Pedophile running for US Congress

[lancia delta hf]

Yeah, but associating that with the presidency of Trump just like that, simply because he is not fond of him is ridiculous and polemic. What about the things that have improved since Trump became president? Or is it ridiculous to spin unfounded assumptions just like that, no matter which way they go?

I blame the moon phases.

What? Some things have improved under Trump? Nonsense. I have not hear one single positive thing about Trump from the press. Only negative things every day for the last 500 days. He is obviously the resurrection of Hitler.

 

[UKMikey]

There were actually many groups of people in the US who were inspired to push their twisted racist and ideological agendas because Obama was black, gaining ground in the process - if you were a polemic and hated Obama you could say he inspired racist groups and even the Ku Klux Clan and helped them to gain influence and hold that against him.

So, no examples, then.

 

[Tornado]

It does. Amendment 14, I think. To follow your example: a cat can be declared a 'legal person' for the purposes of appropriate legal actions but would then be barred from holding office. It can not be a 'person' as otherwise defined in law as it isn't human, however much it tries to own your couch.

Counterpoint:

 

[Joey D]

As Lando Calrissian once said, "This is America".

 

[TexRex]

*wonders what tomorrow's 'word of the day' is going to be*

 

[AbeFroman75]

As Lando Calrissian once said, "This is America".

This was the result the last time he ran in 2017


Democratic Elizabeth Guzman 54.07% 15,466
Republican Scott Lingamfelter Incumbent 44.25% 12,658
Independent Nathan Larson 1.68% 481


https://ballotpedia.org/Nathan_Larson

 

[Joey D]

This was the result the last time he ran in 2017


Democratic Elizabeth Guzman 54.07% 15,466
Republican Scott Lingamfelter Incumbent 44.25% 12,658
Independent Nathan Larson 1.68% 481


https://ballotpedia.org/Nathan_Larson

Alright? I'm not sure what the results have to do with what I said.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Alright? I'm not sure what the results have to do with what I said.

I took your comment as saying that this is now the norm, insinuating that we are a nation that supports white supremacists.

 

[Liquid]

I took your comment as saying that this is now the norm, insinuating that we are a nation that supports white supremacists.

No, this is an America where any idiot can run for office.

That was always true in the past but now it's far easier for them to get press coverage.

 

[Joey D]

I took your comment as saying that this is now the norm, insinuating that we are a nation that supports white supremacists.

See @Liquid response.

But based on your post, it actually shocks me that people voted for him. Guess Lando-the-younger was onto something.

 

[Danoff]

See @Liquid response.

But based on your post, it actually shocks me that people voted for him. Guess Lando-the-younger was onto something.

It's easier for a guy like this to get outrage, media coverage, and become known and interesting to voters who are a little crazy themselves. It's much harder for someone who is like... mostly in line with one party's platform but is a little more sensible in some of the more extreme areas. That person gets zero media coverage, and nobody knows who they are.

 

[AbeFroman75]

See @Liquid response.

But based on your post, it actually shocks me that people voted for him. Guess Lando-the-younger was onto something.

Yeah, it's such an insignificant amount though.

The scary part is out here in CA a crap ton of people voted for an imbecile like Kevin DeLeon to the point that I know have to chose between Diane Feinstein and him. Which has me doing something I never thought I would ever do and it makes me feel cheap and dirty....vote for Diane Feinstein.

...as it should. There's no excuse for that.

You're absolutely right man. It was really tough coming to terms with that. When I told my family who I was going to vote for senate in November, they were supportive. It even gave my brother the strength to say he was going to vote for her as well. It's good to have a supportive family during tough times.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, it's such an insignificant amount though.

The scary part is out here in CA a crap ton of people voted for an imbecile like Kevin DeLeon to the point that I know have to chose between Diane Feinstein and him. Which has me doing something I never thought I would ever do and it makes me feel cheap and dirty....vote for Diane Feinstein.

...as it should. There's no excuse for that.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Yeah, it's such an insignificant amount though.

The scary part is out here in CA a crap ton of people voted for an imbecile like Kevin DeLeon to the point that I know have to chose between Diane Feinstein and him. Which has me doing something I never thought I would ever do and it makes me feel cheap and dirty....vote for Diane Feinstein.

You didn't have to vote for either of those idiots. No way I'm ever going to vote for either of the 2. Write in your dog or something.

 

[Danoff]

You didn't have to vote for either of those idiots. No way I'm ever going to vote for either of the 2. Write in your dog or something.

And if you don't have a dog, maybe consider a good third party candidate. But if you have a dog, obviously go with that.

 

[Blood Eagle]

And if you don't have a dog, maybe consider a good third party candidate. But if you have a dog, obviously go with that.

I did the ballot by mail a couple weeks ago. I don't recall who I selected but it definitely wasn't Feinstein or DeLeon.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, this is an America where any idiot can run for office.

That was always true in the past but now it's far easier for them to get press coverage.

In most of the western world anyone can run for any office, that's not an American thing. The press coverage on these fringe candidates arises from one side of the political spectrum or the other trying to paint their opponents with the widest possible brush by aligning said fringe candidate with some of the policies of the actual, more middle of the road opponent. The more outrageous they are the more attention they get.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not sure how many Nazi paedophile rapist candidates have run for office in the UK but if they're out there they seem to be staying under the radar.

