Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2015, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Avondale and Tempe, Arizona
2,852 posts, read 4,484,019 times
Reputation: 2561

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdahunt View Post
All I'm doing is comparing your treatment of Joe to the way you treat or fail to treat others doing the exact same thing you accuse Joe of doing.....with Joe either you like him or you hate him....he keeps surviving regardless of what is thrown at him.

Every big city sheriff has lawsuits against them and the department and pay out millions in restitution...doesn't mean they are guilty or bad people...its just the way things are today in our very litigious era.

btw....thumbing your nose at the feds isn't a crime and it is required from time to time...for that he gets kudos and a lot of praise from the masses.
Try thumbing your nose at the feds and see how far that gets you. Say for example you refuse to comply with a judge's orders or refuse to file your income taxes, what do you think would happen?

Chances are it would get you an all-expenses-paid trip to the slammer, not praise from the masses.

Arpaio acts as if he is above the law but expects everyone else to be law-abiding citizens, if that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2015, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Willo Historic District, Phoenix, AZ
3,187 posts, read 5,717,532 times
Reputation: 3658
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
I'd be curious to see the list of names of politicians you feel are truly honest and are in office to only serve the people, have not lied, been caught up in scandals of some kind where the overwhelming data shows bad judgement/behavior, been convicted at some level, etc. Right off the bat, I'd trust these people you are going to list have taken $0 in political "contributions" as that would show to me in my view that they are only in office to truly only serve the wants and needs of the people.
To suggest that anyone who accepts campaign contributions is somehow tainted shows an amazing misunderstanding of how the system operates. They don't get to keep the money for themselves. They must expense it on campaign activities and file reports that demonstrate how that is done. That doesn't mean that there aren't instances of wrongdoing but to suggest that anyone who accepts a contribution is evil in some way is absurd. I have run for office. I have accepted campaign contributions. (The money was spent on signs and mailings.) I have served as treasurer for other people's campaigns. It's a lot easier to sit on your backside and make accusations than it is to put yourself out there.

These are the people that represent me in various legislative bodies:

Laura Pastor
Steve Gallardo
Katie Hobbs
Lela Alston
Ken Clark
Ruben Gallego
John McCain
Jeff Flake

I don't agree with all of them, particularly the last two, but I believe that they have the best of intentions, are not liars and are not involved in any scandals that I am aware of. (McCain was cleared of impropriety in the Keating deal and it was a long time ago.) None are guilty of or accused of any of the outrageous sorts of behavior that Joe Arpaio is in the middle of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 01:27 AM
 
Location: Arizona
824 posts, read 2,329,735 times
Reputation: 605
Arpaio's disregard for law and ethics was well-established before the last election cycle (2012). The Thomas affair alone was enough to disqualify him from office, and there is so much more. That type of disregard for the law was pretty evident even before the 2008 election cycle. We (Maricopa County voters) are responsible for his years of malfeasance. I guess that I can partially exclude registered Democrats who are not eligible to vote in the Republican primaries that really decide the matter. But Republicans and independents could have voted in those decisive primaries for a more fit candidate. Any of us could have worked to help another candidate.

As far as resentment for having to pay millions of dollars for some of the results of his antics, too bad. We hired and then re-hired someone woefully unfit for a job. We therefore must pay the costs that result from our poor choices.

Personally, I have never voted for the man in any primary or general election. In the 2008 and 2012 general elections for Maricopa County Sheriff, I voted for the only two Democrats whom I have ever voted for in any election because he had to go. But I should have done more than that, and so should have others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 02:00 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,432,262 times
Reputation: 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbenjamin View Post
To suggest that anyone who accepts campaign contributions is somehow tainted shows an amazing misunderstanding of how the system operates. They don't get to keep the money for themselves. They must expense it on campaign activities and file reports that demonstrate how that is done. That doesn't mean that there aren't instances of wrongdoing but to suggest that anyone who accepts a contribution is evil in some way is absurd. I have run for office. I have accepted campaign contributions. (The money was spent on signs and mailings.) I have served as treasurer for other people's campaigns. It's a lot easier to sit on your backside and make accusations than it is to put yourself out there.

