Cursed Political Content
- Thread starter TexRex
- 6,598 comments
- 318,893 views
- 11,724
- Marin County
Yeah, I'll pass on both. Can't we go back to just normal neocons already?
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,811
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
McLaren
Premium
- 45,298
- Texas
I'm not so sure DeSantis is the lesser of two evils with Trump. Whilst Trump has come out and just said absolutely asinine things like, "Forcing federal employees to pass a political test & fire them if they fail", DeSantis has actually gotten some of his policies into place as Governor. DeSantis only looks as foolish as Trump recently because of his petty fight with Disney, something that he wants to continue on.
They're both equally bad & unfit for office, but I think DeSantis might be a bigger threat because he's not quite as ego-driven as Trump who just likes to say, "People love me, say I'm the greatest".
They're both equally bad & unfit for office, but I think DeSantis might be a bigger threat because he's not quite as ego-driven as Trump who just likes to say, "People love me, say I'm the greatest".
- 20,660
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
McLaren
Premium
- 45,298
- Texas
That's the issue at hand. He's not fighting corporations, instead he's spending most of his time attacking people & successfully getting legislation through, specifically against LGBTQ+ people. Look at his recent actions, repealing the law requiring a unanimous verdict to 8 out 12 for the death penalty & then allowing the death penalty to child rapists. He claims this is being "tough on crime" yet when he spends time pushing the lie that LGBTQ+ people are child groomers, any non-Republican shill can start to see the connections being made.
He's only attacking Disney because they opposed his Don't Say Gay bill. Even when/if Disney comes out on top, DeSantis will continue to go after gay/transgender communities in the mean time & probably even after his petty fight with Disney ends. The question is will Disney continue fighting anyway or will they go back to counting their Benjamins when DeSantis has had enough?
Last edited:
- 23,846
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Danoff
Premium
- 33,739
- Mile High City
He may actually be worse, but at the moment we don't know. Right this second Trump is a borderline religious icon to a good portion of the American population who has attempted to subvert the American government and take over in an attempted coup. Ron doesn't have that stuff at the moment.
- 29,580
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This sort of statute is known colloquially as a "Romeo and Juliet" law due to the supposed romantic relationship between the involved parties; such relationships, to say nothing of supposed sexual contact, are not prohibited by law in Texas or any other state.
These statutes are fairly common. Just over half of the states in this country, 26 in total, have some version, though the starting ages and differentials vary. The most common differentials are two, three, and four years, though Florida statute...yeah, deep red Florida...provides for such a defense when the charged is up to seven years older, at 23, while only those aged 18 years may legally consent. If I was a bad faith actor I might say that's "sick"--to borrow from Ted...yay, I got it this time...Cruz--but I don't actually know if it's inappropriate even as I personally find it distasteful. It looks like Utah may be the same as Florida, but it's more convoluted and I'm not prepared to untangle it.
I've elaborated on this before--if, perhaps, not to the same degree--when conservatives were outraged that California enacted a law providing for judicial discretion over whether an individual convicted of penetrative statutory rape (which is to say that it's rape by statute because those under 18 years of age may not consent to sexual contact, even if it was not coercive, and California law doesn't provide for a "Romeo and Juliet" defense) subsequent to oral or anal copulation (in effect to account for same-sex interactions) would be required to register as a sex offender, subject to an absolute maximum age differential of ten years. The law passed provided for such discretion equal to that for cases of vaginal penetrative statutory rape.
The logical conclusion of said outrage is that conservatives, outraged by passage of such a law, desire preferential treatment for adult men who penetrate the vaginas of children. That's disgusting beyond description. Of course I'm not a bad faith actor and I recognize that those conservatives are likely to have been deliberately disinformed (indeed the outlet reporting on the passage was Breitbart) and/or are willfully, maliciously ignorant about the facts of the matter, and may not actually desire such a thing.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
...
I don't think age is the best factor to determine whether one may reasonably consent and so I don't know what age is actually appropriate, but I do think these age differentials are a better (though obviously not perfect) way of preserving the right to bodily autonomy without violating individual rights. I also don't know what specific starting age or age differential is appropriate. It's complicated and could do without bad faith actors deliberately obfuscating.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,739
- Mile High City
FellatioFelitoRafaelTed Cruz ostensibly represents the state of Texas in the United States Senate. It is a felony in Texas to engage in sexual contact with an individual aged less than 17 years. However, the Texas Penal Code provides for an affirmative defense in cases of non-coercive consensual (which is to say "consensual in fact, if not in law") sexual contact in which the charged is no more than three years older than the individual with whom they had sexual contact.
This sort of statute is known colloquially as a "Romeo and Juliet" law due to the supposed romantic relationship between the involved parties; such relationships, to say nothing of supposed sexual contact, are not prohibited by law in Texas or any other state.FellatioFelitoRafael...dammit...Ted Cruz, a lawyer who clerked for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, is certain to be at least aware of this, but the aim is to obscure facts and enrage the idiot base.
These statutes are fairly common. Just over half of the states in this country, 26 in total, have some version, though the starting ages and differentials vary. The most common differentials are two, three, and four years, though Florida statute...yeah, deep red Florida...provides for such a defense when the charged is up to seven years older, at 23, while only those aged 18 years may legally consent. If I was a bad faith actor I might say that's "sick"--to borrow from Ted...yay, I got it this time...Cruz--but I don't actually know if it's inappropriate even as I personally find it distasteful. It looks like Utah may be the same as Florida, but it's more convoluted and I'm not prepared to untangle it.
I've elaborated on this before--if, perhaps, not to the same degree--when conservatives were outraged that California enacted a law providing for judicial discretion over whether an individual convicted of penetrative statutory rape (which is to say that it's rape by statute because those under 18 years of age may not consent to sexual contact, even if it was not coercive, and California law doesn't provide for a "Romeo and Juliet" defense) subsequent to oral or anal copulation (in effect to account for same-sex interactions) would be required to register as a sex offender, subject to an absolute maximum age differential of ten years. The law passed provided for such discretion equal to that for cases of vaginal penetrative statutory rape.
The logical conclusion of said outrage is that conservatives, outraged by passage of such a law, desire preferential treatment for adult men who penetrate the vaginas of children. That's disgusting beyond description. Of course I'm not a bad faith actor and I recognize that those conservatives are likely to have been deliberately disinformed (indeed the outlet reporting on the passage was Breitbart) and/or are willfully, maliciously ignorant about the facts of the matter, and may not actually desire such a thing.
Modern American conservatism is mental illness.
...
I don't think age is the best factor to determine whether one may reasonably consent and so I don't know what age is actually appropriate, but I do think these age differentials are a better (though obviously not perfect) way of preserving the right to bodily autonomy without violating individual rights. I also don't know what specific starting age or age differential is appropriate. It's complicated and could do without bad faith actors deliberately obfuscating.
Did UN call to decriminalise sex between adults + children?!
Did a UN report call for the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children?! Find out what the facts really are!
www.techarp.com
Sex between adolescents (apparently defined as 10-19) may be consensual. I've seen this picked up almost exclusively by right-wing media outlets and many of them are reporting that the UN says it's ok for adults to have sex with children. It's apparently not what was said.
- 29,580
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I hadn't seen the original statement from the UN. I read a response to the apparent deliberate misrepresentation that clarifies in a manner entirely consistent with the original statement, to the point that such clarification is wholly unnecessary but for the apparent deliberate misrepresentation.Did UN call to decriminalise sex between adults + children?!
Did a UN report call for the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children?! Find out what the facts really are!
Sex between adolescents (apparently defined as 10-19) may be consensual. I've seen this picked up almost exclusively by right-wing media outlets and many of them are reporting that the UN says it's ok for adults to have sex with children. It's apparently not what was said.
Everything is so God damned stupid.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,739
- Mile High City
It's because they know that the people this is aimed at will not question it. So they can mischaracterize it to their heart's content. Worst possible case scenario here is that eventually it becomes widely known (it will not) that the report does not say what they claimed it said, and then they'll just be like "Ok, well good. Because children are our future and stuff. Now excuse me while I advocate that kids can get married at age 12".
Last edited:
- 29,580
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I think that's maybe the best possible scenario here? I mean the actual bast possible scenario would be for those deceived to recognize they've been deceived and scrutinize everything they take in to the point that they subsequently disregard the sources that deceived them. I recognize that's not even remotely possible, so your "worst" is probably the best that's somewhat likely, while the actual worst is threats directed at and violent physical attacks against disfavored groups.
...
Oh boy.
Last edited:
- 1,552
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ScorchingAngel01
Trump getting zapped by an anthropomorphic monkey who somehow won a fight against Emperor Palpatine and stole his powers?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
