this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
857 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3776 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com 155 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I’m at a loss for words. How did this man not get shouted down for saying that out loud and in public?! Those are the thoughts of a predator, which is a position of power.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 94 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 71 points 6 months ago (2 children)

In the name of honest, good degenerates, I protest these ghouls being lumped in with us. It's perfectly sane to want to have sexual relations with eg. military aircraft, and it is much more natural and socially beneficial than what these despicables imply.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If god didn’t want me to have sex with a C130 he should have made it so damn sexy

[–] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Fucking weirdos. SR 71's where it's at.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Reconnaissance aircraft? C'mon man, get your head in the game. Combat aircraft are sexy. Give me a Mirage any day.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

More than meets the eye

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

All those guns and missiles < fast as fuck carrying just some cameras, always watching, invisible to radar. Don't even know it's there.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

AC-130 is into some nastier shit

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

When you hear that clunk of the 135mm being loaded from the direction of your ass

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Agreed. I can only get off to pics of dragons fucking cars and i want to be able to hold my head high again

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I despise the image you just made me remember

[–] LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 6 months ago

Always have been, however without facing real consequences they’ve grown way too bold!

[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 38 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

When they screamed about the degeneration of Western society it wasn’t a warning it was an announcement. Everything is just projection with these evil cunts

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Full context:

If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative

I think this can be interpreted as "young people will inevitably get pregnant", not "young people should get pregnant".

Still wrongheaded and cringeworthy, but maybe not as monstrous as it initially looked.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No. That’s even worse.

They’re arguing that children should get married to provide for kids.

Reality: the only people that can afford to support not one but two children…. Are creepy old men.

The argument is that because kids might get preggo, they should be allowed to marry them and make them preggo

That’s fucked up.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure he cares if anyone provides for them. Like many in the GOP, he seems to only care about preventing abortions without any thought to what happens next.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

He doesn’t.

But he’s not just about preventing abortions.

They’re pedos.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not, in fact, making abortion a much more desirable alternative

Read as:

If we ban child marriage, then desperate single mothers will want to have abortions instead of getting married like God intended.

Dude's literally complaining that children getting abortions is easier than getting children married. No, that sounds exactly as ghoulish and monstrous as it appeared.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It originally appeared far worse to me, like the ravings of a pedophile.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

As it should, given that I have never heard ‘ripe’ used by anyone but pedos.

[–] LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 6 months ago

In my mind there is no generous interpretation of his words as there is a paragraph which makes his statement worse in my opinion.

In a state where 18 is not old enough to drink, Edwards believes girls at 16 are old enough to get married.

He wants marriage to 16 year olds to be legal; I don’t believe this is a good thing, especially if he also then argued for parental consent for marriages to adult men. It’s a huge red flag to me, personally.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah but he skipped adoption and the idea that parents can continue to support their daughter even if she's not a virgin. Teens getting married because one of them got pregnant is not the first thing I want people to think of. A teen marrying her statutory rapist should be even farther down the list.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Repubs love voting for rapists and pedophiles.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

He’s representing his constituency.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Have you seen the GOP before?

[–] LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 6 months ago

I’m deeply familiar with them it’s never been in their nature to say the quiet part out loud in front of everyone! Rather it’s projecting their desires on others to vilify them, hopefully their looser tongues sink their ship. 🤢