this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
255 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19187 readers
5390 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
255
Republican defends child marriage: I'm "pro-choice" (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A New Hampshire Republican lawmaker who has been under fire for defending child marriage has lashed out at his "haters" while insisting that his stance is "pro-choice."

State Representative Jess Edwards inspired outrage last week after describing underage teenage girls as "ripe" and "fertile" while arguing against a bill to raise the age of marriage in the Granite State from 16 to 18. The bill passed by a vote of 192-174 despite objections from Edwards and others.

…

Edwards described critics of his underage marriage stance as "an army of control freaks that want to entice a pregnant woman into an abortion rather than allow a marriage" in a Facebook post on Monday.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] breadsmasher 104 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

There is no good way to spin this. Reads like a very poor attempt at a republican “gotcha”

  1. “Im pro choice too. Are you now anti choice? gOtcHa” - idiots
  2. Those legitimately defending it because they want to .. marry .. children - vile predators
  3. “Entice abortion instead of marriage” - remember he is talking about a minor who has been a victim of SA. This bill isn’t about “allowing women the choice to marry and keep the baby”. Its about legitimising sexually assaulting a minor, impregnating them, and then marrying them to make it all “legal and above board”

Conservatives, personally I do not agree with assaulting and marrying children. How can anyone ever defend this? Come defend your reps position. Or maybe wake up and realise this insanity will never stop while you continue to vote these predators into government

[–] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

False equivalencies are conservative bread and butter, make it look like your opponent does what you do because conservatives wont care, but liberals might. Back when I had more energy for social media, when I would see stories like this I would tell a little story I made up to make the point.

A conservative drives to his opponents house in the middle of the night, taking a can of gasoline he dumps gas all over the front of his opponents house. Striking a match, he gleefully lights the house ablaze. Thankfully, the opponent is not home, and the police and firefighters respond quickly. The conservative is being arrested and put into the back of the police car just as his opponent turns up the driveway. The media circus turns their cameras to the car pulling up the lane, then back to the conservative who yells "see my opponent there, in that car, well he uses gas too " . The chyron on Fox now reads: " Hypocrite liberal gets whats coming to him" on CNN you have: "Gas controversy erupts in flames"

What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter how outlandish the equivalency is, you can be guaranteed conservatives will make it, and that the media will bothsides it for them.

Edit: Yes I do a bit of self-cringe when I reread that story.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Edit: Yes I do a bit of self-cringe when I reread that story.

Why? That's actually a very good example.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I first wrote that story out 10 or more years ago, so it feels like a product of my youth, a cartoonish caricature that's so on the nose I should be a little embarrassed I couldn't come up with something more subtle. I'm my own worst critic though.

[–] SlopppyEngineer 12 points 6 months ago

cartoonish caricature that’s so on the nose I should be a little embarrassed

Yeah, that describes today's landscape. The Onion is feeling that one too.

[–] SpaceNoodle 6 points 6 months ago

It's actually really good tho.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (1 children)

#GOP = Gathering of Pedophiles

[–] WhatAmLemmy 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Grand Old Pedophiles

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Nothing Grand about them.

[–] capt_wolf 25 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hello, FBI? This guy right here... Couldn't be more of a red flag.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Fucking gross people man.

Gross old pervs.

[–] Burn_The_Right 20 points 6 months ago

Openly supporting the right to sexually assault children...

#JustConservativeThings

[–] FuglyDuck 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You know…. I wonder if the FBI would take a tip and investigate him.

You know. Just to make sure he’s not sexually assaulted any kids in his orbit.

[–] VindictiveJudge 2 points 6 months ago

I'm not actually sure the FBI would be able to do anything about it if he is. There is no federal age of consent, just state ages of consent. Now, if he takes pictures while doing it, that's absolutely a federal crime.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Edwards described critics of his underage marriage stance as "an army of control freaks that want to entice a pregnant woman into an abortion rather than allow a marriage"

The guy goes on about personal freedom but then puts it as an either/or that someone gets pregnant and they have one of two choices...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

EVERY REPUBLICAN WANTS TO FUCK CHILDREN. YES, EVEN YOU.

(You, if you’re a Republican.)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I doubt they all personally want to fuck children, but they want children to be fucked.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

They probably wouldn’t say no if the situation presented itself.

[–] Delusional 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So this guy has shown that he is not smart in the slightest and doesn't understand basic shit so he should obviously be removed from office and never allowed anywhere near children or in any position of authority ever again. That's what would happen in a perfect world.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago

Better yet, people like him would just not exist.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[–] barsquid 5 points 6 months ago

No, they do, they are doing some fascist shit trying to make words and phrases have no meaning.

[–] AA5B 4 points 6 months ago

I used to think minimum age requirements for marriage were unnecessary: who would do that? I only read about it in fundamentalist communities that were inherently repressive, so it seemed like just part of the bigger issue.

I still wonder how you can be bound by a co Tracy you’re too young to legally agree to, and where are the parents and authorities on this

[–] IchNichtenLichten 1 points 6 months ago

This sick fuck should move to somewhere where he'd be more at home, like Sudan.

"The Personal Status Law of Muslims, 1991, allows the marriage of a girl from puberty. Ten years-olds can be married with judicial authorization.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#By_country

[–] AnUnusualRelic 1 points 6 months ago

As soon as the egg is fertilised, it's old enough to marry! It says so in the bible. (Probably)