What Fresh Hell Is This?

January 28, 2018

Questions Conor Lamb Should Ask Rick Saccone

We've written about PA State Representative Rick Saccone a few times. As I've written before, that's one of the good things about having a long-running blog: its history. What that means is that when researching some politico in South Western PA, chances are I don't have to do as much cold research - I can just dip into what's already been posted here.

Neat, huh?

Anyway, in case you missed it, Rick Saccone is running for disgraced former member House member Tim Murphy's Congressional seat. Saccone's a crazy-ass republican, Murphy's an ever so slightly less crazy-ass republican and the district (PA-18) went for the little-handed pussy grabber (and porn star boinker) by 20 points.  So the race should be easy, huh?

I should note that while the district's voters did know about the pussy grabbing, they didn't know about the porn star boinking due to a Trump-lawyer paying her for her silence with $130,000 just days before the election.

While the race should be easy for the family values Republicans, there's poll data showing that the race is tighter than Trump's 20 points.

That being said, here are a few questions that Conor Lamb should ask Rick Saccone were the two to debate:
  1. Representative Saccone, in 2012 you sponsored legislation declaring that year to be "The Year Of The Bible" and in 2011 you co-sponsored an Islamophobic "Sharia Law" bill. Given that the Pennsylvania Constitution states:
    ...no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
    How can you square your obvious preference for one religion over another with what's clearly spelled out in the state Constitution (and this doesn't even being to touch the US Constitution).

  2. Representative Saccone, you've defended waterboarding and said that interrogation techniques should be legal:
    ...short of those that leave long-lasting or permanent physical harm.
    The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as:
    ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed...
    You'll note that it says nothing about "long-lasting" or "permanent" harm just "severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental." Given all that, how can you in all good conscience advocate a war crime? Because that's what torture is - a war crime.
I'm sure there's more to discuss with Rick Saccone but that's a good start, I suppose.

No comments: