BREAKING: Sheriff Says Governor Should “Step Down … Or Be Arrested”

a reply to: 3n19m470

One sheriff in a state that is voting this imbecile governor in is not enough.

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Duderino
Racial demographics for Spokane and other nearby cities:

Yakima, WA: racial makeup of the city was 67.1% Caucasian, 1.7% African American, 2.0% Native American, 1.5% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 23.3% from other races, and 4.4% from two or more races. 41.3% were Hispanic or Latino

Pasco, WA: racial makeup of the city was 55.8% White, 1.9% African American, 0.5% Native American, 1.9% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 36.4% from other races, and 3.3% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 55.7% of the population

Seattle, WA: racial composition of the city in 2016 was 65.7% white, 14.1% Asian, 7.0% Black, 0.4% Native American, 0.9% Pacific Islander, 2.3% from other races, and 5.6% from two or more races. 6.6% of the population is Hispanic or Latino of any race

Tacoma, WA: racial makeup of the city was 64.9% White (60.5% Non-Hispanic White), 12.2% African American, 8.2% Asian

Spokane, WA: racial make-up of the city was 86.7% White, 5.0% Hispanics and Latinos, 2.6% Asian, 2.3% African American, 2.0% Native American, 0.6%

20% more whites than any other city in the state. It's white heaven. But that's only because of the area's history and the fact that minorities still avoid moving here.

That 67.1% you quoted for caucasians actually includes Hispanics. Add up the numbers. Just the numbers you gave for Caucasians and Hispanics alone adds up to more than 100%.

So if 67.1% are caucasian and 41.3 are hispanic that means there are only 25.8% WHITES compared to 41.3% HISPANICS

So the 23.3 from OTHER RACES is almost as much as the whites ALONE... plus all the others including 41.3 HISPANIC means theyre HEAVILY outnumbered not dominating the area as you suggested... nice try tho. Twist those facts elsewhere and youd get a freakin medal. Not here tho...

That's not how it works; I'll explain.

If you want to check any of these, they are straight from the google recap of the wiki, at the top. For example.

Spokane:

The racial make-up of the city was 86.7% White, 5.0% Hispanics and Latinos, 2.6% Asian, 2.3% African American, 2.0% Native American, 0.6% Pacific Islander, and 1.3% from other races.

Additionally, some Hispanics also identify as white, which is why we also see separate designation as White Hispanics or Non-Hispanic Whites. Those cities also list the total Hispanic population when there are many mixed races, such as white-Hispanic, black-Hispanic and so on.

For example Pasco has 55.7% Hispanic population, even though it also has 55.8% white. Some of those are mixed and identify as both. Yakima has 41.3% Hispanic population.

Spokane has 5%. And the 86.7% of white are just white. If you add up the rest of them, they make an almost perfect 100, which means very little mixing.

Numbers don't lie.

I've lived in Yakima County and you are absolutely full of crap.

ESPECIALLY when you say things like "If youre not white, its a bad idea to live around there". There is nobody living in fear of white supremacists. Nobody is afraid of them. They have no power. No numbers. No viable message. No nothing. Same with all racial supremacists. They are the true definition of a LARP. They fantasize. There are literay THOUSANDS of %s more people in danger from the hispanic gangs in Yakima County.

You literally know less than nothing. To claim total ignorance would have been a better position for you than to try to convince us that 67% caucasians don't include Hispanics in yakima county and that white supremacists are some kind of real life danger.

You admitted there was mixing. You admitted I was right. Yakima county does NOT have 67.1% white people. You said Yakima County has over 40% hispanics. So whats the problem?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 3n19m470

One sheriff in a state that is voting this imbecile governor in is not enough.

I know, thats why we need to show support so other sheriffs and other patriotic authorities know they have us on their side. I think he May have made this statement to get people talking. So lets do that. Outside of ATS, outside of the internet.

originally posted by: Analbumcover
Are you guys arguing about the number of whites living in America vs Hispanics?

How many whites living in "Hispanic nations" when we try and compare. Are there areas that are whites only or majority whites?

This numbers should also be a little important if we want to use percentages to paint a picture isn't it?

I for one think the middle east should be 33.3% white, 33.3% black and 33.3% Asian or whatever colour you guys want to use seeing as we using colours. I mean in the name of progress it's what we should all be screaming for isn't it?

