76 Republican staffer and long-term director of financial operations for Seattle Republicans Larry Corrigan pleaded guilty for attempted rape of a 13-year-old girl

77 Republican talk show host Scott Eller Cortelyou plead guilty on charges of using the Internet to try and lure a child into a sexual relationship with him

78 Republican constable Joshua Dickens sentenced to five years in prison for torture-related activities against a young woman.

79 Republican spokesman Brian Doyle arrested for trying to seduce a 14-year-old girl over the Internet. He was later sentenced to 5 years in prison

80 Republican campaign official and former Romney staffer Matthew Joseph Elliott convicted of sexual exploitation of a child Got a great deal, but really went astray, ending up murdering a child.

81 Republican party chair Donald Fleischman was charged with two counts of child enticement and one count of exposing himself to a child

82 Republican Michael Flory, former head of the Michigan Young American Foundation, raped a colleague at convention

83 Richard Gardner, a Nevada State Representative (R), admitted to molesting his two daughters and 34% of voters still voted for him. That 7 over the Keyes Constant!

84 George Roche III resigned as president of conservative Hillsdale College in Michigan after accusations of a quasi-incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law, Lissa. This is an exception to my no adultery rule because yuck, his daughter-in-law. How could he do that to his son?

85 Bishop Paprocki is not a sexual predator, but he protects them. He protected and enabled pedophile priests. He engages in partisanship to order Democratic politicians be denied communion by all priests in his diocese, including Dick Durbin

86 Republican high-level Bush appointee Dr. David Hager sodomized his wife while she slept. She divorced him for it.

87 Republican sheriff Don Haidl used his office to try to smear the victim that was gang raped. The main perpetrator was Haidl’s son, who poisoned the victim. Sheriff Haidl claims that the girl deserved it because she was a "slut." The original story I linked is now 404, but here is another one.

88 Republican activist Neal Horsley admits to having had sex with a mule. Horsley also wants all homosexuals arrested and solicited murders of abortion providers on his Nuremberg files site.

89 Conservative Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston covered up thousands of instances of sexual molestation by fellow conservative members of the clergy.

90 Republican congressman Joseph McDade charged with exposing his genitalia to two women on a public beach

91 Republican delegate Robert McKee resigns after police seized two computers and videotapes from his home pertaining to child pornography

92 Republican blowhard TV personality Bill O’Reilly paid several million dollars to settle a sexual harassment suit with Andrea Mackris.

93 Republican mega-preacher Marshal Seymour arrested on charges of having sex with underage boys. Seymour had been jailed almost a decade earlier for similar charges in a different state

94 White supremacist National Vanguard leader Kevin Alfred Strom arrested and charged with child pornography

95 Daniel Dean Thompson founded a family-values film company that removed all the "bad parts" from films to make them family-friendly front for child porn, arrested for having sex with 14-year-old

96 Wharton prof & conservative consultant on media effects on children Lawrence Scott Ward had video of himself having sex with children. Sex tourist

97 Spokane Republican homophobic mayor Jim West recalled after evidence surfaced that he molested little boys

98 Focus on the Family's Steve Wilsey - molesting an 8-year-old boy

99 Republican Southern Baptist megachurch pastor Paul Williams faces charges of molesting his son

100 Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, Glenn Murphy Jr., from Indiana was busted for assaulting another man. Not the first time it's happened.

Also,

Matthew Reilly, Cranston City council member and chairman of the Cranston Republican Party caught passed out in the drivers seat of his car after smoking crack. He had cocaine, fentanyl, and crack all over the open car where anyone including children could grab it.

Let me guess, your answer will be some random person’s tweet having nothing to do with republicans smoking crack and fucking children.

Lol. Talk about lack of self awareness.
Bob, you not only don’t ever know what the truth is on any topic…you don’t know what truth is. You’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole of lies you excuse and ignore that you’ve lost your grasp on the difference between reality and partisan propaganda….not that it was ever a firm grip. Actually congratulating the president for lying under oath, which you admitted he did, was 100% proof that truth and honesty mean nothing to you, only partisanship.
That’s why I won’t talk to you privately anymore, lest you forget. You say and act one way in private, and another in public. The thing is, private, somewhat reasonable Bob can’t be forgiven for what public dishonest agitator bob says constantly….it makes it worse knowing you have the capacity for rational thought but publicly denounce it.

Truth, and the truth, aren’t on internet troll sites that put “news” in their name…but they’re the only place you EVER look. It’s made you a ridiculous caricature of a Republican, a ridiculous delusional laughing stock….so insane you claim Clinton loving Democrat Trump who switched parties for convenience because Republicans will believe any lie you feed them (his words) is a real Republican, and all those in office pre 2016 are RINOs.

"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans." In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat." - DJT. Another pretty bad disaster under Republicans, the worst ever. 2020 was the worst year in history on uncountable fronts all due to Trump’s lack of rational leadership.

If you put Trump’s political affiliations by year next to his presidential campaigns, you might notice he quits the Democratic Party a year or so before each one, starting in 87, then wanders back later. That’s because he knows Democrats are too intelligent to vote for him, but Republicans are just his kind of dumb rube….willing to believe anything if it’s posed as an anti liberal idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

https://slate.com/technology/2017/11/why-conservatives-are-more-susceptible-to-believing-in-lies.html

The Electoral College is a great idea. It levels the playing field across all states.

As you stated""" inserting partisanship into vote counting, assaulting the integrity of the process and subjecting poll workers to death threats isn't creating a "honest vote system", it's degrading the most fundamental principle of democracy.""

That is what happens to conservatives in major democrat cities during the counting. Glad we are on the same page.

Bob,

I agree with your points below, but the limiting polling places, inserting partisanship into vote counting, assaulting the integrity of the process and subjecting poll workers to death threats isn't creating a "honest vote system", it's degrading the most fundamental principle of democracy.

If you really believed in voting honesty, you'd be railing against the Electoral College.

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

Having situations where lapdogs rubber stamping nominees because they're on the same side is "check and balance"?

I absolutely believe if the situation is reversed, I fully expect the same shenanigans from the Democrats abusing their power. That's politics and there lay the core issue.

The SCOTUS should be as apolitical as possible. A system where the people or the other parties CAN get no say by design... that's madness. That's a broken system that need to be fixed.

The founding fathers or the Constitution may have faith in the system. But today, there's ample proof that their faith is misplaced. Hyper-partisanship has FUBAR everything in Washington.

"I dream of a day where each waking day we rise equal".

You sure about that bro?

You're equating a cult with voting Republican. Not super helpful. But hey, anything to maintain partisanship, right?

The scary thing is, absolutely none of what he said about Brexit wasn't known before the vote. Also, pretty much none of it was known by the British public.

The politicians on both sides tried to fight it on slogans rather than facts, and the press did practically nothing to improve the situation. The American press get a lot of flak for partisanship, but they've got nothing on the Brits.

In fact, completely unsurprisingly, the British press came dead last out of the 33 countries in a recent EU poll on how much the people trust the press. Have a guess how much coverage this got there.

It really annoys me, and we Irish are supposed to hate the Brits.

Also: "Thatcher In The Rye". Brilliant. Still sniggering.

Also also: there are also plenty of good arguments for Brexit, but they got equally terrible coverage.

No.
It shows us a pitfall of early voting. Most, the vast majority of votes, were cast before he assaulted the reporter.
He was always expected to win by a landslide both before and after he lost it on tape and blatantly lied about it assuming the Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't.
Because of early voting, last minute surprises like this barely matter....unless he gets the maximum sentence, which is appropriate. If ever there was someone the courts should use to set an example with, it's a violent elected official.

That's not to say he would have lost if early voting wasn't the norm there. Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality and rationality on the altar of partisanship. Like Trump said, they could murder people publicly in cold blood and not lose votes. This means they're fine electing people who display this kind of total lack of self control and poor decision making processes along with a proven willingness to bold faced lie to the public to represent us as long as the tie they wear is red.
It's far less about Democrats, the minority there, than it is about a total lack of civility, honesty, or basic self control in Republican leaders and their voters accepting that, even relishing it.

And btw, Democrats ARE Americans....since you're confused again.

@bobknight33
thanks for replying mate.
it is interesting that when you remove labels,the majority of people tend to overlap politically.

even YOU are conceding that there are some liberal/progressive policies that are simply common sense.

which is what @newtboy is pointing out,and was my main goal in getting you to clarify.

and you did.

partisanship serves only those who wish to dominate and control.it never serves the people.

@bobknight33
unsure if you are gloating that you uncovered some deep,dark secret,and are exposing some political conspiracy.

or are just re-iterating what i already posted.

for years i have seen you promote and tout the validity and necessity of the tea party for those who may be disgruntled with the mainstream republican party.

a party that started with modest means,but is now funded by some of the most wealthy and influential political players in our country:the koch bothers.

they even changed their name to the freedom caucus.
and they nominate candidates,and come out to support them.

so how is the tea party,which broke away from the establishment republicans to promote a politics that is more in line with the constitution,ANY different from the people who are sick and tired of corporate,establishment democrats? who ALSO have decided that enough is enough and have banded together to nominate their own candidates,and support those candidates to represent THEIR politics and ideological philosophies.

how,exactly,is that different?

because while you may disagree with justice democrats politically,and i suspect you do,you should also be proud that they are taking a stand and sticking up for their beliefs.

are you SO unaware of your own bias,prejudice and hyper-partisanship as to not recognize when a group of people are doing the EXACT same thing as your tea party did?

be careful bob,your bias and hypocrisy are showing.
and you are becoming a partisan hack,attacking any and everything that is contrary to your own politics,even when in reality it is performing the very same thing that you state to admire.

so what is more important to you?
honesty,integrity and sticking to your moral values?
or political affilliations?

because i can disagree with someones politics,and still admire and respect them standing up for their values.(that includes you bob).

i gather this is something you are incapable of doing,because in bob's world"politics trumps everything else,end of discussion.

if you want to sully your eyes a bit,check out what the justice democrats are seeking to do,and what their base philosophy is:
https://justicedemocrats.com/platform

*promote
*quality

Please expand, because while I can see that he's picking and choosing some easy targets for criticism (over the top SJW stuff) that may not be representative of the at-large "Progressive" agenda, nothing really jumped out at me as a "straw man" argument.

I'm a somewhat conservative-leaning person (at least on issues that I think should be in the realm of government), but I feel like I have a legitimate beef with some of what the party that is "supposed" to cater to conservatives actually does in government; what the GOP seems to present as its "platform".

This guy is a liberal-leaning person who feels like he has a legitimate beef with some of what his party thinks their platform should be. And I tend to agree with a lot of what he's saying.

And I would hope that even if I didn't agree with anything that he was saying, I'd be all for protecting his right to say his piece. Some people/groups test our patience for that, like the Westboro Baptist Church -- ostensibly a crazy right-wing organization that just wants to get their message (of hate and bigotry) out there. But in reality they are just a bunch of con men who stir up trouble in order to provoke violent or other responses that they can start litigation over. The point is, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with idiots like that.

Threats to free speech from the other side of spectrum are much more subtle, and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous. For example, at about 3:00 in the video where he lists "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and islamophobia" as "meaningless buzzwords". For many people, those words are NOT meaningless, but real, concrete problems that they actually have to face in their lives. Problems many orders of magnitude more significant and weighty than any of the minutia that can make or ruin our average day. Unfortunately, those words do tend to carry a lot less weight when they are bandied about willy-nilly every time we disagree with someone for any reason.

I guess, we all really do have more things in common with each other than things that separate us from each other. The frequent and extreme factionalizing and partisanship today seems very counter productive. And there's plenty of blame for that to go around.

The best way to explain it is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. basically predicted that someday there could be an outcome like the most recent election, where people voted based on their emotions (fear, anger, hatred--all the Dark Side stuff) and not on logic or reason.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the common man to be educated enough to always make reasonable decisions and wanted to ensure that there was a brake in place to prevent "mob rule." That "brake" is the Electoral College, a collection of (ostensibly) politically-educated individuals who could prevent demagogues (like Trump) from taking power.

I think this is the first time in history where the Electoral College can do the job it was intended to do. If the Electors put aside political partisanship, they'll recognize how putting a completely inexperienced, hate-inducing liar into the White House is a terrible idea and ensure Trump doesn't get the Presidency.

Of course, Electors not voting along party lines is in actuality highly unlikely to happen as, in the end, Electors are all long-standing and high-ranking Democrat or Republican Party members. I mean, if you were a Republican Elector whose party had spent the last eight years without a Presidential win, watching time and again as legislation in a Republican controlled congress gets vetoed down by a Democratic president, even a man like Trump is going to start to look tempting. So the safe bet is that Trump gets elected anyway and the Elector College proves itself again to be a pointless institution for this and all the other reasons explained in the video.

Look, here's the thing--even if there was a perfect 3rd party candidate and even if you could convince Americans to vote for them over the Democratic/Republican candidates, with Congress controlled by Democrats and Republicans (who seem more hellbent than ever on partisanship) the 3rd party President wouldn't be able to get anything meaningful done anyway.

America doesn't need a viable 3rd party candidate, it needs a viable 3rd party (and 4th, etc.)--one that people believe in enough to help win a decent number of seats in the House and Senate as well as in state elections. Until such a party appears, a vote for a 3rd party candidate really is "spoiler" vote.

Honestly, if Bernie just broke away from the Democratic party and started a new one I think there would be a shot at creating such a viable 3rd party but I understand exactly why he didn't--such a split at the current time might actually guarantee the Republicans the presidency even with their current clown candidate.

Very nearly. There was a token cross-over vote here and there, but pretty much straight partisanship. Super.