Why are you surprised. You quoted the damn thing:
Jophiel wrote:
Well! Who knew? Funnily enough, my first response was one of sympathy. I honestly believe that it must absolutely suck to want to strive for conservative values as a public official and also have homosexual urges knowing that your party will castigate you at the drop of a hat no matter how effectively you served in government.
So your first assumption was that the allegations of cruising for gay sex in a bathroom were true. Yet, your first assumption in this case was that someone must have hacked his account and sent that picture.
Couldn't be a more clear case of partisan double standard Joph. Did you even bother to read what you quoted?
I, on the other hand, took the same stance in both case.
gbaji wrote:
Again. I fully believe that the party should have supported him, or at least taken a "we're waiting for the facts" stance. The "fact" is that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge that had nothing to do with sexual activity at all. But since it was presented in the context of an allegation of sexual activity, assumptions were made that were not proven.
[...]
Maybe that's just how you and I are different. I don't just automatically assume that the allegations being made are true. In fact, I start with the assumption of innocence (kinda like our legal system is supposed to be).
Shocking, isn't it? Someone who says that same thing when a political scandal occurs regardless of the political party of the person involved! Wait! That's exactly what I said I do. So your quote of me basically proves me right and you wrong. Which makes one wonder why you quoted it?