On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
And your concern is that people can’t take issue with more than one thing at once? Did those stupid things he’s done recently make him not a rapist with a concerning alcohol problem?
Come to think of it, why does it matter if he raped someone before being appointed or not? We shouldn’t have a rapist as the secretary of defense regardless of when he did it. Likewise we shouldn’t have someone with a concerning alcohol problem handling classified military information.
Frankly speaking, “drunken rapist” is the closest you’re going to get to a “middle of the road” concern about a candidate. Not that it mattered, since as you point out, only the left seems to care about “not putting rapists in positions of high power”.
Is that an extreme example or did he really rape someone?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25362284-hegseth-police-report/
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666
As with all things legal in nature, he raped someone in the lay sense of the word. Legally speaking, he was accused and investigated for sexual assault, with law enforcement finding sufficient grounds to forward the case to prosecutors, who declined to press charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. He later paid the woman $50,000 not to sue in civil court.
What’s insufficient for the courts is more than enough to justify calling him a rapist, particularly since the police usually decline to refer rape cases to prosecutors at all, when they’re even reported to police in an investigative capacity.
Maybe people should mention this instead of whether he drinks or not then? I’m sure you mention it though, so I don’t mean to imply you don’t.