President Trump

Top Trump Organization executive asked Putin aide for help on business deal

 

You've got that confused. Conservatives are usually more pro free market.

 

How so?

 

The term "liberal" is used in many different ways. In Europe, as I understand, it mostly refers to a liberal, lassaize-faire (I think I spelled that wrong) market and economic freedom, while in the U.S., liberal is often used to describe politically left aligned people.

 

2nd blue Marlin xD

 

He was targeting people without probable cause. That's a much bigger issue than any potential racism.

Liberalism and conservatism don't exist on the same axis. Progressivism is being against traditional values, conservatism is being for traditional values. Conservative/progressive ideologies are subject to change based on what the traditions of the day are. Liberalism is an actual ideology. Depending on the time period, being liberal could be conservative or progressive. The reason lots of people have began dubbing themselves "classical liberals" is because pop culture has made terms like conservative and liberal devoid of all meaning. Actual liberalism tends to be based on enlightenment values, namely natural rights (you are endowed by your creator with unalienable rights), and consent of the governed in the form of social contracts. Actual liberals like John Locke favor the free market.

 

From what I understand, he was targeting immigrants in attempt to protect his community from illegal immigration as he has done for a big portion of his career. Even if he was in the wrong, he has served for over 50 years, has had no prior convictions, and is 85 years old.

 

LMGTFY

 

"(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform."
"favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms."
Also, google messes with their search results to promote their radical leftist agenda, so I wouldn't trust them very much. Look up "american inventors".

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 30, 2017, Original Post Date: Aug 30, 2017 ---

A judge found him guilty of racially profiling people. Now I know social justice warriors have completely desensitized my generation to racism so I'm focusing on the probable cause part. If you are arresting/searching people for no reason other than their race, you do not have probable cause. THE CONSTITUTION says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,". Joe Arpaio took an oath to uphold the constitution.

 

I agree about Google messing with their search results. Again, I believe that he was targeting immigrants, not Latinos. Judges aren't always right, this is what pardons are for. He's been protecting his community from illegal immigrants for decades, and now he's just getting convicted for it? To me this sounds similar to convicting border patrol for searching immigrants before they enter.

 

Except that has not once happened ever.

...
He was convicted for defying a court order.
Are you suggesting he complied with the court order.
If he felt he shouldn't have to follow the court order, there is a process for that. You appeal the court order to a different judge.

 

He didn't comply, I get that. But I believe that there is a good reason behind that. <Insert previous response here>

 

T H E N A P P E A L T H E R U L I N G


He needs to follow the system. Not go rouge.

 

Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe

 

That's what I would've done, but he still deserves a pardon in my opinion.

 

Hillary should be re-investigated after the latest revelations with comey. The integrity of the investigation is non-existent.

 

The issue is a bit more nuanced than that. Comey, who wasn't directly involved in the day-to-day investigation, drafted a letter 9 months into an investigation that was becoming clear that not enough evidence was there to support criminally charging someone.

If you look into other cases regarding leaking it's extremely rare people are charged and if they are serve any jail. Look at Patraeus, he gave his journalist mistress binders of classified information purposely and only got probation.

 

He drafted the letter when there was still key people left to interview. The political establishment takes care of its own.

its extremely rare rich and powerful people are rarely charged*. Look at Snowden or she who must not be named (Chelsea manning).

 

I get the issue behind it but I don't see the severity without more context. Show me some intention to end the investigation before all the facts were in instead of a draft of a letter.

There are differences between these examples and Clinton, namely that Clinton still has the leverage of ignorance. Snowden or Manning cannot argue that any release was unintentional and Clinton can make that argument without anyone presenting any real evidence of the contrary.

There is a reason why Trump & Co let this news go and it's to distract people from his own swamp. I understand and agree with the need to keep investigations legit and pure but unfortunately because of how politics are currently and the rhetoric of the party for a long time, I need much more evidence to convince me this isn't just another attempt at political assassination.

 

why is this still going on after almost a year