These are the people that represent me in various legislative bodies:

Laura Pastor
Steve Gallardo
Katie Hobbs
Lela Alston
Ken Clark
Ruben Gallego
John McCain
Jeff Flake

I don't agree with all of them, particularly the last two, but I believe that they have the best of intentions, are not liars and are not involved in any scandals that I am aware of. (McCain was cleared of impropriety in the Keating deal and it was a long time ago.) None are guilty of or accused of any of the outrageous sorts of behavior that Joe Arpaio is in the middle of.
Well, how to phrase this nicely.....let's say it sounds like you are a very trusting individual, I will give you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbenjamin View Post
To suggest that anyone who accepts campaign contributions is somehow tainted shows an amazing misunderstanding of how the system operates.
Right, no favors would ever be given to big donors, at the expense of "we the little people" they are suppose to represent first and foremost. They're just being super kind/fantastic/giving folks handing out money with no expectation of any return. Got it!

Now back to reality. Some studies you might find interesting. Regardless if it's Sheriff Joe or any of your favorites, a little study from our fine university down the road you might find a bit interesting and educational:

https://asunews.asu.edu/20141201-bus...tions-lobbying

And another one:

Campaign Contributions Influence Public Policy, Finds Study of 50 State Legislatures : Rochester News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 08:35 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,902,504 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Java Jolt View Post
Try thumbing your nose at the feds and see how far that gets you. Say for example you refuse to comply with a judge's orders or refuse to file your income taxes, what do you think would happen?

Chances are it would get you an all-expenses-paid trip to the slammer, not praise from the masses.

Arpaio acts as if he is above the law but expects everyone else to be law-abiding citizens, if that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is.
Personally I agree with Arpaio's nose thumbing at the Feds when it comes to ILLEGALS and our border SECURITY.
Anyone with half a brain has to admit we, the border states are being overrun by illegal immigrants on a daily basis in direct conflict with federal laws and the U.S. constitution.

Now let me ask this, is it Joe's job to protect Maricopa County or, is it his job to pander to the nation as a whole? I'd say he was "hired" to protect Maricopa County not to protect the political aspirations/social engineering/skewed legal whims of the occupants of 1600 Penn.

As for "profiling", I'm on the fence leaning towards it when it comes to certain things like terror, illegal immigration etc. I won't go through the litany of why, suffice it to say if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,quacks like a duck and you're hunting ducks it might pay to see if it's actually a duck. If it's not then fly on little bird,fly on. If it is, well.... Dinner is served.
When it comes to some of the other things Arpaio has been proven to have done? On those points I agree with others opinion that he shouldn't have been reelected.
Now as to the current "scandal" and revelations, sounds to me like Joe was playing the same game as the rest of 'em and might have just got caught at it.
This wouldn't be such a huge story in my opinion if he'd just fallen in line with D.C., in fact I'd be willing to bet you had he towed the P.C. line, didn't openly and regularly criticize the open boarders crowd and did everything our masters "the feds" wanted we'd be hearing nothing but praise of 'old Joe right now.
If Joe was following San Francisco's ideas of policing he'd be the darling of D.C., the mainstream media and his coffers would be full from the likes of Soros and company.
What's the answer?
Y'all tell me...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Leaving, California
480 posts, read 841,673 times
Reputation: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbenjamin View Post
It's disheartening and yet predictable to see Arpaio's supporters, when faced with evidence of incredibly poor behavior, descend into false equivalency chanting "they all do it". They do not.
You're calling out an argumentation fallacy called "tu quoque." However, tu quoque is generally designed to excuse behavior because someone else does it. So someone who drives a couple of miles over the speed limit isn't considered a scofflaw, because everyone does that sometimes.

What I see here are parallel examples used to illustrate the issue. Most topics are impossible to discuss without comparables. Can you imagine buying a car or a house if the salesperson said that the discussion must only mention THIS car or THIS house?

Arpaio is a public official. Lots of people feel that he is evil and corrupt. Lots of other people feel that he is tasked with an incredibly complicated job, and deserves better support. I personally believe that he is flawed, but at the same time, I think the advocates of unlimited immigration have unfairly demonized him.

So yeah, when someone calls for him to be tossed in the can for some reason, that clicks in my mind as a whole series of things. The person is probably a liberal, probably hates Arpaio for his aggressive immigration enforcement, probably hates that they haven't been able to vote him out of office, and so on.

Not too surprising that they would be frustrated with people who would vote for him, because they don't measure the argument the same way. I'd rather have Arpaio with flaws and foolishness than about anyone his detractors would offer in his place, BECAUSE he is stubborn, curmudgeonly, and tough. Those are qualities that make a good sheriff.

Or let's say it this way. If you hate Arpaio, ask yourself what he could change so you'd love him, and you will get a list of things. Get a candidate for sheriff who does those things. Run that candidate, and let the people choose. But stop pretending that your grievances are anything except sour grapes because the people keep choosing the person you didn't vote for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Willo Historic District, Phoenix, AZ
3,187 posts, read 5,717,532 times
Reputation: 3658
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Well, how to phrase this nicely.....let's say it sounds like you are a very trusting individual, I will give you that.



Right, no favors would ever be given to big donors, at the expense of "we the little people" they are suppose to represent first and foremost. They're just being super kind/fantastic/giving folks handing out money with no expectation of any return. Got it!

Now back to reality. Some studies you might find interesting. Regardless if it's Sheriff Joe or any of your favorites, a little study from our fine university down the road you might find a bit interesting and educational:

https://asunews.asu.edu/20141201-bus...tions-lobbying

And another one:

Campaign Contributions Influence Public Policy, Finds Study of 50 State Legislatures : Rochester News
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there are not abuses related to money in politics. The current system is way out of control in that regard, Citizens United was a horrid step in the wrong direction. I am just saying that the act of accepting a contribution does not make a person a crook. Unfortunately, the act of NOT accepting campaign contributions makes a person unelectable. I would much prefer a system where there was public financing and strict spending limits, but the Supreme Court for some reason has determined that attempting to buy elections is a first amendment right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,068 posts, read 6,432,262 times
Reputation: 7730
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbenjamin View Post
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there are not abuses related to money in politics. The current system is way out of control in that regard, Citizens United was a horrid step in the wrong direction. I am just saying that the act of accepting a contribution does not make a person a crook. Unfortunately, the act of NOT accepting campaign contributions makes a person unelectable. I would much prefer a system where there was public financing and strict spending limits, but the Supreme Court for some reason has determined that attempting to buy elections is a first amendment right.
I would have to agree with that for sure. I think a country like Germany has it down right. If I understand correctly based on what I've read some time ago, every candidate has very strict limits on how much money they can take(it's very low) and can only be on tv for a time or 2 for a few minutes to say what they stand for and that's it.

Sad what our system has morphed into at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 10:55 AM
 
Location: grandview melrose neighborhood central phoenix
22 posts, read 19,166 times
Reputation: 60
He is a wily one, and yeah, embarassing, a media *****, and frankly very popular with a pretty large segment of the voters. My problems with Mr. Arpaio are numerous and longstanding. First and foremost the entrenched cronyism that comes with being too long in office, he stopped being a good public servant many years ago. He seems to be accountable to no one, no oversight at all on his payouts of taxpayer funds, not to mention his personal finances. All the bills we have been forced to foot in terms of settlements for his dracanian brutal jail system and politcal vendettas against any who oppose him. He has divided our community on racial lines, cultural lines, class lines and generational lines. But most offensive to me personally is that all of his posturing and smoke and mirrors and boasting equal zero because our county IS NOT SAFER than it was before. He is not someone that Arizonans can trust. Oh yeah, he misplaced $100,000,000. How they hell does that get by whoever is in charge? Oh also, needs a shampoo, cant leave that out...not hatin....just sayin. Thanks for letting me vent, hope no one is offended.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2015, 11:05 AM
 
Location: grandview melrose neighborhood central phoenix
22 posts, read 19,166 times
Reputation: 60
I just hope we do not have to elect him Governor to get rid of him.......until recently becoming governor was a sure way to get em gone...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arizona > Phoenix area

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top