Buttigieg Says He and Same-Sex Husband Hope to Start a Family and May Have Children in White House

[Leo123]

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

Please post your degrees in child psychology . I'm sure that you have several advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of higher learning

I just heard, "I accept what my leaders tell me, because I'm too dumb to think for myself."

I don't have leaders. You do. I get my information from scientific sources and evaluate it carefully. You get lead by the nose by the bigots, fearmongers, and theocrats

Oh, you're "scientific" and "evaluate carefully", do you? Please cite me the studies you personally have read both supporting and opposing your viewpoint, and explain why the ones supporting are superior to the ones opposing.

I'll wait while you cobble together a completely inane and inadequate response.

You asked for it you got it. I don't have to hobble together anything. I have already done the research:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behavior and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"

It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

o 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

o 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

§ Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

§ Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

BS 'studies' paid for by radicals. Nice try though.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not the only "non-traditional family" setup screwing up kids, but . . .

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

Please post your degrees in child psychology . I'm sure that you have several advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of higher learning

I just heard, "I accept what my leaders tell me, because I'm too dumb to think for myself."

I don't have leaders. You do. I get my information from scientific sources and evaluate it carefully. You get lead by the nose by the bigots, fearmongers, and theocrats

Oh, you're "scientific" and "evaluate carefully", do you? Please cite me the studies you personally have read both supporting and opposing your viewpoint, and explain why the ones supporting are superior to the ones opposing.

I'll wait while you cobble together a completely inane and inadequate response.

Here is more:

This is a clear example of the lengths to which opponents of same sex marriage, and child rearing by gays will go in order to manipulate data and distort evidence to support their narrow minded and bigoted agenda. If there was a body of credible evidence to show that having gay parents was in any way detrimental to children, this would not be necessary!

Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court 2.22.14 Selected excerpts follow….the full article can be found at Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court

Scholars testifying in defense of Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage aim to sow doubt about the wisdom of change. They brandish a few sharply disputed recent studies — the fruits of a concerted and expensive effort by conservatives to sponsor research by sympathetic scholars — to suggest that children of same-sex couples do not fare as well as those raised by married heterosexuals.

That view will be challenged in court by longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations, who call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.

In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark HYPERLINK "https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/faculty/mdr93"Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan.

………four social science researchers, all of whom attended at least one of the Heritage Foundation meetings and went on to publish new reports, are scheduled to testify in favor of Michigan’s ban.

The most prominent is Dr. Regnerus. His study, published in 2012, was condemned by leading social scientists as misleading and irrelevant, but some conservatives call it the best of its kind and continue to cite it in speeches and court cases.

Dr. Regnerus found that the subjects in that category fared worse based on a host of behavioral and psychological measures than those who grew up in intact traditional families. The study, Dr. Regnerus wrote, “clearly reveals” that children are most apt to succeed when they grow up “with their married mother and father.”

But professional rejections of Dr. Regnerus’s conclusions were swift and severe. In a friend of the court brief To Better Social Policies, Listen to Beneficiaries – Social Science Space the Supreme Court last year in two same-sex marriage cases, a report by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association noted that more than half the subjects whom Dr. Regnerus had described as children of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers” were the offspring of failed opposite-sex marriages in which a parent later engaged in same-sex behavior, and that many others never lived with same-sex parents.

“If any conclusion can be reached from Regnerus’s study,” the association said, “it is that family stability is predictive of child well-being.”

Wendy D. Manning, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and the main author of the association report, said of the wider literature: “Every study has shortcomings, but when you pull them all together, the picture is very clear. There is no evidence that children fare worse in same-sex families.”


Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court

Michigan Update:

Same-Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional, And This Latest Ruling Proves HYPERLINK "http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/03/21/sex-marriage-bans-unconstitutional-latest-ruling-proves/"That
The “will of the people” argument against same-sex marriage bans falls flat, as Judge Friedman pointed out. Here’s why: Something that is a right shouldn’t be subject to a vote. We should not be able to vote on who gets what rights in a free country. Or we are not truly free. The case against marriage as a right also doesn’t hold water.