But I'm #ing crazy when I talk to "normal" people.

Yeah you make a good point. It appears whites are the least racist people on Earth.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Define “it is a bad idea”.. lol

For example, If you gotta a bunch power tripping police departments , who choose to fund their budget by holding up poor people “”(usually the majority are minorities) over victimless crimes...

Then yea it is a bad idea to move there if your not white..


If you gotta buncha judges doing the same.. it’s a bad idea..


There are all kinda guestimations why it happens..

I personally think dark skin makes it harder to recognize facial features in dark ally situations.. and the human brain considers people a threat when we can’t make our facial features in a dark ally situation..



Then there is just the subconscious fact that white defendants/civilians more closely resembled a white judges own family and friends.. leading to inherently more empathy..

a reply to: 3n19m470

So all those Governors that have declared war on American women by signing bills that take away their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to control their own bodies should be thrown in jail for treason too?

After all they know specifically and exactly that they are violating the Constitution that THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD.

I am assuming that you have some sense of logical consistency here - there is a whole lot of difference between signing a law that gives the Constitution the middle finger and signing a law that allows State employees to not cooperate with Federal officers that are violating all human principles of decency.

Not that it matters, but where is your States Rights argument, anyway?

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: 3n19m470

So all those Governors that have declared war on American women by signing bills that take away their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to control their own bodies should be thrown in jail for treason too?

After all they know specifically and exactly that they are violating the Constitution that THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD.

I am assuming that you have some sense of logical consistency here - there is a whole lot of difference between signing a law that gives the Constitution the middle finger and signing a law that allows State employees to not cooperate with Federal officers that are violating all human principles of decency.

Not that it matters, but where is your States Rights argument, anyway?

I am both pro-choice and in favor of legislation to properly include illegal immigrants into our society; unfortunately I find your argument lacking in civic understanding.

1) Their is no specific constitutional right to an abortion. This supposed right is derived from loose interpretation of several different specific rights. This is not to say that the interpretation is wrong (clearly I agree with it); just that it is not is not law. It is an interpretation handed down by one branch of our government. The other branches of government do have a right to challenge that interpretation; in the case of your argument the legislature of a state passing specif law on the subject and the executive ratifying it.

2) imigration is the sole domain of the federal government because it is an issue that affects the serverl states simultaneously and not one state in particular. It is not a states rights issue. When the Legislature of a state or city infringes on the legislation of the federal government that is not an action of "checks and balances"; it is an example of a dysfunctional government.

The two issues are not at all similar as your argument is making them out to be. So I'd find no contradiction if someone takes both a position that they would like to see tuffer abortion laws in their state over the federal constitutional opinion and disagree with states over stepping their authority on the federal issue of immigration.

A more apt comparison would be between the sanctuary city issue and the state by state legalization of cannabis. Both of these issues pits federal law against state laws. But even that brakes down when the legal state agrees to inact law that bars interstate trade of the cannabis.

a reply to: DanDanDat

1) Their is no specific constitutional right to an abortion.

1) Correct. There is however a Constitutional right to privacy and the control of one's body. Your argument fails because anti-abortion laws have already been struck down on the grounds of that Constitutional right. That Right is the law of the land. Some Governors are signing laws that they KNOW are in violation of the Constitutional rights of their citizens.

2) Correct, but irrelevant. There is no law that requires a State or Local Government to cooperate with Federal officers to enforce immigration law. As you say, it is a Federal matter, not a State matter.

The two issues are not similar, they are however congruent.

The original poster is proposing to

"Arrest him. Strip him of his office. Tar and feather his ass, and ship him to China for all I care."

Why? And why not the entire State legislature? If a law, any law is unconstitutional it will be struck down, but the lawmakers don't get lynched for crying out loud.

As it happens, there is NO ruling at any level that would declare Sanctuary laws unconstitutional, period, in fact just the opposite - this Administration has LOST EVERY court battle over this. Governor Inslee is in no way violating his oath of office.

On the other hand, the Governors that are signing draconian anti-abortion laws are KNOWINGLY signing laws that they KNOW are unconstitutional, they are doing it on purpose, and they are doing it in violation of their oath of office.