Trump Campaign Chair Busted for Pedophila

[John_Mace]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The problem here isn’t the gay sex part; the problem is the underage prostitution part. As such, be careful about saying it’s more embarrassing for Republicans than Democrats.

Everyone knows Republicans are often hypocritical. Who doesn’t?

Who says that?

This guy is awful, and unless he’s spoken in favor of underage prostitution, a hypocrite. (Silence is no excuse, as the Republican party has correctly taken a stance against underage prostitution). But this is a law enforcement issue. THere are bigger fish to fry on the national stage, and I hope progressive save their cooking oil for Trump.

@panache45

John Mace: Ralph Shortey’s biggest embarrassment to his Republican cronies is not that the kid was 17, or that there was money involved, but that the kid was male. It has more to do with homophobia than the legality of gay sex.

Please take that up with LHoD. I don’t know why you’re badgering me about this. My comment was simply to note that the police would not be involved if it had not been a prostitution issue, and we’d never know about it.

[Jack_Batty]

@clairobscur

The kid’s identity doesn’t seem to have been disclosed.

Can’t you see what’s important here? The creepy right-winger who lectures about the evils of homosexuality and then gets caught buying seventeen year old boy ass is not the bad guy. The bad guy is the father of the kid he was trying to fuck. I mean, it couldn’t be clearer here in Trumpland.

[Crazyhorse]

@John_Mace

Please take that up with LHoD. I don’t know why you’re badgering me about this. My comment was simply to note that the police would not be involved if it had not been a prostitution issue, and we’d never know about it.

No your comment and subsequent drivel were intended to argue that the GOP isn’t opposed to gay sex and this person isn’t a walking example of GOP hypocrisy.

You tried to argue that because you can find no mention of anti-gay sex agenda in the GOP official platform (despite it having been there most blatantly until it proved politically expedient to remove it) that alone is proof of your thesis that the GOP doesn’t oppose gay sex and this incident isn’t in any way ironic or hypocritical. You said outright that you will not accept the GOP opposes gay sex until someone can produce a cite that it is spelled out in the GOP official platform.

Go back to GD where you feel like you’ve won by demanding cites until people get tired of talking to you. Idiot.

[running_coach]

@Crazyhorse

No your comment and subsequent drivel were intended to argue that the GOP isn’t opposed to gay sex and this person isn’t a walking example of GOP hypocrisy.

You tried to argue that because you can find no mention of anti-gay sex agenda in the GOP official platform (despite it having been there most blatantly until it proved politically expedient to remove it) that alone is proof of your thesis that the GOP doesn’t oppose gay sex and this incident isn’t in any way ironic or hypocritical. You said outright that you will not accept the GOP opposes gay sex until someone can produce a cite that it is spelled out in the GOP official platform.

Go back to GD where you feel like you’ve won by demanding cites until people get tired of talking to you. Idiot.

From the GOP 2012 platform.

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

[Crazyhorse]

@running_coach

From the GOP 2012 platform.

Yes as has been noted and cited, by me, the GOP removed the language from their platform because it was proving politically harmful to them.

Doesn’t change their feelings about it or make it any less ironic anytime a GOP politician gets caught in a gay sex scandal.

From my previous cite:

The 2012 Republican Platform had plenty of spite to go around. It sought to defend “marriage against an activist judiciary,” fight for DOMA, support the Boy Scouts’ discriminatory policies. “We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights,” it said. “The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda,” it claimed.

This year’s platform does, point for point, make it the most anti-LGBT platform in history. For one thing, it’s expanded to include anti-trans rhetoric, which makes sense in that transgender people are more visible in culture than ever and thus a threat to the GOP’s monoculture fantasy.

[running_coach]

@Crazyhorse

Yes as has been noted and cited, by me, the GOP removed the language from their platform because it was proving politically harmful to them.

Doesn’t change their feelings about it or make it any less ironic anytime a GOP politician gets caught in a gay sex scandal.

From my previous cite:

They didn’t remove all of it.

Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

Naturally, they have no problem with five unelected judges when the ruling goes their way.

Oddly, they have no problem with divorce, multiple marriages, adultery and other cultural values instilled by traditional marriage.

[Crazyhorse]

@running_coach

They didn’t remove all of it.

Naturally, they have no problem with five unelected judges when the ruling goes their way.

Oddly, they have no problem with divorce, multiple marriages, adultery and other cultural values instilled by traditional marriage.

Yeah they removed the part about “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.” because it was killing them at the polls.

SSM, transgenders using bathrooms, etc. are still fair game to their constituents.

[Bricker]

@running_coach

Naturally, they have no problem with five unelected judges when the ruling goes their way.

From my perspective, it depends on what the five unelected judges have done.

Did they rest their ruling on the plain text of the statute or constitutional clause they were addressing? If so, then I don’t have a problem with it, even if the result runs counter to my preferred outcome, because I know that the correct redress is changing the law, not changing the judges’ decision.

[SteveG1]

@Evan_Drake

Revolting it may all be, and hypocritical — perhaps necessarily so — he may be, but I’m not that comfortable with persecuting gay acts and dope users.
Let alone caring.

Plus it doesn’t really sound like prostitution at all, more like sugar-daddy behaviour.

How about persecuting liars, frauds and hypocrites? Values party? Oh really.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

I’m enjoying thinking about the spin Fox News would put on this story:

Trump Campaign Chair skips cheaper immigrant labor; buys American.
Trump Campaign Chair spending supports young entrepreneur.
Trump Campaign Chair helps young entrepreneur gets a head start in business.
Trump Campaign Chair puts money where his mouth is; supports local industry.
Trump Campaign Chair says “I am proud and honored to have been tapped by Donald Trump…” (or was that ‘topped’?)

It’s just hard to stop once you get started.

[Count_Blucher]

@Bricker

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

…usually as they hurried into airport restrooms…

@Jack_Batty

Can’t you see what’s important here? The creepy right-winger who lectures about the evils of homosexuality and then gets caught buying seventeen year old boy ass is not the bad guy. The bad guy is the father of the kid he was trying to fuck. I mean, it couldn’t be clearer here in Trumpland.

…no matter how much they try to blur the lens with Vaseline…

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Count_Blucher

…no matter how much they try to blur the lens with Vaseline…

Well, there are other things they could be doing with that Vaseline…

[BigAppleBucky]

@running_coach

Not pedophilia. The kid was 17 years old.

Statutory rape? Age depends on which state. Many states are 18, NY is 17 and some Southern states are probably lower.

[running_coach]

@BigAppleBucky

Statutory rape? Age depends on which state. Many states are 18, NY is 17 and some Southern states are probably lower.

Age of consent in Ok. is 16.

[guizot]

@Bricker

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

Sure they understand that (I suppose), but state legislators, from what I’ve seen, will propose laws more to shore up base support, than to actually change anything–especially with issues such as these.

[Lucas_Jackson]

@John_Mace

Please take that up with LHoD. I don’t know why you’re badgering me about this. My comment was simply to note that the police would not be involved if it had not been a prostitution issue, and we’d never know about it.

Aside from being plainly wrong in this thread about the GOP’s stance on homosexuality, the above is statement is factually dishonest to anyone who should care to scroll back a bit.