Another pedophile running for Congress

[Checkmite]

In Virginia this time; his name is Nathan Larson and he has run pro-pedophilia message boards, as well as one for "incels" which advocates "making the jailbaits our rape-slaves" as a solution to their frustrations. This Huffington Post article contains a few quotes from some of his posts and some of them are quite amazing. He self-describes as a "hebephilic rapist" although at one point he expresses a desire to have sex with his daughter, who is three years old (and not in his custody, thankfully).

He believes that running a pro-Trump platform will garner votes despite his pro-rape/pro-pedophile/pro-womenkilling positions because that camp of voters will turn a blind eye to questions of morality or ethics as long as a candidate parrots the faux anti-establishment populism closely enough - which is correct of at least a good portion of them, as we have all witnessed over the past year (Moore being a shining example).

[Foolmewunz]

In before partisan accusations of "He's a Typical Republican/Democrat".


He's running as an independent. No one claims him.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

He believes that running a pro-Trump platform....

Let me just point out that the reference to his "pro-Trump platform" in the original article consists of this one quote at the end of the piece:

Quote:

He continued, “A lot of people who disagreed with someone like Trump … might vote for them anyway just because the establishment doesn’t like them.”

They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means. It sounds like a Hail Mary pass.

BTW, guess who we have to thank for the fact that this clown can vote, let alone run for office? Terry McAwful:

Quote:

Larson’s political ambitions span more than a decade. He first ran for Congress in Virginia’s 1st District in 2008 on what he described as an “anarcho-capitalist” platform. That same year, he sent a letter to the Secret Service threatening to kill the president, which landed him in federal prison for 14 months and barred him from seeking public office.

But in 2016, then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) restored voting and other civil rights to thousands of felons, allowing Larson to campaign yet again. In 2017 he ran in Virginia’s House of Delegates District 31 and secured less than 2 percent of the vote. Now he is gunning for a seat in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District.

And the president he threatened to kill was George W. Bush.

So I'm going to go with total kook with zero connection to Trump or the Republicans. Only connection to the Democrats is that this is the kind of guy they think should have his voting rights restored.

[Mumbles]

...

...

Well, technically, that just means he's *attracted* to children. As long as he doesn't actually advocate hurting them, I guess maybe there's some possi-

Originally Posted by Checkmite

In Virginia this time; his name is Nathan Larson and he has run pro-pedophilia message boards, as well as one for "incels" which advocates "making the jailbaits our rape-slaves" as a solution to their frustrations.

dammit. Well, that puts him firmly in R. Kelly territory, then. Nope, no use for him.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Brainster

They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means.

Well, you know what - that's fair. But:

Quote:

“A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it,” he said. “People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds.”

...

According to Larson’s campaign manifesto, his platform as a “quasi-neoreactionary libertarian” candidate includes protecting gun ownership rights, establishing free trade and protecting “benevolent white supremacy,"...

...

In the manifesto, Larson called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a “white supremacist hero.” He urged Congress to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, adding, “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands.” He also showed sympathy for men who identify as involuntary celibates, or incels, suggesting it is unfair that they “are forced to pay taxes for schools, welfare, and other support for other men’s children.”

There's a very specific and well-defined political philosophy that's on display in these statements; and as a practical matter of fact it is a philosophy whose adherents in the present day support Donald Trump. There is nothing at all that ambiguous about it.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Well, you know what - that's fair. But:



There's a very specific and well-defined political philosophy that's on display in these statements; and as a practical matter of fact it is a philosophy whose adherents in the present day support Donald Trump. There is nothing at all that ambiguous about it.

And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

I'll tell you why. Because McAwful couldn't be bothered reviewing every case to see who deserved their rights restored or not, for the simple reason that they assumed most ex-felons would vote for the Democrats. Let them all vote.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let me just point out that the reference to his "pro-Trump platform" in the original article consists of this one quote at the end of the piece:



They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means. It sounds like a Hail Mary pass.

I wouldn't say he running a Trump platform, but he makes a connection to Trump himself. From his site (archived link):

Quote:

"Donald Trump has already brought about a cultural change by ushering in a new era of politicians whose passionate desire to have sex with their own daughters is so intense that they cannot resist expressing it to the whole world."

Quote:

"(If you oppose fascism, then I would say, don't worry about Donald Trump becoming strong enough to crush all his enemies under his boot. Worry about Trump not being strong enough to control his own supporters. Worry about the men whom Trump disavows as being too dangerous for him to associate with. Be smart like the Jews; they know that Trump protects them by serving as a calming influence on the more radical fascist elements, keeping them satisfied with various token gestures in support of their agenda. Support Trump, love Trump, because he is the one who keeps you safe at night. But also put up resistance against Trump, because in so doing, you create the appearance of Trump's gaining victories against a vigorous opposition, and thereby keep most of the fascists distracted from the behind-the-scenes collusion that is really going on. Unfortunately for you, not all fascists will fall for that.)

Quote:

"In gathering signatures, you're also asking women to do what you want, and they're saying yes, because society has said what you're asking them to do is totally normal and beneficial. Well, isn't that just how they're going to be after the revolution? Society will say to young women, 'You should marry this incel' and they'll do it because women tend to happily go with the flow when given instructions by the patriarchs in their family, their church, their society? As a candidate for public office, you're sort of a quasi-patriarch, so they automatically feel drawn to obey what you tell them to do. (As Donald Trump said, 'when you're a star, they let you do it.')

Quote:

"Do I favor Trump over his opponents? I voted for Gary Johnson, but I would've voted for Trump over Hillary if those had been the only two choices. Still, I wouldn't have weeped if Hillary had won, because I know she's not really all that different than Trump, other than in her rhetoric. At any rate, accelerationism is a plausible idea.

So he disagrees with Trump, but certainly draws inspiration from him.

Quote:

Only connection to the Democrats is that this is the kind of guy they think should have his voting rights restored.

That's as fair as saying the NRA thinks Omar Mateen is the kind of guy they think should have the right to bear arms.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

I'll tell you why. Because McAwful couldn't be bothered reviewing every case to see who deserved their rights restored or not, for the simple reason that they assumed most ex-felons would vote for the Democrats. Let them all vote.

Yeah, this guy having the right to vote is clearly the upsetting part here. Not that there is a rather large portion of Trump voters who might well be interested in a platform like this.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

I'll tell you why. Because McAwful couldn't be bothered reviewing every case to see who deserved their rights restored or not, for the simple reason that they assumed most ex-felons would vote for the Democrats. Let them all vote.

Right, it certainly isn't because, as it is most other democracies, people believe that disenfranchisement of felons is wrong. And Democrats support social welfare spending because they want to bribe voters too, I'm sure .

[zorro99]

He sure sounds like a Trumpian

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Brainster

They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means. It sounds like a Hail Mary pass.

Hey, if you are stupid and crazy enough to even consider voting for Donald Trump, let alone doing so, then WHY NOT?!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Hey, if you are stupid crazy and enough to even consider voting for Donald Trump, let alone doing so, then WHY NOT?!

I'm just gonna leave this here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

I'll tell you why. Because McAwful couldn't be bothered reviewing every case to see who deserved their rights restored or not, for the simple reason that they assumed most ex-felons would vote for the Democrats. Let them all vote.

Sorry, you think the major issue[1] here is that an ex-felon has a right to vote?

The overwhelming majority of ex-felons are not as whackadoodle as this guy and this guy would be a whackadoodle whether he had been convicted previously or not.

[1] Honestly, I don't see a "major" issue here in any case. Local nutjob runs for office, loses obviously. Roy Moore had a shot at it, but this guy don't.

[shemp]

Yeah, he gets like what, maybe 30 votes? Not losing sleep over this.

[Toontown]

It's not about how many votes he gets. It's about the fact that he feels empowered to run.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Toontown

It's not about how many votes he gets. It's about the fact that he feels empowered to run.

