3
22

[–] Apathy 3 points 22 points (+25|-3) ago 

Two years ago I would have been outraged. But after seeing what illegals are doing to this country, Sherrif Joe was soft on them to say the least. Either way, I hope he gets pardoned.

5
6

[–] heygeorge [S] 5 points 6 points (+11|-5) ago 

Rules for thee and not for me is ok because you agree with Joe's ideology? I could see commutation making sense, but a presidential pardon sends the message that those in power shouldn't be held accountable for violating the law.

0
18

[–] Apathy 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

If I recall correctly, the only "rules" he broke was ignoring a judge who basically said "stop arresting so many brown people for committing crimes." I sure as shit don't want us to turn into the cucked EU.

0
4

[–] dodgesbullets 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm fucking tired of this bullshit line. It has become more than apparent to anyone paying attention that 'the rules' don't apply to the left. You've got BLm and anti-fa burning down cities and assaulting peaceful people every month but you throw a bone to a Sheriff who upheld the law and spit in the face of globalists every day and suddenly the fucking rules apply.

This isn't disregarding the rules anymore; its leveling the playing field.

0
4

[–] epsilona01 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Washington already sent that message during the last 16+ years. This is just applying shit evenly.

2
1

[–] ardvarcus 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

It's sends the message that abuses of power and abuses of the justice systrem by Democrats will be treated with the contempt they deserve.

4
2

[–] DukeofAnarchy 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

He's a corrupt gangster.

Still no pardon for the Bundy Ranch heroes.

0
8

[–] Omag 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I was kind of counting on this

0
6

[–] cynicaloldfart 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Actual article title:

Trump 'seriously considering' a pardon for ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio

5
-2

[–] heygeorge [S] 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

My title is the actual Voat Submission title. :P

0
1

[–] cynicaloldfart 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Am I understanding correctly that that is what Voat entered when you clicked "suggest title"? If so, wonder why they differed? Interesting.

1
5

[–] Neinlife 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

of fucking course it was a chick judge fuckin with him

2
4

[–] antiliberalsociety 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Good!

5
4

[–] con77 5 points 4 points (+9|-5) ago 

Joe is an American hero

1
2

[–] 10171132 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Wait... a sheriff is getting criminally charged by the courts for trying to uphold immigration laws? What...

0
6

[–] heygeorge [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

He was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court order.

0
2

[–] 10171477 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

And I'm guessing the court order was to stop trying to stop illegal immigrants. I suppose randomly checking vehicles can be a civil rights issue, but the whole thing seems a bit ridiculous..

I appreciate the clarification though.

3
1

[–] ardvarcus 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

Good. It was a Democrat witch hunt that got Joe in trouble with the law. It deserves to be treated with contempt.

0
3

[–] heygeorge [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

His rights should be no different than anyone else's. His attorney is going to appeal, and he hasn't even been sentenced yet. Chances he will even serve time are exceptionally slim.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)