You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

Jesus Fucking Christ...he was convicted by judges of violating a legal judicial order and the constitution...not by Obama of being an old white guy. You drank more Trump coolaid, but this cup has made you thoroughly un-American.

Is that really what you call the best sheriff...someone who unapologetically violates the law and constitution at every turn, who abuses not only the convicted (still evil and illegal, btw) but also the merely accused in a jail he himself bragged was a concentration camp. That's how he treats American citizens who've not been convicted of a thing....and it's how he deserves to spend the remainder of his life.

If I held you (or your daughter) in a 145 deg tent, feeding you rotten balogne, offering no medical treatment while hoping you die of heat stroke, you would call me a terrorist, but because Joe violated mostly Hispanics (not even Mexicans, mostly legal Hispanic Americans) you call him the best sheriff...and you still tell yourself you aren't racist.

He cost his county well over $140 million in settlements for his victims, with hundreds of millions more in the courts still being litigated. The number of deaths in his jail are exponentially higher than the norm, with most going uninvestigated and fewer (none) being prosecuted (they just pay off the family a few million taxpayer dollars and move on to the next victim).

You really have to be shoving you head even farther up your own ass to even give Arpaio and Trump the benefit of a doubt at this point...he's gleefully admitted all his crimes as if they aren't illegal, and Trump made him right, violating the constitution and thumbing your nose at the court orders is perfectly fine in Trump's America, so long as you support him.

Jesus Fucknig Christ, bob. Next you'll be supporting Trump's pardon of Sheik Muhammad and other Daesh fighters...who were also the victims of an "Obama witch hunt".

You claimed to hate Obama because you've been convinced by drug addled blowhards (Limbaugh, Jones) that he subverted our rule of law to fit his agenda...yet here you are cheerleading Trump and Arpaio uncontrovertibly doing exactly that. Just because you agree with this particular agenda (subverting the constitution to forcefully eject illegal immigrants of one specific nationality) doesn't change the act you claim to hate, subversion of our constitution, laws, and government.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is he though? Will the rule of law really come up on tops in the end? I have doubts.

This is really the key point here.

It is NOT overbooking, which means the rules and laws are different.

Also, I am completely disgusted by the victim blaming that is going on.

Sorry for a wall of repeated text, I tire of my replies being erased without being read.....

newtboy says...


Let me be clear about how those you lambast see it......

Forcefully nominating Clinton was the single action that made the most difference in interfering with stopping Trump. It gave him more votes than he earned himself. His entire campaign was "if not me, you get Clinton" and that argument won him the election.
The DNC is responsible for that action...and to a lesser extent her supporters like you that put blinders on to her innumerable flaws and the vitriolic hatred against her and chose her over a probable winner with a penis. Once it was clear they cheated to help her, it was over for her. She was not going to get enough Sanders votes no matter what anyone said, she just raped them of their primary vote, losing their election vote in the process.
THAT is a stone cold fact.

She could never have won...she's just too despised by the right, and they (clearly) act on their anger. You should have pushed for Warren instead of Clinton if it was just a genital thing for you. Even if she had won, we would have lost. She would (continue to) be a lightning rod for right wing hatred, and the obstructionism of the Obama administration would look like heaven compared to the division she would foster.

But you don't read or listen. You'll probably just erase this like every other post....so perhaps I'll copy it on my page so you can't.

Grow up.




bareboards2 said:

Let me be clear about something.

We are only responsible for our own actions. We are not responsible for other people's actions. We cannot change them.

We live in the present. Not the past.

So we choose for ourselves what we do now.

Donald Trump should not be President.

Every action taken that interfered with stopping Trump means that a choice was made in that present moment to help him.

That is a stone cold fact.



1 second ago

up0down












newtboy says...

