US 2024 Presidential Election

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump. Those already outraged by this are voting for him anyway while others at best are pretending it isn't happening, as if HR5 isn't a real piece of legislation passed by Nancy Pelosi's House. So far. The Dems currently have the Senate and the White House. Why they haven't passed it yet? I can think of a couple of reasons including, if they do it, they lose it as an incentive for people that want it passed to vote for them.

Meantime: Mon, Aug 19, 2024 – Thu, Aug 22, 2024 is the Democratic Convention. We'll see if Kamala will get the nomination or not.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,028
6,333
118
Country
United Kingdom
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump. Those already outraged by this are voting for him anyway while others at best are pretending it isn't happening, as if HR5 isn't a real piece of legislation passed by Nancy Pelosi's House.
To anyone who still has their wits about them: HR5 summary can be read here, and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with adults and children having sex.

Gorfias is peddling a hysterical lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,108
3,837
118
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump.
Because it's a lie.

(That is, the one you are talking about. There is are agendas involving child abuse, but it's not drag queens behind them, and Trump isn't opposing them.)
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,141
967
118
Country
USA
"Fine people" would not turn out at the request of a white-supremacist & klansman and then happily protest alongside a sea of white-supremacist symbols and chants.
Nobody said that happened. Trump said there were fine people to protest the removal of the statue.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,240
1,695
118
Country
The Netherlands
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump.
I don't think anyone genuinely concerned about children getting raped would consider Trump and the Republicans as their champions. If you think child rape is a massive problem and you turn to Trump then you're either misinformed or disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
To anyone who still has their wits about them: HR5 summary can be read here, and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with adults and children having sex.

Gorfias is peddling a hysterical lie.
Because it's a lie.

(That is, the one you are talking about. There is are agendas involving child abuse, but it's not drag queens behind them, and Trump isn't opposing them.)
I don't think anyone genuinely concerned about children getting raped would consider Trump and the Republicans as their champions. If you think child rape is a massive problem and you turn to Trump then you're either misinformed or disingenuous.
Yeah, yeah.
I have already posted HR5.

I have already explained what MAPs are (Minor Attracted Persons). It is argued to be an orientation.

HR5 in relevant part: " This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity..."

But, it really will not be up to me or you to interpret what this means. The least representative arm of government, judicial, will TELL you what it means.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,028
6,333
118
Country
United Kingdom
Nobody said that happened. Trump said there were fine people to protest the removal of the statue.
He did indeed say that-- in reference to a specific protest organised and dominated by white supremacists.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,108
3,837
118
But, it really will not be up to me or you to interpret what this means. The least representative arm of government, judicial, will TELL you what it means.
And they are not, absolutely not, going to tell you it means you can get away with abusing kids.

Try claiming that your sexual orientation is for not paying taxes, and see if that keeps you out of prison. Spoiler: it won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tippy2k2

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,028
6,333
118
Country
United Kingdom
I have already posted HR5.

I have already explained what MAPs are (Minor Attracted Persons). It is argued to be an orientation.

HR5 in relevant part: " This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity..."

But, it really will not be up to me or you to interpret what this means. The least representative arm of government, judicial, will TELL you what it means.
"It is argued to be an orientation"... by a minuscule fringe with zero influence and zero power anywhere on any level of government. The bill simply and factually does not include it, and anyone telling you that's somehow covered by the term "orientation" is either a grifter or an idiot.

Protections against discrimination on grounds of orientation already exist in 20+ states (as well as dozens of other countries). You know how often it's included paedophilia? Zero.

Or, let's apply your logic to the existing provisions in the Civil Rights Act. You seem to think that if some lunatic can argue something is included, then it will be. So what if some lunatic argues child molestation is part of their religion? You know what happens? Fucking nothing, it's not protected, the other laws against that still stand and it's not a recognised religious freedom.

This is a malicious and moronic lie, peddled by fuckwads who want to be able to keep legally discriminating against gay people, so they're smearing their opponents as paedophilia. It's rank, it's dishonest, and it's plain fucking stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
And they are not, absolutely not, going to tell you it means you can get away with abusing kids.

Try claiming that your sexual orientation is for not paying taxes, and see if that keeps you out of prison. Spoiler: it won't.
Again, you do not know that ... unless you are on the USSC? Sorry your honor!
I concede, NAMBLA itself is probably, by themselves, not particularly politically potent. They might even be political poison as they say the quiet part out loud. But they exist, and I assure you, the people that want to take children to drag queen shows, to gay pride parades telling you they expect there to be simulated gay sex or "kink" going on, naked old men walking around in public, gleefully hoping to mutilate and sterilize their children and call it "gender affirming care" and more? If you don't see that our children are under attack, I think you are being willfull.

But on topic, I don't think this is a good topic to bring front and center into a POTUS campaign.
"It is argued to be an orientation"... by a minuscule fringe with zero influence and zero power anywhere on any level of government. The bill simply and factually does not include it, and anyone telling you that's somehow covered by the term "orientation" is either a grifter or an idiot.

Protections against discrimination on grounds of orientation already exist in 20+ states (as well as dozens of other countries). You know how often it's included paedophilia? Zero.

Or, let's apply your logic to the existing provisions in the Civil Rights Act. You seem to think that if some lunatic can argue something is included, then it will be. So what if some lunatic argues child molestation is part of their religion? You know what happens? Fucking nothing, it's not protected, the other laws against that still stand and it's not a recognised religious freedom.

This is a malicious and moronic lie, peddled by fuckwads who want to be able to keep legally discriminating against gay people, so they're smearing their opponents as paedophilia. It's rank, it's dishonest, and it's plain fucking stupid.
FOR NOW.
Regardless of whether or not I personally have an opinion about, for instance, gay marriage, look at what happened there. Gay congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts said the topic wasn't even on his radar. I think it was only Hawaii and Massachusetts that passed laws for gay marriage and then the USSC discovered a right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment.

My point: they can turn on a dime.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,640
830
118
Country
Sweden
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump. Those already outraged by this are voting for him anyway while others at best are pretending it isn't happening, as if HR5 isn't a real piece of legislation passed by Nancy Pelosi's House. So far. The Dems currently have the Senate and the White House. Why they haven't passed it yet? I can think of a couple of reasons including, if they do it, they lose it as an incentive for people that want it passed to vote for them.

Meantime: Mon, Aug 19, 2024 – Thu, Aug 22, 2024 is the Democratic Convention. We'll see if Kamala will get the nomination or not.
One of the responses you got was one from me. Why didn't you answer it?
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,834
9,494
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Some of the responses I'm getting in this thread suggest to me that bringing up the agenda to normalize and decriminalize adults raping children actually wouldn't be a vote getter for Trump. Those already outraged by this are voting for him anyway while others at best are pretending it isn't happening, as if HR5 isn't a real piece of legislation passed by Nancy Pelosi's House. So far. The Dems currently have the Senate and the White House. Why they haven't passed it yet? I can think of a couple of reasons including, if they do it, they lose it as an incentive for people that want it passed to vote for them.

Meantime: Mon, Aug 19, 2024 – Thu, Aug 22, 2024 is the Democratic Convention. We'll see if Kamala will get the nomination or not.
I think I've heard this argument before. Oh yeah, it was along the lines of "if we don't put gay people in jail then they'll rape our children".
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
749
389
68
Country
Denmark
I have already posted HR5.

I have already explained what MAPs are (Minor Attracted Persons). It is argued to be an orientation.

HR5 in relevant part: " This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity..."

But, it really will not be up to me or you to interpret what this means. The least representative arm of government, judicial, will TELL you what it means.
As a heterosexual cis man I'm still allowed to work around women and people aren't allowed to discriminate against me being employed in places that serve or cater to women. Now why is that? Might it be because forcefully acting on my orientation would be illegal? Could that be the reason? We already have laws criminalizing everything someone attracted to minors might potentially do to a minor, laws that cover everyone meaning that it isn't discrimination, so your argument is moot and you've, once again, been shilling for some of the worst people out there.

Heck, if there was less stigma attached to a sexual orientation (literally your brain being wired in a certain manner) a lot more people might be willing to seek councelling or advice on how to avoid acting on said orientation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,028
6,333
118
Country
United Kingdom
FOR NOW.
Regardless of whether or not I personally have an opinion about, for instance, gay marriage, look at what happened there. Gay congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts said the topic wasn't even on his radar. I think it was only Hawaii and Massachusetts that passed laws for gay marriage and then the USSC discovered a right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment.

My point: they can turn on a dime.
So, all you actually have here is speculation about a future reinterpretation, don't you? It's not actually in the bill and the bill passing wouldn't make it legal. And absolutely nobody involved in drafting or passing the bill has argued that it would include it. You just speculate that in some future (utterly unrealistic) scenario, it might get reinterpreted. Basic prejudiced fearmongering, like when the idiots who argued against decriminalising homosexuality tried to convince people it would lead to marrying dogs.

This already means your line about how Dems are trying to normalise and legalise child rape is utter hogwash. You can no more accuse them of doing so, as you can accuse the people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act-- which has exactly the same protections for other groups, and would be open to exactly the same nonexistent hypothetical reinterpretation.

