this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
859 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18157 readers
3498 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Johnson claimed that Trump violently raped her when she was 13 at a 1994 orgy hosted by Jeffrey Epstein — the billionaire who was convicted in 2008 of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and has been accused of having sex with more than 30 underage girls.

Johnson said Trump had sexual contact with her at four of those parties, including tying her to a bed and violently raping her in a “savage sexual attack.” The lawsuit said Johnson “loudly pleaded” with Trump to stop, but that he responded by “violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Person 1:

Technically not an accusation, Trump lost the lawsuit to Jane Doe. When Trump denied the allegations and accused her of defrauding him, he got sued again for defamation.

Trump raped a 13 year old girl.

Person 2:

Aren’t those different cases?

You:

Sure, the guy who says his friend likes girls on the younger side and that they are okay with it deserves the benefit of the doubt. Excuse me while I throw up.

The person 2 wasn't even giving the benefit of the doubt, they were just confused about what case the earlier person was talking about (likely because Trump didn't lose the mentioned Jane Doe case)

Person 3:

This particular case is, technically, an accusation, though. Even if we’re all just about certain that it’s true.

You:

Sure, I heard he totally respects women’s rights. He would be never think of purposely walking in on a young girl changing… Ohh wait

Person 3:

Did you even read what I said? I agree with you there. But technically, and I’m only bringing this up because you originally did, it is an accusation.

I think here Person 3 thought you were Person 1 who originally said the "technically not an accusation" thing.

You:

Suuuure, I am just calling bullshit on it. You are okay, even if your playing devils advocate to a rapist.

That's when I commented. I really don't know how this looks to you (and it gets worse from there) but nobody was playing devil's advocate, nobody was giving benefit of the doubt even, there was no rape apologia. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a joke on your part but it just seems like you misinterpreted what was being said and flew off the handle.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I guess Sarcasm really is above some people. I never disputed what they said no matter how hard you want to twist this narrative.

I just answered their pondering with sarcasm because of how ridiculous this whole thing is.

You must be on the spectrum to push this hard on me being snarky.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I guess Sarcasm really is above some people. I never disputed what they said no matter how hard you want to twist this narrative.

Everyone knew it was sarcasm but why you decided to start all sarcastic about it.

I just answered their pondering with sarcasm because of how ridiculous this whole thing is.

What was ridiculous about it, in your mind?

You must be on the spectrum to push this hard on me being snarky.

I don't think they take that kind of comments well here. I don't mind but just a heads up.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Classic overreact to my overreaction.

I would have probably just pissed off after venting a couple times about the ridiculousness of arguing legal semantics in a case involving one of the most prolific serial rapists of our time.

How tone-deaf it looks... but you all haven't experienced rape firsthand. You don't have daughters who have been raped.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You think the difference between someone losing a case and the case against them being dismissed/dropped is legal semantics..? Not to mention, the first person was just wondering what case it was they said Trump lost...

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Holy shit this doomrider guy is dumb af. Stop wasting your time with him.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

You're right, I should've stopped a while ago

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

Also just to absolutely clarify to everyone, when you said they are "playing devils advocate to a rapist" and called me "rape apologist" and so on, was that also sarcasm?