147
So a child groomer, huh. Projection yet again.
Eh, could have been worse... they could have met at a family reunion. ;)
Honestly, two adults who are related getting married is less gross to me than a middle-aged person marrying a child.
Marrying an adult he had too much access to as a child.
Ick.
She’s 33 now. Grooming permanently damage her or could she just be legit in love with him today? Or even if so were other opportunities potential stolen from her, or what’s y’alls take?
Possibly all of the above. If I were in her shoes I'd have probably taken the deal as well. Guaranteed all-expenses scholarship in your chosen field, followed afterward by a train of effectively infinite money coupled with political power? And in return she just has to give this old man the occasional shag? It's honestly not a bad deal.
Make no mistake though, she is a victim here. Even if she may have profited off it the fact remains that she was groomed by a middle aged man while in high school and was extremely likely coerced into this relationship, either by offers or by threats or most likely some combination of both. A Faustian deal was struck here, where the opportunity for a regular loving family was given up in exchange for power, but it's not clear to me how much choice was given to her in this deal.
Thank you for the excellent analysis. Sounds very right.
It's quite possible to have feelings towards an abuser/groomer. But yeah, she probably could have had better chances if she weren't groomed.
Haha holy shit that's this guy?
Someone tell the kid his dad's a groomer
Yup. That's a deeply unsettling age difference.
This guy is still around in Congress?! I had no idea it was the same dude when the recent articles about the photobombing kid came out. Ew.
bride-elect? what does that mean?
That one person was probably just trolling, but nowadays teens are much less likely to be sexually active than in previous decades.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)
politics
18069 readers
3972 users here now
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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS