• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Yet another Republican pedophile.

BobTheCoward said:
They voted for him.
Click to expand...

Even if we assume that those who voted for him were aware that he had paid to have sex with boys who were as young as 13 years old, which is obviously an extremely unsound assumption, that does not mean they approve or condone his behavior nor does it mean that they wouldn't describe it as being "disgusting".
 
BobTheCoward said:
They voted for him.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

They knew that he was a Republican (and therefore possibly a closet gay and child molester) yet they turned a blind eye to his sordid past because it didn't matter to them. The only thing most republicans look for is an 'R' next to the candidate's name. How do we know this? Trump.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Exactly.



They knew that he was a Republican (and therefore possibly a closet gay and child molester) yet they turned a blind eye to his sordid past because it didn't matter to them. The only thing most republicans look for is an 'R' next to the candidate's name. How do we know this? Trump.
Click to expand...
Wow. And I thought Bob's argument was going to be the stupidest one in the thread. At least his have a certain dispassionate international consistency.

Yours is just a shambolic pile of hate and bad reasoning. Slow your roll a bit, my ninja.
 
Arcade22 said:
Even if we assume that those who voted for him were aware that he had paid to have sex with boys who were as young as 13 years old, which is obviously an extremely unsound assumption, that does not mean they approve or condone his behavior nor does it mean that they wouldn't describe it as being "disgusting".
Click to expand...

Fair. It is safe to say not so disgusting that they did not perform an exhaustive effort to confirm he was not that. They had a limit to their disgust.
 
theprestige said:
Yours is just a shambolic pile of hate and bad reasoning.
Click to expand...

How Identity, Not Issues, Explains the Partisan Divide
Of all conflicts between groups in America, partisanship is one of the most divisive, with 86% of Americans seeing strong conflicts between Republicans and Democrats... U.S. liberals and conservatives not only disagree on policy issues: they are also increasingly unwilling to live near each other, be friends, or get married to members of the other group...

Now, surprising new research suggests that what divides us may not just be the issues...

Identifying as liberal or conservative only explained a small part of their issue positions. identifying as liberal or conservative was a stronger predictor of affective polarization than issue positions...

If Americans slide into seeing all policy debates as battles between Us vs. Them, we stop selecting policies based on their actual content. Ironically, this would lead to choosing policies that don’t match our personal values, because the content and evidence would become less important than the source.
Click to expand...

Why Republican Voters Decided On Trump
Trump won the nomination despite having all types of deviations from conservative orthodoxy. He seemed wobbly on all parts of Reagan’s three-legged stool: economic policy (he largely opposes free trade and once advocated for a wealth tax and single-payer health care), social policy (consider his constant flip-flopping over abortion), and foreign policy (he openly mocked the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, which is still fairly popular among Republicans).

Trump’s main differentiator was doubling down on cultural grievance: grievances against immigrants, against Muslims, against political correctness, against the media, and sometimes against black people and women. And the strategy worked. It’s a point in favor of those who see politics as being governed by cultural identity — a matter of seeking out one’s “tribe” and fitting in with it
Click to expand...

Majority of Republicans want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed even if assault accusations are true
A new poll reveals that, for a majority of Republicans, the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh committed sexual assault is unimportant in terms of whether they feel he should be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Eighty-three percent of Republicans support Kavanaugh's nomination, according to a recent survey by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. More noteworthy, 54 percent of Republicans said that they would support confirming Kavanaugh even if it turned out that the sexual assault accusations against him are true. Only 32 percent of Republican voters disagreed with that sentiment.
Click to expand...

There's a shambolic pile of hate and bad reasoning alright, but it isn't coming from me.
 

Attachments

  • partisans.jpg
    partisans.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Fair. It is safe to say not so disgusting that they did not perform an exhaustive effort to confirm he was not that. They had a limit to their disgust.
Click to expand...

If you have ever voted for anyone, then so do you, as there is always more effort that you can put in to trying to find out if someone was a pedophile or not. Not having been convicted doesn't equate to not having committed the crime, so clearly searching for a criminal record isn't enough.
 
Roboramma said:
If you have ever voted for anyone, then so do you, as there is always more effort that you can put in to trying to find out if someone was a pedophile or not. Not having been convicted doesn't equate to not having committed the crime, so clearly searching for a criminal record isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Oh, I admit Im not disgusted to the point of caring about it that much.
 
Joecool said:
Is there some difference you're trying to point out? Like some political affiliation is holier than thou?
Click to expand...

Yep. Democrats divorce these people from the party when found out. Republicans celebrate them and protect them.
 
Stacyhs said:
I doubt the voters even knew about it. And, please, do not insult my intelligence by saying they should have done more research and a done a criminal background check. :mad:
Click to expand...

If they don't, then they have an upper limit of concern.
 
Until fingerprints were digitized in the 1980s it was a lot harder to check people out. Now once you're in the system you're there forever. I don't know if this guy's prints would have popped up in a search, but it's not information the general public has access to.
 
Stacyhs said:
And you run a criminal background check on every person you've ever voted for. Don't be ridiculous.
Do you just argue for the sake of arguing?
Click to expand...

Of course I don't. I primarily just vote whatever my wife wants.

ETA; your post seems to suggest that you think I find my behavior acceptable. I do not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom