Twitter response from Paul Gosar:

Paul GosarVerified account
@DrPaulGosar

US House candidate, AZ-4
Official campaign twitter of U.S. Republican Congressman for Arizona's Fourth District. Husband,Father,Constitutional Conservative,Defender of the Rule of Law.

My siblings who chose to film ads against me are all liberal Democrats who hate President Trump. These disgruntled Hillary suppporters are related by blood to me but like leftists everywhere, they put political ideology before family. Stalin would be proud. #Az04 #MAGA2018

Short answer, yes.

He, personally, has done severe, possibly irreparable damage to our government and it's safeguards, and the rule of law, has been the most divisive president in my lifetime, a high bar, is driving the very companies he claimed to have saved overseas, like Harley Davidson, is starting multiple trade wars, even with our allies, wasting tens of billions already, and has been mired in criminal and moral scandals since before day negative 45 when he told the Russians he would remove sanctions over election tampering even as Obama was instigating them, well before taking office which is a crime if you don't know.
Trump himself has divided America, intentionally, with his own words and policies. Reporting on those words and policies is not slanderous or fake. If they lied about what he said, Trump would sue for slander/libel like he did over Steele, a case he just LOST. He hasn't, and he won't.

Again, you take the lying convict's word about the evidence and the law over court rulings and fact. I know you won't investigate, so you'll continue to be duped. That's a conscious choice you are making, to be wrong but righteous instead of correct and guilt ridden.
The investigation predated the Steele Dossier, and it was never a key bit of evidence or the cause of the investigation....and it is not some baseless fantasy fabrication like you believe, it beats any Trump speech for honesty and correctness by a factor of 10.

His Twitter is his official policy, they are clear about that. It is almost always bat shit, and is never civil or honorable.

Paid for by Rule of Law Republicans.

Not sure that isn't the funniest part of the clip.

I'm an atheist and will always be one of the first in line to suggest that religions should be subject to criticism and the rule of law just like any other organization.

That being said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that congregations are complicit in the misdeeds of the institution itself, whether or not they are aware of verified instances of misdeeds. ...Pretty slippery slope.

Expand that to, say, nations. In the history of the US, the government has committed some pretty indefensible atrocities. Genocide, mass relocation, and other offenses against Native Americans in the name of "manifest destiny". Enslavement of a race of people based on skin color, with disenfranchisement and continued abuse well after slavery was abolished, with elements that certainly persist to this day. Funding and supplying extremist organizations because they happen to have a short-term enemy that coincides with ours, which frequently comes back to bite us in the ass later. Using underhanded tricks including false-flag operations to justify wars and other offensive actions. Attempting to assassinate democratically elected leaders of foreign governments. And on and on.

Are all US citizens complicit in those misdeeds, merely by an accident of birth? But those things were in the past, you might argue. Given the depth of dirt you can find on our past with a little digging, I'd say it is reasonable to expect that there's things that the government is doing now that we may or may not be aware of that would be similarly difficult to defend.

Many/most Catholics can either remain intentionally blissfully ignorant about these problems, or will be able to go to great lengths to rationalize their way around them. Just like most US citizens don't lose much sleep over our government's past and present misdeeds. In either case, indoctrination puts the blinders on -- and can be incredibly difficult to escape.

For the religious, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an oft-repeated phrase. As an atheist outraged by these scandals and the decades/centuries of intentional cover-ups by the Church itself, I might be tempted to turn that on its head. "Accept the religious, hate the religion." By all means, be outraged towards the institution itself. By all means, fight to end the protections that have allowed this kind of abuse to go unchecked. But perhaps try to keep some (Christian?) empathy for the average Catholic congregation members who have been brainwashedindoctrinated their whole lives and are likely in too deep to escape. Reserve that hatred for the clergy that abused their positions of power and control to commit these crimes, and the organizational system that systematically allowed it to happen while covering it up. They deserve every bit of hate you throw their way.

The mining company extracted $8 Billion in gold and the government (tax payers) is picking up the tab of $934 Million for remediation over the next 100 years for something that does not have a half-life or decays. Regulations, the rule of law, right and wrong really doesn't matter to those who profit.

