this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
282 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
2897 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
282
Child steals the show on House floor making faces as Rep rails against Trump case (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

If counter with: "We'd be well served to remember the long and cherished tradition of settling criminal matters in the courts."

Basically they want the right to commit crimes without consequences beyond the possibility of simply not being re-elected.... But only for Republican politicians. Democrats should be treated differently.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Someone buy that kid an ice cream cone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Weird, the video doesn't seem to work.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

Kid’s got a thousand times more sense than his old man.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This guy married his wife when he was 45 and she was 21 🤮

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

It’s rare, but it happens. They’re consenting adults.

E: look, I’m not a fan of this age gap, but everyone’s making up rules about what’s acceptable. Either they’re adults or not, 18 is the cutoff, and if no grooming was involved you can dislike it all you want but they’re still adults.

E2: looks like they met when she was under age. So, no…this doesn’t work right at all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rose_(Tennessee_politician)

Rose and his wife Chelsea (née Doss) married in January 2011.[30] At the time, he was 45 and she was 21. He met her when she was 17.[31] They live in Cookeville, Tennessee, with their two sons. [6]

Doesn't say when they started dating.

I will agree that it's case by case, but if he started grooming her at 17 it's grooming.

Grooming doesn't always relate to age or age gap either. If a man is a teacher or leader at church camp or something, some position of authority it can go beyond the age of consent and still be considered grooming.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Just because something is legal doesn't mean the rest of us can't judge people for doing it. It's not illegal to be a creep.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll join in and say you're right. Policing morally "wrong" but legal acts is a very conservative way of doing things. You can point to dozens of activities that conservatives decry as "immoral" or "sinful" yet are legal and nobody cares what they think, but when it's two adults who get married with a large age gap suddenly everyone wants to be moral guardians. Two consenting adults can make a legal choice, and anything more than that is nobody's business.

That said, in this particular case, this dude met his wife when she was still in high school. He absolutely groomed her.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I agree. But someone just provided info that the met when she was as under age. This no longer seems like it passes for “leave them alone” territory.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

That was the very last thing I said:

That said, in this particular case, this dude met his wife when she was still in high school. He absolutely groomed her.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

but everyone’s making up rules about what’s acceptable.

The hypocrisy for me is that folks want to dictate what is "morally acceptable" while objecting to other people's wanting to dictate what is "morally acceptable". In this case, and it all too common with Republicans generally, he did apparently groom her from a young age. But we can make a judgement based on that fact, not the fact of the age differential.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Just because it's legal, doesn't make it morally correct.

Reminds me of my aunt. Strongly against weed, then it gets legalized and suddenly she smokes more than I do. Pure hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It’s rare, but it happens. They’re consenting adults.

I understand your desire to make this point, but a 45 year old man marrying a woman a mere 3 years after she reaches adulthood does, in fact, say a ton about the 45 year old man.

Is it legal? Sure.

Is there anything anyone can do about it? No.

Is it an indicator that this man only sees value in women's youth, and lacks the maturity to maintain a relationship with a woman his own age? Absolutely.

Is it worth pointing out that this man is a member of a party that constantly fearmongers about sexual deviancy and "protecting children", but also fucks women less than half his age? You fucking bet it is.

At the end of the day, this deranged fucker took the floor to defend a convicted criminal, and his 6-year-old child absolutely bodied him with goofy faces. We can pick him apart for all of his flaws and hypocrisy, because he fucking deserves it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What if the woman was 45 and the man was 21?

Edit: to not be cryptic, my hope was that you'd answer similarly... obviously. To me the issue is not the age difference in and of itself but how or if the relationship came to be because of the age difference and the issues of power and control that might imply regardless of the gender identity of the older person. Obviously, older men do typically have disproportionate power but not always.

And it was pointed out here that this guy did meet here when she was still in high school, so most likely very much a case of grooming.

But just in general I really take exception to the assumption that just because there is an age differential it's a given that there is a power differential. Even though I agree broadly with what you say, these types of assumptions smack of morality police to me.

Edit2: Of course, down vote. But why?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

21 is teenager part 2.

28 is the cutoff for grown adult and can do as they please.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's actually 36. That's the age in the US when you have all your age-based Constitutional restrictions removed.

Edit: it's actually 35 not 36.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Big if true

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Ignorance is bliss. You can lead a horse to water, it you can't make them drink.

I'm very glad you've chosen to be happy.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’m glad you made that decision for everyone. So two 20 year olds having sex aren’t adults? Just admit you don’t like the age gap and be honest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

You are welcome.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That is the basic statement being made here. That the age-gap here is problematic.

When he was her age, she wasn't even born yet. This is his first wife too. He remained unmarried for 45 years, and when he finally got hitched it was someone who literally just earned the right to drink.

I think the larger issue here is that you see absolutely no issue with this age gap, and feel it necessary to defend it, just because they are "consenting adults", and completely ignoring the fact that there is a power imbalance, and a maturity mismatch that begs serious questions on the nature of his relationship.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Read my other post. I stated I wasnt a fan of it. I wouldn’t do it. Don’t put words in my mouth. People here seem to want to keep shifting what constitutes an adult and restrict the autonomy of the individuals involved. That’s what I disagree with.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They met when she was 16 and he was 41. Tell me more about "what constitutes an adult".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Ok, I was unaware of that, and it sounds like grooming.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'm a huge fan of the "half your age plus seven" rule. Even if it's legal (assuming no grooming prior) it's still pretty creepy. Especially since that's the age you marry - presumably you've been together for a bit before that too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I mean in this case it's 1/3 your age +6

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As long as there wasn't any grooming involved.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, about that...

John Rose met Chelsea Doss in 2007 when she was still a student at Eagleville High School in Eagleville, Tennessee. He was an authority figure representing the extracurricular organization Future Farmers of America, which Chelsea was a member of.

She was 16 years old. John was 41 years old. They married less than 4 years later.

Keep in mind, John was a government official and a business owner at the time, with a net worth in the tens of millions of dollars. This man has significant power & money, and more than double the life experience of the woman that he married. He had authority over this girl when he met her, as a leader in the after-school organization she was a part of.

"Grooming" is probably a good word to describe how his marriage came to fruition, though at minimum, we can call it a deeply inappropriate imbalance of power.

Oh, and hes' an Evangelical Christian who believes that women are a lesser sex that should have fewer domestic rights, and the expectation of obedience and subservience to men, so of course he sought out a child bride...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Oh, wish I read this before I posted. Lol. 100% agree. He's a groomer.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 5 months ago (3 children)

What a load of absolute horseshit that speech was.

"We'd be well served to remember the long and cherished tradition we have in this country of settling our political differences at the ballot box. For nearly two and a half centuries our nations elected officials have properly resisted the temptation to oppose their political rivals through the weaponization of our justice system".

First of all plenty of Congresspeople, Senators, Governors and lower politicians have been tried, and sometimes convicted, for crimes before. So he's full of shit on that point. Second Republicans did endless investigations of Hillary Clinton and found no law breaking, but they definitely tried their hardest. Third although every President since at least since Eisenhower has been guilty of war crimes Trump is the first to do garden variety white collar crimes. Of course he's the first to be charged with them! Fuck this guy.

The kid was a bit funny though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

We'd be well served to remember the long and cherished tradition we have in this country of settling our political differences at the ballot box.

We'd be even more well served to remember just who tried to violently do away with just that tradition.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

It can all be summed up as "Republicans are hypocrits"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

They only care about the law when attempting g to apply it to others, but get upset when it’s applied to themselves.

I think politicians have always said whatever suits them at the moment, but the absurd and immediate public hypocrisy these days is just incredible. It’s not even couched in subtlety, it’s immediate and in your face.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Kids know when their parents are full of shit.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

True. Imagine if this kid grows up and runs on the other side of the aisle. I think he'll have promotional material available to benefit his cause.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

A young politician with years of experience in Congress, quite a unicorn.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This kid ought to be hired to sit behind MTG at all congressional sessions.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He should be hired to replace her

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago

Can't disagree, he contributed more to the dignity of the session than she ever has