It’s time for conservatives to realize that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. It’s also time for the religious right to understand that they can’t continue to push their religious agenda for the purpose of denying equality to a certain group of people. Straight couples take their ability to marry or not for granted. Same-sex couples don’t have that. Since being gay isn’t a choice, they do fall under the Equal Protection clause. Same-sex marriage bans are illegal under the Constitution, and it’s time for the religious right to realize they’ve lost.

The attorney general's defense of Michigan's constitutional ban of same-sex marriage proved the weakness of his case: Expert after expert testified that children are most safe and secure when raised by two committed parents, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. No reputable scientific study has documented harm to children raised by same-sex parents.

Gay marriage ruling moves us forward


In addition the Sociology Department of the University of Texas issued this statement Monday about sociologist Mark Regnerus, who believes traditional marriage should be upheld in Michigan because, he says, kids thrive best in that setting. “Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology… Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of same-sex parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGT partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.” –

See more at: http://www.frontiersla.com/frontiers-blog/2014/03/04/debunked-regnerus-study-analyzed-during-michigan-same-sex-marriage-trial#sthash.vI7wB28r.dpuf



Marriage Equality Opponent Admits ‘No Difference’ Between Same S

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Human beings would soon become extinct if only men poked each other in the butt. What more proof does anyone need to show homosexuality is NOT normal? Pete is a troubled man and should NEVER be allowed to raise children. His Presidential campaign is a joke.

Human being are in no way endangered by homosexuality. Homosexuals have ben a fixed percentage of the population all through history, and they do have children . They are not sterile. The threat to humanity is war and climate change perpetuated by conservatives.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Please post your degrees in child psychology . I'm sure that you have several advanced degrees from prestigious institutions of higher learning

I just heard, "I accept what my leaders tell me, because I'm too dumb to think for myself."

I don't have leaders. You do. I get my information from scientific sources and evaluate it carefully. You get lead by the nose by the bigots, fearmongers, and theocrats

Oh, you're "scientific" and "evaluate carefully", do you? Please cite me the studies you personally have read both supporting and opposing your viewpoint, and explain why the ones supporting are superior to the ones opposing.

I'll wait while you cobble together a completely inane and inadequate response.

You asked for it you got it. I don't have to hobble together anything. I have already done the research:

The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families is the world’s largest attempt to study how children raised by same-sex couples compare to children raised by heterosexual couples. According to a preliminary report on the study of 500 children across the country of Australia, these young people are not only thriving, but also have higher rates of family cohesion than other families:

An interim report found there was no statistical difference between children of same-sex couples and the rest of the population on indicators including self-esteem, emotional behavior and the amount of time spent with parents.

However, children of same-sex couples scored higher than the national average for overall health and family cohesion, measuring how well a family gets along. World’s Largest Study Of Same-Sex Parenting Finds That Children Are Thriving

Children raised by same-sex couples appear to do as well as those raised by parents of both sexes, suggests an international research review that challenges the long-ingrained belief that children need male and female parents for healthy adjustment.

"

It's more about the quality of the parenting than the gender of the parents," says Judith Stacey of New York University, co-author of the comprehensive review. It will be published Friday in the Journal of Marriage and Family. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

A sampling of recent studies of same-sex parenting: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

o 1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

o 1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families." 14

o 2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :

§ Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

§ Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

BS 'studies' paid for by radicals. Nice try though.

Feel free to continue to wallow in denial and willful ignorance . I don't give a fuck

 

[Polishprince]

Human beings would soon become extinct if only men poked each other in the butt. What more proof does anyone need to show homosexuality is NOT normal? Pete is a troubled man and should NEVER be allowed to raise children. His Presidential campaign is a joke.

Human being are in no way endangered by homosexuality. Homosexuals have ben a fixed percentage of the population all through history, and they do have children . They are not sterile. The threat to humanity is war and climate change perpetuated by conservatives.

How do you know that homos are "fixed percentage of the population"? Do you have proof for that assertion?

There are many cities and nations and institutions, where Homosexuality is running wild, and in recent decades, there is just a lot more sodomy going on.

Are you asserting that there is the same number of gay beaus in San Francisco in the 21st Century, or in Sodom in the 20th Century BC, as there are anywhere else?

 

[BS Filter]

True. there are many pitfalls that results in kids being screwed. However, living in a homosexual family with two moms or two dads has to be a very confusing environment for a kid.

A child needs the love and nurturing of a mom and the firm loving direction of a dad.

No, actually they don't. They need two parents that love and support them, yes, but the gender is immaterial...as every single study on the subject will tell you.

Since we all know that when people like you say, "Every single study on the subject", what you actually mean is "Every study I will accept as valid because it agrees with me", color me unimpressed.

Interesting how you can't come up with a single piece of documentation to support your claim.

Fuck up a kid real bad. Put him or her in a house with queers.

Bullshit. Facts! Try using facts !

Queers are perverts. Fact.

 

[BS Filter]

Human beings would soon become extinct if only men poked each other in the butt. What more proof does anyone need to show homosexuality is NOT normal? Pete is a troubled man and should NEVER be allowed to raise children. His Presidential campaign is a joke.

Human being are in no way endangered by homosexuality. Homosexuals have ben a fixed percentage of the population all through history, and they do have children . They are not sterile. The threat to humanity is war and climate change perpetuated by conservatives.

Sin is the biggest threat. Unless you take care of your sin problem you will lose your eternal soul and life.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sorry you claimed Pete shouldn't be elected because Muslims won't like him. It's a really stupid fucking argument.

No, dumbfuck. I get that you need everything simplified to a grade-school level, but I actually just said that it would make diplomacy in the Middle East exponentially more difficult. As in, intelligent voters (read: not you) should weigh this into their decision-making.

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

I could give a damn if other countries like us; in fact, I'd prefer they don't like us too much, because that probably means we're benefiting them at our own expense. But I think there's a possibility that a lot of countries, most notably the Middle East, would be unwilling to meet with a gay President, and might even be offended and insulted by it. We're still the United States, so I don't know if any of them would reject the interaction outright, but I doubt that Pope Pete has the gravitas and foreign relations savvy to overcome that kind of obstacle in an already-touchy diplomatic situation.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

 

[Thinker101]

No, dumbfuck. I get that you need everything simplified to a grade-school level, but I actually just said that it would make diplomacy in the Middle East exponentially more difficult. As in, intelligent voters (read: not you) should weigh this into their decision-making.

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

I could give a damn if other countries like us; in fact, I'd prefer they don't like us too much, because that probably means we're benefiting them at our own expense. But I think there's a possibility that a lot of countries, most notably the Middle East, would be unwilling to meet with a gay President, and might even be offended and insulted by it. We're still the United States, so I don't know if any of them would reject the interaction outright, but I doubt that Pope Pete has the gravitas and foreign relations savvy to overcome that kind of obstacle in an already-touchy diplomatic situation.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

God, where do you go with a post like that^? Do you ask something along the lines like 'what the hell are you talking about?" Do you just say, 'gee, no shit?" or do you point out that homosexuals and women are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Weird post, guy.

 

[Polishprince]

No, dumbfuck. I get that you need everything simplified to a grade-school level, but I actually just said that it would make diplomacy in the Middle East exponentially more difficult. As in, intelligent voters (read: not you) should weigh this into their decision-making.

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

I could give a damn if other countries like us; in fact, I'd prefer they don't like us too much, because that probably means we're benefiting them at our own expense. But I think there's a possibility that a lot of countries, most notably the Middle East, would be unwilling to meet with a gay President, and might even be offended and insulted by it. We're still the United States, so I don't know if any of them would reject the interaction outright, but I doubt that Pope Pete has the gravitas and foreign relations savvy to overcome that kind of obstacle in an already-touchy diplomatic situation.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

There is no proof that President Trump ever had relations with this Stormy Daniels hoe.

Trump has been crystal clear in his denial of this, and the circumstantial evidence would indicate he is telling the truth. Ms. Daniels stated that the man she had relations with had a small penis, while Trump has testified in a Presidential debate that he has large hands and has no problems in this area. Apparently, Daniels confused Trump with some other guy she was with.

