Another pedophile running for Congress

Ziggurat said:
Why should Trump give this guy any attention at all? He would likely welcome attention, even a denunciation. He deserves to be ignored at the national level, anything else is probably a reward for him.
Click to expand...

If you can tie him to Trump, why wouldn't you?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Did you just read the OP. The very first response post pointed out that he's not a member of either party and that neither party claims him.

And the first partisan post is Brainster doing one of those fancy dancy "just sayin' " that he's renowned for, trying to create an affinity with the Democrats because, well, it's what partisans do.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, here is what I wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

Slightly unfair, I'll admit; Terry McAwful didn't think about this guy at all before he restored his right to vote and run for office.
 
The only crimes that should disqualify one from participating in the political process are those that directly threaten the political process: Bribery of public officials, voter fraud, etc. Period.
 
Craig4 said:
If you can tie him to Trump, why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Personally, still waiting to hear what the difference is. Well, possibly the more upfront pervs and white nationalists are more willing to aid the average straight cis white christian male, while Dolt 45 is really just for the wealthy.

Also, I recall people saying "Hey guys, these nazis are just internet trolls, they aren't anything important" right up until Dolt 45 won and they started shooting people and holding terrorist rallies. That approach doesn't seem to work so well. Maybe it's better to confront them immediately.
 
Mumbles said:
Personally, still waiting to hear what the difference is. Well, possibly the more upfront pervs and white nationalists are more willing to aid the average straight cis white christian male, while Dolt 45 is really just for the wealthy.

Also, I recall people saying "Hey guys, these nazis are just internet trolls, they aren't anything important" right up until Dolt 45 won and they started shooting people and holding terrorist rallies. That approach doesn't seem to work so well. Maybe it's better to confront them immediately.
Click to expand...

No no, that makes you the fascist. I have that on good authority.
 
uke2se said:
No no, that makes you the fascist. I have that on good authority.
Click to expand...

Depends on what "confront" means here. If he means violence, ala Antifa and BAMN, then yes. If he means using speech to denounce him, then no. I suspect he means the latter, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Babbylonian said:
The only crimes that should disqualify one from participating in the political process are those that directly threaten the political process: Bribery of public officials, voter fraud, etc. Period.
Click to expand...


I support the right of felons to vote, not because they're such great people, but for the abstract reason I want it impossible for those in power to lodge themselves there, protected by massive numbers of laws making felons of, and thus disabling, many voters that might kick them from office.

Then I see crap like this guy and I start wtffing.
 
Beerina said:
I support the right of felons to vote, not because they're such great people, but for the abstract reason I want it impossible for those in power to lodge themselves there, protected by massive numbers of laws making felons of, and thus disabling, many voters that might kick them from office.

Then I see crap like this guy and I start wtffing.
Click to expand...
I get the distaste some feel for horrible people being part of the political process, but on the other hand I don't see valid justification for disenfranchising them. Again, I think nobody should lose the vote for being convicted of crimes unrelated to politics. I even take the extreme view that ballots should be provided to criminals in prison.

It's not like this guy has any shot at making sex with minors legal, and even if everyone in prison voted "yay" they wouldn't be able to make their crimes legal. Like it or not, they remain citizens and I don't see a tangible benefit to disenfranchising them.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
I get the distaste some feel for horrible people being part of the political process, but on the other hand I don't see valid justification for disenfranchising them. Again, I think nobody should lose the vote for being convicted of crimes unrelated to politics. I even take the extreme view that ballots should be provided to criminals in prison.
Click to expand...

I too am in favor of suffrage for all adults. Disenfranchisement for felons laws was more of the racist laws post emancipation.
 
Checkmite said:
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.
Click to expand...

Having read (parts of) his manifesto, I would call him a creature of the "alt-right" although they might not want to claim him. He uses the word "cuck" which is pretty much a giveaway.

https://archive.fo/2gVvl

Nathan Larson for Congress campaign manifesto said:
Hitler went to war against Poland because he was unwilling to let Germany get cucked out of its territory in Danzig and the Polish corridor.
. . .
The incels who have never slept with a woman at all, or even held a woman's hand, yet are forced to pay taxes for schools, welfare, and other support for other men's children, are arguably not receiving a benefit at all, because their genetic lines are coming to an end. (This is why they often refer to working for a living as "wagecucking".)
. . .
If only a few women were getting away with this, it might serve their feminine imperative; but since it's happening on a civilization-wide scale, it threatens the survival of the whole race because eventually, women will run out of cucks to exploit.
. . .
All feminism will do is change the order in the socio-sexual hierarchy to place women above betas. Alphas will remain at the top and gammas (aka cucks) and omegas (aka incels) will remain at the bottom.
Click to expand...
etc.
 
Nathan Larson has been arrested for "misdemeanor harboring a minor" in Colorado, but is expected to be extradited to California on felony kidnapping and child pornography charges.

Larson allegedly began online communication with a 12-year-old girl in California, coaxing her to send him nude photographs of herself, and eventually convincing her to "run away" from her home to be with him. Larson flew to Fresno, waited and picked her up after she left her house in the middle of the night, then took her with him on an airline flight to Washington DC. He was arrested and the girl rescued during a layover in Denver; she was immediately returned to her family.
 
Didn't the Netherlands and/or Belgium have explicitly "pro-pedophilia" parties stand for election one or two decades ago? Embarrassing i guess but who cares.

Brainster said:
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?
Click to expand...

Civilized countries don't strip their citizens of their democratic rights no matter how foul or otherwise terrible any crimes they may commit, except perhaps if said crime is directed against democracy. As soon as you start restricting democratic rights for one reason or another someone will demand that you expand those restrictions until only "acceptable" people are able to vote.

I mean this guy is hardly worse than any one of the millions of Americans who voted for Trump and supports his attacks against the entire democratic form of government.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Didn't the Netherlands and/or Belgium have explicitly "pro-pedophilia" parties stand for election one or two decades ago? Embarrassing i guess but who cares.
Click to expand...

Being sheltered by a party that touts "traditional family values" is vastly different from a one note party that condones it.

Civilized countries don't strip their citizens of their democratic rights no matter how foul or otherwise terrible any crimes they may commit, except perhaps if said crime is directed against democracy. As soon as you start restricting democratic rights for one reason or another someone will demand that you expand those restrictions until only "acceptable" people are able to vote.
Click to expand...
We could ask those Floridians who've served their time for far less morally repugnant crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom