trump arpaio

‘I Was The Judicial Clerk For The Judge in the Original Arpaio Trial…’

This is a very interesting thread from a guy who knows the judge in the original Arpaio trial. For those who care to reason through their positions instead of just following the tribe like a witless savage, it should be illuminating.


Like, for three people.

He followed up:

BUT, as I’ve said before, words are meaningless since the advent of the Age of Trump. It doesn’t matter that the judge has conservative bona fides greater than Trump’s (not that this is saying much). He is a “liberal” because all that word means now is that he would dare run contrary to Trump’s tribe, and that includes Arpaio.

In this sense, Arpaio is like our O.J. Simpson. Blacks said that O.J. should go free not on the merits of his case but because blacks had been historically victims of prejudice. In the same way, illegal immigration opponents don’t give a damn to actually see if Arpaio deserved his conviction – that he is branded as an illegal immigration opponent means he is of the tribe and can do no wrong. Even if he’s a scumbag liar and actually undermines the rule of law.

Welcome to Trumpworld.

And I know that scumbag idiots will accuse me of being against Arpaio because I’m Mexican and I’m for “open borders.” That’s a complete lie of course, I am for strict border enforcement, but anyone who thinks for themselves is a threat to both tribes, left and right.

  • Inspector

    Minor issue for recusal? Are you kiddin’?

  • DemocracyRules

    SOOPER Mexican
    Is not very good at collecting and analyzing evidence, In spite of his claims, he is NOT a conservative. He needs to read John Locke, one of the key philosophers behind the US Constitution. Spouting a bunch of one-sided evidence, and ignoring Arpaio’s strong evidence of malicious prosecution, has 3 problems:
    (1) It is immoral: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
    (2) It deliberately deceives, by withholding key information. This impedes understanding.
    (3) It interferes with valid, logical, rational discourse, that is the basis of all intellectual and scientific progress.
    John Locke promoted political tolerance, but he did not promote lying, or deliberate deception. And he demanded the full disclosure of evidence, in making political and scientific judgments.

    Sooper Mexican is not so Sooper, after all.

  • DemocracyRules

    Thanks for this excellent link. I hope Sooper Mexican will read it. Especially this part:
    7. During several days of hearing, Judge Snow
    -asked leading questions,
    -gave his own version of the facts,
    -conducted his own investigation outside the courtroom,
    -argued with witnesses, and
    -was extremely interested in what evidence existed concerning the
    statement he made to his wife that he would do all that he could to make
    sure that Sheriff Arpaio is not elected.

  • DemocracyRules

    Comment deleted by DemocracyRules

  • I’ve read him. Your arguments are spurious at best.

  • DemocracyRules

    Untrue. You know nothing of conservatism. For example, one does not dismiss, out of hand, another person’s respectful ideas. Try John Locke’s treatise on tolerance before you jump into rage.

  • Well, Soopermexican, looks like your last paragraph was right on the nose.

  • DemocracyRules

    ‘Block User”