Can someone explain to me how it went from "All 
s are libertarians! Secret child eating libertarians run the shadow government!!" to this?:
We need to talk about the accusation "Matt Gaetz is a libertarian."
β Eric S. Raymond (@esrtweet) November 14, 2024
I know little about Matt Gaetz, and don't have an opinion about whether he is a qualified nominee to be Attorney General. I'm also not here to make a pro-Trump or anti-Trump political point; I want to address anβ¦
Also these are literally the Republicans current top guys:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, that's your assumption. My assumption, as well as the law's, is that given enough time, people will learn that shit from others. Since you really seem to not understand general child protection and AoC laws, they are essentially a measure of risk management. They are weighing the odds of someone being mature enough and having learned enough to make certain decisions by a certain point in their lives, what are the risk someone not mature enough gets taken advantage of? And on the other hand that risk gets weighed against the risk of depriving a perfectly mature individual of their liberties to act in a way they see fit.
So, going back to our example, the law doesn't assume people turn mature in an instant or that doing so requires trauma, they are betting on you having had enough maturity and life experience (which doesn't mean fricking or whatever, but talking about it with others, reading about it, etc.) by the age of consent to reasonably handle the murkiness of sexual relationships.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So, you're saying 17 is okay, since it's the AOC almost anywhere?
You know the accusations against Gaetz are s*x trafficking, right? The Law doesn't think Gaetz r*ped a child, they're going after him because so many things can be s*x trafficking, even when they shouldn't. You're even committing a federal felony when you take a 25 year old woman across state lines for immoral purposes--which can include a premarital romantic weekend.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The law actually doesn't go after him at all. The charges were dropped. Turns out for all your hysteria, the nuance that is impossible to add in law does get taken into account when judging individual cases.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What hysteria on my part? It should've been clear I thought it was the law being weaponized against somebody. I'm not sure what that last line means-- are you trying to change your argument, or do you struggle with making a point clearly?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You thought the law that dropped the charges was being weaponized against somebody?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, he was investigated when it was politically convenient, and it was dropped quietly when it wasn't needed, but people still keep insisting he's a child abuser.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context