Another pedophile running for Congress

I agree he did his time, rights should be restored. No surprise that the are strange people no side owns the lot. Now how many votes will he get? ! or 2 percent?
 
Headline:

Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He’s A Pedophile

OMG see! All the Republicans are sick bastards!


Sentence in actual story:

Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state.

Oh so it's just some idiot and he's not running as a Repunlican. But hey that headline will get people talking! Who reads the articles if they agree with how I feel?

This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.

Some quality journalism going on these days. Hey, I hear racism may still be going on. But that's okay because Starbucks made their employees watch videos of blacks being beaten by cops as part of the racial awareness training.

This is going so well.
 
Headline:



This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.[/HILITE]

The headline of the article does not support your screed - it makes no mention of party affiliation, or political slant. Way to prove the highlighted point.
 
The headline of the article does not support your screed - it makes no mention of party affiliation, or political slant. Way to prove the highlighted point.

He’s clearly and obviously talking about this threads opinion coming from the left.
 
He’s clearly and obviously talking about this threads opinion coming from the left.

Given that one of the first posts clearly stated that the candidate in question was an independent, the article stated so clearly, and the title of both made no connection to the political leanings of the candidate - why would anyone take the criticism of the candidate as anything but a criticism of the candidate?

The only criticism from the "left" here seems to be that the candidate is truly a reprehensible human being that is trying to emulate some of the "political outsider" schtick that got some other people elected and that we are hoping that people don't fall for it.

This an opportunity for the political divide to reach across the aisle and criticize someone that no one in their right mind would want as a political representative.
 
And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

Being able to vote, or even being able to run for office, isn't the issue here. As Toontown said, it's the fact that he feels confident running and expressing his political views openly. While the pro-child-molestation stuff is less common, as a right-wing neo-nazi/white-supremacist/misogynist, this fellow is really just another part of the alt-right "bubble", wherein people with this ideology who used to have to keep these kinds of opinions closer to the vest, have now crawled out from under their various rocks and are attempting to become a cultural force, unburdened by the across-the-board condemnation and ridicule that open Nazis dealt even a decade or two ago. And whether or not they agree totally with Donald Trump, or whether they like to call themselves Republican or Democrat or libertarian or independent, like Nathan Larson they all recognize the crucial role Trump has played in empowering that emergence.
 
Last edited:
Headline:



OMG see! All the Republicans are sick bastards!


Sentence in actual story:



Oh so it's just some idiot and he's not running as a Repunlican. But hey that headline will get people talking! Who reads the articles if they agree with how I feel?

This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.

Some quality journalism going on these days. Hey, I hear racism may still be going on. But that's okay because Starbucks made their employees watch videos of blacks being beaten by cops as part of the racial awareness training.

This is going so well.

The headline doesn't suggest that the candidate is a Republican. What are you going on about?
 
Being able to vote, or even being able to run for office, isn't the issue here. As Toontown said, it's the fact that he feels confident running and expressing his political views openly.

How do you know we hasn't always expressed his views openly? You aren't hearing about him just because he's speaking out, you're also hearing about him because he's being reported. But reporters don't scientifically sample events. They cherry pick.

So how do you know this reflects an actual change, that it isn't just another Summer of the Shark?
 
Roy Moore was also a pedophile. Trump endorsed him.

Roy Moore denied the allegations and was focused on high school girls. This guy not only admits wanting to have sex with young girls, he includes his daughter on his wish list.

Endorsing Moore and endorsing this guy are not moral equivalents. Endorsing Moore was bad but endorsing this guy would be much, much worse.
 
Let me just point out that the reference to his "pro-Trump platform" in the original article consists of this one quote at the end of the piece:



They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means. It sounds like a Hail Mary pass.

BTW, guess who we have to thank for the fact that this clown can vote, let alone run for office? Terry McAwful:



And the president he threatened to kill was George W. Bush.

So I'm going to go with total kook with zero connection to Trump or the Republicans. Only connection to the Democrats is that this is the kind of guy they think should have his voting rights restored.

He sure sounds trumpf like to me!!!
 
Er, have we really established that a rather large portion of Trump voters support this platform?

Well, given that trumpf voters knew by his own statements he went into the dressing rooms of underage girls I am forced to accept that they do support that.
 
Roy Moore denied the allegations and was focused on high school girls. This guy not only admits wanting to have sex with young girls, he includes his daughter on his wish list.

Endorsing Moore and endorsing this guy are not moral equivalents. Endorsing Moore was bad but endorsing this guy would be much, much worse.
And what does it all mean when it's a rapist doing the endorsing?
 
This guy sounds like a deeply disturbed individual. DEEPLY disturbed, on many levels. Not even tangentially impinging on reality. So I'm going to take his stated intentions of running for office with the same level of concern as if he said he was the Queen of England. That is, zero. He's a disturbed nutjob; his political career is entirely imaginary.

He is far more likely to commit a crime very shortly that will put him back behind bars for an extended period of assessment and treatment, or possibly even taking an early morning walk to a state-sanctioned dirt-nap.

His likelihood of standing for office is zero. Even if, by some extraordinary circumstances, he did stand, he would get only one vote - his own. And possibly not even that because he doesn't sound the least bit mentally competent.

So the idea that he is a Donny or DNC disciple is entirely moot. That Donny would endorse him is another matter. That possibly could happen, but only if there was something in it personally for Donny.
 
And what does it all mean when it's a rapist doing the endorsing?
I've not seen conclusive evidence that Trump is a rapist. He claims to have engaged in sexual assault and some have alleged such. His ex also alleged rape, but none of this has been proved.

Don't get me wrong. He's a bastard, but I won't call him a rapist without conclusive evidence.
 
Er, have we really established that a rather large portion of Trump voters support this platform?

Roy Moore got a lot of votes, and the pedophilia charges against him were very credible. So I'd say there's a significant portion of conservatives that don't see pedophilia as being a disqualifier.

ETA: He was also endorsed by Trump and I believe the RNC (after some initial misgivings).
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom