Let me simplify, since this is apparently so complicated.
1.) I never said or implied Weiner is a rapist. The headline is about Huma’s mother condoning the behavior, regardless of Weiner’s actions.
2.) Huma’s mother is a leader in the Muslim Sisterhood (how about you ask yourselves why she has no problem with her daughter marrying a Jew?)
3.) Huma’s mother supports IICWC, a group that supports marital rape (just like anyone who supports planned parenthood must support abortion)
4.) Therefore, how is Huma’s mother not a hypocrite if she has a problem with her daughter being raped by Weiner?
You people are having a difficult time with logic today.
“Does Anthony Weiner’s Mother-in-Law Support his Raping her Daughter?”
Are you not a native speaker of English?
“...his raping her daughter.”
“Does... support” is the present tense, not the conditional. That means the raping, a gerund, has happened. The sentence means it is the case now. You are saying the rape is over and done with.
If you had inserted the adverb “potentially” in from of the gerund “raping,” your meaning would be clear.
Or if you had said “Would” — the conditional, making it speculative, instead of “Does,” you would sound less like a malignant community organizer bent on smearing people.
You obfuscated on purpose, and now you’re sore that people who know what they’re talking about in matters of syntax and grammar are calling you on it.
Let it go. And you should voluntarily pull this stupid thread.