No: You're trying to draw a legal equivalence here between 1) my right to marry a consenting adult I love, & work free of discrimination on the basis of loving men; and 2) child rape. That is fucking repulsive. A morally and logically bankrupt smear, with no basis whatsoever in either law or even just decent human thought.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,635
2,021
118
Jesus Christ it would have been fun to have The Escapist Forums in the 80s/90s because certain people here would be all in on the D&D is Satanism, Harry Potter is teaching children witchcraft, and if you play Bark at the Moon backwards, you can summon an evil spirit to kill a Christian. I feel far dumber for having to have read these arguments and I don't have a lot of IQ points left to spare as it is!
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
749
389
68
Country
Denmark
Jesus Christ it would have been fun to have The Escapist Forums in the 80s/90s because certain people here would be all in on the D&D is Satanism, Harry Potter is teaching children witchcraft, and if you play Bark at the Moon backwards, you can summon an evil spirit to kill a Christian. I feel far dumber for having to have read these arguments and I don't have a lot of IQ points left to spare as it is!
Much as I hate social media in general I'd pay good money to see any kind of social media feed post 1915.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
So, all you actually have here is speculation about a future reinterpretation, don't you? It's not actually in the bill and the bill passing wouldn't make it legal.
I am writing that you and I don't decide. The least representative branch of government will: the judiciary. And they can decide, not in the future but right now, the right to rape children MAY be included.
... idiots who argued against decriminalising homosexuality tried to convince people it would lead to marrying dogs.
There are women marrying dolphins and trees and engaging in "sologomy" marrying themselves. Not sure what the legal impact of such acts is.
Course, Anita says this is just how she celebrated her birthday, not marrying herself

1722796647701.png
This already means your line about how Dems are trying to normalise and legalise child rape is utter hogwash. You can no more accuse them of doing so, as you can accuse the people who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act-- which has exactly the same protections for other groups, and would be open to exactly the same nonexistent hypothetical reinterpretation.
I do not understand this sentence. You talking about anti miscegenation decision?
No: You're trying to draw a legal equivalence here between 1) my right to marry a consenting adult I love, & work free of discrimination on the basis of loving men; and 2) child rape. That is fucking repulsive. A morally and logically bankrupt smear, with no basis whatsoever in either law or even just decent human thought.
How about a man's right to call himself a woman and competing in women's sports, erasing women? Would a reasonable interpretation of this child rape advancing law include protecting "trans-women"' aka men's, rights to erase women in sports?

I hear the 2 top boxing contenders in the women's Olympics are both biological men.

1722796479158.png

I have a daughter that I would be outraged if she trained hard to be the best of the best, but found herself erased by such men.

But on topic, can Trump use this topic to help himself in 2024. Sadly, I think not. The crazy bitter childless cat ladies are more likely to support this sort of thing than just about anyone else!!!
As a heterosexual cis man I'm still allowed to work around women and people aren't allowed to discriminate against me being employed in places that serve or cater to women. Now why is that? Might it be because forcefully acting on my orientation would be illegal? Could that be the reason? We already have laws criminalizing everything someone attracted to minors might potentially do to a minor, laws that cover everyone meaning that it isn't discrimination, so your argument is moot and you've, once again, been shilling for some of the worst people out there.

Heck, if there was less stigma attached to a sexual orientation (literally your brain being wired in a certain manner) a lot more people might be willing to seek councelling or advice on how to avoid acting on said orientation.
We are seeing a backlash against companies that have a policy to avoid hiring white men as the current USSC is starting to find DEI to be an illegal violation of the 14th. I'd prefer a 1st A. protection of association. If Harvard University wants diversity? Go for it. You want an all white bus company? Good luck with that: I think you'll fail but it should be your right to try if you want to do so. The idea is get the Fed out of the quota business.
Not sure what else you're writing. Do you want to de stigmatize MAPS in the hopes they'll be more likely to not break the law?
I think I've heard this argument before. Oh yeah, it was along the lines of "if we don't put gay people in jail then they'll rape our children".
I'm sure the members of NAMBLA make similar arguments.
They are indeed under attack, but not by drag queens or people acknowledging the rights of trans people.
I disagree but for this thread, my question is, would Trump bringing it up help his electoral chances. I'm convinced now, there are too many crazy bitter childless cat ladies that love this sort of thing to help.
 
Last edited:

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,240
1,695
118
Country
The Netherlands
I hear the 2 top boxing contenders in the women's Olympics are both biological men
Well I heard its illegal to even transition in Algeria. So how does that work? Did Algeria suddenly become super woke? Or did the woman in question manage to hide she was born as a boy? Or did the far right make a bizarre hoax that totally invalidates the idea they just want to ''protect'' woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,370
1,958
118
Country
USA
Well I heard its illegal to even transition in Algeria. So how does that work? Did Algeria suddenly become super woke? Or did the woman in question manage to hide she was born as a boy? Or did the far right make a bizarre hoax that totally invalidates the idea they just want to ''protect'' woman.
It's a MAN BABY! There is an unfortunate condition where a person might be born with both sets of genitals and maybe the dude is like that? But from apparent bulge, it looks like he still has guy parts? This is not a female, has Y chromosomes, so, there it is.