this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3218 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
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] undercrust@lemmy.ca 71 points 5 months ago

So a child groomer, huh. Projection yet again.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Eh, could have been worse... they could have met at a family reunion. ;)

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 52 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, two adults who are related getting married is less gross to me than a middle-aged person marrying a child.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Marrying an adult he had too much access to as a child.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Thank you for the excellent analysis. Sounds very right.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Haha holy shit that's this guy?

Someone tell the kid his dad's a groomer

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

Yup. That's a deeply unsettling age difference.

[–] noisefree@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago

bride-elect? what does that mean?

[–] celeste@kbin.earth 3 points 5 months ago

That one person was probably just trolling, but nowadays teens are much less likely to be sexually active than in previous decades.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-having-less-sex-whether-theyre-teenagers-or-40-somethings/