The Federalist: Why Republicans raping/marrying teenagers should be tolerated

[Travis B]

Lol the federalist, really? I mean the other one was a major publication. You really had to drudge the bottom of the barrel for this shit. Bravo.

Supertony links to The Federalist all the time. I really don't think he's the type of person to use bottom of the barrel sources.

[Dontrike]

How about we make a thread where "Why Republicans/Democrats raping/marrying/sexual assaulting should NEVER be tolerated!" because that's the only one that makes any sense and the only one anyone should care about, but nope, we live in a world where people are actually arguing for it on on both sides.

[Skroe]

It's a philosophical problem on both sides, it really is. The strictly binary, lesser-of-two-evils choice versus matter of principle. We saw this most prominently in the presidential election with matter-of-principle, Never Trump conservatives like Ben Shapiro versus binary choice conservatives like David Limbaugh. @Skroe is a well-known matter-of-principle conservative around here, while I have historically been lesser-of-two-evils.

But we've seen it on the left and the right. The glaring example with Trump on the right. To the left now with Nina Burleigh over Bill Clinton, or Pelosi of Conyers until just recently after a fiery response by Kathleen Rice. Back to the right with Moore. Now back to the left with Kate Harding. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a partisan phenomenon. It's a philosophical evaluation that is not entirely without merit.


People such as Nina Burleigh or Tully Borland took a stance more common than anyone would like to admit. That issues are so important that serious ethical issues can't compete. In Burleigh's case, abortion rights are so important, she famously wrote, she'd attend to Bill Clinton herself as long he kept abortion legal. In Borland's case, abortion is such an important issue, we need to plug our noses and vote for a credibly alleged child molester. The events are very different in severity, but the principle is the same: My candidate can break just about any moral or legal standard because the issues they defend are too important. As I said, this is not a position that's wholly undeserving of being discussed if you truly believe that the alternative is catastrophic rights violations for all American women, or if you believe that the lives of unborn babies are on the line.

All that said, there are people moving to the middle. I called for Moore to step down immediately. I do view abortion as an important issue, but I find it impossible to fling myself onto the alter of binary choice when we're talking about a child molester. Does that mean those who do are indefensible in their position? I don't think they necessarily are.

"Lesser of two evils" within the bright yellow lines of relative normalcy, between left and right, is perfectly legitimate.

The core issue is though is that Donald Trump and Roy Moore are very far on the outside of the bright yellow lines. To apply the "lesser of two evils" argument to them basically means there is no such thing as a minimum standard when faced with having to side with your "tribe". That's ridiculous so long as one principle remains true: we're all Americans before we're liberal, conservative or moderate.

I feel that is true. That is why I happily call liberals my friends and legitimately mean it. I disagree with many things they want, but I have no doubt about their desire for wanting them. That is how politicsnormally operates.

Donald Trump and his supporters are emphatically not that. He's a destructive person and they are cynical, destructive people who want to hurt. They aren't interested in winning an argument among family members (so to speak). They're interested in domination and destruction.

Donald Trump is so far below the minimum standard and is so far outside those bright yellow lines, that anyone supporting him is making a profound moral compromises.

You justify his supreme court pick by standing with a sexual Predator like Donald Trump? That's a stain on your moral character.

You justify his supreme court pick by standing with a man who insults and mocks the disabled, minorities, immigrants and women? That's a stain on your moral character.

You justify his supreme court pick by standing with a man who debases our time honored and critical institutions and traditions? That's a stain on your moral character.

You justify his supreme court pick by standing with a man who marvels at autocratic regimes and insults our allies? That's a stain on your moral character.

You justify his supreme court pick by standing with a man who lies every day and hurls insults that poison our political discourse? That's a stain on your moral character.


We're getting a pretty good measure of the cost of a person's soul. Turns out for many Americans, it's cheap as hell. Surely, they all can't be so new to understanding how politics works that they think there is an ounce of permanence to their great moral compromise right? That is to say, they've sold their moral character out for a Supreme Court pick, and the next liberal President - because let's be clear, there will be one - will undo legitimately everything Trump has wrought as easy as Trump has undid Obama.

This manner of "getting things done" is imbecilic to the extreme precisely because of this. Unless there is a consensus is protected over the long term by a broad base of sstakeholders, anything and everything can and will be undone. Republicans have made a VERY specific point of illustrating this with Obamacare... and we're to believe the same won't happen with Trump? Of course it will. It's insanity to somehow suggest that Trumpkins and Trump in this regard are any different than Obama and the True believers. Ramming things down people's throat is the surest way to get them to throw it back up.

So in the end, the moral compromise will be for nothing. The next liberal President will get to appoint a whole slew of judges. The next liberal President will get to engage in an "America is back" foreign policy tour that is just going to piss every Trumpkin off. The next liberal President will sign budgets that do direct money to causes they despise and start to say nice things about Islam.

"the lesser of two evils" normally works, because it is within bounds. Here, it is so out of bounds, the rebound is going to be so energetic as to wipe it out.

But regardless of that, I will be able to look at myself in the mirror and say "I stood against Trump because of who he was from nearly the start", for the rest of my life. You folks who compromised. You're somehow going to have to find a way to live with yourselves when it comes crashing down at worst, or at best, all comes to nothing when the next liberal President undoes your ambitions.

[Moralgy]

Supertony links to The Federalist all the time. I really don't think he's the type of person to use bottom of the barrel sources.

What you learn next might surprise you!

Politics have become such a shitshow these days that no matter what someone does "their side" will support them. I can understand not voting for the democrat in the race... but still voting for the child predator is just fucking incomprehensible. Just don't vote instead of actively helping the monster get into office.

[Rukh]

Well, it's interesting to see how far right wing evangelicals have fallen down the rabbit hole of immorality.

The religious right have ...interesting priorities.

[Smitzelplix]

Is that image with the church sign real and where is the source for this image? I just can't believe it's getting this bad.

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself on this one. At first I thought this sign couldn't be real that somehow it was shopped or something weird like that, but it's definitely real.

An Alabama church is coming under fire for a sign on its billboard that compared Roy Moore, the state’s controversial Republican Senate candidate, to Jesus.

There's even video of the sign at the top of the article.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000313

This church is now getting ripped apart on their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Livin...13856895303833

[Kujako]

There's even video of the sign at the top of the article.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ushpmg00000313

This church is now getting ripped apart on their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Livin...13856895303833

Don't worry, the tax bill makes it all nice and legal.