Texas Senate Candidate Dwayne Stovall Takes Out Bizarre Personal Vendetta on Facebook and Website (Exclusive)

[ABX]

The internet is full of back and forth political fights and disagreements, but rarely do you see a candidate for national office go so far as to take on his critics personally and even 'out' anonymous screen names as Texas Senate Candidate Dwayne Stovall did.

The controversy actually started last June when, during a bizarre conversation with a couple of his supporters (which included the odd accusations of 'loving horseflesh'), Stovall went into a rant about lawyers in  politics including Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert. During the conversation, Stovall stated he would not 'demonize' them during the campaign, but instead, wait until he was elected then 'go after them with both barrels'.


Fast forward to this weekend when Facebook poster and former Stovall supporter Stace In Texas posted screenshots of the conversation showing, in her opinion, Stovall could not be trusted in his claim to support conservatives like Cruz simply because of his hatred for all lawyers.
Stovall posted what he claimed to be screenshots of the full conversation on his own campaign website although it obviously had some areas cut out of his comments about Gohmert and Cruz.
http://texansforstovall.com/stace.php

As you can see from his images, part of some comments about Cruz and Gohmert appear cut off from the top and the other commenters are responding to those. Stovall appears to be hiding criticism of Cruz and Gohmert in his response.

Responding to critism is one thing, but Stovall has taken it one step further posting several statements on his own Facebook page referencing the conversation with an anonymous poster but going so far a to 'out' her last name that she didn't use on her profile (she has since added it after the 'outing). I've redacted her name if she chooses to not have it public again.
https://www.facebook.com/TexansForStovall

We've discovered that this is the source of Stacy M*****'s assertion that Dwayne is out to get Ted Cruz. Of course, not having any interest in the truth, Al Lee has been posting her baseless assertions everywhere.

My two favorite parts of this conversation: Dwayne says, "I support Cruz." But the best part is where Stace says at the end, "Ok so you're not necessarily lawyer bashing as you are adhering to the Constitution."

Got that?

Okay everyone - go post the hell out of this and stop these two who persist in lying about Dwayne.

And Stace - to save face, you might consider an apology to, oh I don't know, everyone in Texas. Especially those voters who changed their vote based upon your utter misrepresentation of the truth. You have some explaining to do for those people, I suspect.

The bizarre need to respond to an anonymous internet critic, the  selective posting of conversation screenshots hiding his criticism on his own website, the outing of an anonymous poster's real name, the calling to 'post the hell' out of it and go after this person makes one question Stovall's fitness for office. Will he spend his Senate career playing Internet trolling games or actually represent Texas in the Senate.

There are other options to Cornyn and Stovall in the Senate race.  I would like to suggest giving Steve Stockman your consideration as he is endorsed by many of the top Conservative organizations.   
Steve Stockman for US Senate 2014 Conservative rating is exemplary.
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Lifetime Score 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Positions (Jan. 7, 2014) 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Positions (Jan. 7, 2014) 90%
2014 Americans for Prosperity - Lifetime Score 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2014 Heritage Action for America - Positions (Jan. 9, 2014) 90%
2013 Competitive Enterprise Institute - Workplace Choice (August, 2013) 100%
2013 Eagle Forum - Positions 100%
2013 Eagle Forum - Positions 100%
2013 FreedomWorks - Positions 90%
2013 National Right to Life Committee - Positions (Jan. 14, 2014) 100%


(as of writing this, his vendetta hasn't stopped as he is still spending time going after these few critics of his).

[Oceander]

Oh boy.

[ABX]

Oh boy.

This isn't the only thing too. Apparently he falls under the Libertarian model on Abortion and some other key issues.

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

http://twistedconservative.com/why-dwayne-stovall-is-wrong-on-abortion/

[Oceander]

This isn't the only thing too. Apparently he falls under the Libertarian model on Abortion and some other key issues.

Can't say I disagree with him on the abortion issue, generally speaking.

[massadvj]

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement.  I certainly don't.

[ABX]

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement.  I certainly don't.

I do. I believe the fundamental right of existence is supported and protected by the Constitution and can't be passed down as a right that a State takes away. It all comes down to what you believe an unborn baby is. If you believe an unborn baby is a unique individual, defined by its unique DNA, then just like a born individual, a State or any other government can't just take your right of existence away without due process of law. This is clearly defined in the Constitution as a protected right (5th Amendment).

