I am afraid to think that soon we will find ourselves discussing whether or not someone who has raped a girl can run for presidency
Current court might decide it's a requirement. Look at Jefferson.
Although they might decide that it's not rape if it's a slave. Which might make 13th amendment interpretations interesting.
Americans influenced everything in my life.
I hope they collaborate onto better goals.
Buckle up.
It is amazing how there is no line that Trump/GOP are willing to cross for this man. I've never seen a guy make so many people admit they have no moral backbone at all. Everything they hate and say other groups are he is.
Criminal ✅
Con-Man ✅
Rapist ✅
Racist (They enjoy this.) ✅
Hostile insurrection. ✅
~~Criminal ✅~~ Illegal Democrat Witch Hunt
~~Con-Man ✅~~ Media Lies
~~Rapist ✅~~ Fake News
~~Racist (They enjoy this.) ✅~~ Democrats are the real DEI racists.
~~Hostile insurrection. ✅~~ Peaceful protest.
Unfortunately for them this is what that list is.
We live in 2 or more realities existing simultaneously due to the real scum of the earth: propagandists.
Try asking a Democrat to name one thing that Biden could do that would make them not vote for him.
To be fair, though, I don't think that Biden would've gotten the nomination if he were as scummy as Trump.
Why isn't this all over prime time news, including fox, so the christian voters can see it.
More importantly why aren't the democrats and liberal establishment forcing this into the public eye. They could be using this to their advantage. Why aren't we hearing about it as loudly as we should be. I'm not seeing it any where mainstream.
Fuck, biden should give a press announcement only for this.
(1) trillionaires (such as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk) bought out the media - "prime time news" no longer exists, as it used to, now instead we have advertising segments meant to increase profitz
(2) the christians do not care - as evidenced by the fact that they already know. They just used him to accomplish their ends, of restricting abortion and whatever. Authoritarians just don't think in terms like right or wrong, and rather what am I told to feel about this or that?
(3) also, yes they are THAT MUCH against the LGBTQIA+ "agenda" (of living life free from outside interference) that they could have watched the event happen live, heard her screams, and still vote for Trump. Some would still vote that way even if he had done it personally to them. It is an entirely different mindset, and we would do well to listen to it, rather than be surprised a few months from now (as we were before in 2016).
(4) if you want to understand it moar better-er, the best teacher I've seen is The Alt Right Playbook, by Innuendo Studios - I recommend starting at the beginning and going all the way through it, but the most relevant one to this discussion I think is this one.
TLDR: they know, they don't care in the slightest - truly.
It boils down to this: To the GOP the idea that a LGBT person might molest a child is more important than the reality that Trump actually has.
I think evangelicals see this sort of thing as a positive.
This is why.
It's not just Bill Clinton though. Many of the rich and powerful are vulnerable to the Epstein story, including Bill Gates.
The media itself is a fucking mess.
Take this, for example:
So a self-affirmed victim sends an email to a magazine. That email becomes a point of fact even though people involved either never confirmed it or straight up said it never happened.
This happens constantly. "News" is getting reported before or without confirmation. Shoot first, ask questions later, maybe put a blurb at the bottom a couple weeks later when nobody will read it correcting everything that was wrong.
Obviously the Clinton's wouldn't confirm it, but they've long since learned not to deny it either. Denying is nearly as bad as confirming, since it gives even a little more credibility to the claims, just by acknowledging its existence. Especially in this current political climate, commenting at all has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Highly recommend the book "Trust me, I'm Lying". News consumers have to do their due diligence now and actually judge the sources of the news itself, even for sources previously thought to be reputable. The court of public opinion is all that matters, and it's judged by old and new media alike. Spez and Musk and Zuck are all as powerful as Murdoch, and they're the Supreme Court of Public Opinion.
And then you have shit like the Internet Research Agency flooding the docket.
That's a bingo.
They don't want to shed light on it because it could implicate way more than just trump.
There is a whole group of religious folks that are certain he is the antichrist and want to bring him to power so he can bring about the end of days, revelations, the rapture (where they will be saved), then after hell on earth, the 1000 years of peace....so....they are totally cool with his evil. It's insane when you think about it from the position of nothing in religion being real.
Christians have a thing about fucking kids, remember?
The article describes why the story feels to them so strange and suspicious. For example
It was the end of an incredibly strange case that featured an anonymous plaintiff who had refused almost all requests for interviews, two anonymous corroborating witnesses whom no one in the press had spoken to, and a couple of seriously shady characters — with an anti-Trump agenda and a penchant for drama — who had aggressively shopped the story around to media outlets for over a year.
Those shady characters — a former reality TV producer who calls himself “Al Taylor” and a “Never Trump” conservative activist named Steve Baer — had been mostly unsuccessful in getting the media to bite. There are a few very good reasons for that, which the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim succinctly summed up: Taylor and Baer have been really sketchy about the whole thing, and since the accuser is anonymous, journalists can’t do anything to verify her claims. The only journalist who has actually interviewed Johnson, Emily Shugerman at Revelist, came away confused and even doubting whether Johnson really exists.
Since a tape of Trump bragging about sexual assault came out in early October, a dozen named women have come forward with credible, similar-sounding allegations of Trump forcibly kissing or groping them in exactly the way he described on that tape. Johnson’s case was an outlier, with far more salacious allegations from a source that seems far less credible.
And it goes much further. I guess not many wanted to go hard on this story with it seeming a bit sketchy. Like they said in the end
It’s true that the allegation is explosive, andcould make voters see Trump’s many disturbing comments about young girls over the years in a new light. But it’s also very dubious and uncertain, and there’s no real need to promote a case like that when a dozen women have come forward with much more credible stories, using their own names and making themselves available to reporters for scrutiny.
Trump is a pedo with several decades of documented creepy behavior.
There. "Explained."
Yet, here we are, with the potential of him to be the next president of the country (again). :/
I think you mean the next king of your failed democracy.
He should probably withdraw
He Raped that LITTLE GIRL as an OFFICIAL Act of the Presidency!
538 upvotes on an article from 2016. This rape allegation was known in 2016:
A 2016 lawsuit accused Trump, then a candidate for president, of raping a minor, but no evidence was put forth before the case was dropped.
but no evidence was put forth before the case was dropped.
The case was dropped because the victim received death threats from Trump's fanclub.
The whole case was also really suspicious, like the article said. People, including the only reporter who got to interview the woman (over a phone call) wasn't even sure if the person actually ever existed. Seeing that this is a fairly old article, I wonder if we got any new info on this.
Oh well if he raped the 13 year old child 8 years ago it's all fine. Statute of limitations on ethics and all.
/s
So this wasn't an official act? I guess it depends upon which SC justice you ask.
And no MAGAtard worth their trash has ever linked their God-Emperor to that pervert Epstein. 😡🤬
MAGAtard? They prefer MAGAt or MAGAholic
But her emails. But his stutter.
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.
Republicans: “That man is just LIKE US! He embodies every value that we hold dear! We should totally nominate him to lead our party.”
Oh thank God it was explained away.
Anyway, here are 13 pages of links to Biden old lame shitposts by tankies.
Don't forget to nuke the west!
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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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