Libertarian Candidate Repulses Everyone With ‘Teachers Should Be Free To Sleep With Kids’ Argument


Sometimes a person says something so disgusting you want them to be locked away from others just to stop them from infecting the rest of the world with their suppurating excuse for logic. When that person is running for Congress, it is far more repulsive, and a Michigan man just made that a reality when he made statements that amounted to this: while children should be protected, teachers should be free to sleep with them.

Tom Bagwell made comments on the Facebook page of a Houston TV station’s post covering the parentally approved statutory rape of a 13-year-old by a 24-year-old teacher arguing that “hard age cutoffs” can cause unintended consequences due to “government intervention.” It seems Bagwell believes that statutory rape charges impinge on the rights of the rapist.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

In his opinion, age-of-consent laws should be changed because we need to consider the “case-by-case circumstances where an adult and a minor are in a consensual sexual relationship.”

Yes, Bagwell is a Libertarian, the most childish and socially irresponsible of all the political affiliations, but this is a gold star example of f*ck-off-with-that-sh*t suggestion even for one of them. We should NEVER allow a child to be taken advantage of by an adult, especially not by a person who is an authority figure in their life, say, like a teacher or clergy member.

However, when Bagwell answered a commenter asking what “mitigating circumstances, exactly” could make a 13-year-old’s “consensual” rape acceptable, his answer was enough to make all non-pedophiles skin crawl:

Hard age of consent laws don’t take into account the actual maturity of the child. Some teenagers are able to handle these relationships many can’t. If there is actual abuse by all means charge with a crime, but it should not be a snap judgment.

Bagwell then doubled down when contacted by the Detroit Free Press, suggesting that we should turn a blind eye to  the abuse of a child if the child doesn’t feel coerced. And the Republican’s say it is liberals trying to allow for pedophilia as a “sexual orientation?”

Bagwell told them:

My view is simply this: We shouldn’t jump the gun on these issues and automatically go to the worst (scenario). Where there is actual consent between the parties, we should look at it on a case-by-case basis to see if coercion was involved.

Imagine if he had stood up for a Muslim family’s choice to allow their devout and accepting daughter to be “married” (consensually raped) to a 24-year-old man. Changes the landscape a bit doesn’t it? Just by changing the gender and religion, BOOM, all the sudden its an insane argument, oh, wait, for anyone with a functional brain, there never was an excuse for adults having sex with children.

This puke actually attempted to make his disgusting views more acceptable by stating, “I have some views that I know the general public might say, ‘Eh, I don’t like that.” His other “excuse,” the comments weren’t made by his “official” candidates page (click here), they were made on his personal account — no dice, once a politician, public and private comments are yours to account for.

How about this for a little bit of truth, Bagwell: you have some views that the general public finds criminally ignorant and patently evil, thanks for letting the public in Michigan know not to vote for you.


Featured image via Facebook

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply