OP doesnt consider that Latin Americans are the most pedo-friendly culture on earth -- 90% of these cases are a 13 yo getting pregnant so her school calls it in but the dad says "NAH MANG DAS HER FIANCE HOLMES, DEY GETTING MARRIED SOON SO ISS HOKAY MANG"
Trump is a Jesuit, went to Jesuit schools, has been going to Jesuit functions since he was a child, had business ties with the Rockefellers through their CIA front and mob owned Resorts International, is a NYC billionaire insider, a Zionist, Banker friendly, lies about 9/11 and blames muslims, Friends with 9/11 criminals Larry Silverstein and Giuliani who is also a pedo investigation squasher, long time Clinton friend, Pedo Island visitng elite scumbar delivering a phony divide and conquer psyop for the cabal. And you actually need more evidence. What red flags would be left?
Oh I get it, believe me that all paints a very concerning picture - the ONLY thing that has me affording him any benefit of doubt, is that all of the above can still translate as "playing the game", it's a stretch I know, but so is a lot of any of this.
I'm trying to remain objective but also a bit optimistic I guess, which is probably very naive, but, I'm certainly not forgetting that one way or another, he's in the political sector and that inherently means one should not put all their eggs in that particular basket of predictably unpredictable ;)
EDIT: That said, when you look at the above in conjunction with this situation with Arpaio, it looks sooooo much worse than even before.
Eh, doing some reading up on Arpaio and related subjects (pre and post 2016), pardoning this guy really makes me think worse of Trump - maybe I'm missing something, but for now, this is just another reason to distrust Trump, for me at least.
This, this is the kinda shit I'm talking about with "betrayal", not that I can personally verify this to be true... but, if it is, what the absolute fuck?
How does a move like this actually help us?
Sure, a thought that crossed my mind is, "maybe a deal has been struck, that will have Arpaio give up the names of his handlers", but, this seems like a convenient little lollipop to keep us happy a little while longer, supposing it were to be the reason behind the pardon; I'm curious as to how you(and others who are confident in Trump) view a move like this, supposing that it's true.
If it isn't true that Trump has pardoned a pedo enabler, please help debunk the issue, not just for my own sake but for anyone else who might be very confused by Trump's apparent behavior/decisions.
I, personally, am not trying to tie Trump to anything.
I haven't the foggiest what to think of all this, which is why I presented what I believe is a better-quality article by comparison to the one that is doing the rounds.
If anyone can convince me beyond reaosnable doubt, that it was a witchhunt against Arpaio, I'm all ears. That's why I pinged you in the other thread.
She really doesn't provide any facts. She uses AP reports from 2011 which was influenced by pro illegal alien people that 'hated' Sheriff joe.
In fact, according to a report from the Associated Press in December 2011, Airpaio’s office failed to investigate “more than 400 sex-crimes” that were reported in Maricopa County from 2005 to 2007, “including dozens of alleged child molestations—that were inadequately investigated and in some instances were not worked at all.”
By saying many of them were illegal alien children, they were attempting to gain sympathy for illegal aliens.
Many of the victims, said a retired El Mirage police official who reviewed the files, were children of illegal immigrants.
Again, they are targeting Sheriff Joe, with no facts to back them up.
Bill Louis, then-assistant El Mirage police chief who reviewed the files after the sheriff's contract ended, believes the decision to ignore the cases was made deliberately by supervisors in Arpaio's office -- and not by individual investigators.
Jerry Laird, is a democrat, but the net has been scrubbed of that fact.
El Mirage Detective Jerry Laird, who reviewed some the investigations, learned from a sheriff's summary of 50 to 75 cases files he picked up from Arpaio's office that an overwhelming majority of them hadn't been worked.
As is apparent in this article, the pro illegal immigration powers started the investigation as a hit piece on sheriff Joe.
"What we learned was that Arpaio and his people had been spending so much time on getting publicity for his so-called 'illegal-immigration' publicity routine that [the MCSO] had mishandled — really screwed the pooch on — dozens of potential sex-crimes cases that just disappeared. It was beyond my comprehension, and it was repulsive to me both as a police officer and as a human being."
For starters.the author Rachel Blevins is an anti-Trumper. She sorta reminds me of the people at Snopes. She has an agenda, but she is not going to be obvious about it. Can you find some early history on her?
First impression is to agree with you - there's a clear anti-trump message in her article but she hides it between the non-partisan chatter about (essentially) the deep state; mixing fact with fiction? Red herring 101
Second impression: Not so sure she's specifically anti-trump, seems to rattle off all the talking points of someone who's actually trying to hold 'all sides' accountable for their bullshit, not unlike we're trying to do here.
Could be that there's something to the Arpaio thing, or that she herself has been caught up in a ploy, or that she is complicit in a plot to take down Trump - but, I'm not seeing much from her that really strikes me as an effort to attack Trump only.
Second impression: Not so sure she's specifically anti-trump, seems to rattle off all the talking points of someone who's actually trying to hold 'all sides' accountable for their bullshit, not unlike we're trying to do here.
As I said earlier. where is her history during the Obama ADm. She has nothing!!!!! But sweetholymosiah she is anti-corruption when Trump is in office.
MediaMattersGoogleFacebookObama have been busy scrubbing.
Very valid point! Though, she does make a jab at Obama in her article about presidential tweets, it's so fleeting that she may as well have left it out, without affecting her article.
pby1000 ago
Two of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Top Deputies Have "Love Connection" to SCA Scandal:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/two-of-sheriff-joe-arpaios-top-deputies-have-love-connection-to-sca-scandal-6448345
I recall these tapes, too:
https://soundcloud.com/stephenlemons/fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-part-one
https://soundcloud.com/stephenlemons/fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-part-two
DonKeyhote ago
OP doesnt consider that Latin Americans are the most pedo-friendly culture on earth -- 90% of these cases are a 13 yo getting pregnant so her school calls it in but the dad says "NAH MANG DAS HER FIANCE HOLMES, DEY GETTING MARRIED SOON SO ISS HOKAY MANG"
DeathTooMasons ago
Trump is a Jesuit, went to Jesuit schools, has been going to Jesuit functions since he was a child, had business ties with the Rockefellers through their CIA front and mob owned Resorts International, is a NYC billionaire insider, a Zionist, Banker friendly, lies about 9/11 and blames muslims, Friends with 9/11 criminals Larry Silverstein and Giuliani who is also a pedo investigation squasher, long time Clinton friend, Pedo Island visitng elite scumbar delivering a phony divide and conquer psyop for the cabal. And you actually need more evidence. What red flags would be left?
Commoner ago
Going to a Jesuit school does not make you a Jesuit. I know a lot of people that went to Catholic Schools that are not Catholic.
equineluvr ago
Jesuits are JEWS.
Do some research beyond the cursory. It's out there.
argosciv ago
Oh I get it, believe me that all paints a very concerning picture - the ONLY thing that has me affording him any benefit of doubt, is that all of the above can still translate as "playing the game", it's a stretch I know, but so is a lot of any of this.
I'm trying to remain objective but also a bit optimistic I guess, which is probably very naive, but, I'm certainly not forgetting that one way or another, he's in the political sector and that inherently means one should not put all their eggs in that particular basket of predictably unpredictable ;)
EDIT: That said, when you look at the above in conjunction with this situation with Arpaio, it looks sooooo much worse than even before.
Commoner ago
It looks a whole lot better to me.
argosciv ago
Eh, doing some reading up on Arpaio and related subjects (pre and post 2016), pardoning this guy really makes me think worse of Trump - maybe I'm missing something, but for now, this is just another reason to distrust Trump, for me at least.
twistedmac11 ago
You're not wrong. Don't let the Trumptards fool you.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1987850
argosciv ago
@LA_Trump
This, this is the kinda shit I'm talking about with "betrayal", not that I can personally verify this to be true... but, if it is, what the absolute fuck?
How does a move like this actually help us?
Sure, a thought that crossed my mind is, "maybe a deal has been struck, that will have Arpaio give up the names of his handlers", but, this seems like a convenient little lollipop to keep us happy a little while longer, supposing it were to be the reason behind the pardon; I'm curious as to how you(and others who are confident in Trump) view a move like this, supposing that it's true.
If it isn't true that Trump has pardoned a pedo enabler, please help debunk the issue, not just for my own sake but for anyone else who might be very confused by Trump's apparent behavior/decisions.
LA_Trump ago
This is a disinformation attempt to tie Trump and Arpaio to the Luciferian sex trafficking death cult that they are in no way a part of.
argosciv ago
I, personally, am not trying to tie Trump to anything.
I haven't the foggiest what to think of all this, which is why I presented what I believe is a better-quality article by comparison to the one that is doing the rounds.
If anyone can convince me beyond reaosnable doubt, that it was a witchhunt against Arpaio, I'm all ears. That's why I pinged you in the other thread.
Commoner ago
She really doesn't provide any facts. She uses AP reports from 2011 which was influenced by pro illegal alien people that 'hated' Sheriff joe.
By saying many of them were illegal alien children, they were attempting to gain sympathy for illegal aliens.
Again, they are targeting Sheriff Joe, with no facts to back them up.
Jerry Laird, is a democrat, but the net has been scrubbed of that fact.
As is apparent in this article, the pro illegal immigration powers started the investigation as a hit piece on sheriff Joe.
argosciv ago
Fair analysis. I'll admit I'm still conflicted and trying to quickly wrap my head around some of this, definitely appreciate your replies.
Commoner ago
For starters.the author Rachel Blevins is an anti-Trumper. She sorta reminds me of the people at Snopes. She has an agenda, but she is not going to be obvious about it. Can you find some early history on her?
https://rachelblevins.com/2017/08/26/this-collection-of-trumps-tweets-contradicting-themselves-proves-us-presidents-are-puppets/
argosciv ago
I'll have a look, thanks.
First impression is to agree with you - there's a clear anti-trump message in her article but she hides it between the non-partisan chatter about (essentially) the deep state; mixing fact with fiction? Red herring 101
Second impression: Not so sure she's specifically anti-trump, seems to rattle off all the talking points of someone who's actually trying to hold 'all sides' accountable for their bullshit, not unlike we're trying to do here.
Could be that there's something to the Arpaio thing, or that she herself has been caught up in a ploy, or that she is complicit in a plot to take down Trump - but, I'm not seeing much from her that really strikes me as an effort to attack Trump only.
Commoner ago
As I said earlier. where is her history during the Obama ADm. She has nothing!!!!! But sweetholymosiah she is anti-corruption when Trump is in office.
MediaMattersGoogleFacebookObama have been busy scrubbing.
argosciv ago
I see what you did there ;)
Very valid point! Though, she does make a jab at Obama in her article about presidential tweets, it's so fleeting that she may as well have left it out, without affecting her article.