Ex-Sheriff Arpaio To Run For Senate

[Crossroads Inc.]

Seriously HOLY SHIT BALLS how is no one talking about this?
Some context, so far there had been two big GOP candidates form the senate seat. OVERNIGHT the #1 person is now #3 in the poles

Arizona Republican Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff who became famous for his controversial stance on immigration, has announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, saying he wants to join Congress so he can help President Trump.

Arpaio made the announcement in a tweet on Tuesday, contending that helping Trump was his "one unwavering reason" for running.

Arpaio is running for the seat being vacated by Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican who has been a critic of Trump and who announced in October that he would not seek re-election.

The former sheriff announced his plan to run for the Senate less than a year after he was convicted of criminal contempt — a crime for which Trump pardoned Arpaio in August, after holding a rally in Phoenix.

Arpaio told NBC News that he didn't tell Trump about his decision ahead of time and that he is running because Washington needs "fresh blood."

In announcing his candidacy, Arpaio joins at least one Republican rival. As member station KJZZ reports, former state Sen. Kelli Ward has already launched her campaign and U.S. Rep. Martha McSally has "hinted" at running for Flake's seat.

This year's midterm elections are being held two years after Arpaio lost his sheriff's job to Democrat Paul Penzone, a former sergeant in the Phoenix Police Department. Arpaio had held the office for 24 years and had amassed more than $12 million in campaign funds.

Arpaio's entry into the Senate race prompted immediate criticism from Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez, who released a statement saying, "Joe Arpaio is one of our nation's most notorious agents of racism and bigotry. He has spent his career tearing apart immigrant families and devastating Latino communities, and he has no place in the U.S. Senate."

Famous for embracing the title of "America's Toughest Sheriff," Arpaio was convicted by a federal judge after defying an order to stop detaining immigrants simply because of their legal status. His deputies maintained that practice for 18 months after a court told Arpaio to stop targeting Latino drivers.

The misdemeanor criminal conviction had carried a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a fine. But Arpaio was pardoned before his October sentencing date.

Arizona will hold its primary in late August, with the midterm election scheduled for Nov. 6.

[Simon_Jester]

This one's gonna be interesting. Arpaio would make a very polarizing candidate, but he doesn't have anything quite like the "literally a child molester" albatross around his neck that Roy Moore had.

[Ralin]

I really hope we're not looking at Trump's eventual successor.

This one's gonna be interesting. Arpaio would make a very polarizing candidate, but he doesn't have anything quite like the "literally a child molester" albatross around his neck that Roy Moore had.

Yeah, really the worst thing about him is all the racism, murder and torture. And whether those are good or bad things varies a lot from person to person.

[Tsyroc]

If he is serious about running he is seriously in his own little bubble.

While I think the contempt charge that Trump pardoned him on was BS. I mean he was in contempt but I think he was in the right legally in doing what he was ordered not to do and it was bullshit how the judge had ruled. That being said he still lost his last election to be Maricopa County sheriff. He was the incumbent of several decades and more popular in that county than he was in the rest of the state. If he couldn't win that then one Trump pardon isn't going to win the rest of the state over for him. If anything if he ends up being the candidate he might just give the election to a Democrat.

Supposedly, my current congresswoman, Martha McSally is rumored to be considering running for Senate. I would sure as hell vote for her over Arpaio. I'd also vote for Kelli Ward (who ran against McCain in the Republican primaries in 2016) over Arpaio. Although, she's apparently got some issues herself "Chemtrail Kelli"

[TheFeniX]

Moore might have been a scumbag hebephile piece of shit, but Arpaio (as noted by Ralin) was an officially sanctioned murdering shitpile who ran motherfucking gulags.

Run two ads against him constantly: how him and his murdering cronies, all of who dodged any repurcussions, left a diabetic to vomit and shit herself into a coma, then the taxpayer had to payout 3 million dollars after a wrongful death suite. This does not include the even larger court fees leading up to their "well, I mean shit happens and people die" attempt of a defense. And bring up the hundreds of millions he cost the taxpayer to run his little torture islands and how he settled multiple times intentionally because going to court would have opened him and his murderous clan up to personal liability. CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE?

Cases like this, while more extreme than a Surge commercial, are why I find law enforcement's indemnification a total load of bullshit.

Arpaio puts Trump to shame in the "completely unsalvagable as a human being" area. He's yet another testament to the kinds of candidates the GOP feels they need to put up to pander to their base.

[Zaune]

Run two ads against him constantly: how him and his murdering cronies, all of who dodged any repurcussions, left a diabetic to vomit and shit herself into a coma, then the taxpayer had to payout 3 million dollars after a wrongful death suite. This does not include the even larger court fees leading up to their "well, I mean shit happens and people die" attempt of a defense. And bring up the hundreds of millions he cost the taxpayer to run his little torture islands and how he settled multiple times intentionally because going to court would have opened him and his murderous clan up to personal liability. CAN'T HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE?

Reminding voters that Arpaio is a HARD MAN who makes HARD DECISIONS (while very probably sporting a raging HARD-ON) might not have the effect you're hoping it would have.

[TheFeniX]

If the voters take that from it or take the same from Arpaios goons murdering a war vet and leaving him naked in a cell, so be it. If they want to vote for murderers, you can't stop them. But at the least you can let more sane people know the shit he's pulled. The amount of people around here who straight up have no idea about the reality of the situation is hilariously sad. As far as they're concerned, he's just being overly rough against hardened criminals and illegals.

[TheFeniX]

I missed the edit window, but I want to point out: glossing over vile shit like this is (IMO) why people forget just how shitty some of these people are. Or, when comparing them to other people, we say "well, he's worse than X." I mean, I've found even liberals like to whitewash the shit GW pulled because Trump is so "in your face" WRT to how terrible a person he is.

