this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
288 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22913 readers
4596 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 86 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 66 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He should be hired to replace her

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

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

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Kids know when their parents are full of shit.

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 10 months ago

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

[–] Paprika@lemmy.cafe 53 points 10 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.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

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

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 10 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.

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 3 points 10 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.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 14 points 10 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.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

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

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 7 points 10 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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 points 10 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.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As long as there wasn't any grooming involved.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 5 points 10 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.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

21 is teenager part 2.

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

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 10 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.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 10 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.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

You are welcome.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 3 points 10 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.

[–] maculata@aussie.zone 20 points 10 months ago

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

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Weird, the video doesn't seem to work.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 1 points 10 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.