He also feels that having sex with children is a good idea. How exactly do you think you can read anything meaningful out of his feelings?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Yeah, this guy having the right to vote is clearly the upsetting part here. Not that there is a rather large portion of Trump voters who might well be interested in a platform like this.

Er, have we really established that a rather large portion of Trump voters support this platform?

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Well, you know what - that's fair. But:



There's a very specific and well-defined political philosophy that's on display in these statements; and as a practical matter of fact it is a philosophy whose adherents in the present day support Donald Trump. There is nothing at all that ambiguous about it.

I'm not sure I'd consider "Quasi-neoreactionary libertarian" well defined. Add quasi to anything pretty much makes it ambiguous.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Toontown

It's not about how many votes he gets. It's about the fact that he feels empowered to run.

That doesn't really bother me. I don't think that this incident normalizes his nonsense. (Really, "nonsense" is too gentle a word for his avowed position, which is, evidently, missionary with a prepubescent.)

[phiwum]

Quote:

He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about raping his late ex-wife.

HuffPo no longer uses editors? That is a terribly constructed sentence.

Sorry, just pedantic bitching, but still.

[Trebuchet]

Meh. Not a serious candidate, much like the Illinois Nazi Republican. There's lots wrong with that party, this isn't one of those things.

[Mooseman]

I agree he did his time, rights should be restored. No surprise that the are strange people no side owns the lot. Now how many votes will he get? ! or 2 percent?

[mgidm86]

Headline:

Quote:

Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He’s A Pedophile

OMG see! All the Republicans are sick bastards!


Sentence in actual story:

Quote:

Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state.

Oh so it's just some idiot and he's not running as a Repunlican. But hey that headline will get people talking! Who reads the articles if they agree with how I feel?

This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.

Some quality journalism going on these days. Hey, I hear racism may still be going on. But that's okay because Starbucks made their employees watch videos of blacks being beaten by cops as part of the racial awareness training.

This is going so well.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Headline:



This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.[/hilite]

The headline of the article does not support your screed - it makes no mention of party affiliation, or political slant. Way to prove the highlighted point.

[logger]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

The headline of the article does not support your screed - it makes no mention of party affiliation, or political slant. Way to prove the highlighted point.

He’s clearly and obviously talking about this threads opinion coming from the left.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by shemp

Yeah, he gets like what, maybe 30 votes? Not losing sleep over this.

Thirty seems a bit high. I bet he's looking for something in the lower teens. But even lower could be fine, apparently.

[BStrong]

A great candidate...for the nature walk.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by logger

He’s clearly and obviously talking about this threads opinion coming from the left.

Given that one of the first posts clearly stated that the candidate in question was an independent, the article stated so clearly, and the title of both made no connection to the political leanings of the candidate - why would anyone take the criticism of the candidate as anything but a criticism of the candidate?

The only criticism from the "left" here seems to be that the candidate is truly a reprehensible human being that is trying to emulate some of the "political outsider" schtick that got some other people elected and that we are hoping that people don't fall for it.

This an opportunity for the political divide to reach across the aisle and criticize someone that no one in their right mind would want as a political representative.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And Terry McAuliffe restored his right to vote and to seek office, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. And why? I mean, who in their right mind would say this is a man who deserves a say in our political system?

Being able to vote, or even being able to run for office, isn't the issue here. As Toontown said, it's the fact that he feels confident running and expressing his political views openly. While the pro-child-molestation stuff is less common, as a right-wing neo-nazi/white-supremacist/misogynist, this fellow is really just another part of the alt-right "bubble", wherein people with this ideology who used to have to keep these kinds of opinions closer to the vest, have now crawled out from under their various rocks and are attempting to become a cultural force, unburdened by the across-the-board condemnation and ridicule that open Nazis dealt even a decade or two ago. And whether or not they agree totally with Donald Trump, or whether they like to call themselves Republican or Democrat or libertarian or independent, like Nathan Larson they all recognize the crucial role Trump has played in empowering that emergence.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Headline:



OMG see! All the Republicans are sick bastards!


