Big D vs Twitter
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
So let me get this straight...
The reason you support Trump is because you're *against* paedophiles?
Hahahahaaa! You fucking clown
The only thing you need to get straight is your utter stupidity in deciding who will best lead you based on how a speech they read to you off a teleprompter makes you feel. What sort of moron are you?
I have to point out that the guy is a paedophile, and now you feel stupid and make up a story in your imagination to pretend to yourself that you're better than me? You're a dangerously stupid gullible retard.
It’s easier to call all of them nonces. That’s what they are. Which nonce do you hate the least?
No one takes you seriously anymore. It's time to quietly remove yourself from the site.
So stick to medical ethidence and don't waste my time with your attempts at thought.
So made up he settled out of court...
He raped a 13 year old multiple times and then paid her off. He hung out with Epstein and is all over the flight logs. He clearly dreamt about noncing up his own daughter (whether or not he actually did it is another matter) and he bizarrely boasted about getting behind the scenes access to those weirdo fucking beauty pageants so he could perve at all the little girls.
The most likely reason why he's a Russian asset is because Putin has the P-tapes, which are obviously not him getting pissed on by a hooker, because let's face it, in this mental fucking reality we live in, that would barely raise an eyebrow these days.
Trump is the nonciest fucking nonce of all the nonces in all the noncedoms, and you support him because you've gone mental.
So enjoy being a paedo-sympathiser.
In fact, not just a paedo-sympathiser - a paedo- supporter.
You like a guy that likes fucking kids. Wear it you fucking weirdo
You have any evidence he likes kids? Or it's just evidence that makes you think he likes kids? Because it's your feelings that matter always about your feelings.
Walz ammended the law so that it is easier for convicted nonces to work in schools, or for any public institution that works with children. That's the thing you support that will lead to more children being abused. Do you understand that will be the outcome? And do you place your feelings above the outcome for children? This is why your brain is a rotten place. Much Trump derangement syndrome.
So you can work in these places as a convicted nonce but as long as your sexual orientation isn’t nonce?
No. Read the legislation and read the example I described.
Go back to trying to understand government debt. Your attempts at thought on this topic are a waste of time.
Answer this. Can a convicted peadophile get a job in a school or a public institution that works with children with the change in legislation?
Yes. They could and have done so before. The change in legislation makes it easier to do so because the school is not privy to the details of the offence, only the existence of the offence. So before the change the existence of the offence is sufficient motivation to discard the CV. After the change, if the applicant's sexual orientation is nonce, the school is now liable for being sued for discrimination if they bin his CV over him being a nonce, because now nonce falls withing the meaning of the protected characteristic of sexual orientation. Unless they have some state law prohibiting their employment or he discloses that his release conditions prevent him from being within 50m of a child, the HR department in the school have no iron clan documented reason they can give to bin his CV. So more nonces will end up being hired.
That's obviously why the change has been made. Walz is doing the bidding of the woke trans fanatics, they lobbied him to pass the new legislation, they did so because these freaks who dress as women and have no problem subjecting kids to drag shows are clearly paedophiles.
Hmmm - we still are sans any discernible Mods (please apply!) and I've no great leverage in this world.
However, I'll give it a go. Can we please stop throwing around clearly offensive terms to make a point? For those anti-Trump posters I fail to see the need to polarise so much, there's a lot of material to use that doesn't need to stretch the boundaries. It is not, as far as I understand it, illegal to vote Tory, CDU or Republican as they are accepted mainstream parties in their respective countries. Nor are people that lean toward favouring Labour, Democrats or the Parti a Gauche necessarily communists or child eaters.
However, I'll give it a go. Can we please stop throwing around clearly offensive terms to make a point? For those anti-Trump posters I fail to see the need to polarise so much, there's a lot of material to use that doesn't need to stretch the boundaries. It is not, as far as I understand it, illegal to vote Tory, CDU or Republican as they are accepted mainstream parties in their respective countries. Nor are people that lean toward favouring Labour, Democrats or the Parti a Gauche necessarily communists or child eaters.
Let’s put your hypothesis to the test. I’ll make you a wager.
If any convicted nonces gets one of these jobs at a school or institution with contact with a child I’ll buy you a Casio. I’ll make it a calculator one. If not you never come here again.
The only stipulations are no further change to legislation and by the end of the term of the next president.
If any convicted nonces gets one of these jobs at a school or institution with contact with a child I’ll buy you a Casio. I’ll make it a calculator one. If not you never come here again.
The only stipulations are no further change to legislation and by the end of the term of the next president.
How do you imagine you can test that without obtaining a copy oF the HR files?
View: https://x.com/mjfree/status/1821360004022030559
Kamala’s campaign has real
Obama 2008 vibes. Two events per day in different parts of the country in front of absolutely packed crowds.
There must be some way of going to prove that if it’s something you feel like mentioning. You wouldn’t want to speculate would you? You’d want data. Maybe a chart.
Right. You're the one making an extraordinary claim that the change in law will not be exploited by a single paedophile, who before that law change have already worked with children by exploiting inadequate background checks.
I can draw you a venn chart if you need to see the difference in ratio of ordinary to extraordinary things. It will help you understand why I'm asking you how you plan to obtain the extraordinary evidence to support your claim without having access to HR files.
The point you should be concerned about is Walz. He deliberately crossed the clause out of the legislation. At the time unsurprisingly people where like wtf dude, you trying to let paedophiles have access to children.? It was a big deal. His side denied it all, no no don't be silly no paedophillia is illegal yada yada. Eventually they added a line back in as a further amendment to restore the original protection. To shut everyone up. Then that further amendment.... didn't get passed.
Why do you suppose that is? Ordinarily it's because the lobbyist who fund Walz are paedophiles. What alternative extraordinary explanation do you have in mind?
Why do you suppose that is? Ordinarily it's because the lobbyist who fund Walz are paedophiles. What alternative extraordinary explanation do you have in mind?
You’re the one who made the claim it was easier. I asked the question could it happen. You said yes. I’m not making any claims. You are.
He's fallen down the rabbit hole, dude. Just put him on ignore...
I won’t put some of the forum spastics (who aren’t so spastic at the moment) on ignore so won’t start with Dantes.
View: https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1821538495187308569
Ketchup bottles at Mar-a-lago will be flying.
Candance Owens wants to talk to you.
Yeah, I wouldn’t put too much credence into it. But the same poll was showing Trump narrowly in the lead just a few weeks ago. Trend is more important than the actual numbers.
