And Congress knew and knows about others yet they think that they should still be the ones leading our representative government.
Why are these people living on the people ?
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
772 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19243 readers
1719 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The GOP is full of rapists, and it's nothing new.
I think it's a perfect time to realize that there are perverts on both sides of the aisle, and neither aisle cares about their constituents.
How could he possibly not? How could people look at him and think he wouldn't? The dude FUCKING looks like some sort of evil villain. That or a Dollar Tree Beavis.
I knew about this years ago. You knew about it. Our neighbors knew about. But still we gotta go through this wishy washy bullshit from those who are supposed to be leaders saying that this is all suddenly "coming to light". Fuck no it isn't.
So uh... why haven't "we" like... convicted and jailed him?
Trump...same. Elon...same.
Pretty much anyone at the very top of government now...same.
Hahaha you expect politicians to hold themselves accountable!? That would take things like integrity and honesty. You know honor, that thing the we just voted to kill forever.
Yeah, like, what the fuck? Don’t the rest of us go to jail if we do this?
Well yeah but we're not born rich to the ruling class. Our fathers and grandfathers weren't Senators like Mattys were.
Rules for thee, not for me.
So he is qualified. Only Rapists are allowed in.
Seriously, it wasn't even as lite as the titile makes it out to be.
"Gaetz did drugs while paying a child who hadnt even made it to her final year of high school while serving as a GOP representative and the GOP covered for him" would be more accurate
"Matt Gaetz does Republican shit." would've been accurate.
That finger gonna be wore down soon bubba
Paragon of conservative virtues and former leading figure of elected government officials, everyone.
Fixed: Matt Gaetz, former Trump AG pick, ha~~d sex with~~ raped an underage girl while in Congress, House Ethics report says
A minor cannot consent.
har aped
Brutal.
In Florida a 17 year old can consent.
Matt Gaetz being older than 24 is the illegal part. He groomed a young girl.
Also, because he paid her, then the offense involves the procurement of a person who is under 18 years of age, so the charge increases to a second degree felony, which can result in up to 15 years of imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
If it only costs $10,000 to do that then it's only illegal for poor people
Welcome to America.
Where "Speeding fine" has totally opposite meanings depending on how rich you are.
I like the Swiss and Finnish laws for speeders. The fine is based on your income.
load more comments
(3 replies)
No she couldn't consent to anyone over 24, which he was. Also, I would have to play catch-up, but if this is one of the girls he flew to New Jersey to have sex with... It's sex trafficking a minor right?
I think consent is the wrong word here. A 17 year old can consent to a subgroup of people (under 24). Therfore she is above the age of consent.
The girl has full control over her decisions but, more importantly, should not be charged with any crime.
Gaetz on the other hand ...
Consent is tied to legality. You can consent to a credit card at 18 but not 17.
I can tell someone it's fine to punch me in the face, and you could call that consent. When the person next door sees it out the window and calls the police, they show up and will arrest them. Both parties say they approved of it and no one wants to press charges. Tough shit, if they follow the law they arrest the person, charges for assault are placed against the person who punched by the State it happened in.
The "victim" who thinks they consented can tell the state prosecutor they don't want there to be charges when they get a subpeno to show in court.
So did I ever actually give consent? No... I never had legal right to at any age.
(There are some loop holes in a few states, and ways to get out of it, but you get the point)
Note: This is a another huge example of how laws are broken and ignored by companies and people with money as well. An NFL contract may list that consent was placed to be hit during a tackle, but when a play is over and someone intentionally kicks someone in the ribs, slams someone's head down into the ground again or hits a player the league "fines them or suspends them" but they are criminal charges so they should be out in front of a judge. Why would they be exempt from the law.
Fun example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CgjAN_wgmiI
Nobody goes to jail if you don't press charges bucko. Nice try though.
That's not how criminal law works, actually. In criminal courts the State brings charges regardless of the victims wishes.
Is there a c/confidentlyincorrect ?
You have no idea how assault charges go. The charges are from the State, not a person. It isn't a civil case. (Also you could be in another country, so maybe it is different in your country)
Also a civil suit can be filed separately for restitution by the person. So you could have criminal and civil suits side by side
Note: most domestic violence charges in the U.S. the partner does NOT want charges to be placed.
I don't know about this case, I can definitely imagine him raping that girl.
But from a European perspective, saying minors cannot consent is definitely one of these very stupid US takes. It is honestly insane that in the US 18 is treated like a god, and if one partner is some months older, it's illegal.
Obviously, minors can generally be influenced more easily than older people, and it's important to have safeguards in place, but such a statement is just genuinely ridiculous.
That’s not the case in this scenario, and rarely is. It varies by state, but Romeo and Juliet laws are common, which cover these kinds of circumstances.
Basically, the law will set an acceptable age gap where consent can happen; If the gap is 5 years, then a 17 year old won’t be able to consent to sex with a 30 year old, but can with an 18-22 year old. So it helps maintain the “this is obviously a child who was groomed by a creepy middle-aged person” statutory rape laws, while still allowing kids to date each other.
In some states they just straight up do the European thing where all that matters is being at least 16. In my state the age of consent is 16 and that's also the age where you can be tried as an adult. They recently voted on whether or not to raise the age, and they decided no.
There is still push for that to be changed, though only for the age of being tried as an adult. The former they're kinda keen on keeping where it is.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›