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution does not give States, nor any governmental body the right to supersede your individual rights already guaranteed. At that, most people miss that the 10th Amendment doesn't give the States any rights at all- only powers. (States' Rights is a misnomer, the Constitution doesn't say that).

This is an important and critical distinction because it determines what is the ultimate sovereignty and authority over you. If we cede the sovereignty of our own existence to any governing authority then what is the point of any of our rights. Our right to free speech or religion is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion? Our right to bear arms is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion?

Without that fundamental right to one's own existence, all other rights are meaningless.

[Oceander]

I do. I believe the fundamental right of existence is supported and protected by the Constitution and can't be passed down as a right that a State takes away. It all comes down to what you believe an unborn baby is. If you believe an unborn baby is a unique individual, defined by its unique DNA, then just like a born individual, a State or any other government can't just take your right of existence away without due process of law. This is clearly defined in the Constitution as a protected right (5th Amendment).

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution does not give States, nor any governmental body the right to supersede your individual rights already guaranteed. At that, most people miss that the 10th Amendment doesn't give the States any rights at all- only powers. (States' Rights is a misnomer, the Constitution doesn't say that).

This is an important and critical distinction because it determines what is the ultimate sovereignty and authority over you. If we cede the sovereignty of our own existence to any governing authority then what is the point of any of our rights. Our right to free speech or religion is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion? Our right to bear arms is only protected from federal intrusion, not State intrusion?

Without that fundamental right to one's own existence, all other rights are meaningless.

Assuming this arguendo, define what "due process" consists of in this instance.

[ABX]

Assuming this arguendo, define what "due process" consists of in this instance.

Exactly the purpose as defined in the 5th Amendment- a legal action in which you have done something so egregious as to warrant punishment that could result in your rights being stripped. We have historically and Constitutionally, reserved the power to remove one's life as to the most serious crimes- murder, treason, etc. Other crimes result in punishment that involves stripping of your rights, such as stripping your right of property (through fines), liberty (imprisonment), etc.

We have somehow diminished the value of one's own life to not be a right that can only be removed by a governing authority in the most serious of all cases to a right of convenience that you only keep at the whim of others if you happen to be unborn. 

It really does come down to if one considers the unborn baby a unique individual with unique rights. If one only considers it a tissue mass, then what rights does it have? If, however, it is a unique individual with unique rights, then even a State can't just come in and say you don't have the right to exist and someone can take your life because it is inconvenience

What if the State so deemed that only unborn children with desirable traits were deemed worthy to live because it is for the greater good of the population of that State? Does the 10th Amendment grant them that power? 

[massadvj]

My views on the subject of abortion have been previously posted by me on any number of threads.  I was primarily interested in what members think.  I assume the vast majority here think Roe is bad law.  But I was curious as to how many think the fetus is protected or ought to be protected by the constitution.  I'd be interested to see what others, beyond O and Abx, think.

[Oceander]

Exactly the purpose as defined in the 5th Amendment- a legal action in which you have done something so egregious as to warrant punishment that could result in your rights being stripped. We have historically and Constitutionally, reserved the power to remove one's life as to the most serious crimes- murder, treason, etc. Other crimes result in punishment that involves stripping of your rights, such as stripping your right of property (through fines), liberty (imprisonment), etc.

We have somehow diminished the value of one's own life to not be a right that can only be removed by a governing authority in the most serious of all cases to a right of convenience that you only keep at the whim of others if you happen to be unborn. 

It really does come down to if one considers the unborn baby a unique individual with unique rights. If one only considers it a tissue mass, then what rights does it have? If, however, it is a unique individual with unique rights, then even a State can't just come in and say you don't have the right to exist and someone can take your life because it is inconvenience

What if the State so deemed that only unborn children with desirable traits were deemed worthy to live because it is for the greater good of the population of that State? Does the 10th Amendment grant them that power? 

that's not a workable definition of the process that might be due in this case.  for one, it's purely in the abstract and doesn't take any other competing due process rights into account.  it also doesn't take into account any analogous situations where some similar due process interest might exist.  it also doesn't take into account the fact that the quality and quantity of process due depends very heavily on all of the facts and circumstances.

[Oceander]

to raise another hypothetical in counterpoint:  what sort of process is due to someone who's about to be killed by someone else acting on the belief that they are about to suffer death or serious bodily injury?

Also, to push the issue to a logical stopping point, do you envision any exceptions whatsoever to a ban on abortion?

[Bigun]

...the Constitution of the United States gives the Federal Government no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the issue of abortion.... - Dwayne Stovall

I'd be interested to know how many people on this site disagree with this statement.  I certainly don't.

Nor do I!

[massadvj]

Nor do I!

I find that interesting.  Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised.  I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.

This is not to say that those who support federal laws against abortion are not well-developed, but they are more in line with what most would consider the traditional conservative view.

[Oceander]

I find that interesting.  Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised.  I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.

agreed

[DCPatriot]

Funny how I am ultra-curious as to what Sinkspur might have to say about this....oh wait....sorry.   

 

Disclaimer for all the terminally offended in here.....not singling out anybody in particular.

[Bigun]

I find that interesting.  Not sure I'd have predicted it, but now that I think about it, I'm not surprised.  I know you have a very developed view of human rights and the constitution, and I think it takes a well-developed view for a conservative to conclude that abortion is none of the Feds' business.

This is not to say that those who support federal laws against abortion are not well-developed, but they are more in line with what most would consider the traditional conservative view.

With me the words "Conservatism"  and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!

It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.

 

[massadvj]

With me the words "Conservatism"  and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!

It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.

I don't thinks so, at least not on this issue.

[mountaineer]

The states can and should prohibit the murder of human beings, regardless of where they currently reside (the womb or elsewhere). It shouldn't be a federal issue.

[Oceander]

The states can and should prohibit the murder of human beings, regardless of where they currently reside (the womb or elsewhere). It shouldn't be a federal issue.

So there cannot be any exceptions to abortion, whatsoever.

[ABX]

With me the words "Conservatism"  and "Constitutionalism" are interchangeable!

It is abundantly clear that I am in a very small minority there.

I actually think on this issue you are in the majority and I'm in the minority, at least on this thread. I also believe most of us think the two terms are interchangeable, it is just a matter of what the Constitution means about certain things. I firmly believe that the right to life is a protected, individual right that a State or any centralized body can't over-ride (without due process of law) as defined in the Constitution. Others here believe that it is up to each State to determine the issue of what is life and the protections of life. They also see this as in the Constitution.

I think this is a good conversation for our side to have. In both cases, we are moving to the right in this conversation from the current state of affairs, we are just going down different roads.

[Oceander]

I actually think on this issue you are in the majority and I'm in the minority, at least on this thread. I also believe most of us think the two terms are interchangeable, it is just a matter of what the Constitution means about certain things. I firmly believe that the right to life is a protected, individual right that a State or any centralized body can't over-ride (without due process of law) as defined in the Constitution. Others here believe that it is up to each State to determine the issue of what is life and the protections of life. They also see this as in the Constitution.

I think this is a good conversation for our side to have. In both cases, we are moving to the right in this conversation from the current state of affairs, we are just going down different roads.

What process is due before someone can kill another person in self-defense?

[ABX]

What process is due before someone can kill another person in self-defense?

None, due process is a power of a governmental body. It is a restriction to how much control a government has over an individual. An individual right to self defense is part of the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property. Due Process is a State function and a limitation of the government. You as an individual have the right to defend your existence if it is threatened. If someone attempts to take your life, they are forfeiting or risking their own right of existence by their own action and choices. They are choosing to take the gamble of trading their existence by attempting to take yours.

(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).

[ABX]

Nope! Self defense is a basic human right that preexisted any form of government.

I agree with that, I probably didn't word it clearly. (probably should have said that was one of the purposes of the 2nd versus protection).

[Oceander]

None, due process is a power of a governmental body. It is a restriction to how much control a government has over an individual. An individual right to self defense is part of the protection of the 2nd Amendment. It is the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property. Due Process is a State function and a limitation of the government. You as an individual have the right to defend your existence if it is threatened. If someone attempts to take your life, they are forfeiting or risking their own right of existence by their own action and choices. They are choosing to take the gamble of trading their existence by attempting to take yours.

(thus, I do believe in abortion exceptions for the protection of the life of the mother).

Then there cannot be any due process required in the context of an abortion because the situations are analogous in all relevant aspects.

You don't have a fundamental right to defend yourself from another private individual under the Constitution - as you quite rightly put it, the Constitution applies to governments, not to private actors - the second amendment applies to the relationship between individuals and the government, not to the relationship between private individuals.  And it is perfectly constitutional for a state to outlaw the use of deadly force in self-defense.

[DCPatriot]

Is this thread going to melt into an abortion thread?

.....cause it ain't in the title of the thread.