LEFTIST PEDO & GENERAL IDIOCY MEGATHREAD
- Thread starter _glaciers
- Start date
Crybaby
Why does this site allow harassment?
Does rivals know that the owners of this site allow someone to stalk and harass someone regarding a topic like suicide? Is this activity representative of UCF fans in general?
ucf.forums.rivals.com
Just abort the thing. Not sure why they are mad about something that could have easily been solved in a safe, legal, and rare manner.
While I understand the couple feels ... 'betrayed,' they had 60% of the rest of the pregnancy to 'come to terms with it.' That said, this was the most disturbing quote ...
'After the baby boy was born, Heather said she could not bear touching him because it "sent electric shockwaves through me." She said she also experienced "extreme anxiety" because when she looked at her son, he would "contort into the faces of all these grown men that I know." She said she experienced "complex postpartum depression," including "several incidences of suicidal ideation."'
That just wants to make me puke. It's a sickening form of misandry to take it out on an innocent child, and just really troubling that she sees men like that in general, especially an innocent child. I don't think they realize they are stereotyping all men, starting with this child. I'm glad they 'came around' to 'loving' the child, but still ...
Now, the couple declares they love their son. But they are suing the clinic because they claimed the fertility clinic, by implanting a male embryo in Heather, robbed their son of an emotional connection with his mother.
'"We think our son deserved that bond from the start," Heather said.
The couple told the New York Post they did not want a son because Heather experienced sexual assault when she was younger, and because of gruff male stereotypes.
"We didn’t want to have a boy because of the assaults and because of the socialization of boys — there’s constant socialization of what it means to be a 'real man.' People say, 'Oh, he’s a boy, let him hit you,' and all the camouflage and guns don’t help. It reinforces masculinity, and that’s a reminder of the assaults every time," Heather told the Post.'
I think this level of 'intolerance' and 'broad stereotyping' is kinda just ... well, speaks for itself. But the clinic did f'up, especially giving a son to a couple that despises men. That is the one constant!
Imagine being that kid in about 10 or 12 years when he reads this article. That's gonna screw with his mind.
The only person that robbed their son of his connection to his mother is his mother. This kid is in for a tough life. That quote is wholly bigoted and they don't even know it.
It was pretty strange of him compliment her like he did, then say he wouldnt vote for her. I dont know if that reason is racism, but lets be honest, he would have a tougher time with GOP voters if he voted to confirm, so it isnt out of the question that he is at least playing to other peoples racism.
You can compliment a job applicant and still not hire them without there being any underlying reason beyond just not thinking they are qualified.
They were most certainly playing to the Qanon crowd. Obviously they can ask questions about past cases, but you dont think there is a reason they all focused on the same cases?
But he didnt give any underlying reasons and her qualifications match up with everyone else on the court, and you can argue she has even more qualifications than a few of them.
I didnt remotely suggest that. I am saying all of this is political, nothing more. First off, she didnt let any of these people off which is the narative the right is trying to run with. And, she explained pretty clearly in her testimony about sentencing guidelines and he explained how congress not changing the guidelines for a digital age, makes sentencing more difficult. But also let me add, Qanon is political, nothing more. This idea they are truly fighting pedophilia is about as naive as it gets. Where is Qanon with regards to Gaetz? Trump? Both who have been accused of doing things with underage girls. Sure, they will say Tom Hanks is a pedophile, but then support other people with far more credible allegations of it.
I dont think any of those 3 have been credibly accused, but the cases that she ruled on involved actual physical evidence. It's reasonable to ask why she gave lighter sentences on them and why she doesn't remember the thought process that was used.
It is reasonable to ask, and her answers were also reasonable. One of them was an 18 year kid who had nude pictures of like 15 and 16 year olds who sent them to him. Do you think that warrants like 50 years in prison or something along those lines? If so, then our prisons are going to be littered with 18 and 19 year old high school kids.
