Tutu wearing AZ liberal fought to protect men who hired child prostitutes as young as 12
invite response
2018 Sep 13, 7:25am 1,484 views 2 comments
Comments 1 - 2 of 2 Search these comments
2
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 13, 5:09pm
Automan Empire
2018 Sep 13, 5:09pm
Yet another god damn case of posting a headline that is not supported by the body text.
Headline: Tutu wearing AZ liberal fought to protect men who hired child prostitutes as young as 12
Linked article headline: a-good-democrat-code-pink-az-senate-candidate-fought-to-protect-men-caught-with-child-prostitutes/
The article makes ONE claim: "Sinema fought to protect child predators in the Arizona state legislature."
At the bottom of the article, she explains her position in her own words:
Democratic Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Senate nominee, fought to protect loopholes for men caught with child prostitutes, on the grounds that some 12-year-old children can look like adults.
While serving in the state legislature, Sinema argued against eliminating a loophole that allowed men caught with child prostitutes to use the child’s appearance as a defense. She claimed it was “not fair” to get rid of the loophole.
“As a former social worker at an elementary school, there were children at my school, 12, 13-year-old, and some of these children look older than me. They were much more, I mean, definitely sophisticated, developed,” Sinema said in a 2007 hearing.
“If I had seen a number of my former students at a place outside a classroom, I would not have known that those children were 12 instead of 19 or 20,” she said.
So... she didn't defend one single "Child Predator." She's arguing against eliminating a defense for men accused of statutory rape; specifically, the defense that the person plausibly appeared of legal age. It does NOT matter if the girl in question actually DID look older, or actively deceived the defendant about her actual age, AND IT SURE IN THE HELL DOESN'T PLACE ANY BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ON HER IF SHE WAS PROVEN TO BE ACTIVELY DECEPTIVE about her age.
_____________________________
I don't disagree with the above quote, and will add that it is distressingly common to see girls at the local ELEMENTARY school who are not only fully physically developed, but dressed and behaving in a very revealing and provocative manner. Some of these girls are sexually precocious, and not only pass for 18+ but are shockingly well practiced at BEHAVING like it.
Nobody (including me or the candidate in the article) says it's OK for these girls to be having sex, or that it's OK for grown ass men to be having sex with them. What the candidate argued against was eliminating a defense by fiat. When it comes down to it, isn't it interesting that it is the Republican side advocating to increase government power and limit legal remedies available to citizens? And that it is the Liberal side arguing for due process?
______________________
Now I'd like to address the emotional argument that the article led off with, that the Democrat candidate protested the war in a tutu while the Republican candidate fought in the Air Force. Will there EVER come a time when Republicans take responsibility for leading us into the bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't just mean a small cabal of Neocons, I mean EVERY god damn rank and file Republican who banded together in an orgy of jingoism, and called everyone who challenged the evidence and narrative traitors and worse?
How fucking DARE you try to hold protesting that war as wrong today? That woman deserves your apologies and respect for being right and standing for her convictions, when YOU were in the wrong but calling those who were correct traitors and worse?
Fuck off with these hyperpartisanized propaganda pieces.
Headline: Tutu wearing AZ liberal fought to protect men who hired child prostitutes as young as 12
Linked article headline: a-good-democrat-code-pink-az-senate-candidate-fought-to-protect-men-caught-with-child-prostitutes/
The article makes ONE claim: "Sinema fought to protect child predators in the Arizona state legislature."
At the bottom of the article, she explains her position in her own words:
Democratic Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Senate nominee, fought to protect loopholes for men caught with child prostitutes, on the grounds that some 12-year-old children can look like adults.
While serving in the state legislature, Sinema argued against eliminating a loophole that allowed men caught with child prostitutes to use the child’s appearance as a defense. She claimed it was “not fair” to get rid of the loophole.
“As a former social worker at an elementary school, there were children at my school, 12, 13-year-old, and some of these children look older than me. They were much more, I mean, definitely sophisticated, developed,” Sinema said in a 2007 hearing.
“If I had seen a number of my former students at a place outside a classroom, I would not have known that those children were 12 instead of 19 or 20,” she said.
So... she didn't defend one single "Child Predator." She's arguing against eliminating a defense for men accused of statutory rape; specifically, the defense that the person plausibly appeared of legal age. It does NOT matter if the girl in question actually DID look older, or actively deceived the defendant about her actual age, AND IT SURE IN THE HELL DOESN'T PLACE ANY BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ON HER IF SHE WAS PROVEN TO BE ACTIVELY DECEPTIVE about her age.
_____________________________
I don't disagree with the above quote, and will add that it is distressingly common to see girls at the local ELEMENTARY school who are not only fully physically developed, but dressed and behaving in a very revealing and provocative manner. Some of these girls are sexually precocious, and not only pass for 18+ but are shockingly well practiced at BEHAVING like it.
Nobody (including me or the candidate in the article) says it's OK for these girls to be having sex, or that it's OK for grown ass men to be having sex with them. What the candidate argued against was eliminating a defense by fiat. When it comes down to it, isn't it interesting that it is the Republican side advocating to increase government power and limit legal remedies available to citizens? And that it is the Liberal side arguing for due process?
______________________
Now I'd like to address the emotional argument that the article led off with, that the Democrat candidate protested the war in a tutu while the Republican candidate fought in the Air Force. Will there EVER come a time when Republicans take responsibility for leading us into the bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't just mean a small cabal of Neocons, I mean EVERY god damn rank and file Republican who banded together in an orgy of jingoism, and called everyone who challenged the evidence and narrative traitors and worse?
How fucking DARE you try to hold protesting that war as wrong today? That woman deserves your apologies and respect for being right and standing for her convictions, when YOU were in the wrong but calling those who were correct traitors and worse?
Fuck off with these hyperpartisanized propaganda pieces.
While I am libertarian-end the war on drugs and prostitution should be legal-get rid of alimony and unreasonable child support-but I even understand someone who is say 17 or 16 and mistaking hem for 18, but a 12 year old???
What kind of person mistakes a 12 year old for a 19 year old????