https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...ess-f-pigs


"...The apology comes hours after it was reported that T.J. L’Heureux, Kelly’s deputy press secretary, referred to police as “worthless f------ pigs” on Twitter in August, according to AZ Central....

“These comments are disgusting and were made just one week before Mark Kelly hired this person, meaning he knew about it and was OK with it,” the campaign said. “It’s just further proof that Mark embraces extreme anti-law enforcement ideas and rhetoric. Anything he tries to say to the contrary is a bunch of hot air.""

fwiw, less heat finds gravity...

#misnomer

So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

Whomever hired him didn’t do their due diligence.

That is simply nuts to bring someone into a campaign in a purple state who has made public statements like that.

Twitter makes liberals do some really silly sh!t

That Martian look-a-like isn't any better than Peloser. Amazing that an astronaut would be a Leftist Liberal. I thought he was a patriot. Anyone on the Socialist Demoncraptic Party isn't a patriot because they want to bring down our democracy. They want Demoncrazy.

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

Tom are you defending this?

It is possible that this person posted that crap after vetting was complete and it was missed. I can get on board with that. It is possible they simply did not see it? I can even get on board with that. Considering this was posted in August - I doubt either possibility. Kelly did not offer up any reason how they missed this however.

Frankly I am surprised the person didn't try the "I was hacked" excuse.

As for his apology, that was a pretty hollow in the moment

Quote:“I deeply regret my comment and apologize for what I wrote — I was wrong," he said in a written statement. "My comment does not reflect who I am or what I believe, and most importantly, it is not representative of what this campaign stands for. The language I used and the sentiment I conveyed do not belong in our political process, which is why I have deleted the tweet.”

Calling cops worthless f*cking pigs is a pretty specific comment to try and walk back.......

Clearly this guy is regretting his actions and he has probably (and deservedly) earned a future career in fast food delivery services or a PR person for Antifa.



Kelly F'ed up bigly by letting this slip through the cracks. He should still win, but he certainly gave McSally something to bang him with (no pun intended).

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

I guess a complete f*cknut wouldnt understand this but, as a part of the vetting process, one of the easiest things to check out is a persons social media and twitter. A political campaign should scrub real hard to find this stuff. There's no way they didnt know about it. Or, dude is so incompetent he doesnt need to be anywhere near the senate.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

I'm an AZ resident and first time AZ voter.

1. I've been annoyed that after McSally lost the last time around that the Gov chose her to replace the vacant seat. I thought that was a mistake, because it would automatically mean she would be running to "keep" the seat, and had already lost that bid the first time around. I believe that was a poor strategy decision. I believed they should put a fresh conservative face in the vacancy that hadn't lost and wouldn't carry that reputation into the election. Putting her in that seat all but guaranteed the Dems would make a strong push for it.

2. Kelly has been trying to run his campaign on being a centrist. However, due to who he's married to as well as his dealings with China... most Arizonans know that's BS. That's why the polls are so close, and this has a chance to even drop him slightly behind a relatively weak "incumbent" in McSally. Arizona is less purple than the media attempts to make the rest of the country believe it is.

(10-16-2020 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  I'm an AZ resident and first time AZ voter.

1. I've been annoyed that after McSally lost the last time around that the Gov chose her to replace the vacant seat. I thought that was a mistake, because it would automatically mean she would be running to "keep" the seat, and had already lost that bid the first time around. I believe that was a poor strategy decision. I believed they should put a fresh conservative face in the vacancy that hadn't lost and wouldn't carry that reputation into the election. Putting her in that seat all but guaranteed the Dems would make a strong push for it.

2. Kelly has been trying to run his campaign on being a centrist. However, due to who he's married to as well as his dealings with China... most Arizonans know that's BS. That's why the polls are so close, and this has a chance to even drop him slightly behind a relatively weak "incumbent" in McSally. Arizona is less purple than the media attempts to make the rest of the country believe it is.

I had the same thought about #1. Appointing someone who just lost? And she just doesn't seem to be a good campaigner.

(10-16-2020 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  I'm an AZ resident and first time AZ voter.

1. I've been annoyed that after McSally lost the last time around that the Gov chose her to replace the vacant seat. I thought that was a mistake, because it would automatically mean she would be running to "keep" the seat, and had already lost that bid the first time around. I believe that was a poor strategy decision. I believed they should put a fresh conservative face in the vacancy that hadn't lost and wouldn't carry that reputation into the election. Putting her in that seat all but guaranteed the Dems would make a strong push for it.

