On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
The world of morality purity testing. According to the democrats or the “left” in america right now, if you don’t pass the test at all times you are scum and should be banned and silenced. I’m just amazed so many people apparently have made not a single mistake in their lives.
I’ll give a good example, I think. Pete Hegseth is bad at his job and says controversial things, and yet all I hear about him is how much he likes drinking. You don’t need the purity test to dislike the guy, and yet its the first choice anyways.
Because bad at his job and says controversial things is subjective, but being an alcoholic in charge of the military, where being an alcoholic gets you kicked out (if discovered), should be disqualifying. It is what should be a common ground view across the political spectrum. If you’re constantly drunk and drink at work, you are not fit to be in charge of the military.
The point I’m making is that there isn’t a single story about him being drunk at his current job, yet all we hear about is how hes an alcoholic. I don’t understand how the possibility he might drink at work outweighs his actual choices and actions.
So, in your mind, setting aside differences in politics and raising concerns about the secretary of defense drinking to excess at work, regularly getting black out drunk, and losing inhibitions while intoxicated to the point of needing to pay someone $50k to drop rape charges is a “purity test”?
Or is it only a purity test when someone says something you agree with is actually a really shitty sentiment?
Maybe you should make note of how “the left” isn’t one person. Being able to find someone for every topic who has a very strong reaction doesn’t make it make sense to combine their opinions and extrapolate that to everyone.
Oh I had no idea all that happened while secretary of defense. So strange how I heard those things before he got the job though.
The point I’m making is that people calling him an alcoholic are late to the party, hes done far dumber stuff than drinking champagne out of a hot tub since hes taken his new position.
And your concern is that people can’t take issue with more than one thing at once? Did those stupid things he’s done recently make him not a rapist with a concerning alcohol problem?
Come to think of it, why does it matter if he raped someone before being appointed or not? We shouldn’t have a rapist as the secretary of defense regardless of when he did it. Likewise we shouldn’t have someone with a concerning alcohol problem handling classified military information.
Frankly speaking, “drunken rapist” is the closest you’re going to get to a “middle of the road” concern about a candidate. Not that it mattered, since as you point out, only the left seems to care about “not putting rapists in positions of high power”.
Is that an extreme example or did he really rape someone?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25362284-hegseth-police-report/
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666
As with all things legal in nature, he raped someone in the lay sense of the word. Legally speaking, he was accused and investigated for sexual assault, with law enforcement finding sufficient grounds to forward the case to prosecutors, who declined to press charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. He later paid the woman $50,000 not to sue in civil court.
What’s insufficient for the courts is more than enough to justify calling him a rapist, particularly since the police usually decline to refer rape cases to prosecutors at all, when they’re even reported to police in an investigative capacity.
Maybe people should mention this instead of whether he drinks or not then? I’m sure you mention it though, so I don’t mean to imply you don’t.