And it CAN work. Fair or unfairly, Clinton's "Superpredator" comments have plagued her for years among minorities. And Repulbicans, and even many Democrats, have not let her live it down. And man, as shitty as that comment was, it's kids gloves compare to video of cops under Arpaio straight up murdering some guy and leaving him naked in a cell. And there's video of Arpaio 100% defending the actions of his officers.

One of the issues that screwed Moore was young Republicans balking at voting for an unrepentant hebephile. This lead to a schism in the party. And those are the types you're looking to inform about the vile shit "their guy" has done or is capable of. Because even they can reach the point where they cannot support these types. You may never get them to vote Democrat, but you can get them to stay home. And it's not a one-time sort of deal, actual voting (IIRC, it's been years) out of Republicans was at historic lows toward the end of the GW presidency. He managed to push faith in the party to "fuck it, not worth voting" levels, which gave Democrats (though many Blue Dogs were there to take advantage) the extra push they needed to really sweep elections.

On the flip side, the amount of "Holy shit, I need to vote or a guy like this could get in power" needs to be impressed upon moderates and the other team. And I think the narrative of "under a guy like Arpaio, women were allowed to vomit and shit themselves to death while law enforcement watched" is a pretty fucking good narrative to do so. Because the kind of people who can rationalize that when it's thrown in their face aren't salvageable as voters (or possibly even as people) either way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because the Republican Party wasn't Nazi enough yet, apparently. Make no mistake- the Republican Party is going to continue its downward trajectory, seeking ever-more extreme candidates and policies, until either it is broken utterly, or it achieves the ultimate end-point of its current trajectory- dictatorship, and genocide.

Still, I... really doubt this will work out well for the Republicans. I wouldn't get complacent about it- the last couple years ought to have taught us that there are no sure wins or sure losses. But this has the potential to backfire spectacularly for Republicans. Having Joe fucking Arpaio on the Republican ticket will mobilize the opposition, and especially the Latino vote, to turn out against him, and Arizona is not as hard red as Alabama was. Add to that that he's running to replace Jeff Flake, a Trump critic who is what passes for a "moderate" Republican these days.

The odds of flipping Flake's seat to Democrat have just sky-rocketed.

But make no mistake- Joe Arpaio is a Nazi, for all intents and purposes. He ran concentration camps for minorities on American soil. By all rights, he should, in my opinion, be tried on charges of Crimes Against Humanity.

His election to the Senate would disgrace that body, as much as the election of Donald Trump disgraces the office of the Presidency.

I really hope we're not looking at Trump's eventual successor.

I very much doubt if, if you're referring to the possibility of a future Presidential run.

Arpaio is old, IIRC. Older than Trump.

Small mercies.

[Ralin]

I very much doubt if, if you're referring to the possibility of a future Presidential run.

Arpaio is old, IIRC. Older than Trump.

Small mercies.

Modern medicine has gotten pretty good at keeping people alive, and wealthy politicians get the best of care. I'm not counting on the Reaper to spare us from three more years of the notoriously unhealthy Trump, and just in general it's a bad line of thought to get into. Remember a decade ago when people were saying McCain was too old and he would probably die in office and leave us with Palin? Notice how McCain is still around?

[Simon_Jester]

It's not a sure thing, but it's still a factor.

[Zaune]

If McCain had actually been stuck with the job then he might not be. Look at a picture of Obama in 2008 versus Obama today; if you didn't know who he was, would you think they were taken just eight years apart?

[Simon_Jester]

Also notice how McCain was, in mid-2017, diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor that on average kills people in about 14 months, and had to go in for immediate surgery.

That didn't happen to him in 2016 but it could have; cancer is pretty random.

[Ralin]

Also notice how McCain was, in mid-2017, diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor that on average kills people in about 14 months, and had to go in for immediate surgery.

That didn't happen to him in 2016 but it could have; cancer is pretty random.

Kinda undermines your point when you use that as an example, doesn't it?

Anyway, my point is that if Arpiao decides to run for president in the future and he inherits enough of Trump's supporters to make that feasible age isn't going to stop him from doing it or them for voting for him. And really, it shouldn't. Personal health is the sort of thing that should be private even for politicians, even before getting into the preservative effects of evil.

[Simon_Jester]

Also notice how McCain was, in mid-2017, diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor that on average kills people in about 14 months, and had to go in for immediate surgery.

That didn't happen to him in 2016 but it could have; cancer is pretty random.

Kinda undermines your point when you use that as an example, doesn't it?

My point is, if someone had told you in 2008 "McCain will get a brain tumor that probably means he has about a year to live in mid-2017," versus the same thing only in 2015, you wouldn't be able to judge one as being much more probable than the other. People do get sick, demented, or dead of old age, and even rich guys with great health care start dropping dead or at least being badly impaired once they get up into their seventies.

It's a valid reason to prefer presidential candidates under the age of seventy instead of those over it, in my opinion.

Anyway, my point is that if Arpiao decides to run for president in the future and he inherits enough of Trump's supporters to make that feasible age isn't going to stop him from doing it or them for voting for him. And really, it shouldn't. Personal health is the sort of thing that should be private even for politicians, even before getting into the preservative effects of evil.

I'll agree that it likely won't stop them from voting for him.

I question the claim that it shouldn't. To be sure, personal health should be private for politicians, but when you hire someone for a job, one of the major things you concern yourself with is whether or not they are likely to be able to carry out the job successfully. Their physical resilience and ability to survive the stresses of the job is a factor, when dealing with a job that places as many demands as the presidency is supposed to.

Age discrimination is a bad thing, but there are valid reasons to be unsure whether, say, a 75-year-old man is the right man for a demanding job whose correct performance will impact the nation's future.