I keep thinking I can't be any more disgusted by how his supporters think, and I keep being proven wrong.

The only way they could know is a.m. radio and fox news. I highly doubt that story was covered at those outlets. But even if they did, Bill Clinton blah, blah, blah.

and they would still approve.

donnie was right, he could literally gun someone down on fifth avenue and he'd still have 30% of the population supporting him.

Without evidence, allegations can be easily explained away.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

His good buddy is serving time for liking them a bit "on the younger side". That was proven in court.

For $350, you can have anything you want "move forward" in a federal court.

Epstein has already paid out on scores of lawsuits from other women. Trump has already lied about his associations with Epstein. He claimed he barely knew him, yet Epstein had no less than 14 private numbers for Trump and the media already had detailed accounts of Trump coming and going from Epstein's mansion numerous times. This is what Trump said in public about Epstein:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

So the lawsuit does mean something. We already know Trump has lied about it. We already know Epstein is a serial pedophile and a pimp for some of his friends, and we know Trump partied with Epstein and was sharing his appreciation for "younger" women. We know all of this and they haven't even gotten to the discovery phase yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html

http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971

Bill Clinton took repeated trips on the " Lolita Express"—the private passenger jet owned by billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—with an actress in softcore porn movies whose name appears in Epstein's address book under an entry for "massages," according to flight logbooks obtained by Gawker and published today for the first time. The logs also show that Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.
------

How deep down that rabbit hole do you want to go?

Did one of Epstein's sex slaves along with a corroborating witness claim Clinton raped them? Did Clinton praise Epstein for his admiration of "younger" women, sharing the same propensity?

You do get that the allegations against Trump go pretty far beyond guilt by association, yes?

The poster seemed to have the notion that a perfunctory scheduling order, which is the normal course of events upon filing a lawsuit, had some kind of significance. It does not. It is the ordinary course of events.

If you want to believe that the mere fact that someone alleges something in a lawsuit and pays their $350, and that it means something significant because the court issued a scheduling order, you are free to do so.

The issuance of a scheduling order does not make the allegations true.

As to your various rhetorical questions, I assume that if someone files a similar thing against Clinton and the goings-on on Epsteins plane next week, or two weeks from now, you will find yourself to have crawled out on a limb with a saw.

That's why I said there's more to this than just a filed lawsuit.

If Clinton is a child rapist, then he deserves to be called out as a child rapist. I have absolutely no moral dilemma with that as you suggest, so your assumption is pretty far off. I also have no reasons to believe Clinton is a pedophile. He's never expressed a preference for increasingly younger women and as far as I know he's never habitually crashed a locker room full of pubescent teens in various states of undress specifically with the intention of ogling them. I also don't ever remember him bragging about sexually assaulting women.

But people get really confused about legal procedure.

For example, there is a thread entitled "Trump heading to court" for a status conference on this thing.

This suit hasn't even been served, and the court bounced the pro hac vice application of the "TV attorney" from Florida who applied for pro hac vice status, for not following one of the most basic rules of phv applications. That's fixable, but weird.

When you file a suit, the court sets a number of dates automatically, on the assumption that you are going to serve it, and will show up with the other side's lawyers to sort out scheduling.

That, by the way, is the same perfunctory thing that got blown up as "Clinton colluding with DOJ" over normal communications over a scheduling hearing.

The most recent docket entries in this case are:

10/10/2016 8 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jane Doe.(Mason, James) Modified on 10/11/2016 (wb). (Entered: 10/10/2016)

10/10/2016 9 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - AFFIDAVIT of United States District Court Middle District of Florida and The Florida Bar in Support re: 8[RECAP] MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by Jane Doe. (Mason, James) Modified on 10/11/2016 (wb). (Entered: 10/10/2016)

10/11/2016 >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 8 MOTION for J. Cheney Mason to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12851631. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from Supreme Court of Florida; missing Proposed Order;. Re-file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/12/2016 10[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Donald J. Trump. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
10/12/2016 11[RECAP] ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Jeffrey E. Epstein. (rch) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

So there is no substantive action that's going to be taken in this case for quite some time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028224344

and accuse Hillary of "attacking" his victims and I very rarely hear anyone in.media call them on it.

"But Bill Clinton...!!!"

Because having sex with willing, adult partners is so much worse. Bill Clinton isn't the best husband around, but the grown women he had sex with were willing and of age.

is white and republican.

Or else they'd say the charges were phony

You can't faze those people

They defiantly support him because he allows them to project their fantasies onto him. He's going to make America great again, and great can mean whatever they want it to. It doesn't have to be true.

They know allll about Hilary defending a child rapist back in 1975, though. They can't stop sharing the fox, newsmax, drudge et al twisted twisted version where she laughed after getting him freed, argle blargle blargh!!!.

ignores it.

they are as sick as Trump

And anything anyone has ever accused Bill or Hillary of has to be true.

That's the logic they're working with.

So this week cover him walking in on Teen girls changing. Next week bring up the child rape charge.
People would be more likely to accept the allegations of child rape if they can have a stepping stone to get there.
1. He's a pervert forces himself on women.
2. Walks in on contestants changing on purpose oh and some of those girls were 15
3. If he forces himself on women and he is attracted to teenagers hmmmm maybe he would force himself on a teenager?

But until proven in a court of law this is dangerous to float such a story. It makes the left no better than the right. Make up something or insinuate and viola' you have your attack. I trust the national Democratic Party won't touch this with a 10 foot pole unless it's legit.

As much as a I dislike Trump, using this to attack him wouldn't be fair or ethical. The key word is that this is something he is accused of doing. His guilt has yet to be proven. Stories like this should be off the table for both sides.