The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[BugI02]

Many people don't think so and in fact now someone in his very own Administration thinks he could have done better apparently.

If you have problem with something the president has done, and you're an advisor, you could go to him and express your opinion about the problem. After all, one assumes you were given a position close to the president because he wants to listen to a range of viewpoints. While there is no guarantee that he will accept or implement your views, you have as good a chance as anyone to affect policy

If you have a problem with something the president has done, and you go to the press, you are a snake who is grandstanding and virtue signaling and put your own feelings over the good of the country and the administration. Had he gone to Trump first and been rebuffed i might have a different opinion about this

Has he been given his thirty pieces of silver yet?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, it was actually a founding father [Jefferson] who expressed the idea in an 1802 letter, so I think you could say [at least some of] the founding fathers were on board with the idea; although they likely could not have envisioned how the idea would be twisted to mean that the public square should be absolutely free of all/any religion

It is also significant that Jefferson was explaining to the good ministers of Danbury, Connecticut that there fears about the government meddling in their churches were unnecessary, not telling them that they were forbidden from participating in or influencing government.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Gorka is gone, and Joe Arpaio has been pardoned. Boy the WH has to keep the drama dial turned to 10.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gorka is gone, and Joe Arpaio has been pardoned. Boy the WH has to keep the drama dial turned to 10.

I might point out that the issue here is what our illustrious media will use to provide a steady stream of drama. You hardly heard a word out of the worthless little cretins when Bill Clinton took a pause on the way out to write a stack of pardons pardoning a long list of his friends of 'any wrong-doing they may have committed' keeping in mind that none of these people had been so much as accused of anything, much less charged, tried, or convicted of it.

 

[Trigger Time]

Speaking of.... Lindsey Vonn was hacked... and all I'll say, is.... well, nothing. I was speechless.

Kut (can appreciate a dirty girl)

Ha, haven't seen those. I'll have to find them

 

[fineguitarman]

Polls are a joke for the most part, thankfully or that worthless x-presidents wife would be finishing OB's work. Not too worried about polls, but I would like President Trump to push Congress harder and "make the deals" so we can see some real improvements.

 

[Dddrees]

What she did say:

“They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”

Not quite as bad but had little do with a question about what insight she had gained living so close to Russia.

Agreed

Her real remarks still miss the mark. Hardly relevant when it comes to experience with regards to foreign relations. She earned her cred as being a ditz without any help whatsoever from Tina Fey.

 

[Trigger Time]

They have people that tell them what to say

 

[IndyDave1776]

Agreed

Her real remarks still miss the mark. Hardly relevant when it comes to experience with regards to foreign relations. She earned her cred as being a ditz without any help whatsoever from Tina Fey.

Funny thing, it seems that the worst of the insults were derived from quoting Fey rather than Palin. If your statement were correct, one would think that Fey's contribution would have been totally irrelevant.

 

[Dddrees]

Funny thing, it seems that the worst of the insults were derived from quoting Fey rather than Palin. If your statement were correct, one would think that Fey's contribution would have been totally irrelevant.

No, even Palin's actual statement had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy.

 

[Dddrees]

Trump's low approval ratings set an unwanted record

Trump's low approval ratings set an unwanted record

 

[Trigger Time]

Fake news lies. Didn't you guys learn not to listen to poles or did you forget the lesson Trump taught you on election night? Don't worry it will happen again in 4 years

 

[ATM]

No, even Palin's actual statement had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy.

So, Palin's was a simple statement of truth while Fey's was a fictional line from a comedy sketch. Got it.

Corporate media knows very well that the general public can be trusted to always confuse those two.

Heck, the general public still participates in their silly polls as if that's how the future will be determined.

 

[jbombelli]

Trump's low approval ratings set an unwanted record

Trump's low approval ratings set an unwanted record

Don't worry. All the polls say he has no chance to win the primary, let alone the election.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The injunction banned detention "solely based upon the knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present in the United States." The number is actually 171 (there were 14 at the end of 2011) "persons not charged with a (state) criminal offence turned over to ICE." (page 7 lines 5-13). ICE implemented their Priorities for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens program June 30, 2010 (see memo link below). The fact that ICE accepted these individuals indicates that they had prior felonies, federal warrants, detainer requests, and/or prior removal orders. THAT is not the same as "solely based upon... WITHOUT MORE". That is MORE and does not require the withdrawn [STRIKE]208g[/STRIKE] 287g jurisdiction.