No, it makes them like the Democratic Party who don't have any problem simultaneously touting their position on women's rights and supporting Bill Clinton who was a serial groper and philanderer... in the same way that they condemn Trump for a lack of respect for the rule of law while they worshiped Barrack Obama who didn't feel it was necessary to enforce (or even recognize) immigration law or drug laws.

I don't really think either party has a monopoly on hypocrisy...

Bob....
Federal judges aren't Obama OR the DOJ. This is just one more lie you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker. It's the only way you can make sense of his pardon...make the conviction political. It plainly wasn't, even you admit he broke the law.

True, the DOJ wanted him convicted...but for NOT doing his job, and instead for stopping citizens and demanding their papers if they looked Hispanic. That's illegal in America, no matter why you do it. He was ordered by the courts to stop, and he defied that legal order. That's illegal in America, period.
Trump pardoned him because he doesn't respect the rule of law or courts...Unless he's using them to screw people he owes money, then the law is all important....bankruptcy law. He's shown this clearly repeatedly by disparaging any judge that might rule against him as "so called judges".

This isn't about illegals, it's about citizens that look Hispanic. By far, most pulled over weren't illegals or even immigrants. More importantly, it's about the rule of law, which he and Trump just flushed down the toilet with a cheer.

Sad that you are so blinded by partisan politics that you've lost sight of what America is about....laws that apply to everyone, not a ruling class that's above them, or laws that only apply when it's convenient for your agenda, but that's exactly what you're advocating here.
Advocating for lawless dictatorship isn't making us great, Bob. It just makes you sound dumb and gullible...insanely gullible. Take a civics class and learn about your country....please.

Edit: Honestly, Bob, it's becoming hard to believe you aren't really far left, pretending to be the worst kind of far right character, setting up weak straw men for us to knock down. You cannot believe that this is a good idea, condoning and pardoning violating the constitution and binding judicial orders...and even you cannot possibly believe that subversion of our systems is patriotic somehow.

You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

Jesus Fucking Christ...he was convicted by judges of violating a legal judicial order and the constitution...not by Obama of being an old white guy. You drank more Trump coolaid, but this cup has made you thoroughly un-American.

Is that really what you call the best sheriff...someone who unapologetically violates the law and constitution at every turn, who abuses not only the convicted (still evil and illegal, btw) but also the merely accused in a jail he himself bragged was a concentration camp. That's how he treats American citizens who've not been convicted of a thing....and it's how he deserves to spend the remainder of his life.

If I held you (or your daughter) in a 145 deg tent, feeding you rotten balogne, offering no medical treatment while hoping you die of heat stroke, you would call me a terrorist, but because Joe violated mostly Hispanics (not even Mexicans, mostly legal Hispanic Americans) you call him the best sheriff...and you still tell yourself you aren't racist.

He cost his county well over $140 million in settlements for his victims, with hundreds of millions more in the courts still being litigated. The number of deaths in his jail are exponentially higher than the norm, with most going uninvestigated and fewer (none) being prosecuted (they just pay off the family a few million taxpayer dollars and move on to the next victim).

You really have to be shoving you head even farther up your own ass to even give Arpaio and Trump the benefit of a doubt at this point...he's gleefully admitted all his crimes as if they aren't illegal, and Trump made him right, violating the constitution and thumbing your nose at the court orders is perfectly fine in Trump's America, so long as you support him.

Jesus Fucknig Christ, bob. Next you'll be supporting Trump's pardon of Sheik Muhammad and other Daesh fighters...who were also the victims of an "Obama witch hunt".

You claimed to hate Obama because you've been convinced by drug addled blowhards (Limbaugh, Jones) that he subverted our rule of law to fit his agenda...yet here you are cheerleading Trump and Arpaio uncontrovertibly doing exactly that. Just because you agree with this particular agenda (subverting the constitution to forcefully eject illegal immigrants of one specific nationality) doesn't change the act you claim to hate, subversion of our constitution, laws, and government.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is he though? Will the rule of law really come up on tops in the end? I have doubts.

This is really the key point here.

It is NOT overbooking, which means the rules and laws are different.

Also, I am completely disgusted by the victim blaming that is going on.