And that's why you lost. You don't listen....you instruct and then shame as if you're their mom and they owe you a duty to obey. You aren't, they don't.
Sanders lost because of underhanded collusion between the DNC and Clinton. He may have lost without that cheating...we'll never know. When she and her subordinates cheated...they lost the election right then.
My support or lack thereof made not a whit of difference, she won California.....and my ballot had her name marked (even if not by my own hand) just so she might also win the popular vote...so you're totally barking up the wrong tree. In the end, I found her the lesser of 2 evils and 4 unqualified....but she was SO unacceptable to so many that the one that was both evil and unqualified won, because SHE drove his voters to the polls in record numbers, an argument I made in February as to why she was the WORST choice.
That is the truth, a truth I pointed out 8-9 months back when there was still a chance.
Independent Sanders supporters told you to support him, not the hated, smarmy, dishonest, under FBI investigation, baggage handler that tied Trump in polls at best. He was the democratic candidate that CRUSHED him in all polls, and you didn't support him or support the rule of law/election rules, and Trump is president. See how that's 100% YOUR fault and not theirs?....probably not, you don't read replies or accept responsibility for your own actions, because that would be acting too much like an adult.
Sweet zombie Jesus.




bareboards2 said:

I didn't read it, @newtboy.

Grow up. Sanders lost. You and others like your threw a hissy fit.

Trump is president because you didn't listen to Sanders.

That is the bald faced truth.

Sanders told you to support her and you didn't.

And Trump is President.

This is your responsibility.



1 second ago

That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

1)Yes, but it's the recourse when your expectations aren't met that I'm discussing. Also, the base level of service is lower for Uber than a licensed taxi, no?

2)Yes, that's exactly what I mean...they aren't regulated taxis, they are basically operating illegally everywhere, but abused loopholes and used misrepresentation to gain a foothold, then grew too fast to control...or just were ignored until they took enough work from licensed taxi drivers, and now they're being considered 'too big to fail' and still allowed to operate in most places (not all). I would never use them for exactly that reason...as essentially black market taxis, I would expect little insurance against improper service or damage. It's not JUST the drivers, they also treat the rule of law with contempt. Why would one not expect them to treat customers with the same distain and carelessness?

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

"Can [They] be so insanely sheltered that they think her 'answers' help her?"

If you piece together all of her statements on a plethora of different topics, it is inescapably obvious that they (!) truly have no connection to anyone or anything outside their bubble. Surrounded by sycophants as the Clintons are, people have wondered, and justifiably so, whether she cares or even knows that she's lying on a regular basis. One might make the case that the entire concept of an objective "truth", connected to reality, has no meaning for them.

Additionally, she really does suck at campaigning. But that's not punishable by extended prison sentences, unlike, I don't know, sending Special Access Program (SAP) info through your own bloody email server.

Lastly, Joe mentions Powell (6:16 onwards). When Colin Powell was SoS, his office was connected to the internal system, but had no connection to the internet or the outside world in general. You can't get shit done that way, not in this day and age. That's why he had additional gear set up to at least send and receive emails. This was done separate from the internal network and, if I remember correctly, his entire staff was not only open about it every step of the way, they applied for and received special permissions before they touched anything.

Clinton didn't give a jar of cold piss about the rules that are meant to safeguard access to sensitive information. It was inconvenient to her, and since the rules and laws only apply to plebs, she and her posse set up their own system.

A whole lot of people have to adhere to tedious rules and procedures, with severe punishment looming just around the corner. One guy was in the press for receiving three years of prison after he placed a document on the wrong desk. So, if the FBI drags out the investigation or even buries it, you can bet your ass that a lot of people at different agencies are going to be fuming. And between the FBI, the NSA and CIA, a lot of people have access to the remaining emails from Clinton's server. That opens Clinton up to blackmail, a lot of it. Can't have a compromised president. Not to mention that someone's going to take the data and just drop it over at WikiLeaks or the Intercept.

Hmm... Democrat failure of 8 years? I seem to recall the Republicans have controlled the budget, more or less for 6 of those 8 years, and solidly for the last 2. I seem to recall we were in a budget surplus before Bush Jr took us out of it for an unjust war built on, at best misinformation, and very possibly lies. All the while the same people crying about the deficit now said then that deficits don't matter. What happened is a failure of Obama, it's a failure of the Republican policies as Obama's weren't even given a shot as the modern day Republican doesn't want a democracy, what they want is a dictatorship where they dictate the rules and compromise with the other side of the isle, formally known as politics, is bad and it's my way or the highway mentality is the rule of law for the party. Hell, the party abandoned its very own plan for affordable health care and now call it one of the worst things ever... their own plan... the same plan, funded the same way with the same penalties for not participating, that they tried to pass into federal law 3 times is now one of the worst things that our government has ever passed.

Cruz and Trump will isolate America from our allies, especially if Trump won. None of our allies (save perhaps Israel) would want to associate with us. They are already mad at us for Bush's wars and both Cruz and Trump want to escalate those wars and "carpet bomb" millions of innocent people to get to a few bad people? Trump wants to kill their families, which will make it easier to radicalize more and more people... and before one says that is the brutality of that religion, which religion is the one wanting to carpet bomb innocent people to kill a few guilty people and torture people and other crimes that their Christ would never support? Of course everything the Republicans want to do is exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want other nations to do, so perhaps the Republican party is in league with ISIS?

Their policies, especially Trump's, regarding items made out of the country (jobs sent overseas by the same people that Republicans love... the same people who take for themselves while they refuse to pay living wages to their employees for pure greed reasons) would result in an economic melt down in the US as countries and businesses refuse to do as much business with us... or they move from the US dollar as the standard currency as retribution, which again wrecks the US economy.

Of less importance is that a Trump presidency and likely a Cruz as well would result in a guarantee that we'd lose the bids for the 2024 Olympic games and the 2026 World Cup, both of which we have a decent lead on as of now, but if men of hate and discrimination get in, then why would games of peace come? Trump wants to refuse to let Muslims even visit, and that would make a huge percentage of those who'd come for either or.

Anyhow to the subject of Bernie. Yes the Republican's would block everything as they do with Obama, but the conversation is moved and advanced for the people. I'd fear that if Clinton got in, the Republicans would spend all their time trying to impeach her rather than go about the process of governing. Bernie they'd just try to ignore and then get caught off guard as the nation caught onto his ideas and wanted to run with it and gave him a congress that would work with him.... of course a Trump nomination means they'd likely lose the Senate anyhow... which will be hilarious, doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Sanders in the office, because moments after the election, Obama pulls the moderate Supreme Court Justice nomination that the Republicans asked for by name before it became a political issue, and they instead get a more liberal justice... (I'm further amused by how they say they just want American's to vote on it... they did folks, 4 years ago, everyone knew there'd likely be an opening or two during his terms and he still won.)

It seems like it's time to petition the white house to go after ANYONE named in the papers, and let them prove in court that they weren't really evading taxes and that they had a legitimate, legal reason to have their money there, or go to jail for tax evasion like Capone. If 95% of what they do there is tax evasion, it's reasonable to presume their customers guilty until proven innocent.
If we aren't going to prosecute these people for clearly and massively stealing from the country, then there is no rule of law and it's already Mad Max times, and the Koch brothers are really the Lord Humongous and Immortan Joe .

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

Yes, an apology is more than most countries offer when they do this kind of thing....just ask Russia.
That said, an apology is NOT accountability, explanation, or even honesty. Independent investigation is needed every time something like this happens, otherwise there basically is NO international rule of law, and we should stop pretending there is.
But...the president is certainly NOT the person who gave the go ahead to bomb a known hospital. He would likely not have charges levied against him no matter what.

It is a sign of guilt when any organization insists they, and only they, can investigate their own clearly bad actions....I'm looking at the cops here....and 'self investigation' is no investigation.

I said it on the other video on this topic, and I'll say it again....we won't accept self investigation when a major hospital in the US blows up. Not for a second. If it's not good enough for us, how can we pretend it's good enough for everyone else? That's just plain self serving BS.

Motherfucker. Corrupt with authority.

His rule of law is: keep running your mouth and see what happens.

He doesn't like that they're speaking and he's also ordering them by royal decree to vacate the area. Being disobedient deserves you getting your head slammed to the concrete.

He cannot work in this line of work ever again. Those kids are lucky the other officers were there or that fucker may have shot them for no fucking reason.