 

[Northstar]

I'm not sure how many Nazi paedophile rapist candidates have run for office in the UK but if they're out there they seem to be staying under the radar.

Probably because they are all busy doing children's television programs.

 

[UKMikey]

Probably because they are all busy doing children's television programs.

There's a handful and they weren't white supremacists, but point taken.

 

[TexRex]

weren't white supremacists

I mean...as far as you know. But the urge to throw your arm into the air publicly as if saluting is probably easier to suppress than the desire to diddle children privately...

...

...unless it's involuntary:

 

[UKMikey]

I mean...as far as you know. But the urge to throw your arm into the air publicly as if saluting is probably easier to suppress than the desire to diddle children privately...

...

...unless it's involuntary:

View attachment 742113

That sounds like a slippery slope argument. I won't defend evil TV paedophiles any more than I would evil Catholic priest paedophiles but keeping white supremacist views to oneself is marginally higher on the morality scale than openly giving interviews about it. Something in Larson's head seems to make him incapable of concealing his views Liar Liar style, as witness his custody hearing.

 

[TexRex]

That sounds like a slippery slope argument. I won't defend evil TV paedophiles any more than I would evil Catholic priest paedophiles but keeping white supremacist views to oneself is marginally higher on the morality scale than openly giving interviews about it. Something in Larson's head seems to make him incapable of concealing his views Liar Liar style, as witness his custody hearing.

It was intended to be humorous more than anything else, but if recent events have told us anything it's that people are often capable of hiding some truly horrible inclinations and even actions.

 

[polysmut]

The scary part is out here in CA a crap ton of people voted for an imbecile like Kevin DeLeon to the point that I know have to chose between Diane Feinstein and him. Which has me doing something I never thought I would ever do and it makes me feel cheap and dirty....vote for Diane Feinstein.

I don't know anything about those people but that sounds like the kind of thinking that turns things into effectively a two-party system.
If you vote for a candidate that you don't really want because it seems important to stop another (that you want even less) from winning, the choices available that might have been more aligned to your views become fewer and further between until they disappear completely.

 

[AbeFroman75]

I don't know anything about those people but that sounds like the kind of thinking that turns things into effectively a two-party system.
If you vote for a candidate that you don't really want because it seems important to stop another (that you want even less) from winning, the choices available that might have been more aligned to your views become fewer and further between until they disappear completely.

The way it works is you have a primary where you vote for who will face off in the general, then of the top two that received the most votes you then have a general election. There were something like 30 candidates for 1 CA US senate seat. Feinstein was a given and the race was between who would face her in November. I voted for the guy that came in third. A two party choice would be preferred as now it's single party.

Ideally you vote for who you feel is the best candidate but in the real world, if the situation arrives, you vote strategically because you don't want to split the vote or throw your vote away. Example: Ross Perot in '92. He got nearly 20% of the vote, votes that would have reelected Bush Sr. Instead we got Clinton.

 

[Imari]

I don't know anything about those people but that sounds like the kind of thinking that turns things into effectively a two-party system.
If you vote for a candidate that you don't really want because it seems important to stop another (that you want even less) from winning, the choices available that might have been more aligned to your views become fewer and further between until they disappear completely.

Unfortunately, in political systems that are all or nothing it's always going to be that way. There's going to be one candidate that's a favourite to win, and one candidate that everyone else packs their votes onto to stop that candidate from winning. Any other candidates don't matter, because they'll never get enough votes to have an effect.

The two party system is the stable game equilibrium to the sorts of political systems that are common. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate, but it's how things currently work and why most western countries only have two major parties.

 

[polysmut]

The way it works is you have a primary where you vote for who will face off in the general, then of the top two that received the most votes you then have a general election. There were something like 30 candidates for 1 CA US senate seat. Feinstein was a given and the race was between who would face her in November. I voted for the guy that came in third. A two party choice would be preferred as now it's single party.

I get that buy my point was general and referred to all democratic systems.

Ideally you vote for who you feel is the best candidate but in the real world, if the situation arrives, you vote strategically because you don't want to split the vote or throw your vote away.

Then you exacerbate the situation for yourself and others with similar political ideals a little more each time.
"Strategically" voting for any candidate you don't really want to win is a bad strategy.

 

[baldgye]

I'm not sure how many Nazi paedophile rapist candidates have run for office in the UK but if they're out there they seem to be staying under the radar.

I’m sure what’s left of UKIP and the BNP have got suitable candidates... at least unconvicted ones...

 

[Imari]

Then you exacerbate the situation for yourself and others with similar political ideals a little more each time.
"Strategically" voting for any candidate you don't really want to win is a bad strategy.

It's not if the only candidates available are ones that you don't want to win. There are no guarantees that there is a candidate that you want to win even on the ballot. You can either not vote, thereby abdicating any influence on the process, or you can choose the least worst option and attempt to at least get a better outcome.

Modern politics is mostly about choosing the least worst option.