politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Just waiting to see if the Epstein files is the thing that Trump finally falls on. Not holding my breath though since there are a million other things that should have brought him down.
The conservative subreddit is already saying the emails show he was actually trying to stop it. The fact that he spent 5 hours with a girl but "didn't bark" means he is the only saint in the files. The files that "didn't exist" a few months ago.
I'm pretty sure he could grope children on live tv and his base would still find a way around it.
I have wondered this for a while. All the stuff with the child's beauty pageants. The "grab them by the pussy" comment. The various quotes about liking young women, calling his own daughter hot, etc. Even without the Epstein files it's pretty clear that his base is not bothered by him sexually assaulting you girls.
At the same time, he's scared of something. Putin clearly has something over him, or at least did during his first term. The speculation back then was some sort of "piss tape" with a Russian prostitute, but... Would his base really be bothered by that? And if not, what exactly could Truml have done that his base WOULD care about?
The rumor I started seeing this morning makes more sense: that there is evidence of Trump giving a blowjob to Bill Clinton. I think any evidence of Trump doing any sort of submissive act with another man would cost him his base.
Bill Clinton would be especially egregious as a hated Democrat, and there IS a relationship and connection there i could see but it almost seems too ridiculous to be true. And like... He ran against Hillary Clinton. Surely if that happened and evidence existed, it would have gotten out before now, right? Or at the very least the Clintons could have used that aseverage to get Trump to drop his campaign. So I'm not sure I buy that rumor. But it could have been another guy. Or anyone with a dick.
Another thought I have is that there is a common trope in the BDSM scene where people tend towards sexual roles that oppose their "normal" daily roles. Powerful men like to dominate everywhere else, but like to be submissive in the bedroom. I wonder if it could even be something as innocuous as video of Trump going down on one of his wives that he is afraid of leaking.
I mean, there’s that photo of a 13 year-old Ivanka sitting on his lap at a gig.
He was checking for lumps!
Probably right to be cynical, given we've seen him stoke an insurrection in public, while plotting a coup at the same time, and he paid zero penalty for it.
Meanwhile, on this, we see Megyn Kelly starting to do that skeevy hairsplitting on what is technically pedophilia vs. abusing underage adolescents. I'm not really sure if GOP wants to really die on the "yeah, but the underage trafficking was for ephebophiles!" hill, but I guess we'll see.
I happen to have a career which puts me in contact with a good number of people who say things like, "Have you seen Bob's daughter? She doesn't look like she is 14…you'd think she was 23." As if that's some form of rational thought process for their inability to stop sexualizing young girls.
Our lizard brains think a ton of stupid shit. If you're well adjusted, you turn off those thoughts, or minimally don't say them out loud.
The fuck is your job?
I work in rural America, but I'm not going to be specific.
I read the article about Kelly maybe I misread. The headline made it sound like she's making excuses to cover for trump but the article said she finds the Epstein stuff revolting
It's a pretty common way of saying things that are outrageous but then walking them back a bit to cover yourself. That way, the people that agree with the outrageous thing you said feel like you're with them, while normal people are told that what you said wasn't offensive because you walked it back.
I saw an interesting article about it when Charlie Kirk got shot. He would do the same thing saying stuff like "If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" Then he would try to walk it back just a bit so the racists would be like "I agree with everything he's saying!" and if a normal person pushed back he could argue what he said wasn't racist.
15 years old is still illegal in most states (AFAIK), so not sure why she says "barely legal". Also, of course there is a difference between 8 and 15, but trafficking in either is still creepy and disgusting as hell, and also both still very illegal. So I'm not sure why she's even bringing it up.
She does later say:
Well, she has that right.
I think he’d honestly go to war before actually facing consequences. Bread and circuses.
You have to understand that the only thing keeping Trump from being arrested is for a document labeled "Evidence Against Trump" to be released to the public. As soon as people realize that Trump has committed crimes, its game over.
Bahahahahaha
I mean, I want to laugh, but I've seen so many people who genuinely believe its just a matter of better messaging. We're all InfoWarriors in the end.