They have been just as credibly accused as other people qanon thinks are pedophiles. You cant have this both ways. If Qanon really cares about pedophillia, then they cant just blame liberals, in many cases with little to no reason, while ignoring Republicans. This is also a group that believes JFK jr is still alive, so why are we even pretending these are serious people doing serious things? Qanon people are losers, and the political class is playing to them for votes, nothing else.
Isn't the fact that Qanon is such a tiny fringe minority enough to prove that these questions weren't intended to play to them?
It isnt as fringe a minority as you are making it out to be. THe Qanon ideas have certainly seeped into the mainstream Republican party, at least to an extent. MTG was a Qanon nutter who was elected to congress, and quite honestly gets tons of interviews, shows up at Trump rallies, even did like a tour around different states with Matt Gaetz. And dont be surprised if you see more elected this year. She isnt fringe. Plus, they are confident they arent going to lose the support of mainstream Republicans, but they could lose the support of these people. So from a strategic standpoint, it makes sense to play to people you might lose, instead of playing to the people you know you arent going to lose.
But you also didnt answer my question. Do you think 18 and 19 year old kids, should be sent to prison for years for having nude pictures of a 16 year old?
Which ideas have seeped into mainstream republican beliefs? The part about there being a group of rich elite pedophiles? Because I'm pretty sure that one has been proven true.
The part where they think it is only liberals that do it.
You still didnt answer my question, so I will ask now for the 3rd time. Do you think a 18 or 19 year old should be sent to prison for years for having nude pictures of teenage girls?
Not enough information. If a 16 or 17 year old sends an 18 or 19 year old a nude picture, obviously no I don't think that is worthy of prison time.
I agree with you, but that is basically one of the cases that Republicans kept going after her on to make her out that she is soft on pedophilia. She did give the kid a sentence because he shared the pictures, but it wasnt as long as Republicans want it to be apparently, so now she is soft on pedophilia I guess. She basically determined that an 18 year old with nude pictures of teens, wasnt as severe a crime as a 50 year old who had nude pictures of a 10 year old child, which I agree with her on. All of these cases are more complicated than what the senators asking questions make them out to be, because they are looking to sell a narrative, not actually examine the case.
Well, the fact that he shared it does kind of change things. That shouldn't be taken lightly.
Ok but he was sentenced to prison and I believe house arrest after, so I dont necessarily consider that light, but that is obviously debatable I suppose. ANd I do think there is a difference in pictures, than there are in actually doing the act. Neither are good obviously, but one is worse than the other. But also, Lindsey Graham voted to confirm her just last year, with the full knowledge of this case. So why would he confirm her then, but now act like she is light on pedophilia? Well, because he doesnt really think she is light on pedophilia, it is because the cameras were rolling for this hearing, and he had to virtue signal to his base.
I believe that I said earlier in this thread that I thought some of the questions were BS. That being said, this is a much more serious issue than some people realize and if we are going to appoint someone to the position of actually being the arbiter of what is OK or not, they probably need to be much more concise in their answers.
I dont think these hearings are really for answers. To try and break down someones legal career you need a lot more time than a few days. She has been involved in over 1000 cases I believe, so to think a few questions over a days (many of the questions being similar, others being pointless), is impossible to to really determine if she is qualified. And I will also add, most of these people have some cases you can point to and have questions about. Barrett over turned a settlement a pregnant woman received because she was raped over and over by a corrections officer, so should we argue she is light on pregnant people being raped? By Republican logic, then yes. Gorsuch had a case where a truck driver was fired because he was late for a delivery, because he wouldnt drive his truck over a mountain during a blizzard. So should we argue Gorsuch thinks truck drivers should risk their safety and drive through hazardous conditions? By Republican logic, yes. . NOw, I am sure there is more to these cases than the average person knows, but that is what these hearings provide. They provide soundbites for legal cases and legal cases arent soundbite material. The only reason this one sticks out to Republicans, is because of the Republican fascination with pedophilia, which most certainly stems directly from Qanon.
Similar threads
