• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    28·
    4 days ago

    Thinking about how there’s gotta be some dogfucker out there going, “Hell yeah I voted for this!” and how he probably has one of the most coherent and internally consistent reasons for voting Republican out of anyone who did.

  • Tidesphere@lemmy.world
    7·
    3 days ago

    I read somewhere that the same provision that forbade bestiality also disqualifies people who have been found to have paid for sex three or more times in the last ten years. I think that what’s actually happening is that Patel, or a buddy of his, got caught hiring prostitutes a few too many times, and now want to repeal the rule so they don’t get kicked out.

    But someone saw ‘bestiality’ and decided to make it about that to distract people.

  • gogonan@lemmy.world
    11·
    3 days ago

    I’d like to measure my love for dogs on some z-axis which is unassociated with the dog-murder-to-dog-rape spectrum please

  • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
    81·
    4 days ago

    Where do we count the meat, dairy, etc. industry lobbyist and legislators making exceptions to the laws in almost every state in the US?

    As state legislatures began proposing anti-bestiality laws in the 1990s, the agriculture lobby repeatedly opposed the bills

    […]

    Of the 27 states that have enacted bestiality statutes since 1990, 24 include nearly identical exemptions for animal husbandry. (Kansas, Iowa, and Delaware’s laws do not.) With the exemptions included, agricultural interests in many states have gone from covertly opposing anti-bestiality bills to either staying mum or even lobbying for them

    https://newrepublic.com/article/160448/meat-bestiality-artificial-insemination

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    4 days ago

    It’s easy to forget about traitors like Kristi Noem once they’re out of the spotlight. Hopefully this country doesn’t forget to dispense justice to that particular traitor when this is all over. Same goes for traitor Greg Bovino.

  • rmrf@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    So like, for real though, the justification for this was that there are people who are victims of trafficking that are forced into this, right?

    At face value, that makes sense. I’m not sure whether every state that convicts for beastiality would also create exceptions for victims of trafficking who were forced into it, they certainly do not when it comes to other offenses.

    Is there something I’ve missed?

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      3 days ago

      Yes, you missed that it wasn’t for the victims, they’re probably already covered for that. It was for people involved in bestiality in general.

      While Patel characterized the change as nondiscriminatory toward victims, Durbin refuted the notion and claimed it was a way to protect those who engaged in bestiality.

      “You dropped automatic disqualification for applicants who have been engaged in bestiality, not victims of bestiality, applicants who have engaged,” Durbin said to Patel.

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/15/kash-patel-fbi-hiring-policy-bestiality

      • ryper@lemmy.caEnglish
        8·
        3 days ago

        I think Kash heard his bros talking about fucking lots of “bitches” and totally misunderstood.

      • rmrf@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        they’re probably already covered for that

        Can you ELI5 how an automatic disqualifier based on a conviction that doesn’t account for whether or not someone is a victim doesn’t automatically disqualify those victims without just saying they’re “probably already covered”

        Edit to add: I don’t see the relevance of what person C says if person A and B aren’t going to be taken at their word, either. Durbin’s words on the topic matter only as much as anyone else’s in a vacuum, and his claim as to what is and isn’t currently policy is as meaningless as anyone else’s if it’s unsubstantiated

      • rmrf@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

        I don’t think Kash is attending most interviews, and I while I use someone’s name as a reason to raise an eyebrow and look into something more than I typically would, I don’t base my reason for it being bad solely on the name of the person who did it.