Pedo Epidemic in MAGA

[Dr Exiled]

There are rumors out there that from at least Clinton to Trump they were all involved in these kinds of activities, allegedly. However, I don't have much faith in finding anything out and this conversation is probably worthless.

Er, yes. But I'd still like to know whether the current President of the United States has been involved in teen trafficking.

For some strange reason, it seems quite important to know that.

[Edited once for typo. I really must type with more care ...]

Ok. You win. Let's see what Trump did first. But would you agree to a full investigation/unredacting the perp list? Would you also agree if Trump implicated those in the other party, probably with him when he was a democrat in the 90's and early 2000's? If he did that, should they be prosecuted and outed?

[Some Schmo]

Er, yes. But I'd still like to know whether the current President of the United States has been involved in teen trafficking.

For some strange reason, it seems quite important to know that.

[Edited once for typo. I really must type with more care ...]

Ok. You win. Let's see what Trump did first. But would you agree to a full investigation/unredacting the perp list? Would you also agree if Trump implicated those in the other party, probably with him when he was a democrat in the 90's and early 2000's? If he did that, should they be prosecuted and outed?

Why do you ask stupid, self-evident questions? Is your both-siderism that desperate?

[Chap]

Ok. You win. Let's see what Trump did first. But would you agree to a full investigation/unredacting the perp list? Would you also agree if Trump implicated those in the other party, probably with him when he was a democrat in the 90's and early 2000's? If he did that, should they be prosecuted and outed?

Why do you ask stupid, self-evident questions? Is your both-siderism that desperate?

Another word would be 'whataboutery', perhaps.

Repeat: anybody against whom there is substantial evidence of criminal activity in connection with teen-trafficking should be considered for prosecution by the relevant authorities. Dr Exiled seems to think - or at least purports to think - that I would oppose that. I don't, and have shown no signs of thinking that way in any of my posts.

Why is he posting like this?

[Gunnar]

Why is he posting like this?

Because his default position seems to be to assume that liberals and progressives are necessarily the bad guys, regardless of the evidence. Textbook confirmation bias.

[Kishkumen]

Because his default position seems to be to assume that liberals and progressives are necessarily the bad guys, regardless of the evidence. Textbook confirmation bias.

I think he is in pursuit of a more refined level of spiritual purity and righteousness in which he reminds us benighted souls that everyone, on BOTH SIDES, is bad. Only guys like him who hold that fact up regularly can claim the highest of high moral ground.

[Morley]

Er, yes. But I'd still like to know whether the current President of the United States has been involved in teen trafficking.

For some strange reason, it seems quite important to know that.

[Edited once for typo. I really must type with more care ...]

Ok. You win. Let's see what Trump did first. But would you agree to a full investigation/unredacting the perp list? Would you also agree if Trump implicated those in the other party, probably with him when he was a democrat in the 90's and early 2000's? If he did that, should they be prosecuted and outed?

Because Trump would only have been a molester of underage girls back when he was a Democrat, right? And when he became a Republican all those impulses would have been shed. This is the way you have to frame it before you can even countenance the possibility. You're kidding me.

[Some Schmo]

I think he is in pursuit of a more refined level of spiritual purity and righteousness in which he reminds us benighted souls that everyone, on BOTH SIDES, is bad. Only guys like him who hold that fact up regularly can claim the highest of high moral ground.

I remember telling a friend back in 2013 that my theory for people with both sides disease are likely former Republicans who are finally realizing their party sucks, but have always thought the Democrats suck. So now they're stuck hating both sides (as though they were equally bad).

[Dr Exiled]

Ok. You win. Let's see what Trump did first. But would you agree to a full investigation/unredacting the perp list? Would you also agree if Trump implicated those in the other party, probably with him when he was a democrat in the 90's and early 2000's? If he did that, should they be prosecuted and outed?

Why do you ask stupid, self-evident questions? Is your both-siderism that desperate?

I guess its really out of frustration in how one sided you all are here. If Trump does something beneficial it'll be automatically discounted and when Biden was there, everything is rosy. Its as if no one here can think beyond their team talking points or like you they resort to mindless name calling. Its really not a discussion.

How about being skeptical of the democrats for once? Or is that a bridge too far? Is there anything the democrats could have possibly done to beat Trump the last time or is the simpleton response still what you have to go with? Those MAGA people are dumb end of story, right? They should have voted for the drunk instead like brilliant people like you did.

[Kishkumen]

I remember telling a friend back in 2013 that my theory for people with both sides disease are likely former Republicans who are finally realizing their party sucks, but have always thought the Democrats suck. So now they're stuck hating both sides (as though they were equally bad).

I can see that, and, to be honest, I am not that different from this type of person. I was a registered Republican at one point, and I left the Republican Party to become an Independent. I have voted consistently Democrat since Trumpism became a thing, and I have not once seriously made a move to become a Democrat. I am not sure I could join one of the two major parties, since I do not believe in the two-party system. I am sure my years of being a registered Republican make the idea of registering as a Democrat feel off to me. More disturbing is the sense that you need to stick with or defend the decisions a party because you committed to be a member of the group.

Since leaving the LDS Church, I have not joined another church. Since leaving the Republican Party, I have not joined another party.

It's kind of a theme for me.

[Kishkumen]

I guess its really out of frustration in how one sided you all are here. If Trump does something beneficial it'll be automatically discounted and when Biden was there, everything is rosy. Its as if no one here can think beyond their team talking points or like you they resort to mindless name calling. Its really not a discussion.

How about being skeptical of the democrats for once? Or is that a bridge too far? Is there anything the democrats could have possibly done to beat Trump the last time or is the simpleton response still what you have to go with? Those MAGA people are dumb end of story, right? They should have voted for the drunk instead like brilliant people like you did.

Answering for myself, I am plenty skeptical of everyone, but the MAGA party is so far off the rails that they give me too much to complain about. I am unhappy with the gerontocracy of the DNC right now. But, damn, the MAGA party is so corrupt and authoritarian that the DNC's problems pale in comparison.