Sorry for a wall of repeated text, I tire of my replies being erased without being read.....

newtboy says...


Let me be clear about how those you lambast see it......

Forcefully nominating Clinton was the single action that made the most difference in interfering with stopping Trump. It gave him more votes than he earned himself. His entire campaign was "if not me, you get Clinton" and that argument won him the election.
The DNC is responsible for that action...and to a lesser extent her supporters like you that put blinders on to her innumerable flaws and the vitriolic hatred against her and chose her over a probable winner with a penis. Once it was clear they cheated to help her, it was over for her. She was not going to get enough Sanders votes no matter what anyone said, she just raped them of their primary vote, losing their election vote in the process.
THAT is a stone cold fact.

She could never have won...she's just too despised by the right, and they (clearly) act on their anger. You should have pushed for Warren instead of Clinton if it was just a genital thing for you. Even if she had won, we would have lost. She would (continue to) be a lightning rod for right wing hatred, and the obstructionism of the Obama administration would look like heaven compared to the division she would foster.

But you don't read or listen. You'll probably just erase this like every other post....so perhaps I'll copy it on my page so you can't.

Grow up.




bareboards2 said:

Let me be clear about something.

We are only responsible for our own actions. We are not responsible for other people's actions. We cannot change them.

We live in the present. Not the past.

So we choose for ourselves what we do now.

Donald Trump should not be President.

Every action taken that interfered with stopping Trump means that a choice was made in that present moment to help him.

That is a stone cold fact.



1 second ago

up0down












newtboy says...

And that's why you lost. You don't listen....you instruct and then shame as if you're their mom and they owe you a duty to obey. You aren't, they don't.
Sanders lost because of underhanded collusion between the DNC and Clinton. He may have lost without that cheating...we'll never know. When she and her subordinates cheated...they lost the election right then.
My support or lack thereof made not a whit of difference, she won California.....and my ballot had her name marked (even if not by my own hand) just so she might also win the popular vote...so you're totally barking up the wrong tree. In the end, I found her the lesser of 2 evils and 4 unqualified....but she was SO unacceptable to so many that the one that was both evil and unqualified won, because SHE drove his voters to the polls in record numbers, an argument I made in February as to why she was the WORST choice.
That is the truth, a truth I pointed out 8-9 months back when there was still a chance.
Independent Sanders supporters told you to support him, not the hated, smarmy, dishonest, under FBI investigation, baggage handler that tied Trump in polls at best. He was the democratic candidate that CRUSHED him in all polls, and you didn't support him or support the rule of law/election rules, and Trump is president. See how that's 100% YOUR fault and not theirs?....probably not, you don't read replies or accept responsibility for your own actions, because that would be acting too much like an adult.
Sweet zombie Jesus.




bareboards2 said:

I didn't read it, @newtboy.

Grow up. Sanders lost. You and others like your threw a hissy fit.

Trump is president because you didn't listen to Sanders.

That is the bald faced truth.

Sanders told you to support her and you didn't.

And Trump is President.

This is your responsibility.



1 second ago

That's why I said IF they go along with any stupid thing HE does....also....I was clearly talking about Republicans, who are much better at being united and playing follow the leader.

Because she hired Shultz as quid quo pro for clearly "cheating" (flagrantly being biased, contrary to the conditions of the job and repeated statements to the contrary) to steal the nomination for Clinton, she's corrupt. Beyond that, you've gone into ridiculousness with your basketball analogy. There aren't ethics rules in basketball, or a duty to serve your fans ethically, or a duty to be nice to your opponent, or a way to fight over a ruling that he fouled another player....and there's instant redress for a foul.
This is just one more instance, the latest in a never ending string, showing her contempt for the rules and laws, and showing that she rewards breaking the rules if done for her benefit. That's reason for disqualification in my eyes.
You are welcome to your opinion. I strongly disagree, and your insistence that she's the best candidate, contrary to all evidence and strong public opinion, is why Trump will win. Thanks a bunch.

We wouldn't know if Bush was worse than Clinton until after her presidency. I contend you can't have a whit of an idea how she would operate, as her positions change with the wind and she'll do whatever suits her on the day she makes a decision, not the right thing, not what she said she would do yesterday.

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.