Further, the payoff was "negotiated " by 2 crooked, criminal, felon lawyers who are serving serious time for crimes against humanity. Liar Michael Cohen and Extortionist and former President aspirant Michael Avenatti.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it makes a difference in the world. But if you want to vote for a candidate because of how they are perceived on the world stage please tell me you didn't vote for the international joke that is Donald Trump.

How are they on presidents who fuck porn stars or will obviously lie to them because they lie about everything?

My god, lady the right elected somebody that pretty much nobody wants anything to do with, don't trust and most likely will work around him as much as possible and shut out our country from the rest of the world.

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

There is no proof that President Trump ever had relations with this Stormy Daniels hoe.

You guys still playing that one? Not only did he have sex with her he coordinated paying her off.

Donald Trump Played Central Role in Hush Payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal

Trump has been crystal clear in his denial of this, and the circumstantial evidence would indicate he is telling the truth. Ms. Daniels stated that the man she had relations with had a small penis, while Trump has testified in a Presidential debate that he has large hands and has no problems in this area. Apparently, Daniels confused Trump with some other guy she was with.

So, 'super gay for Trump' really is a thing. I have no other response to that paragraph and can only let it sit there for others to read.

Further, the payoff was "negotiated " by 2 crooked, criminal, felon lawyers who are serving serious time for crimes against humanity. Liar Michael Cohen and Extortionist and former President aspirant Michael Avenatti.

Yeah, except for the fact that Trump is Individual 1 and the only reason he also isn't in prison is because he's the president.

 

[Thinker101]

My, aren't YOU the judgmental Puritanical prude all of a sudden. Don't worry, I can hear what you're actually saying: "All topics are about how much I hate Trump!!! I can't talk about my candidates! TTTTRRUUUUUUMMMPPP!!!"

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

God, where do you go with a post like that^? Do you ask something along the lines like 'what the hell are you talking about?" Do you just say, 'gee, no shit?" or do you point out that homosexuals and women are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Weird post, guy.

You did seem to be having trouble distinguishing a difference.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Now isn't that the most adorable thing you have heard all day from a guy??? that is clearly in second place behind a 79 year old wrinkled white jew that loves communism and what the communists did to HIS PEOPLE!.....Just have yo love the insanity of the left....wonder how historians will write up this event 50 or so years from today....if we are still here!

-----------

“We’re hoping to have a little one soon,” Buttigieg said at an event in Brooklyn, New York on April 15 of last year, where he shared the stage with his husband, Chasten....
HUSBAND?...Does this make him the first woman to become president....in her dreams?

“I imagine it would make me a better president,” he said on CNN the next day.

On June 16, when he appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union," host Jake Tapper asked him: “Do you think, if you are elected president, hypothetically, that you will plan to start a family in the White House?”

“I don’t see why not,” Buttigieg said. “I think it wouldn’t be the first time that children have arrived to a first couple.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

I am all for them starting a family. As a matter of fact let’s have them start one during a democrat debate. Pete and her husband RePete can just flop down doggy style there on stage while the rest of the dems have no choice but to cheer for them for fear of being labeled homophobic, because if it were straight people you wouldn’t care, and after they finish all the dems can high five them.

As a follow up they can each take a pregnancy test the next debate and the dems can all look shocked and sad because two guys pissing on a stick after butt sex didn’t get a positive result.

But then they can all express how unfair it is that a guy takin it in the ass and his partner will never get to experience the joy of killing that impossible child before birth because all of us homophobic pro life deplorables.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't care who he fucks, I enjoy the wingnut hypocrisy.

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

God, where do you go with a post like that^? Do you ask something along the lines like 'what the hell are you talking about?" Do you just say, 'gee, no shit?" or do you point out that homosexuals and women are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Weird post, guy.

You did seem to be having trouble distinguishing a difference.

I'm confused because you think women can't be homosexuals? Not really sure where you're going with this.

 

[HappyJoy]

Now isn't that the most adorable thing you have heard all day from a guy??? that is clearly in second place behind a 79 year old wrinkled white jew that loves communism and what the communists did to HIS PEOPLE!.....Just have yo love the insanity of the left....wonder how historians will write up this event 50 or so years from today....if we are still here!

-----------

“We’re hoping to have a little one soon,” Buttigieg said at an event in Brooklyn, New York on April 15 of last year, where he shared the stage with his husband, Chasten....
HUSBAND?...Does this make him the first woman to become president....in her dreams?

“I imagine it would make me a better president,” he said on CNN the next day.

On June 16, when he appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union," host Jake Tapper asked him: “Do you think, if you are elected president, hypothetically, that you will plan to start a family in the White House?”

“I don’t see why not,” Buttigieg said. “I think it wouldn’t be the first time that children have arrived to a first couple.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

I am all for them starting a family. As a matter of fact let’s have them start one during a democrat debate. Pete and her husband RePete can just flop down doggy style there on stage while the rest of the dems have no choice but to cheer for them for fear of being labeled homophobic, because if it were straight people you wouldn’t care, and after they finish all the dems can high five them.

People wouldn't care if a straight couple had sex on stage during a presidential debate? That's a strange argument you got there.

As a follow up they can each take a pregnancy test the next debate and the dems can all look shocked and sad because two guys pissing on a stick after butt sex didn’t get a positive result.

But then they can all express how unfair it is that a guy takin it in the ass and his partner will never get to experience the joy of killing that impossible child before birth because all of us homophobic pro life deplorables.

And the rest is of course a totally straight guy expressing his made up homosexual stories.

 

[Thinker101]

FYI, "hypocrisy" is still not defined as "practicing beliefs I don't share according to the way I think they should be".

There is nothing in the world to which I look to you for guidance and wisdom, but even less so do I value your approval on moral issues.

I wasn't specifically referring to you now was I? I was talking about the hypocrisy of right wing Christian fundamentalists who take issue with homosexuals yet have no problem voting for an asshole who fucks a porn star while his wife is home with a 5 month old baby.

Your specific problem is you want to defer to what other religious wingnuts abroad think about our president's sexual orientation as if that matters.

May be tough for you to understand but there is a difference between a homosexual and a woman.

God, where do you go with a post like that^? Do you ask something along the lines like 'what the hell are you talking about?" Do you just say, 'gee, no shit?" or do you point out that homosexuals and women are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Weird post, guy.

You did seem to be having trouble distinguishing a difference.

I'm confused because you think women can't be homosexuals? Not really sure where you're going with this.

Dang, you're getting more messed up with each post. So your suggesting Buttigieg is screwing a homosexual woman now?

 

[Circe]

Surrogates are well compensated. I should know. I was one, twice.

Highly unlikely.

What is unlikely? That surrogates are compensated? That i was one twice? Both statements are fact. I received over $45,000 plus medical expenses and salary loss compensation for the three children I bore for two gay men.

Why on Earth would you do that?

Consider the source.

I don't believe any of this --- what, THREE babies artificially inseminated as if she were a Holstein milk cow? And then the story is she gives them all to two MEN of a sexual perversion well known to contribute most of the pedophiles to the criminal population of the world. Men who want sex with children always hang around children: it's the scoutmasters, the priests, the schoolteachers, the Indian reservation doctors --- and they are nearly always homosexual and go after boys. It would be a terrible thing for a woman to do and I just don't believe it. This story is the same as the Buttgig announcement --- an attempt to normalize homosexuality. Buttgig's whole campaign is simply a way to promote homosexuality normalization, and this "kid in the White House" stuff is all part of that fake narrative.

Well, I hope it is just a promotion of homosexuality fake. Otherwise they would likely abuse the child or children. We had enough sex abuse with other presidents against interns and mistresses. We don't need pedophilia in the White House. Let them go do that somewhere else, if society is so degraded as to allow them access to small children now.

 

[Circe]

How could a kid not grow up screwed with same sex homosexual "parents"? Talk about being confused and out of touch with reality.

Kids getting screwed up by parents is the human condition: but kids getting screwed by two male parents needs to be stopped by this society.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

LOL, gawd the Dem Party is such a joke.

Until they become your masters......

Don't think for one second that a Trump victory this November puts all of it to rest......nope.

Just getting started. I assure you....you ain't seen nothing yet.