politics
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
view the rest of the comments
The headline:
She was literally underage. She needed money for braces. It's not a misleading headline AT ALL and wanting to put nuance on a headline about a guy treating a child like a prostitute is not a good look for you.
oh go find someone else to pretend like they’re on gaetz’s side… you can get super mad at them and yell at them while having an imaginary argument where they’re suddenly a Matt Gaetz sympathizer….
maybe go punch a pillow or something, i’m not the one you’re upset with.
he’s a horrible person, this is one of the many reasons why…
he didn’t buy her braces for sex.
he had sex with an underage girl, for money, gave her drugs….
her being homeless or needing dental care was far from his mind, i’m sure….
Your only remaining reason to pointlessly criticise the headline is that you missed the distinction between the role of subject and object in a sentence? What a hill to die on!
Reread it.
Sounds like you still don't understand and it's making you cross. I'll explain.
The girl is the subject in the sentence. The sentence is about what she did.
Matt Gaetz is the object of the sentence. He is who she did it with.
And this says why she did it. NOT why he did it.
So the headline was accurate because that's exactly what she alleges. Getting all hissy about how he might have had no idea she needed braces is silly because no claim about that was made.
Spending all day objecting to the wording of the headline, in particular objecting that Matt Gaetz might not have known she was underage made you come across as defending a rich and powerful pedo offender, which, as I said, is not a good look for you.
A middle aged man having sex with a teenager for money and buying her drugs is starkly immoral even if he claims he didn't know she was underaged.
Calling her "barely legal" as you did, when she was not "legal" suggests you're watching the wrong kind of porn and you think that stuff is fine and take the porn site's word that it's legal despite them warning you that it's on the fringe.
Maybe you has a more intelligent point to make, but "you're a moron" didn't communicate it very effectively.
i care so much about your opinion at this point!
you betcha i’m going to read that novel chatgpt wrote for you… tooootally interested in learning from you.
thanks so much i’m hanging on your every word.