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
He’s trying to change the algorithms away from “trump blew Clinton”
Do your part and search Google for “trump clinton blowjob” and “Donald trump blew bill Clinton proof” etc
It doesn't matter, the rumor has even less legs than the couch fucking. No one on the left would believe it because he's never done anything for anyone else in his life, and no one on the right would believe it because "god president daddy ain't no queer!"
For extra fun, try posing the statement to Google's AI mode and watch it try to pretend this isn't in the news right now, and then make up lies to protect Trump, until it realizes it can't a suddenly kills the conversation.
It just said to me that there wasn't any conclusive proof that it happened, which is true.
"Trump blew Clinton" led to it talking about how he "blew Clinton away at the polls in 2016." Every additional layer of specifity leads to another slight diversion. Adding "Bill Clinton" caused it to recognize that this is in the news right now, but it's definitely not true because Bubba isn't Bill Clinton. Telling it that Bubba is Bill's known nickname caused it to agree that this is true, but Epstein said that "Bubba doesn't refer to Bill Clinton." (Epstein is commenting on these emails post-mortem? Maybe I missed something here.) Telling it that Epstein is a known pedophile sex trafficker with ties to these men and reason to lie caused it to admit that Epstein isn't a reliable source for this, and it tried to dismiss the validity of the emails altogether as "contextually untrustworthy." I then told it that a known pedophile discussing his practices in a believed to be private email thread is a reasonable context to consider the validity of his statements, but it was tired of me, and went "here are some more links on the subject. Any additional messages with start a new conversation." This could normal after being 5-6 messages deep with this AI; I had literally never used it before to know, but it felt weird to me.
It is weirdly defensive about the possibility that this had taken place, actively omitting details to bias weird takes.
Mark Epstein, Jeffrey's brother, apparently.
It did mention "Jeffery Epstein email releases" in passing, but it should have given that specific email as to where the rumor came from. Definitely more vague than was reasonable to be.