2168
Comments (163)
sorted by:
173
canadianamerican 173 points ago +175 / -2

Holy fuck. This is horrifying.

98
Trump2030 98 points ago +100 / -2

Its fucked up but at least all the other sex offenders will move to California.

44
blackdudeinresidence 44 points ago +44 / -0

If they can get permission. Most states have them locked down. However, I can see states shipping them out like some states do with the homeless population.

23
deleted 23 points ago +25 / -2
12
Trump2030 12 points ago +15 / -3

What are you going to do about what California just passed. There is literally nothing I can do about it. I said its fucked up.

6
deleted 6 points ago +8 / -2
4
Trump2030 4 points ago +9 / -5

but you didn't answer me? What are you going to do about it?

8
ruskiebot00100011 8 points ago +8 / -0

Once They do, can we detach CA and let it sink into the sea?

6
Aambrick 6 points ago +6 / -0

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_summary.php?chart=H0&units=p&rank=C&title=State_Debt_Ranking_Percent_GDP

https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances

https://www.thebalance.com/debt-to-gdp-ratio-how-to-calculate-and-use-it-3305832

https://usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

It depends really. We need to be real about the problem. State itself is not the problem, but the people in charge as well as the ones in the cities.

I am not justifying it. Cutting California off should be our second option, but the first one should be to try to purge those in charge and getting rid of the illegals there which probably make around 1/3 or little bit more since that should greatly correct some if not half the problems there. If that cannot be done then cutting off California will be the next option.

To put this bluntly a major part of why California is wealthy is two-fold:

  1. Demographics which means that the tax base is huge and they have high taxes(which is always being spent on the things that hurt the state, but still those that live there would know far better than me). This allows a large consumer base as well.

  2. Silicon Valley. I think I do not need to say anymore on this since that single area equates to 30%-50% of the states total GDP. Without them then it really would be a death spiral in minutes if not hours.

5
Trump2030 5 points ago +5 / -0

Maybe a Typhoon so we can keep the land?

2
Illinoyed 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lex Luthor that place!

4
Smubbs 4 points ago +4 / -0

China will set up forward operating bases the next day

2
BlowMeReddit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Keep Yosemite though.

2
Alchemist 2 points ago +2 / -0

This made me laugh so hard

39
Groupthinkgroupthink 39 points ago +39 / -0

This is for Islam, and Muslims that want to practice their religion of peace.

Oh, and Marxists, because they too are deviants.

21
Memebomber 21 points ago +21 / -0

This came straight from the letter mafia

5
Groupthinkgroupthink 5 points ago +6 / -1

Who do you think created and nepotistic-ally subverted the letter mafia?

As an aside, it's pretty crazy when you think about how much Islam hates Judaism, that they would base their entire religion of the foundation of Judaism -- makes you wonder where The Koran actually came from, and what it's intent was; since it functions similarly to Catholicism, and Judaism, I.e., a physical person here on earth at the top. It's just that in Islam, they've got many people at the top, operating in a cell structure... Just like insurrections, Marxists, Anarchists and Communists do.

7
deleted 7 points ago +9 / -2
4
Groupthinkgroupthink 4 points ago +4 / -0

Like I said, who do you think invented Catholicism and Islam, systems that have people at the top -- people who can be influenced, subverted or installed and then viola -- you've got most of the masses.

Also, who do you think invented Marxism & Leninism? Marx and Lenin were Jews.

It was the same people behind the book clubs in France that lead to the French revolution.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
4
tallon 4 points ago +4 / -0

Jared Kushner places Israel first and must be removed as advisor. He sabotages Trump.

9
six5_SMK 9 points ago +9 / -0

They will use this law to vacate the sentence of other adults above 18 They will use it to argue that an 18 year old is an adult just like a 40 year old, and the punishment should be the same. Not to punish the 18 year more but to punish the 40 year old less. Then they will throw their hands up and say "well that's the way the law works".

5
canadianamerican 5 points ago +5 / -0

I am aware the left uses the law to justify shitty legal outcomes. We need to be always vigilant. I have called the coalition that proposed this law in my state. I don't want a law that lets people get away with pedo shit. I hope to get clarity and will post here once I do.

4
SnowflakeJuice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not to mention it is legal to knowingly spread AIDS in CA. I don't think a state could be more fucked up if it tried,

112
canadianamerican 112 points ago +118 / -6

update: SB 145 does not apply to intercourse of any kind with minors who are age 14 or younger. For those crimes, mandatory sex offender registration will continue to be the case for all forms of intercourse.

SB 145 does not change whether or not particular behavior is a crime and does not change the potential sentence for having sex with an underage person. Rather, the bill simply gives judges the ability to evaluate whether or not to require registration as a sex offender.

The bill reads fucking terrible but it doesn't protect pedophiles.

57
DisgustedByMisleadia 57 points ago +58 / -1

There are cases where an 18 year old was forced to register as a sex offender because the other was 17. I think a 5 year gap is reasonable, as long as a lower limit is set... But, I think 14 might be a bit low. It should be 16.

Spez: The bill is not yet passed out of the Assembly.

Per the bill history, it passed out of the Assembly committee on 8/20. On 8/24, the bill was read on the Assembly floor the second time, and ordered to the final(?) third reading. If I understand the history correctly, it passed the Senate back on 05/28/19.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

But, I think most may be missing the intent of the bill. You have to read the Bill Analysis, which I quoted here:

https://thedonald.win/p/HEJ5Xi6h/x/c/16ZqYqpWFf

43
FuckU/Spez 43 points ago +43 / -0

I know someone in this situation. Dated same girl in HS, he was sophomore, she was freshman. He graduated his still dating same girl, parents called police for statutory rape. He was 18, she was 17. Now he's 22 and has a conviction.

30
AsaNisiMAGA 30 points ago +30 / -0

That's horrible. Met my high school boyfriend when he was a senior and I was a sophomore. Stayed together through my first year at college but finally broke up because I went away for school and the long distance thing wasn't maintainable long term. I'm glad my parents liked him and approved of the relationship. I can't imagine if they had gotten him charged with a crime. We're still friends and have been through a lot together as friends. He turned 60 last year.

7
JuicyfearsMAGA 7 points ago +9 / -2

This bill does not do that. Romeo and Juliet laws already exist in California. I repeat this bill does not cover that, it allows sexual abusers to rape minors.

6
FuckU/Spez 6 points ago +6 / -0

California is one of 6 remaining states where those laws don't exist.

5
HockeyMom4Trump 5 points ago +5 / -0

They dated for that long and the parents called the police when he turned eighteen?

17
BadManOrange 17 points ago +17 / -0

I'd say 16 with a 3 year gap. 21 year old with a 16 year old is still off. I know 5 years isn't all that much once everyone's 20+, but at that age it's gross. The only thing that this type of stuff would help is a guy who assumes a girl is overage and instead they aren't. However, let's be honest, that's not the intent here.

16
rentfREEEE_since2016 16 points ago +16 / -0

Somebody once said “rule of 7” which goes something like this

(Older person’s age)/2 + 7 = cutoff age

So for example 20 year old -> 20/2 + 7 = 17 years old.

Then round up for fractions of course. Seems to kind of fit. I dunno. Just thought it was interesting.

7
BadManOrange 7 points ago +7 / -0

Seems pretty logical.

2
HockeyMom4Trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

This seems to be a pretty good rule.

0
zakat 0 points ago +5 / -5

Rule of seven is shit, because it's also used for higher ages.

The rule is heavily used by leftist feminazis to shame men who have a younger partner.

You're 27 - no partner of 20. You're 30 - no partner of 22. You're 36? Not under 25. The idea behind that is that as a 36yo who has now an established career you should not find a beautiful, young woman to have a family with. You are supposed to get married to a single mum in your age group and take care of their offspring.

As an example the GEOTUS was 59 when he married Melania (who was 35). 59/2+7 = 36.5 How dare he!

1
HockeyMom4Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

For older ages I thought it became rule of 5. So 60/2+5=35.

1
RenaissanceOfHope 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m childfree and my autism doctors project that I may not be able to date until my late 20’s or early 30’s. That half your age + 7 rule would destroy me.

1
tallon 1 point ago +2 / -1

Meh, or you could marry when you’re both relatively young?

1
GrabLifeByThePussy 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can. But also Learn about sexual market value. Sounds worse than it is. Women prime out around mid twenties. Men much later. Makes sense for women to date older men.