2. Kelly has been trying to run his campaign on being a centrist. However, due to who he's married to as well as his dealings with China... most Arizonans know that's BS. That's why the polls are so close, and this has a chance to even drop him slightly behind a relatively weak "incumbent" in McSally. Arizona is less purple than the media attempts to make the rest of the country believe it is.

I had the same thought about #1. Appointing someone who just lost? And she just doesn't seem to be a good campaigner.

She seems about as popular as that Kentucky governor who lost to a Dem when like every other state election went red

(10-16-2020 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 03:08 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  I'm an AZ resident and first time AZ voter.

1. I've been annoyed that after McSally lost the last time around that the Gov chose her to replace the vacant seat. I thought that was a mistake, because it would automatically mean she would be running to "keep" the seat, and had already lost that bid the first time around. I believe that was a poor strategy decision. I believed they should put a fresh conservative face in the vacancy that hadn't lost and wouldn't carry that reputation into the election. Putting her in that seat all but guaranteed the Dems would make a strong push for it.

2. Kelly has been trying to run his campaign on being a centrist. However, due to who he's married to as well as his dealings with China... most Arizonans know that's BS. That's why the polls are so close, and this has a chance to even drop him slightly behind a relatively weak "incumbent" in McSally. Arizona is less purple than the media attempts to make the rest of the country believe it is.

I had the same thought about #1. Appointing someone who just lost? And she just doesn't seem to be a good campaigner.

I’ve been way more impressed with who she lost to than this guy who is pretty clearly trying to hide who he really is.

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Thats registered voters. Trafalgar had it within 2 points, and that was prior to everyone finding out Kelly had hired an anti-cop idiot as him comm director.

(10-19-2020 08:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Thats registered voters. Trafalgar had it within 2 points, and that was prior to everyone finding out Kelly had hired an anti-cop idiot as him comm director.

Do you mean to tell me we may actually not know who will win this until all the ACTUAL votes are cast.....

This is BS - we all should know for 100% sure BEFORE election day........

(10-19-2020 08:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Thats registered voters. Trafalgar had it within 2 points, and that was prior to everyone finding out Kelly had hired an anti-cop idiot as him comm director.

So, it wasn't "polls" but one poll, and it wasn't 1 point, but 2 points.

Got it.

Additionally, the 538 polls are all likely voters.

(10-19-2020 08:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Thats registered voters. Trafalgar had it within 2 points, and that was prior to everyone finding out Kelly had hired an anti-cop idiot as him comm director.

So, it wasn't "polls" but one poll, and it wasn't 1 point, but 2 points.

Got it.

Additionally, the 538 polls are all likely voters.

No, it was more than one poll, and the Trafalgar poll was 1.xx some odd points, rounded up to 2 points.

And the 538 polls of likely voters says that Hillary is president.

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So his flailing opponent, trailing bigly in the polls, says he knew about it upon hire. And she has zero proof of this. Makes perfect sense though. Kelly, knowingly hires a guy with a vile tweet, but somehow forgets to have him delete it. Okay.

And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Muh, I'm LeftwithTom and I'm NOT a Democrat, amirite?

(10-19-2020 09:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 08:37 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 06:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 02:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  And update on the polls; after fouling up the debate question on packing the court, and astronauts coming out in favor of McSally, Kelly is only up by one point in the polls.

Put down the pipe.
Democrat Mark Kelly widens lead over Republican Martha McSally in post-debate Senate poll
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol...e/arizona/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...-6801.html

Muh polls anyway, amirite?

Thats registered voters. Trafalgar had it within 2 points, and that was prior to everyone finding out Kelly had hired an anti-cop idiot as him comm director.

So, it wasn't "polls" but one poll, and it wasn't 1 point, but 2 points.

Got it.

Additionally, the 538 polls are all likely voters.

No, it was more than one poll, and the Trafalgar poll was 1.xx some odd points, rounded up to 2 points.

And the 538 polls of likely voters says that Hillary is president.

So, what other post-debate poll has McSally within a point or even two?

And Trafalgar has McSally down 1.9. So yeah, that's two.