I think this comment has gotten the most responses out of any I've made in the time I've been on this platform. It's also the comment with the most negative reaction.
I'm sorry, I understand there are significant cultural differences between Europe and America, but my conscience demands that I dig in my heels with this one: The age of consent must be at least 18 (with much lighter penalties for minors, and exceptions for near-age relationships, the aforementioned "Romeo & Juliet Laws), if not a little higher, as high as 21. I do agree that American law is distressingly inconsistent, and there are some states (notably southern/Republican-controlled states) where the age of consent and marriage is disgustingly low. I comdemn them as well.
My foot is down. 18. No lower. In fact, for every negative reply from some European defending this morally repugnant practice, I'm adding another year!
I wholeheartedly agree about abstinence-only education being an absolute failure of a policy, though I should also point out that it's a state policy, and states outside of the deep-south generally have at least basic sex-ed, and some states are fairly comprehensive.
Funny enough, when living in Tennessee, it was the class teaching the course, because the teacher was unable to tell us about condoms, how to use them, or where to discretely get them for free. She didn't stop up us, I think because she wanted the class to know, but wasn't allowed to teach us proper sex-ed by law.
I do also think there's a meaningful difference between juvenile criminal law and adult criminal law, in that we treat children's ability to make informed decisions differently than that of adults'.
Because she's a woman, female, and as far as the right is concerned, her sole purpose in life (besides serving under the men in her life) is to bear children. They think women are breeding cattle, property of the primary man of their life.
Generally, you don't get charged as an adult until you're 18 in America, so, not applicable.
I'm having difficulty parsing this first dotted point... Here, we don't generally prosecute minors who have relationships with each other, as while the law (and culture) does discourage that, it's primarily there to protect minors from sexual exploration by adults; hence our "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which protect relationships between minors and adults of similar age (such as for people born within 2 years of each other, but this varies by state).
The rest of this seems nonsensical to me, even America's laws around adulthood (16, 18, 21) are more clear-cut. I think there's a very fundamental difference in how law is conceptualized here, so I can't really understand how or why you would have a law saying 14 years is old enough for sex, but 18 for porn, but 21 for prostitution, as a premise.
Dunno if I'd call 16 "surprisingly high", here in America, at least, it's 18. To the extent anyone thinks we should change it (it's not a common point of discussion, except that there's legal inconsistency between ages of consent for sex, smoking, drinking, driving, owning firearms, etc.), they think it should be 21. We also have Romeo and Juliet laws, which protect relationships between minors and people of very close ages (such as between 17 yrs and 18 yrs) from the same level of punishment as an adult assaulting a minor.
It would be a disaster, but if a candidate were to die between the nomination and the election, I think the running-mate would stand-in for the headliner.
Something like that happened back in 1872, when Horace Greeley died one month before the Electoral College met.
I was mostly just mocking him, but to take your question seriously... I don't know. I don't think it would help the GOP at this point, since Vance would most likely get the nomination, as Trump's running-mate.
I don't think anyone else in the party can draw nearly the same support as Trump, either. Not in the party itself, or from the broader American electorate. Nikki Haley was the only candidate that could possibly do that, but Haley being handed the nomination at the 11th hour would be seen as a Deep-State RINO coup against the dear leader, so she'd loose the base.
I think it'd also depend somewhat on the nature of his leaving the race. If he was successfully assassinated, that would likely turn the whole election on it's head. Not necessarily in a way that would get Vance elected, but it would change the dynamics, and the electoral math, in ways we can't predict. We thought the shooting would hand Trump the Presidency, but nobody even cared. Who knows what would happen if that shot was a couple inches closer.
If Trump got sick, injured, or had some sort of catastrophic performance like Biden at the debate? I don't think that would help the GOP in November, either.
As for him willingly stepping down, as Biden did, for the good of the nation... Lol, no. He's not doing that.
Sometimes, when people get older, they get a little confused. It happens. Donald, he's getting up there, and maybe he's just feeling a little confused again. Like that time he mixed up Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
Maybe he should drop out of the race, let someone a little younger and more aware take over.
Why is this person being downvoted? This first reply could be read to suggest that Harris is sterile, and the user wanted to clarify if that was the case. It appears to be an honest question.
It's the first clause of the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution, here's the relevant text:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
What this would mean in practice, is that if Gavin Newsome were chosen as Kamala Harris' running mate, is that many (if not the overwhelming majority) of Californian Presidential Electors would be prohibited from voting for Harris and Newsome, since the electors are generally chosen from local politicians and other locally influential individuals.
Harris needs every electoral vote she can get, and risking any of California's many votes would be a significant threat to her election.
I hope that satisfies your need for citations, and please, correct me if I've interpreted the law wrong here.
Edit: grammar, and added my separate other comment to the end of the above citation.
Newsome cannot and will not be the VP. Harris is also from California, which would cause issues in the electoral college. Electors cannot cast both the Presidential and vice-presidential ballot for someone from the same state as themselves. Because both Harris and Newsome are form California, it could cause issues, and they might not get the electoral votes from California.
So what was the point of that alliance, exactly? Macron isn't willing to govern with his partners, duely elected by the people. He wants to dictate to the masses, his own will, believing himself to be above all. This is why the fascists got as far as they have in the first place. After his party did right thing to stop them, Macron is going right back to the politics that is handing France to the fascists on a silver platter.
Zombie-Mantis @ ZombieMantis @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 408Joined 2 yr. ago
But... Does he really want to be a dictator? Hmm, we'll never know... Guess we'll just have to find out in January š¤·