2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[TexRex]

Infidelity is a violation of another's trust, not rights. Solicitation itself violates neither. They're not comparable things and neither are comparable to sexual predation and exploitation of minors.

Sexual intercourse with a minor isn't inherently a rights violation. One who is a minor and who engages in non-coercive sexual intercourse with another minor has violated no rights. One who is only as of recently not a minor and who engages in non-coercive sexual intercourse with a minor has violated no rights, even as one may have violated the law--termed statutory rape. It's not a perfect situation. I think statutes that provide for an age differential do a better job of protecting individual rights while respecting individual rights. Now one who engages in sexual intercourse with a minor a greater number of years their junior isn't sure to have violated another's rights, but the rate and likelihood of coercion (including that which doesn't involve physical force, as extortion or some other means) increases.

 

[Kriptical]

It isn't. Wikipedia:

"Human trafficking is the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation."

Sex trafficking is not the same thing as sex working. Consent is the difference.

Yes. Join them.

Referring to sex with a 17 year old as "infidelity" is joining the group that is not batting an eye at sex with a 17 year old. I don't know whether it was infidelity, but if it was infidelity, it was infidelity AND, in Florida, statutory rape. So to call it infidelity is to "not bat an eye" at statutory rape.

Sex work is not the same thing as trafficking. I don't know why you would think of sex work as being equally offensive to infidelity, but neither should be illegal in my view.

What you did, from my perspective, was conflate statutory rape with something that isn't a crime.

Why do you assume I wouldn’t bat an eye? I stated, that back then they wouldn’t have batted and eye, and apparently still don’t.

Also…who said sex work = infidelity.

Im judging the ‘john,’ in this situation, not their counterpart. Degree’s of willingness’s, or ability to consent, aside. Apologies, thought that was clear.


I guess my surprise comes from people being surprised when these people reveal that they in fact, don’t really care about these things.

..i mean..generation; she was just 17, if you know what i mean, has been pretty obvious about their douche proclivities.

@TexRex hence why i provided the qualifier: ‘because, i’m not the law.’

Im glad the law(exist), but don’t need it to guide my moral compass. Personally, anyone in their 40’s dating anyone younger than about 26 is creepy af..likely predatory. But thats my opinion and doesn’t make sense as a law. Ill still be judgy about it though.

 

[Danoff]

Why do you assume I wouldn’t bat an eye?

Was this infidelity? I don't know. I don't really care, as it's not really my business whether it's infidelity. But let's suppose that it was. If that's true, then what we know of the event so far is that it's all of these things.

A) Infidelity
B) Sex Trafficking
C) Statutory Rape


It's infidelity because we're assuming that's the case. I don't know whether it's the case, but it makes this discussion easier. It's sex trafficking because the 17 year old girl cannot consent to sex work. And it's Statutory rape because he was older than the Florida statute (24 I think?) and she because she was 17.


Now you called it infidelity. The reason I say you're not batting an eye is because you completely ignored the two much more serious issues B and C when you just call it A.

I guess my surprise comes from people being surprised when these people reveal that they in fact, don’t really care about these things.

You don't help that situation when you minimize it to be A and not B or C. Especially when B and C are far more serious.

 

[Kriptical]

Was this infidelity? I don't know. I don't really care, as it's not really my business whether it's infidelity. But let's suppose that it was. If that's true, then what we know of the event so far is that it's all of these things.

A) Infidelity
B) Sex Trafficking
C) Statutory Rape


It's infidelity because we're assuming that's the case. I don't know whether it's the case, but it makes this discussion easier. It's sex trafficking because the 17 year old girl cannot consent to sex work. And it's Statutory rape because he was older than the Florida statute (24 I think?) and she because she was 17.


Now you called it infidelity. The reason I say you're not batting an eye is because you completely ignored the two much more serious issues B and C when you just call it A.

You don't help that situation when you minimize it to be A and not B or C. Especially when B and C are far more serious.

I called it A because the point was made regarding the John in the situation. The point was made regarding general observed behavior over the years, as to my original point, but i did kinda wrap gaetz in there and understand it being a bit ambiguous.

Tldr: im judging the John twice, once morally, once ethically.

I’m not helping, or hurting that situation. Its a simple attempt to highlight the absurdity of expecting these people to have a moral compass. Also, when people you think should have a moral compass and should care about this…don’t.. Possibly…it might be time to accept these people are telling you about themselves.

Obviously, this is a general sentiment.

 

[Imari]

Todays’s sex trafficking was yesterday’s high priced escort.

Yeah, that's why we now have the term sex trafficking. A lot of escorts in the past were sex trafficking victims.

Some still are, but it's hopefully less now that there's more awareness. Sex work is fine if people are doing it voluntarily, or at least as voluntarily as any other type of work. Functional coercion or slavery is no more acceptable in sex work than any other industry.

