Awe yeah.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
511 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19127 readers
4486 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Jfc even his fucking face screams “rapist”.
He could have had an alibi, but they said "Be there or be square"
It says so much about the quality of characters Republicans voter for. Matt, MTG and Trump. They just love awful people.
Pretty sure it’s way past his jail time too.
We all talking about the rapist Matt Gaetz? The Matt Gaetz that notoriously trafficked minors across state lines to have drug-fueled sex with children Matt Gaetz? That child rapist Matt Gaetz?
You don't "have sex with a minor". You rape a minor. The fact that this asshat is breathing free air is already a failure, let alone that he's still sitting in Congress.
The age of consent is often below the age of majority. Gaetz, as scummy a piece of shit he is, isn't being accused of having sex with anyone below the age of consent, which would meet the legal definition of rape.
Claiming he raped someone would open them up to libel, because it would be a lie. The best we can get is pointing out that he had sex with a minor.
Matt "technically not a rapist" Gaetz
Age of consent with a minor in Florida still requires both parental consent and/or that the person who is above the age of 18 be within a certain amount of years of the person who is under 18. Matt Gates does not meet either of these qualifications. That would make it statutory rape.
Edit: there is also the matter of interstate trafficking of a minor, to which the statutory rape charges could be added as an accessory charge at the federal level, and there’s no “underage consent” bullshit at the federal level. Gatez could still face that, and I don’t know what behind-the-scenes literal pole-greasing has been going on for years to prevent it, but someone(s) are clearly running out of grease.
And get the strong feeling that many many years of interest on him getting away with all this shit or about to come do, and he is not gonna be able to pay that bill.
I hope so, but they've already dropped the charges of trafficking. I'm afraid he'll get away with it.
Whom he trafficked across state lines for the purpose of having sex with. Which is a felony.
Which is also not rape. I'm not defending gaetz here, hes a fucking huge piece of trash. I'm just explaining to anyone who comes here why they aren't using the term rape.
Yes, it fucking is. It's very blatantly rape. Imagine being the guy who argues that trafficking a teenage girl to fuck her isn't rape. You're fucking disgusting and you definitely are defending Gaetz here. There's no other reason to post this bullshit.
I'm explaining why they don't use rape in the headline. If facts and reason while also thinking gaetz is pure scum is defending gaetz, well I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
Once you trafficked the person across state lines, it can become a federal matter and the definitions of statutory rape, those of the federal definitions, not the ones in Florida. Or in either state, the one of origin or one of destination. this is because the rape charge can become an accessory charge to the trafficking charge. It all depends on the manner in which Gaetz is charged in these cases.
Can you direct me to the federal law that would make this rape?
Depends on whether you're talking about rape as a legal definition or a violation of a universal understanding of consent.
It obviously doesn't make sense that having sex with a 17 year old in one state isn't rape when it would be in a different state, but that is the law. A bad one.
Doesn't the fact that you recognize the law varies from state to state kind of disprove your claim of "universal understanding"?
1: Tell me more about how you want to fuck teenagers
2: It's very clearly a hypothetical being advanced to make the reader consider exactly that the belief isn't universal
I won't lie. I see plenty of underage women that I find physically attractive. I find it hard to believe any man has never seen a minor that they find physically attractive. However, there are few I find intellectually or emotionally attractive... and precisely zero I would actually have sex with.
I don't see what that has to do with the law or your claim it's universally accepted that having sex with someone under 18 is rape.
I don't follow point 2. The only way I can interpret it is that you are saying your point was actually the opposite of your point.
It would be fitting if Gaetz’ exit from the House brought about the Speakership of Hakeem Jeffries
Child rapist Matt Gaetz?
Sexual trafficking child rapist Matt Gaetz.
to be clear and noncowardly, he was not a minor at the time. he raped her, as she was a minor
Amazing how this cross-eyed rapist gets these kind of kid gloves, but your local drag queen is automatically a groomer or worse.
So you're saying that Matt is a nonce?
That is a hungover man. A long night of bleach-ivermectin-and-tequila body shots
Why did you repost the thumbnail from the article??
Gaetz wishes he was as cool as Butt-Head
Wow... it's uncanny. In the photo used in the article he almost has the same hairline.
Fingers crossed Gaetz is one of the 3 Buck was talking about
Please expound?
On feeling pressure from his party about his resignation, Buck mentioned something along the lines of, "It's not my departure they should worry about, it's the next 3."
Some news sites have latched onto this as if it was insider knowledge of certain members planning to retire. Personally I think it sounded more like deflection as if to push the burden on whoever might be next to retire.
Isn't that just the party math? If 3 more go then the Dems are the majority and that's what the R's should worry about?
Yeah. That's how I read it too. Hope no one is holding their breath.
While it would be great if there were actually 3 more lined up to retire… isn’t it the case with Buck’s retirement that Republicans only have a 3 person majority? So I think that’s all that was meant by him saying “the next 3”. Not that he knows of more people that are going to retire, but IF they did they would lose their majority.
I'm trying to follow Buck's story, but it's all just drabs and speculation.
One theory I heard is that, since he was leaving anyway, he decided to screw Bobo out of her seat.