I seem to recall that some papers took it upon themselves to publish names and pictures of "Johns" - I guess prostitution is legal for some, but not for others? Some Johns deserve to be named and shamed, but others, not so much?
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
563 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3065 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
Does the title not say his name and does the article not have his picture?
What are you saying here?
The “John” is Matt Gaetz. He paid for sex. He allegedly (and very likely did) groomed and raped minors. He is named.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We'll find out eventually that the real investigation is over the fact that he paid in the first place, and didn't follow their Lord and Savior's command to simply grab them by the pussy. Perhaps Gaetz wasn't famous enough at the time, so they didn't let him do it.
I bet we will end up pissed that the DOJ dropped their Gaetz investigation. Suddenly, many witnesses are being found besides his buddy Joel Greenberg?
“Witness” I’m guessing too young to ~~say a name~~ give names.
Edit: pointless pedantry
Never forget, Al Franken resigned when old pictures of him goofing around came out.
Al's problem is the woman's complaint was clearly performative, but there was no way for him to say that without relying on the rhetoric of rape denialists and victim blamers. If he had fought back against it, he would forever be invoked in both sides arguments.
That's the downside of being the party of empathy and human dignity.
And also that Gillibrand was forcing him onto that sword to up her own "Me Too" cred.
At the time, a lot of people wanted Al to push back. I'm glad he didn't because sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.
Yeah, me too! I'd totally rather die in a camp or be deported than stand for my values and fight for what's right, especially if it might give the appearance that I'm compromising on my values which I'm absolutely willing to compromise in the interest of politics. /s
Snark aside, I wish we'd stood up for Anthony Weiner. Dude was legit amazing back in the day. Corporate media networks were absolutely gleeful to tear him down and people just watched it happen and laughed the whole time. Then again, I think maybe my values are just more in line with the idea of actually accomplishing political goals (read: legislation and policy) and not so much with making performative gestures that only serve to hurt said political goals. Obviously, in Weiner's case dude committed crimes (iirc), but again he was an incredible politician, which is what he was hired for. Politicians are tools, like doctors and mechanics, they're not our friends; they're fellow citizens that provide a necessary service. I wouldn't let Weiner or my mechanic babysit but that doesn't mean they're not skilled at what they do.
Anyway, we're probably going to just continue arguing about bs like this while the right consolidates power and supports ruthless leaders. All while we're asking/tearing down our leaders what pronouns they use or their opinions on eating steak or who knows what. Else Not saying pronouns and the beef industry/climate change aren't important to some/many people - power to em, for sure - but it seriously feels like people need to get a grip. The distractions are real. We need to focus!
/rant
I'll miss Al Franken and I was disappointed he didn't stand up for himself. His supporters and his constituents deserved that, imo
load more comments
(5 replies)