 

[Tornado]

Trump picks someone for Surgeon General who at least isn't outwardly an idiot (ie. pro-vaccines and seemingly somewhat supportive of Biden COVID policies at the time) and suddenly it's completely Joever for his administration for people on Twitter.


lol

 

[Joey D]

Trump pics someone for Surgeon General who at least isn't outwardly an idiot (ie. pro-vaccines and seemingly somewhat supportive of Biden COVID policies at the time) and suddenly it's completely Joever for his administration for people on Twitter.


lol

Unfortunately, she's an idiot.

She was into pseudo COVID cures:


She didn't understand why schools were closed during a pandemic:


She's anti COVID vax for kids:


She sells Dr. Oz like "natural medicines"

About B+C Boost

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat (creator of B+C Boost) is a board certified medical doctor, medical news expert and top family & ER medicine doctor.

bcboost.com

She thinks Jesus cures people:

Beyond the Stethoscope

Join Dr. Nesheiwat on an extraordinary journey of compassion and faith in Beyond the Stethoscope: Miracles in Medicine where gripping stories of mi...

www.simonandschuster.com

She called the COVID vaccine a "gift from god" instead of, you know, acknowledging all her peers who made the whole thing possible.

She's the medical director for City MD, which has a decent history of Medicare/Medicaid billing fraud.

She graduated from the American University of the Caribbean, which is about as bottom of the barrel as you can get in terms of medical schools.

But she's just pro-vaccine enough to make Trump cultists hate her. I can't wait to see her and Bobby F. Brainworm in the same room with Dr. Oz (that's a medical dream time if I've ever seen one).

 

[Liquid]

She called the COVID vaccine a "gift from god"

Sometimes, just sometimes, I think that people with this mindset are worse than murderers.

 

[McLaren]

Oh boy, so she's yet another snakeoil salesman who regularly goes on Fox News. How surprising of yet another moronic pick.

 

[p78]

Pretty harsh, I know, but one can one hope, a lot of these dumb people die over the next 4 years.
But it will still be Bidens fault.

 

[Danoff]

I called it A because the point was made regarding the John in the situation.

Honestly, I still don't even know if A is an appropriate thing to call it. Not sure you do either. But yes, you're adding just a tiny bit of harm to the situation by ignoring the crime to call out the non-crime.

Tldr: im judging the John twice, once morally, once ethically.

So far I've only seen you complain about infidelity. So perhaps you have a moral and ethical issue about that.

Its a simple attempt to highlight the absurdity of expecting these people to have a moral compass. Also, when people you think should have a moral compass and should care about this…don’t.. Possibly…it might be time to accept these people are telling you about themselves.

I'm not sure who this is for. One way I could take it is that you're telling me that you think statutory rape is ok and I haven't been quick enough to accept that.

You and I are in violent agreement over Gaetz. But you're focusing your condemnation of him over a perceived break of a promise to his to a significant other. Even though as far as I know you have no evidence of such a promise and aren't privileged to any personal relationship details Gaetz has with any significant other. So as far as I know, you're condemning Gaetz for legal activity that you don't even know whether he actually did.

On the other hand, I'm condemning him for engaging in prostitution with someone who legally cannot consent to such an act under the law in the state in which the event occurred. When you made a comment about infidelity, I merely pointed you to the actual offense. For some reason, you've wanted to argue with this. I'm really not sure why. I guess you just don't mind that she was 17.

To be clear, my view on this is probably actually less judgmental than yours. You're saying you're judging him twice. I'm really only barely judging him once, and it's mostly about breaking the law. Whether a 17 year old can consent is something that a lot of states have different takes on. I do not think that Gaetz's various criminal offenses in this event would have been illegal in every state, especially if you could break them up across states. So for example prostitution is legal in Nevada. And sex with a 17 year old is ok in some states.

However...

I don't think there's any state where prostitution of a 17 year old is ok. I might be able to get on board with 17 year old sexual consent under certain circumstances. But consent to sex seems like the bare minimum prerequisite for being able to consent to sex work. Given that 18 year olds are able to consent to sex work in pornographic films (at least in some states, I don't know about all), I guess 18 seems like a fair minimum for sex work. But honestly, I think I might be in favor of raising the minimum age for sex work of all kinds over 18. 21 seems a lot more appropriate. This is the first time I've really considered this in detail.

Anyway, sex trafficking a 17 year old is and should be (morally) a criminal offense for Gaetz. Infidelity should never be. None of this has anything to do with whether I expect Gaetz to have a moral compass. I don't. I just also don't think bringing up infidelity makes a lot of sense in this particular case, for several reasons, not the least of which is that we don't necessarily know whether it was actually infidelity.

[/beating dead horse]

 

[eran0004]

She knows why you should avoid military conflicts as plague.

She categorically does not. The fact that she is supporting the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war shows that.