Sentence in actual story:



Oh so it's just some idiot and he's not running as a Repunlican. But hey that headline will get people talking! Who reads the articles if they agree with how I feel?

This headline proves that conservatives are rapists - I mean it's a platform conservatives can get behind, or so I've read in this thread. Critical thinking has left the building.

Some quality journalism going on these days. Hey, I hear racism may still be going on. But that's okay because Starbucks made their employees watch videos of blacks being beaten by cops as part of the racial awareness training.

This is going so well.

The headline doesn't suggest that the candidate is a Republican. What are you going on about?

[zorro99]

Roy Moore was also a pedophile. Trump endorsed him.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Being able to vote, or even being able to run for office, isn't the issue here. As Toontown said, it's the fact that he feels confident running and expressing his political views openly.

How do you know we hasn't always expressed his views openly? You aren't hearing about him just because he's speaking out, you're also hearing about him because he's being reported. But reporters don't scientifically sample events. They cherry pick.

So how do you know this reflects an actual change, that it isn't just another Summer of the Shark?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by zorro99

Roy Moore was also a pedophile. Trump endorsed him.

Roy Moore denied the allegations and was focused on high school girls. This guy not only admits wanting to have sex with young girls, he includes his daughter on his wish list.

Endorsing Moore and endorsing this guy are not moral equivalents. Endorsing Moore was bad but endorsing this guy would be much, much worse.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Let me just point out that the reference to his "pro-Trump platform" in the original article consists of this one quote at the end of the piece:



They voted for him they might vote for me doesn't sound like he's endorsing Trump, by any means. It sounds like a Hail Mary pass.

BTW, guess who we have to thank for the fact that this clown can vote, let alone run for office? Terry McAwful:



And the president he threatened to kill was George W. Bush.

So I'm going to go with total kook with zero connection to Trump or the Republicans. Only connection to the Democrats is that this is the kind of guy they think should have his voting rights restored.

He sure sounds trumpf like to me!!!

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

He also feels that having sex with children is a good idea. How exactly do you think you can read anything meaningful out of his feelings?

Given the first sentence, I must assume he has a death wish.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Er, have we really established that a rather large portion of Trump voters support this platform?

Well, given that trumpf voters knew by his own statements he went into the dressing rooms of underage girls I am forced to accept that they do support that.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Roy Moore denied the allegations and was focused on high school girls. This guy not only admits wanting to have sex with young girls, he includes his daughter on his wish list.

Endorsing Moore and endorsing this guy are not moral equivalents. Endorsing Moore was bad but endorsing this guy would be much, much worse.

And what does it all mean when it's a rapist doing the endorsing?

[Norman Alexander]

This guy sounds like a deeply disturbed individual. DEEPLY disturbed, on many levels. Not even tangentially impinging on reality. So I'm going to take his stated intentions of running for office with the same level of concern as if he said he was the Queen of England. That is, zero. He's a disturbed nutjob; his political career is entirely imaginary.

He is far more likely to commit a crime very shortly that will put him back behind bars for an extended period of assessment and treatment, or possibly even taking an early morning walk to a state-sanctioned dirt-nap.

His likelihood of standing for office is zero. Even if, by some extraordinary circumstances, he did stand, he would get only one vote - his own. And possibly not even that because he doesn't sound the least bit mentally competent.

So the idea that he is a Donny or DNC disciple is entirely moot. That Donny would endorse him is another matter. That possibly could happen, but only if there was something in it personally for Donny.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

And what does it all mean when it's a rapist doing the endorsing?

I've not seen conclusive evidence that Trump is a rapist. He claims to have engaged in sexual assault and some have alleged such. His ex also alleged rape, but none of this has been proved.

Don't get me wrong. He's a bastard, but I won't call him a rapist without conclusive evidence.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Er, have we really established that a rather large portion of Trump voters support this platform?

Roy Moore got a lot of votes, and the pedophilia charges against him were very credible. So I'd say there's a significant portion of conservatives that don't see pedophilia as being a disqualifier.

ETA: He was also endorsed by Trump and I believe the RNC (after some initial misgivings).