We all talking about the rapist Matt Gaetz? The Matt Gaetz that notoriously trafficked minors across state lines to have drug-fueled sex with children Matt Gaetz? That child rapist Matt Gaetz?
You don’t “have sex with a minor”. You rape a minor. The fact that this asshat is breathing free air is already a failure, let alone that he’s still sitting in Congress.
The age of consent is often below the age of majority. Gaetz, as scummy a piece of shit he is, isn’t being accused of having sex with anyone below the age of consent, which would meet the legal definition of rape.
Claiming he raped someone would open them up to libel, because it would be a lie. The best we can get is pointing out that he had sex with a minor.
Which is also not rape. I’m not defending gaetz here, hes a fucking huge piece of trash. I’m just explaining to anyone who comes here why they aren’t using the term rape.
Depends on whether you’re talking about rape as a legal definition or a violation of a universal understanding of consent.
It obviously doesn’t make sense that having sex with a 17 year old in one state isn’t rape when it would be in a different state, but that is the law. A bad one.
I won’t lie. I see plenty of underage women that I find physically attractive. I find it hard to believe any man has never seen a minor that they find physically attractive. However, there are few I find intellectually or emotionally attractive… and precisely zero I would actually have sex with.
I don’t see what that has to do with the law or your claim it’s universally accepted that having sex with someone under 18 is rape.
I don’t follow point 2. The only way I can interpret it is that you are saying your point was actually the opposite of your point.
Once you trafficked the person across state lines, it can become a federal matter and the definitions of statutory rape, those of the federal definitions, not the ones in Florida. Or in either state, the one of origin or one of destination. this is because the rape charge can become an accessory charge to the trafficking charge. It all depends on the manner in which Gaetz is charged in these cases.
Yes, it fucking is. It’s very blatantly rape. Imagine being the guy who argues that trafficking a teenage girl to fuck her isn’t rape. You’re fucking disgusting and you definitely are defending Gaetz here. There’s no other reason to post this bullshit.
I’m explaining why they don’t use rape in the headline. If facts and reason while also thinking gaetz is pure scum is defending gaetz, well I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into.
Age of consent with a minor in Florida still requires both parental consent and/or that the person who is above the age of 18 be within a certain amount of years of the person who is under 18. Matt Gates does not meet either of these qualifications. That would make it statutory rape.
Edit: there is also the matter of interstate trafficking of a minor, to which the statutory rape charges could be added as an accessory charge at the federal level, and there’s no “underage consent” bullshit at the federal level. Gatez could still face that, and I don’t know what behind-the-scenes literal pole-greasing has been going on for years to prevent it, but someone(s) are clearly running out of grease.
And get the strong feeling that many many years of interest on him getting away with all this shit or about to come do, and he is not gonna be able to pay that bill.
The adult brain doesnt hit full maturity until 25, so 17 is still pretty young.
But either way, he was in his late 30s when he paid $900 to have sex with this 17 yr old child, transported her across state lines, then supplied her with booze and cocaine.
On feeling pressure from his party about his resignation, Buck mentioned something along the lines of, “It’s not my departure they should worry about, it’s the next 3.”
Some news sites have latched onto this as if it was insider knowledge of certain members planning to retire. Personally I think it sounded more like deflection as if to push the burden on whoever might be next to retire.
While it would be great if there were actually 3 more lined up to retire… isn’t it the case with Buck’s retirement that Republicans only have a 3 person majority? So I think that’s all that was meant by him saying “the next 3”. Not that he knows of more people that are going to retire, but IF they did they would lose their majority.
Add comment