7
blackdudeinresidence 7 points ago +7 / -0

Some states have Romeo and Juliet laws for this.

9
AngryWriter 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's legal as long as the young lovers kill themselves?

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes but only with hemlock

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
DisgustedByMisleadia 4 points ago +4 / -0

I guess it depends on your school district.

In mine, high schools are split into 9th-10th grade and 11th-12th grade.

3
canadianamerican 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree with your analysis and summary good sir (or madam).

28
deleted 28 points ago +28 / -0
17
Sweitzenhammer 17 points ago +17 / -0

Jesus...my daughter is 14 1/2. I would kill the bastard if it happened six months from now!

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
10
Sweitzenhammer 10 points ago +10 / -0

We are fortunate so far. She is based. I shared that series of pics with women before and after leftism...her response was something like "ewwww, no way."

A lot can change, but I think she has a solid foundation. My friend's 14 year old daughter is already smoking weed and skipping school. My kid would never think of doing that. And she has not expressed a desire to go to college, despite getting great grades. She wants to be a professional chef.

So far so good. Crossing my fingers!

4
HockeyMom4Trump 4 points ago +4 / -0

My son is fifteen. If a 25 year old woman started dating my son I would seriously question her mental state.

4
6
DisgustedByMisleadia 6 points ago +6 / -0

This isn't targeted at your daughter.

See my comment here:

https://thedonald.win/p/HEJ5Xi6h/x/c/16ZqYqpWFf

2
CovefefeREEEE 2 points ago +2 / -0

It sure looks that way.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

If they wanted to be charged with a crime. It's still illegal.

1
Indelible_Hippo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yea wtf.... That is NOT ok

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is why it's still a crime. You're confusing additional punishments (sex offender registration) with the crime itself (statutory rape and/or sexual assault)

1
Indelible_Hippo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok I see now. Still though that makes no sense whatsoever. They are legislating the normalization of pedos

14
RedDuck 14 points ago +15 / -1

So what it means is that a 25 year old black homosexual can seduce a 15 year old boy and the judge will go easy. And he'll throw the book at the 19 year old white boy who has sex with his high school girlfriend.

That's how it works.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
-1
moremonger -1 points ago +4 / -5

Mentioning race and sexual orientation in your argument destroys all the sway you might have had. Despite it technically being true, everyone will respond with how you are a bigot instead of addressing the issue and you will have accomplished nothing.

Unless you are a black homosexual wanting the bill to not be overturned so you can seduce 15 year old boys. Then your apparently bigoted argument will probably accomplish exactly what you were after.

11
RedDuck 11 points ago +11 / -0

It's funny how people can pretend all day like the justice system is rigged against black people and that's perfectly fine and even morally good to say. But if you suggest the opposite then you're a bigot.

4
HeyBlinkin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Tell me if I'm wrong, because I want to be. Yes, you will still get in trouble for the crime, but the judge gets to say whether or not your neighbors get to know about it? Still dangerous. Maybe not protect pedos but for sure allow them to hide easier in your community and possibly do it again.

Snopes gave it a mostly false, so you know there's a good bit of truth to it.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Court records are public. The difference is the affirmative action to inform and other restrictions. Which, frankly, are not appropriate for all cases. Not every instance of statutory rape (which is strict liability with no defense allowed) is an instance of malicious and predatory acts. Especially since the age of consent in CA is 18 rather than 16/17 in other states.

1
HeyBlinkin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Understood. I've never agreed with the BS registry stuff. Like urinating in public or 18 vs 16 couples dating and the parents get pissed. The registry is much different than your standard public record court cases. I agree that it should be fixed but this gives a far left judge too much power in helpong hiding someone's past from the public. Does it not?

3
MrMxyzptlk 3 points ago +3 / -0

You da real mvp.

25
deleted 25 points ago +25 / -0
11
DisgustedByMisleadia 11 points ago +11 / -0

Hmmm. Another 'pede said that any form of sexual intercourse is still subject to registration if the victim is under 15.

So, what is oral sex under California law? Did he just legalize NAMBLA in California?

Spez, got my answer. Per the Bill Analysis published on 8/24:

Exempts a person convicted of non-forcible sodomy with a minor, oral copulation with a minor, or sexual penetration with a minor, as specified, from having to automatically register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registry Act if the person was not more than ten years older than the minor at the time of the offense, and the conviction is the only one requiring the person to register.

Spez, here's the link to the source:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

Click on "Assembly Floor Analysis" for the PDF that contains the above.

But, this bill is not yet law.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
DisgustedByMisleadia 5 points ago +5 / -0

Per the bill history, it passed out of the committee on a 10-6 vote and 2 "NVR" (which I assume means "no vote recorded"). But back in the Senate, it passed on the floor 25-3, with 10 NVR.

Maybe the Assembly will grow a spine, but I doubt it.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
17
VoidWanderer 17 points ago +17 / -0

Anyone that says the "slippery slope" isn't real has been shown to be a blatant liar at this point.

6
IncredibleMrE1 6 points ago +7 / -1

And those of us who opposed gay marriage because of the slippery slope deserve an apology.

3
Shallers 3 points ago +4 / -1

As a pede who argued for gay rights (actually for the government to mind it's own fucking business and leave marriage to the church) how do we go back? I'm ready for the fags to get back in the closet.

11
TheTuckerDiaries 11 points ago +13 / -2

Matthew 18:6, get the millstones ready. There is no God in government God works through The People.

2
George 2 points ago +3 / -1

that verse isn't about pedophilia or literal children

3
TheTuckerDiaries 3 points ago +3 / -0

So you don’t agree that pedos don’t deserve to be drowned? Little ones was referencing children obviously don’t know what Bible you’re reading.

3
George 3 points ago +4 / -1

have you even read the Bible? read the beginning of the chapter.

8
TEXinLA 8 points ago +8 / -0

Curtesy of Mr. Weiner, the representative from San Francisco.

8
KakarikoKing 8 points ago +8 / -0

Rep. Scott Weiner

8
Mummabear20 8 points ago +8 / -0

This has been their plan all along. In Australia, a lot of pro pedophile laws have breezed through parliament. People are so distracted by the plandemic that they don't notice.

4
Leatherwood 4 points ago +4 / -0

There will be literal Hell to pay for this. God help our children.

3
tufftoffee 3 points ago +3 / -0

SAVE OUR CHILDREN

7
Covfefe_Baby 7 points ago +7 / -0

Hope an earthquake sinks Cali.

4
CovefefeREEEE 4 points ago +4 / -0

I seriously would not be surprised if God teed one up tomorrow.

6
IslamIsEvil 6 points ago +6 / -0

Mohammed was about 53 when he married his favorite wife Aisha, age 6. Consummated when she was 9.

Mohammed the Pedophile.

6
billymcgorn 6 points ago +7 / -1

All because homosexuals can't keep their hands off of teenage boys.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
5
Schiffblower 5 points ago +5 / -0

cast that god-awful state into the sea

Fuck California

5
RivalPipe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thats not America anymore.

Fucking disgusting.

5
six5_SMK 5 points ago +5 / -0

Next they will be able to identify as any age you want.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
tgwbd 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why can't a legislature just apply the "half your age plus seven" rule. Anything younger is robbing the cradle.

The formula is simple: olderAge / 2 + 7 == minimumAge

This implies that younger than 14 is off limits, period. Let's begin:

  • 14: 14
  • 16: 15
  • 18: 16
  • 20: 17

This is where the law stops because 18 is "of age" but if we were to continue...

  • 22: 18
  • 24: 19
  • 26: 20
  • 28: 21
  • 30: 22

Fill in the blanks... you get the idea:

  • 40: 27
  • 50: 32
  • 60: 37
  • 70: 42
  • 80: 47
  • 90: 52

See? Super simple. Works for men, women, and all other genders anyone wishes to claim in any coupling one can imagine.

Keep in mind the result is the minimum age. Not at all recommended, but generally you won't get too many dirty looks.

1
RenaissanceOfHope 1 point ago +1 / -0

No! That type of rule should NOT be the law. Just have Romeo/Juliet clauses instead.

4
canadianamerican 4 points ago +4 / -0

quick update: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145 search (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021.

3
DisgustedByMisleadia 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's only if the bill is enacted into law.

The bill is still awaiting a floor vote in the Assembly, and the governor's signature.

4
Bullet3250 4 points ago +4 / -0

Public school teachers must have pushed this through.

3
Space_Force 3 points ago +3 / -0

PEDOCRATS

2
JuicyfearsMAGA 2 points ago +2 / -0

This has been posted a few times and some of the folks here end up defending it..because straight people had this law already, and now everyone has this law. Expanding the law to include everyone is not right to begin with when the law allows for the abuse and sexual exploitation of minors.

rEaD tHe BiLl they say. I think they need to read the bill and listen to their ideology. The guy who wrote this bill is Weiner, no relation to Anthony but similar type guy except he prefers the same sex. Disgusting either way. He's also one of Kamalas top supporters.

This is basically the democrat platform Nationwide, as the saying going with liberal policy, as California goes, so does what they seek for the country

2
RolandDelacroix 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is 100% so Mexican teen and 20-something guys can date 14yo girls, just like back in their home country.

Sorry to Hispanic pedes, but there it is. Muslims and pedos will simply take advantage.

2
tonightm16 2 points ago +2 / -0

All that will do is let people take the law into their own hands and kill anyone that rapes their children. Which at the end of the day is no bad thing.

2
jubyeonin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Where did he get this? It's been stuck since last year.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

2
flybyninja 2 points ago +2 / -0

Did CA Democrats protect pedophiles?- Snopes mostly false

Deus Vult time.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ca-democrats-lgbtq-bill-pedophiles/

2
Comanche_Moon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cali is beyond help and hope. I feel for the innocents having to live among the commies and perverts.

2
dnile1000bc 2 points ago +2 / -0

Feminists and the left want to rename Pedophiles into MAPS (minor attracted people) and sell it as a sexuality.

2
Zenweaponry 2 points ago +2 / -0

What the fuck is supposed to be the "normie" view of this bill? Assuming age of consent is between 16-18, then the lowest age this could protect while being borderline would be a 25 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. In other words, a really creepy situation that we would normally define AT LEAST as statutatory rape. But, no, no this is worse. The poor wording allows for even an 18 year old to get away with sexual misconduct of anyone over the age of 8? How the hell do they manage to pass this shit?

2
PinochetIsMyHero 2 points ago +2 / -0

Eight year olds, Dude.

2
Prayfortrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is fucking disgusting, and people want to say they aren't trying to normalize pedophilia. What a great progressive shit hole.

1
grndmrshlgando 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not one to get spiritual much but looking at the symbology going on here, especially with all the wild fires california looks just like hell on earth

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
NoGoJoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought this couldn’t be true...it is. See discussion In the link below. Apparently sex offenders have found a friend in Mr. Weiner. At face value he is selling it as righting a wrong for the LBGTQ community. In the real world, when combined with SB 384, he is opening the door wide open for the worst kind of offender: someone who preys on those under the age of 14. There are any number of studies that confirm the recidivism rate for sexual predators is too high to warrant lenient laws, hence, the seriousness of the original laws and registries.

The folks In California have to do better or the we as a country have to pass federal laws the cover these types of crimes.

https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-senate-bill-145-misguided/

1
DwightEisenhower 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're literally normalizing and legalizing pedophilia.

1
brutustyberius 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eight year olds, Dude.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
gpcooper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sick

1
HockeyMom4Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

21 year old seeks 11 year old...

1
Slick_Willys_Willy 1 point ago +1 / -0

We need sauce for this. Let's be sure the information is correct.

1
ImReallyRich 1 point ago +1 / -0

We said years ago that their next step is to normalize pedophilia. Well here it fucking is

1
magafi 1 point ago +1 / -0

CALIFORNIA = 1920s, 1930s GERMANY

1
TheHolyMonk 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everyone that voted to pass that needs to be arrested. Where's Barr?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Scuffers 1 point ago +1 / -0

How is this not headline news?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
meals23 1 point ago +1 / -0

Calipede here, I've been thinking for a while of starting a family with my girlfriend but California is my home and I didn't want to leave it

if this bullshit passes I'm definitely going to, there's no way in hell I'm going to have children in this Sodom

1
Fabius 1 point ago +1 / -0

A 22 year old can fuck a 12 year old.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
dthb4communism 1 point ago +1 / -0

The residents of NYC and San Francisco need to be marched into the sea