And ICE was aware of the injunction and would not accept "mererly" illegals from Arpaio as of Dec 15, 2011, the same time as the injunction:

DHS Cuts Off Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s Access To ICE Programs ? Talking Points Memo

In other words, all indications are that if ICE took them, there was MORE than just unlawfully present.

In fact, the decision quotes that ICE policy was that they "only want to pick up felons" (page 5, lines 9-12). Also on page 5, lines 24-28, there were 3 individuals without state charges, who ICE would not take (no mention of if they fit the ICE Priority memo, had warrants, detainers, etc or not). For example, those three could have had detainers and when ICE was contacted, they determined the detainers no longer met the 2010 policy and refused. Or they could have been low on the list with the courts backed up and they just refused. This is detail that should be explained in a legal decision to categorically state whether or not there was "more" for these three individuals.

So, from the decision, I can find only three who were possibly detained for an hour and a half who might have been "merely" illegal. And, if they had ICE detainers that ICE for whatever reason choose to renege upon, that is still MORE than MERELY unlawfully present.

Decision:

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...cimages/news/arpaio%20contempt%20decision.pdf

ICE June 2010 Priority Enforcement Memo:

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/civil-enforcement-priorities.pdf

tl;dr: Except for three individuals where the facts are not presented, it appears that Sheriff Arpaio did abide by the plain meaning of injunction. It is possible he abided by the injunction in those three cases as well. The 157/171 detainees mentioned in the press were collected by ICE under the priority enforcement program indicating they were detained for more than simple unlawful presence, i.e. outstanding warrants, detainers or deportation orders.

Edit: The program that allows state/locals to enforce immigration law is 287g, not 208g. Corrected in red.

That is more than fair, it took me awhile to dig this up and read it. My point boils down to Judge Bolton's decision bases the contempt of the injunction charge upon detaining illegals without Arizona state charges. That's not what Snow's injunction says, it said that they were barred from detaining based solely upon unlawful status and nothing more. IMO, it is a very reasonable reading to conclude that individuals with federal/other state warrants, existing deportation orders and/or ICE detainers qualify as "more" than simply found to be unlawfully present. They are fugitives. ICE accepted 171 of the 174 the sherriff's office detained, under the priority enforcement order, indicating they were most likely convicted felons. It's unknown if the other three had warrants/orders/detainers as the decision incredibly does not explore their status beyond no state charges.

Had Judge Snow intended that Arpaio could only detain based upon state charges, he should have written the injunction that way. He didn't.

With Arpaio's pardon now a reality, this takes on new meaning. Was Arpaio's conviction of contempt of court a fair application of the law and facts, or a political witchhunt.

My research, detailed in the top post quote, summarized in the lower, indicates that it was a political witchhunt, not following the norms of contempt findings. The court's own findings do not support that Arpaio continued to detain illegal aliens "solely based upon" them being "unawfully present" "without more".

REPOSTED TO ARPAIO THREAD

 

[jamil]

Fake news lies. Didn't you guys learn not to listen to poles or did you forget the lesson Trump taught you on election night? Don't worry it will happen again in 4 years

The polls weren't that far off. They got some things wrong about who would show up to vote and where, and that was the difference. Not a lot, but enough to win the electoral college.

 

[2A_Tom]

With Arpaio's pardon now a reality, this takes on new meaning. Was Arpaio's conviction of contempt of court a fair application of the law and facts, or a political witchhunt.

My research, detailed in the top post quote, summarized in the lower, indicates that it was a political witchhunt, not following the norms of contempt findings. The court's own findings do not support that Arpaio continued to detain illegal aliens "solely based upon" them being "unawfully present" "without more".

Have/can you reposted this in the Arpaio thread?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Have/can you reposted this in the Arpaio thread?

Thanks for the heads up, BF, I missed that thread... will do.

 

[ghitch75]

Trump and approval ratings - what the elite media won't tell you | Fox News

 

[ghitch75]

when are they going to protest Antifa for there violence?......

'Civil Disobedience' March From Charlottesville to DC Will Demand Trump's Removal | Fox News Insider