Trump Campaign Chair Busted for Pedophila

[Superdude]

@What_Exit

So another right-winger turns out to be sleazy self-hater, but what’s this shit: "engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church"?

Why is that a a law? What the hell? This reminds me of Arson, Murder and Jaywalking.

Locally, there’s an X-rated, adult theater/bookstore/shop located directly off of the highway. There have been efforts over the years to shut it down, with no success. So a local church decided to try. They found an ordnance* that said that adult-oriented businesses couldn’t operate within x feet of a church, and so built another church campus within that distance to try to force the city’s hand, and order the bookstore closed.

It backfired. The city said that, since the bookstore was there first, the church had no ability to get that ordnance enforced.

Your comment made me think of that.

*I’m having trouble finding a cite for this, so it may be apocryphal. But it’s accepted as fact locally.

[Count_Blucher]

@What_Exit

Now that is the explanation that makes the most sense to me so far.

Yes, but its still doesn’t excuse the campaign chair for drilling for oil in a 17 year old.

[running_coach]

@Count_Blucher

Yes, but its still doesn’t excuse the campaign chair for drilling for oil in a 17 year old.

How do you know he wasn’t the well?

[John_Mace]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The problem here isn’t the gay sex part; the problem is the underage prostitution part.

The age of consent it OK is 16, so without the prostitution part, it’s just plain-old homo sex between consenting parties.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Superdude

Locally, there’s an X-rated, adult theater/bookstore/shop located directly off of the highway. There have been efforts over the years to shut it down, with no success. So a local church decided to try. They found an ordnance* that said that adult-oriented businesses couldn’t operate within x feet of a church, and so built another church campus within that distance to try to force the city’s hand, and order the bookstore closed.

It backfired. The city said that, since the bookstore was there first, the church had no ability to get that ordnance enforced.

Your comment made me think of that.

*I’m having trouble finding a cite for this, so it may be apocryphal. But it’s accepted as fact locally.

An almost identical story showed up in our local paper last month, so close that I checked to see if your link went to my town. The timeline was very slightly different: it was something like:
-Church opened
-Porn shop opened
-Ordinance passed
-Porn shop grandfathered in
-Some county commissioner elected who goes to that church and has basically made taking down the bookstore his goal in life, using this ordinance.

Fortunately, nobody seems to be taking him seriously. But I’ve wondered as well whether “no pron within x feet of church” ordinances would, or have, withstood a court challenge on first amendment grounds.

[Ike_Witt]

@John_Mace

it’s just plain-old homo sex between consenting parties.

Which is something the GOP is against, are they not?

[Loach]

At least the OP got the words “busted” and “for” correct.

[running_coach]

@Loach

At least the OP got the words “busted” and “for” correct.

And a half point for “Chair”.

[John_Mace]

@Ike_Witt

Which is something the GOP is against, are they not?

You’ll have to take that up with LHoD, to whom I was responding. But when you say “against”, what exactly do you mean? Are you saying they want to criminalize gay sex? If so, I’d like to see a cite.

[bobot]

**Trump Campaign Chair Busted for Pedophila

**I just learned from another thread that one of Trump’s guys had something to do with the Lego Batman movie. That movie features heavy Michael Jackson lyrics references, so the pedophilia/Trump connection is firmly established. As firm as anything Trump has accused Hillary Clinton of, anyway, and he’d lock her up. So fuck all those Trump pedophiles. Disgusting. Sad.

[jasg]

I guess he was too young to remember Edwin Edwards.

[Crazyhorse]

@John_Mace

Are you saying they want to criminalize gay sex? If so, I’d like to see a cite.

You’re kidding, right? No probably not. Ever heard of sodomy laws?

[Evan_Drake]

@Superdude

Locally, there’s an X-rated, adult theater/bookstore/shop located directly off of the highway. There have been efforts over the years to shut it down, with no success. So a local church decided to try. They found an ordnance* that said that adult-oriented businesses couldn’t operate within x feet of a church, and so built another church campus within that distance to try to force the city’s hand, and order the bookstore closed.

That’s disgusting.

[Bricker]

@Crazyhorse

You’re kidding, right? No probably not. Ever heard of sodomy laws?

I have heard of them. Were they passed by Republicans?

[John_Mace]

@Crazyhorse

You’re kidding, right? No probably not. Ever heard of sodomy laws?

Have you seen the price of butter in Denmark lately?

@Bricker

I have heard of them. Were they passed by Republicans?

Doesn’t matter. What matters is how many support such laws now.

[Crazyhorse]

The Texas GOP Still Wants to Criminalize Homosexuality.

In addition to wholeheartedly endorsing ex-gay “therapy” for “patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle,” the draft clearly re-enforces its 2012 predecessor, which memorably held that “the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit.” Both platforms seem to take dead aim at the legalization of homosexuality, still a sour topic for most state Republican parties.

A Brief And Ugly History of the GOP’s Anti-LGBT Platform

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

Doesn’t matter. What matters is how many support such laws now.

I have no idea. But I assume most legislators understand that in light of Lawrence v Texsa, such laws can’t be sustained.

[John_Mace]

@Crazyhorse

The Texas GOP Still Wants to Criminalize Homosexuality.

A Brief And Ugly History of the GOP’s Anti-LGBT Platform

Nope. Your cite does not support that claim. I suspect you didn’t even read it.

In fact, if you click on the link from your cite to the Texas GOP platform, you’ll find this:

Homosexuality:

Delegates have stripped language from the party’s plank on homosexuality that says: “we affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God.”

Emphasis added.

[Crazyhorse]

Also from my cite:

Because the people who oppose legalizing gay marriage today were the exact same people who opposed legalizing gay intimacy a decade ago. The goal—obstructing any and all legal protections for gay people—hasn’t changed. What’s changed instead is the rhetoric. As Yale law professor William N. Eskridge wrote, the protean case against gay marriage displays a remarkable “mobility of justification”: Once activists realized their openly anti-gay arguments were failing, they shifted to some vague notion of a “public interest” in barring gay couples from marriage.

This new tactic achieved some success because it seemed to have some logical limiting principle: Suddenly, gay marriage opponents weren’t against gay rights as a whole, but simply one plank of the gay rights platform. This posturing, however, was always a feint designed to make the anti-gay case seem more palatable and less brazenly discriminatory. It’s simply sophistic to insist that the Constitution protects gay people’s right to be in intimate relationships but then draw an arbitrary line at state recognition of such relationships.

Renowned Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan grasped this problem soon after Lawrence v. Texas, the same-sex sodomy case, was announced. If you accept that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of liberty and equality protect gay people in any way, you’re bound to believe they protect the fundamental liberty to marry. Florida State University law professor Courtney Cahill echoed this idea more recently, astutely noting that Lawrence “stands for the proposition that the state may no longer use the law to treat gays and lesbians in demeaning ways because of [their] conduct.” Once the state recognizes and respects any facet of gay relationships, in other words, the battle is essentially over, and some crudely drawn dividing line between gay intimacy and gay marriage must be recognized as inherently capricious

The GOP platform is inherently anti-gay. To argue otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

[BigT]

@Loach

At least the OP got the words “busted” and “for” correct.

Or, you know, the whole thing is correct.

Dude was a chair for Trump in Oklahoma. He was arrested for what is legally pedophilia.

Seriously, I hate it when the supposed “good guys” mock their own. You’re just adding to the fire. You can acknowledge mistakes without mocking and showing them contempt.