did it.

That doesn't make it RIGHT.

You have a way of explaining that status quo that makes it sound like I'm stupid for pointing out it's moral problems, or naive for objecting to it.

Furthermore, we aren't throwing around the term "monster" here. Did you read the list of things he's done? Look at them and tell me Arpaio isn't a full-on Monster, a corrupt fiend, a committer of atrocities and squasher of basic human rights.

Saying "all politicians are corrupt to a degree so who cares" isn't a helpful attitude or a meaningful one. Yes, morality exists in shades of grey, but there's a big difference between Cigar Smoke Grey and Iron Grey.

What you have not said is a single thing in defense of Arpaio or his pardon, which if you're going to take this position you really should at least try to address.

I am sorry if you feel I am treating you like someone I find stupid; I am not. You are arguing from a position of principle that differs and so I don't call you naive either. Again, I am sorry if I made you feel that way.

I myself said I didn't have answers, I'm not being helpful. I assert that I have no ability to be helpful. Events will happen regardless of how you or I feel; the greater world does not care one whit for our opinion or our stance on things unless we have some clout, leverage or power and I know I am far removed from the wheelhouse of Tucson, let alone the nation.

Then why question is...why the gremplork are you arguing in this forum? You would bother to engage in debate if you didn't have a stake in it. You're arguing on one hand that we're all powerless and there's nothing we can do, and even that you can't make any meaningful or productive contribution, so why contribute? If you don't have something useful to say, then don't say it.

As for your defense...none of it addresses the problem. It's not that Joe is a "bad person", it's that he did really unjust things that had a harmful effect on the society he was supposed to protect. He didn't uphold the law, he broke it, twisted it, and abused it at every turn. He let child molesters go unpunished without even informing their family that these kids HAD been penetrated according to the test kit, because he was too busy staging fake assassination attempts and pushing Latinos into a sub-standard, abusive prison that HE HIMSELF described as a "concentration camp".

Saying he hasn't successfully been charged on those things, and is no longer in office, so pardoning him for the contempt of court is the "right" thing to do is nit-picking and legalese at the expense of actual justice and morality.

I expressed my opinion after the general solicitation when the tread was created. You have continued to ask me for further statements to support my position and I have done so. Just because you and others disagree with them doesn't make it an invalid contribution. Honestly I probably have more stake in it than anyone else in the thread as I actually live in the same state (let alone country). My comments on our collective powerlessness are true but it doesn't mean I'm happy about it nor that I cannot complain on a web forum should I desire. All that said, you don't like my opinion, that's fine. You don't have to like my opinion. I also don't need to justify it to anyone more than I care to. Going by the reaction of some posters clearly I have violated their echo chamber with my dissenting viewpoint, so I guess I have that going for me.

The ''concentration camp'' or ''tent city'' was a solution to prison overcrowding and was a prisoner's choice to go into that ''facility''. They weren't made to go there and many prisoners preferred it to the conventional prisons. Joe was charged with several felonies; serious charges mind; with the backing of the ACLU and the Obama administration's justice department and was still found not guilty by a lone judge, not a jury as he had been denied a jury trial (so you can't even argue that it was jury nullified). And yet he was cleared of these charges, despite this being a more than decade long battle. Charges do not equate to guilt, and there is plenty of evidence that this whole waste of Arizona taxpayer's money was because Joe was unpopular with people he wasn't answerable to for enforcing the laws of people he was answerable to.

[LittleRaven]

Three points can decide an election. Or turn a minor gap in support into an insurmountable one.

Absolutely. But it's always a balancing act in politics. Standing by Trump may cost you a bit among women, but you have weigh that against turning on Trump, which, if you're a Republican, means turning off a HUGE portion of your base. 80% support. What politician is going to risk 80% in the hopes of picking up 3%?

It gets even worse when you factor in voter clustering, which we've discussed before. There are huge portions of the country where the primary essentially IS the election. Trump is hurting badly with moderates, but they don't vote in primaries. Here's a well-written (if depressing) article that lays out the political math.

“Your heart tells you that he’s bad for the country. Your head looks at polling data among Republican primary voters and sees how popular he is,” said one Republican strategist who, like most of the nearly two dozen I interviewed for this story, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly and protect their clients. “It would be malpractice not to advise clients to attach themselves to that popularity.”

None of these things are justifications. None of those things mean they can't impeach him, or that they couldn't have challenged him sooner.

Well, like I said, I have limited sympathy for establishment Republicans. No, they don't like Trump, and are unhappy that he's suddenly in charge, but they were absolutely complicit in creating the environment that led to his rise. They thought they could dance with the devil and walk away unchanged. They are now learning otherwise.

That they are derelict in their duty, and unfit for office.

This is going a bit far, though. There is only one duty for a Congressman, and that is to represent his constituents. And while I think Trump is a disaster and you think Trump is a disaster, the people who put Ryan in office think he's the bees knees. It's not unreasonable for Ryan to resist impeaching Trump for as long as that's the case. He's only doing what his people want him to.

Besides, the instinct for self-preservation among politicians swings both ways. The Republicans promised to rip out Obamacare root and branch for 7 years. Then, when they finally had the opportunity, they suddenly found themselves confronted with angry townhalls and flooded commentary lines, and..voila...they could no longer count on their members to vote reliably. Were Republican defectors from that effort cowards and selfish? Some people certainly thought so. But Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are both being hailed as heroes in their home states, because they did what their constituents wanted. In the end, isn't that the way the system should work?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

...I'd apply for Canadian citizenship if they weren't ablist as fuck and dedicated to keeping out us crazy bastards.

[The Romulan Republic]

Three points can decide an election. Or turn a minor gap in support into an insurmountable one.

Absolutely. But it's always a balancing act in politics. Standing by Trump may cost you a bit among women, but you have weigh that against turning on Trump, which, if you're a Republican, means turning off a HUGE portion of your base. 80% support. What politician is going to risk 80% in the hopes of picking up 3%?

Granted. But weighed against that is the fact that the Republican base (rabidly angry/bigoted white men, basically) is an increasingly small part of the country. They have no political future, short of doing away with democracy altogether (which is increasingly obviously the game plan for many of them) if they keep blatantly pissing on everyone who isn't their base.

It gets even worse when you factor in voter clustering, which we've discussed before. There are huge portions of the country where the primary essentially IS the election.

That's partly down to gerrymandering. See above reg. undermining democracy. Its a self-made "problem" for Republicans.

Trump is hurting badly with moderates, but they don't vote in primaries. Here's a well-written (if depressing) article that lays out the political math.

“Your heart tells you that he’s bad for the country. Your head looks at polling data among Republican primary voters and sees how popular he is,” said one Republican strategist who, like most of the nearly two dozen I interviewed for this story, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly and protect their clients. “It would be malpractice not to advise clients to attach themselves to that popularity.”

One of the big problems with our politics is lack of participation in primaries (and lack of semi-open primaries that allow independents to vote).

And one of the few good things to come out of last election, thanks to the spectacle of Trump and the enthusiasm for Bernie on the other side, is seemingly greater public interest and participation in the primaries.

Well, like I said, I have limited sympathy for establishment Republicans. No, they don't like Trump, and are unhappy that he's suddenly in charge, but they were absolutely complicit in creating the environment that led to his rise. They thought they could dance with the devil and walk away unchanged. They are now learning otherwise.

Mostly agreed.

For people who tend to love trumpeting "Christian values" (especially you, Pence), they seem awfully surprised to find that their are consequences to making a deal with the Devil.

This is going a bit far, though. There is only one duty for a Congressman, and that is to represent his constituents.

This is emphatically false.

If nothing else, a Congressman is also answerable to the Law, and all human beings are (or ought to be) answerable to their own consciences.

Moreover, what constitutes representing your constituents? Is it to simply do what the majority of them want at the time? Or to represent what you feel their best interests to be, and then let them decide if they want to reelect you?

A relevant quote: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays you, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."-Edmund Burke.

And while I think Trump is a disaster and you think Trump is a disaster, the people who put Ryan in office think he's the bees knees. It's not unreasonable for Ryan to resist impeaching Trump for as long as that's the case. He's only doing what his people want him to.

And that makes him either mindless, or a self-serving coward (or both).

Besides, the instinct for self-preservation among politicians swings both ways. The Republicans promised to rip out Obamacare root and branch for 7 years. Then, when they finally had the opportunity, they suddenly found themselves confronted with angry townhalls and flooded commentary lines, and..voila...they could no longer count on their members to vote reliably. Were Republican defectors from that effort cowards and selfish? Some people certainly thought so. But Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are both being hailed as heroes in their home states, because they did what their constituents wanted. In the end, isn't that the way the system should work?

To an extent, yes. But public opinion in certain states or districts should not be enough to justify complicity with a criminal President. If it is, the very concept of rule of law and democracy begins to disintegrate.

[LittleRaven]

Granted. But weighed against that is the fact that the Republican base (rabidly angry/bigoted white men, basically) is an increasingly small part of the country. They have no political future, short of doing away with democracy altogether (which is increasingly obviously the game plan for many of them) if they keep blatantly pissing on everyone who isn't their base.

Exactly. It's a conflict of long-term vs short-term interests. The establishment types were trying to look 20 years down the road with things like immigration reform, but the base just would not have it. Their current strategy is only going to work for a decade or so before their base literally dies out, and what they're doing with that window risks poisoning an entire generation of young people against them.

But the short term pull is just too strong, I guess.

That's partly down to gerrymandering. See above reg. undermining democracy. Its a self-made "problem" for Republicans.

Yup. What the Republicans did in 2010 should serve as a stark warning to whichever party gets to draw the boundaries in 2020. Sure, gerrymander things enough and you can guarantee huge legislative gains....but at the risk of putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. Choose wisely.

One of the big problems with our politics is lack of participation in primaries (and lack of semi-open primaries that allow independents to vote).

You know, before 2016, I would definitely have agreed with you on this. I probably still would, but...given our current President, and talk of Democratic candidates like Oprah and Kanye...doesn't the possibility of Rule by Celebrity concern you at all? (this is kind of a general tangent...I don't think that should actually be a concern when it comes to writing things like primary rules)

If nothing else, a Congressman is also answerable to the Law, and all human beings are (or ought to be) answerable to their own consciences.

Well, sure, I didn't think that had to be explicitly stated. But there's no law that says that have to impeach a President for anything other than a conviction for bribery or treason. And as to consciences....man, I've been working with politicians for 20 years now. I don't think most of them lose their conscience or anything....but it gets rewired, over time. I worked some people that were, in my mind, trying to do what I would consider horrible things. But as far as I could tell, they honestly, truly believed that what they were doing was for the good of the country. It's amazing what the conscience will permit with sufficient time to build a justification.

To an extent, yes. But public opinion in certain states or districts should not be enough to justify complicity with a criminal President.

Oh come on, RR. Did 206 Democratic representatives (including Pelosi) really reduce themselves to mindless, self-serving cowards in 1998? Did Schumer, Snowe and Biden, along with 52 other Senators, really fail in their duty by allowing a criminal President to continue to serve? Or did they do exactly what the country clearly wanted them to do, given the results of the 1998 elections?

And yes, I love 1776 as much as the next man. Probably a great deal more, actually. Remember this quote?

"These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home!"

I've had to remind myself of that quote a lot lately.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly. It's a conflict of long-term vs short-term interests. The establishment types were trying to look 20 years down the road with things like immigration reform, but the base just would not have it. Their current strategy is only going to work for a decade or so before their base literally dies out, and what they're doing with that window risks poisoning an entire generation of young people against them.

But the short term pull is just too strong, I guess.

As I said, they're gambling that they can suppress the vote of everyone who isn't their base. So not just stupid and short-sighted, but undemocratic and morally bankrupt.

Yup. What the Republicans did in 2010 should serve as a stark warning to whichever party gets to draw the boundaries in 2020. Sure, gerrymander things enough and you can guarantee huge legislative gains....but at the risk of putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. Choose wisely.

Indeed.

Build a political base on pandering to extremists, and sooner or later, they own you.

You know, before 2016, I would definitely have agreed with you on this. I probably still would, but...given our current President, and talk of Democratic candidates like Oprah and Kanye...doesn't the possibility of Rule by Celebrity concern you at all? (this is kind of a general tangent...I don't think that should actually be a concern when it comes to writing things like primary rules)

I believe that its better to err on the side of more people voting and being politically aware, not less.

In any case, Oprah would make a much better President than the Orange Rapist, and in any case, celebrity candidates is thus far mostly a Right-wing phenomenon.

[

Well, sure, I didn't think that had to be explicitly stated. But there's no law that says that have to impeach a President for anything other than a conviction for bribery or treason.

The impeachment provision also references other "high crimes and misdemeanors" IIRC. I don't think they have to list every single one for the intent to be clear.

No, their is, as far as I know, no legal requirement to impeach (though I would argue that their is a moral duty if the evidence is their). But the point still stands that Congressmembers do have duties beyond simply being sock-puppets for whatever the polls say a majority of their constituents want today.

And as to consciences....man, I've been working with politicians for 20 years now. I don't think most of them lose their conscience or anything....but it gets rewired, over time. I worked some people that were, in my mind, trying to do what I would consider horrible things. But as far as I could tell, they honestly, truly believed that what they were doing was for the good of the country. It's amazing what the conscience will permit with sufficient time to build a justification.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is wrong. And its a scary level of rationalization that allows self-styled patriots and Christians to claim that Donald Trump is what's best for the country.

[

Oh come on, RR. Did 206 Democratic representatives (including Pelosi) really reduce themselves to mindless, self-serving cowards in 1998? Did Schumer, Snowe and Biden, along with 52 other Senators, really fail in their duty by allowing a criminal President to continue to serve? Or did they do exactly what the country clearly wanted them to do, given the results of the 1998 elections?

You know, as ridiculous and partisan and hypocritical as the Republican investigations of Bill Clinton were... if the evidence could be found that he committed a crime, then he ought to have been impeached.

Let's just say I'm no friend of Bill Clinton's.

But I would also say that any crimes he might have committed, and still more any threat he might have represented to the country and the world as a whole, pale compared to what is alledged against Trump.

And yes, I love 1776 as much as the next man. Probably a great deal more, actually. Remember this quote?

"These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home!"

I've had to remind myself of that quote a lot lately.

You do know that the quote I posted predates 1776 referencing it, I presume?

As to your quote, well...

Bipartisanship is a lovely thing, to a point. But there is a limit. And I would remind you that the disagreement to which that quote in the film refers was slavery, that the compromises attempted on that issue ultimately failed because the slaver holders themselves refused any compromise, and that the issue was only resolved by a civil war that killed six or seven hundred thousand Americans, when the slavers attempted to secede and attacked the federal government rather than accept an election that they fairly lost.

The Trumpian Republicans (the contemporary political successors and heirs to the slaveholders of the Confederacy, in some respects), are likewise unwilling to compromise or work with the other side in good faith.

I certainly hope that we will be able to resolve these disagreements without a civil war this time around, but I'm wary of compromise with people who will not compromise or deal with us in good faith.

Why is it always the Left who are told that the burden is on us to "compromise"? Compromise has to go both ways, by definition. "Compromise" with those who have no interest in compromising with us is no compromise at all. It is simply another name for surrender.

[LittleRaven]

As I said, they're gambling that they can suppress the vote of everyone who isn't their base. So not just stupid and short-sighted, but undemocratic and morally bankrupt.

I think you give them too much credit. The base is just lashing out mindlessly...no real plan there. And the leaders are just being dragged along for the ride. They know there's no way to suppress their way out of this. I mean, I'm sure they'll try, but there's just no way to make it work.

I believe that its better to err on the side of more people voting and being politically aware, not less.

Fair enough.

You know, as ridiculous and partisan and hypocritical as the Republican investigations of Bill Clinton were... if the evidence could be found that he committed a crime, then he ought to have been impeached.

Well, at least you're consistent.

I remember those days quite well. Everyone in my circle (mostly young Democrats) knew that Clinton had technically violated a law. We just didn't care. I don't think we were terribly out of step with the rest of the country. Sure, he lied about banging interns. But he was perceived as an effective president, the economy was good, and people liked him. Why should he be removed from power just because he liked some action on the side?

In 1998, the Republicans made a BIG DEAL about the perjury, and turned it into a major campaign issue....and got trounced. America clearly hated the idea of impeachment, even though there was plenty of evidence that he was guilty. They went through with it anyway, of course...and it predictably fizzled.

Did America make the wrong choice in 1998? Maybe. But it was clearly America's choice. I don't think Congress failed when they chose to do what the people clearly signaled that they wanted.

You do know that the quote I posted predates 1776 referencing it, I presume?

Uh, yeah. Hell, it predates the events the movie references. But most Americans I've met that know that phrase haven't read Speech to the Electors of Bristol. If you have....well, bully to you. You're the first.

Bipartisanship is a lovely thing, to a point. But there is a limit.

Well, that's great, but I don't view that quote as talking about bipartisanship. There was nothing bipartisan about the slavery compromise. Neither side worked with each other. Both sides made it very clear that they thought the other was in the wrong. To me, that quote is about recognizing that there are going to be a lot of people in this country that you flat out don't agree with, and that don't agree with you, and you just have to accept that they aren't going to change and they ARE going to influence policy.

Bipartisanship is a great political tool. We'll use it when it's politically advantageous and ignore it when it isn't, just as the other side will. It's nice when it works. But nobody is obligated to be bipartisan.

What we are obligated to do is respect the system we've all agreed to live under. I don't like Trump. But he won. He gets to be President until his term is up or Congress removes him. I don't like our current Congress. But they won. They get to decide when he's crossed the line, and if they decide that time is never...well, so be it. 63 million Americans voted for Trump. I think that's ridiculous, but they are every bit as American as I am. I disagree with their choice....but I respect that it's theirs to make. (I'm just laying out what I believe, NOT implying that I think you disagree with any of this.)

Why is it always the Left who are told that the burden is on us to "compromise"?

Oh, that's easy. You know the answer to that - It's because we're winning.

Sure, we have our setbacks. Trump, Bush, the Clinton health care plan. But on average, over time....the left wins. Slavery had to be compromised on in 1776, but we settled the issue in our favor in 1865. In 1900, women couldn't vote, but we managed to get that taken care of in 1920. For most of our history, American seniors lived always with the spectre of abject poverty, but we finally got them some relief in 1935. Things got downright testy in the 60s, but which side ultimately saw victory? The left. 20 years ago, being outed meant the end of your career at minimum and the end of your life at its worst, but now, gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

Make no mistake - we're winning. And because we're winning the game, we have the most interest in keeping it going...which means we end up making most of the compromises. That's occasionally frustrating, but the end results are most certainly worth it.