• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From the "every R accusation is an admission" file we have this

CA, Dems don't want to criminalize child trafficking.

@Luce, per the axiom that is this thread’s title, we now know that @L88 does not want to criminalize child trafficking.
Funny thing is, Trump just closed down the program tracking Ukrainian children abducted by Russia, so that's accurate.
 
Another lie. No one's trying to dismantle the Republic.


That is precisely what MAGA is set out to do.

You're empty denials and "you're dismissed" might soothe a fragile ego, but are lame attempts to distract....since you have no counter argument.

This "Trump derangement syndrome" is childish, a beefed up version of the classic "...and so are you."

Arguing with Magas is like baby sitting
 
Another lie. No one's trying to dismantle the Republic.
Bullshit!

Musk and Maggot (the M&M boys) are currently wiping their asses with the Constitution, but I guess it's still not clear enough to you. GMAFB!

If they burned the Constitution on the lawn of the White House, would that convince you?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
CA, Dems don't want to criminalize child trafficking.
Yeah, and they advocate child sacrifice, drink children's blood, routinely eat cats and dogs, rape every woman they can find and so forth.

However, back on earth 1.....
 
Bullshit!

Musk and Maggot (the M&M boys) are currently wiping their asses with the Constitution, but I guess it's still not clear enough to you. GMAFB!

If they burned the Constitution on the lawn of the White House, would that convince you?

Yeah, I didn't think so.
Calm down.

You based this thread on one of the most obvious logical fallacies; and your logic since hasn't improved an iota either. I mean, c'mon...
 
Calm down.

You based this thread on one of the most obvious logical fallacies; and your logic since hasn't improved an iota either. I mean, c'mon...
Still waiting to see if you will commit to an answer to a question I posed to you, or if you will continue hiding?
 
Well, at least the left tries to do the right way and works to legalize sex with minors.
And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. They also like eating minors and throwing them to the lions like in good old Roman times.

Fer chrissakes.....
 
You know who (by a margin of 100:1) represents the greatest risk to children?

Heterosexual males. You know, those guys with Maggot signs and shotguns in their pick-up trucks.

You want to protect children? Keep a careful eye on those types.

You won't, of course, but you should.
 
@Luce, per the axiom that is this thread’s title, we now know that @L88 does not want to criminalize child trafficking.
I'm not maga so it doesn't fit.
I find the thread hypocritical, when progressives are attempting to decriminalize pedophila laws and child sex trafficking.
 
And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. They also like eating minors and throwing them to the lions like in good old Roman times.

Fer chrissakes.....
Hey, that I don't know about, but your thread is blatantly hypocritical.
 
I'm not maga so it doesn't fit.
I find the thread hypocritical, when progressives are attempting to decriminalize pedophila laws and child sex trafficking.
You keep saying that bullshit, but you refuse to back it up with a link.
 
I'm not maga so it doesn't fit.
I find the thread hypocritical, when progressives are attempting to decriminalize pedophila laws and child sex trafficking.

Which political party is against repealing child marriage?
 
You keep saying that bullshit, but you refuse to back it up with a link.

Dang, you should know what your own people are doing.



 



 
I guess California has a bigger issue with child-adult marriages more than any other place.

Child marriage is still legal in California. It requires the consent of just one parent through a court order. Many of these marriages are between young girls to men significantly older than them, making way for gender-based violence within the marriage.

*****

Dawn Tyree got married in California at 13 to her abuser. He was 32. When she was 11, her parents left her in the hands of the man when they started their business in Texas. He brainwashed her into thinking that what they shared was love.

 


Missouri

The age of consent is 18. With parental consent, a person can marry at 16. A person over 21 cannot marry someone younger than 18.
 
Missouri is hell of lot stricter than California and Washington

Missouri Marriage Age Requirements Laws: An Overview​

The following table provides the basics of Missouri's marriage age requirements, with a link to the statute.

StatutesMissouri Revised Statutes, Title XXX, Chapter 451, Section 451.020 (prohibiting marriage of persons who lack capacity to enter into marriage contracts)
Missouri Revised Statutes, Title XXX, Chapter 451, Section 451.090 (requiring parental consent for issuance of marriage licenses for minors)
Minimum Legal Age With Parental ConsentMale: 16; Female: 16
Minimum Legal Age Without Parental ConsentMale: 18; Female: 18
CommentsA person age 21 or older cannot marry someone under 18 years of age.
 
Dang, you should know what your own people are doing.




Because the bill would assume that any child crossing the border is crossing the border to be sex trafficked even if they are with their family. Is that a good assumption for the law to have?
 
Do you think child trafficking is legal in California?
Dems kept it at a misdemeanor.
Why do you think that's good enough?
Why do you defend California allowing a 32 year old man marrying at 13 year old girl?
 
I guess California has a bigger issue with child-adult marriages more than any other place.

Child marriage is still legal in California. It requires the consent of just one parent through a court order. Many of these marriages are between young girls to men significantly older than them, making way for gender-based violence within the marriage.

*****

Dawn Tyree got married in California at 13 to her abuser. He was 32. When she was 11, her parents left her in the hands of the man when they started their business in Texas. He brainwashed her into thinking that what they shared was love.


When attempts have been made to make all child marriage illegal, Republicans fight against it.
 
Back
Top Bottom