rush22

Shit headline

chronikfunk

Guys doesn't this mean that kids wont get put into the criminal system. The John's and Pimps will still get arrested. This is good for those kids that get stuck with felony charges and labeled forever in the penal system.

EndThePizza

The concept of not treating victims as criminals is fantastic. The problem is the unintended consequences (or "unintended", depending of the motivations of those who wrote the law). Legalizing prostitution can make it more difficult to arrest and prosecute the Johns. I'm kinda just guessing here, but it's probably hard to charge Johns with anything without tips or testimony from the prostitutes on the street. Arresting the prostitutes allows the police to question them and get information about the Johns.

And legalizing it only for those under 18 gives Johns an incentive to use children because they'll have a smaller chance of getting caught than if they used adults. Plus, there's an argument that it's safer for kids if they're in the system than if they're on the street being sexually exploited.

Fateswebb

Not to mention if you "own" a slave and they arrest it that's a problem....

postfascion

Unfortunately these kids are in just as much danger in the system as out of it (Jimmy Savile). Although it sounds idealistic, anything other than addressing the reasons why kids aren't in loving homes in the first place leaves them open to predators.

B3nder

Is this clickbait?

rush22

Yep

quantokitty

I already did a detailed background investigation of this law.. This idea was floated in 2008 in SF in the form of Proposition K. Proposition K was written and created by Nancy Pelosi and the democratic group The San Francisco Democratic Party (it's the one she belongs to.) There was a split as the majority of other democratic groups -- the mayor Gavin Newsom and the DA's office -- were vehemently opposed and railed against it. It was soundly defeated.

Here's the link and even my prediction that they'd use a half-witted excuse to get this passed.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/comments/1507948

dindonufin

is this the work of swarzinneigger?

quantokitty

It's the work of Nancy Pelosi.

throwitawayn0w

Who owns a pizza place.

quantokitty

Pelosi.

Innocent_Bystander

The law is real. but there is no posted connection to DYNCORP. Aside from the inaccurate title, This new law is fucking disgusting. I gotta get outa Cali.

SaneGoatiSwear

ok then.

personal attack / libel

fails to prove claim.

possible shill detected

edit: apparently butthurt equals 50 dvs from @armyseer

butthurt detected as well

SaneGoatiSwear

i'm not amalek dumbass.

like categorically i disagree with him and have consistently so on his main fundamental claim.

it's not the jooooos. the oligarchs that own and operate slave earth are varied in ideology and theology. persian oligarchs, zionist oligarchs, western judeo christian oligarchs....

some ally but all see only themselves at the top.

most zionists are jews, but not all. also, i'm 50% sure amalek is jidf static on the line to knock out any legit talk about jews.

the law is real

o shit.

this is a fucking serious slippery slope

throughout history they've gone from open elite pedophile to hidden elite pedophile.

the history of the catholic church is a good example of that cycle.

fuuuuuuuuuu this is a bad fucking law.

SaneGoatiSwear

relevant username like a motherfucker.

lol knot

one question

is the law real?

does it actually mean that (besides the dyncorp shit)

?!

help me out here

followthemoney

This person and their alts should be banned. @kevdude

SaneGoatiSwear

the above user is a known alt of the division shill webofslime

i deleted a rule breaking post by this user's main. it got sooo butthurt it went adhdferret and went screaming around all sorts of silly nonsense. no sources no proof of a single claim.

here above, another call to action against me for perceived slights when in reality i did nothing except delete a clear rule breaking post (no linking to google. linked to google. wouldn't repost.)

Fateswebb

I am curious about the rule no linking to google. Is that just because we want the article source or something? What is the thought process behind the rule?

SaneGoatiSwear

on v/clintongate a private sub i created to post things specific to investigating JUST clintons?

no links to known censoring sites.

that's the rule, really. oogle's just one of 'em. twatter facebook, instaham, imgur, and many many many fucking more.

do the op work and archive.

user wouldn't repost with archive even. FINALLY commented with the archive but that's not the rule.

the spirit is that it makes no sense to drive traffic to censorship sites when having to also fight being censored trying to simply find the truth.

fucking silly to do so.

whatever rest of voat can post fucking imgur links and even to fatpeople hate a sub that was entirely censored off imgur with no warning, but people still post to imgur on fph w/e.

i yell about it sometimes as being highly hypocritical and disingenouous at best.

(look a fucking mod that takes the time to talk to fucking everyone possible because this site is for DISCUSSION omg!)

i just got banned for pointing out the mod was selectively enforcing comment deleting rules in a private sub and got banned for hurting the mod's fee fees.

so yeah. fuck censors like @lockeproposal the ACTUAL mod found to be reddit cancer yesterday (but was slid out of view by the massive 1400 downoat800 comment 20 post character assassination attempt on me in the last 30 hours. (not to mention bait posts in v/til )

followthemoney

I'm not the only one has called you out. Given your inability to remain unemotional, I encourage everyone to consistently call this person out.

If you search the username, you will see that this person is an enemy of pizzagate and a nuisance to the vote community.

I recommend a permanent ban.