McSally vs Sinema (legal, safe, to move)

[skydude24]

Originally Posted by Bummer

OUCH, SkyDude . . .

You could NOT possibly think Sinema's ads are more "ethical" or positive?

As far as I'm concerned . . . Krysten Sinema is nothing but a repeat of Jane Fonda's BS about 40 years later. Her ads are not only downright embarrassing but disgusting as well.

Hanoi Jane? No, not even in the same league. Jane Fonda is an embarrassment to the US. She should never be forgiven.

[Marv95]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Why is it when Trump says heinous things, he's "tellin it like it is", yet when a Dem is shown saying something off color, albeit with no context, she's Satan? The hypocrisy is too real!

Last I checked Trump while campaigning or being in office didn't go to a different country to tell a crowd how much the United States sucks, or whine and joke about it being a meth lab for democracy after an anti-illegal immigration bill passed. He didn't make apology tours for his home on Twitter and elsewhere. He didn't protest in a tutu. He didn't promote events for a convicted attorney who aided Omar Abdel Rahman. He didn't compare soilders' deaths in the middle east to illegal immigrants' trying to cross the border.

This idiot should have scrubbed her older tweets. Just dumb. You don't insult the state you're running to rep no matter how crazy it is. Maybe none of this would matter if she ran against Ward or if she ran in the northeast/west coast but McSally ain't Ward and Arizona isn't New York.

The dictator you're complaining about has AZ approval ratings in the 50s btw.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

Sorta so my point is this. Seeing the Iraq war for what it was back then is held in high regard, yet Sinema doing the same thing is a scandal. You can support the military while not supporting the war.

The real Sinema is a do or say what it takes to win, just like McSally

I'm ok if Sinema is anti-war in all forms (she wasn't against just Iraq), that's her right. My problem is portraying herself as some kind of pro-military type if in actuality she's far from it.



It's one thing to pander to voters (or even lie), it's another to try and convince them that you are of one belief when you may be of the complete opposite belief.


It use to be: appeal to the base on either end of the spectrum in the primary and then race to the middle for the general. Since Sinema didn't have a real primary she's gone straight to trying to convince everyone she's independent, leans middle right, and definitely not a progressive. Unfortunately, her previous words are being used against her in this attempt.

[autism360]

sinema has betrayed Arizona and she is pro partial birth abortion of babies she needs to go away preferably to liberal california where she belongs
Top Gun fighter pilot and patriot as well as protector of babies Martha Mcsally has my vote

[Hschlick84]

Originally Posted by skydude24

After being a R for years I am leaning towards Sinema.

Apparently all McSalley can produce is negative TV ads and has no ideas for moving the country forward. Sad.

Most politicians produce negative ads against their opponents, Sinema is NO exception. It's a way to stir the pot and cause fear mongering among the hive mind. Why would you vote for somebody who bashes people of AZ and calls them meth heads? She doesn't specifically say which side of the aisle, but its subtle.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

I’m not surprised that you believe any soundbite that supports your agenda, and failed to do any research, but context is everything. Don’t you see, they’re playing to such simple-mindedness and you’re gobbling it up?

Find the most damning comments a politician makes and leave out any context.

Sinema’s campaign spokeswoman Helen Hare said of the ad, “Kyrsten voted for this legislation to toughen penalties for child trafficking and in the same remarks this latest false attack ad misleadingly edited, she spoke out forcefully against sex trafficking. Kyrsten's first job was as a rape crisis counselor and she has dedicated her career to defending women and children from abuse and assault."

Here’s another little tidbit – or perhaps a really BIG tidbit – that the attack ad doesn’t mention.

When the final version of the bill to bolster penalties was put to a vote in committee Sinema voted for it.

Only one member of the committee voted against it. His name is Andy Biggs, a Republican who has gone to become an Arizona congressman. The party of convenient hypocrisy!

I posted the full transcript earlier in this thread. The guy isn't wrong when he said "for her to suggest that men use the "they looked older than 18" as an excuse to get out of trouble makes her a peddler of repugnant thoughts.." that's what she said.

Instead of screaming that these attacks lack context how about you provide it? Otherwise your just making claims without any evidence (exaclty what you seem to be against here) and you won't sway a single person. Which is precisely why campaign responses to these things are overall meaningless.

Of course she voted for it, she got the thing ammended to provide criminals with the "they looked older than 18" excuse. It would have been stupid for her to not vote on the bill after she had it altered in such a way.

From Sinema:

If you're going to go out there and solicit sex or pimp for a living, like putting other young people on the street who'll be solicited for sex, that one of the risks that you have to take when you're engaging in already illegal activity is the knowledge that, if the person perhaps told you that they were a different age than they were, that you can be penalized more heavily if that person lied about their age.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think there's any disagreement that pimping is wrong and prostitution is wrong and that johns shouldn't be going out and getting prostitutes anyway.

I'm just not convinced that enforcing a strict liability on those johns who are engaging in prostitution is really the answer, and as a former social worker at an elementary school, there were children at my school who were 12, 13 years old and some of these children looked older than me. They were much more -- I mean, definitely sophisticated, developed -- and if I had seen a number of my former students in a place other than in a sixth-grade classroom, I would not have known that those children were 12 instead of 19 or 20. And so I do have a real concern for those individuals, and if one of those young girls were conscripted into prostitution and a john were to approach her, he'd be facing a class 2 felony for unknowingly soliciting sex from a 12-year-old who appeared to be a 20-year-old.

To be 100% clear here, in her own words those individuals she is concerned about are the men seeking prostitutes, not the children.

[autism360]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

I posted the full transcript earlier in this thread. The guy isn't wrong when he said "for her to suggest that men use the "they looked older than 18" as an excuse to get out of trouble makes her a peddler of repugnant thoughts.." that's what she said.

Instead of screaming that these attacks lack context how about you provide it? Otherwise your just making claims without any evidence (exaclty what you seem to be against here) and you won't sway a single person. Which is precisely why campaign responses to these things are overall meaningless.

Of course she voted for it, she got the thing ammended to provide criminals with the "they looked older than 18" excuse. It would have been stupid for her to not vote on the bill after she had it altered in such a way.



To be 100% clear here, in her own words those individuals she is concerned about are the men seeking prostitutes, not the children.

Amazing that even when you show what she said in her own words the liberals cannot break out of the cult mind set of the left and respond honestly. You will also notice how they avoid the partial birth abortion stance of sinema and the rest of the dems.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

I posted the full transcript earlier in this thread. The guy isn't wrong when he said "for her to suggest that men use the "they looked older than 18" as an excuse to get out of trouble makes her a peddler of repugnant thoughts.." that's what she said.

Instead of screaming that these attacks lack context how about you provide it? Otherwise your just making claims without any evidence (exaclty what you seem to be against here) and you won't sway a single person. Which is precisely why campaign responses to these things are overall meaningless.

Of course she voted for it, she got the thing ammended to provide criminals with the "they looked older than 18" excuse. It would have been stupid for her to not vote on the bill after she had it altered in such a way.



To be 100% clear here, in her own words those individuals she is concerned about are the men seeking prostitutes, not the children.

It doesn’t matter. The ad was suggesting that she was supporting child sex trafficking, which is clearly a disgusting lie. The ad fails to note her position in favor of the legislation to strengthen penalties on individuals who engage in child prostitution, instead saying her position "allowed men caught with child prostitutes to beat the rap”. It was simply a desperate attack ad meant to sway the gullible.

[AZ Manager]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

It doesn’t matter. The ad was suggesting that she was supporting child sex trafficking, which is clearly a disgusting lie. The ad fails to note her position in favor of the legislation to strengthen penalties on individuals who engage in child prostitution, instead saying her position "allowed men caught with child prostitutes to beat the rap”. It was simply a desperate attack ad meant to sway the gullible.

The ad wasn't the conversation but if you want to discuss it...

1) The ad wasn't released by the McSally campaign. It had nothing to do with McSally.

2) The ad is at worst a half truth, not a lie. There was a bill and during the debate of that bill Sinema made her statement and the bill was then altered. The new bill now includes a provision which does "allow men caught with child prostitutes to beat the rap." There is no way a reasonable person can argue that is a false statement. Had they said "allowed some men" it would be without a doubt completely true, which is why it is a half truth as is.

[take57]

Originally Posted by AZ Manager

The ad wasn't the conversation but if you want to discuss it...

1) The ad wasn't released by the McSally campaign. It had nothing to do with McSally.

2) The ad is at worst a half truth, not a lie. There was a bill and during the debate of that bill Sinema made her statement and the bill was then altered. The new bill now includes a provision which does "allow men caught with child prostitutes to beat the rap." There is no way a reasonable person can argue that is a false statement. Had they said "allowed some men" it would be without a doubt completely true, which is why it is a half truth as is.

That's not much of a fig leaf. You can take it to the bank a candidate will know who exactly is behind those ads and can pick up the phone and have it stopped immediately if they are so inclined. True for both parties. Those disclaimers that state "not endorsed by the candidate" are simply a convenient way to keep the blood off their hands. Disingenuous as the day is long.