this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
438 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2073 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary: Author Michael Wolff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein showed him photos of Donald Trump with topless young women at Epstein’s Palm Beach home. Trump’s campaign has denied the claims, calling Wolff a “disgraced” writer. Wolff also expressed skepticism about Epstein’s death, suggesting it was implausible but also questioning the possibility of a cover-up.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 87 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying "this is definite" and "it is fact" every time there's an allegation made about something you don't like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y'all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you're hearing.

Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of...

"A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "

Could be true. Could be not true. It's hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, I'll just add that even if this is true it will sway nobody.

Trump is a rapist caught on tape bragging about how easy it is to assault women. Very few Trump supporters are unaware of this fact and yet that are still Trump supporters.

That he's assaulted women simply isn't newsworthy for his fascist followers. He's hurting the right people and that's all that matters to them.

Sadly, about the only thing he could do to lose support would be to insult his followers or the USA. They'll forgive him for pretty much anything else, including rape and murder.

[–] Thetimefarm@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Not only caught on tape, he was found civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carrol.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Take Trump out of it for a second

But then it becomes a completely different scenario.

Trump has repeatedly admitted to molesting women, he's bragged about forcing his way into women's locker rooms, he joked openly and without judgement of epstein's love of kids, he has scores of sexual assault allegations, he has enough money and clout to cover up his rapes and he's been convicted of illegally covering up legal but embarrassing sexual encounters.

Trump has definitely molested children, it is a fact. It's literally beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

What you're after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.

then it becomes a completely different scenario.

No. No it does not.

At the end of the day...

A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.

Literally, this is "Trust me, bro."

Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.

Don't be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

that affirm your position.

I'm looking for news that affirms reality. Trump's public record words and actions already left no doubt that he's molested children. This writer's credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump's words, actions, associates attitude.

When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it's unreasonable to argue that we can't assume it's a duck.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Im looking for news that affirms reality.

You...affirm your reality...by looking forr news...that does so?

With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it's supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of "fact checking" and the antithesis of misinformation.

That's how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don't look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, "Well, that's my reality."

What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear...

Are you trying to prove my point for me?

Trump's public record words and actions already left no doubt that he's molested children. This writer's credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump's words, actions, associates attitude.

That's unrelated to anything I've said and I don't know why you thought I'd want to hear it.

When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it's unreasonable to argue that we can't assume it's a duck.

That's an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don't know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I've said, it's irony in that by saying it, you're proving my point further.

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

No half competent mind is voting for trump unless they are in the top .01%

[–] Outhouse_dayz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you for being a wise thoughtful person, im canadian so it doesn't matter how I feel, just wanted tonsay it's nice to see some civility here

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Duur let's remove the statement from the context to prove I am not afraid to use logic to defend a pedophile. You do understand how fucking tone death this is.

[–] argarath@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You didn't seem to understand that workout proof we can't accuse trump, even tho he is a horrible piece of shit that deserves to rot in jail. As much as I'd love to see him get arrested and imprisoned, we cannot simply take someone's word that someone else did those horrible things, otherwise trump would have already made all of his enemies go to jail with his stupid bullshit accusations. I also think that trump very very likely did those things, but for the justice system we need proof, and someone saying that someone else did something isn't proof, it's hearsay and not taken as evidence by law

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh sure its the law, logic, or whatever fucked up reason you have in your head. I just see a pedophile defender. Pick a different hill unless, you know, birds of a feather...

[–] argarath@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Doomsidee has sent me a video in which they are obviously molesting a child, I won't share it but they def did it and you should believe me 100%!!

I'll repeat my stance towards trump in a more clear language so you understand: I want trump in jail for his crimes, including his sexual crimes.

The issue here is that we need actual evidence, proof that he did that crime to be able to accuse him, or else this same comment is proof enough that you are a rapist, and we don't want that, what we want is trump in jail, not to give him or others like him the power to put anyone they want in jail. Do you remember what the right wingers keep shouting about trans people, immigrants and everyone else they disagree with? If we do what you want with trump what is stopping them from being able to do the same with us?

I'll say once more to try and get it though you, I want trump in jail for his many many maaaaaaaaany crimes INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY for his sexual crimes, but we need to do it following the law, which needs actual proof, not just hearsay.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Argarath dies on the hill for defending pedophiles because "logic".

It was strange that Argarath choose this fate but some people can't help themselves. That is why I suggest you donate to NALRWCHDOTHFP today

The National Association of Logical Retards Who Can't Help Dying On The Hill For Pedophiles works with individuals like Argarath everyday to prevent this tragic mistake.

NALRWCHDOTHFP helps these individuals see that even if they are right, they shouldn't be commenting an articles about pedophiles. After all, you can be right and you can be dead right.

Music plays in memory of Argarath.

[–] sepi@piefed.social -5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

"A guy said some dead guy did something he is known for doing, like a lot" has some measure of credibility with the common person on the street.

You must be one of the special ones.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

That's just confirmation bias. You assume it's true because it makes sense given other things you know.

If I make up a fact that you are a technology enthusiast, people can assume it's true, you are using Lemmy, it makes sense. And it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact I completely made it up.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

It makes it more possible but still proves nothing.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why, thank you!

You're pretty special yourself! 🌟

Love this community.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh wow the passive aggressiveness is palpable. I bet you are the life of the party!

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Quite often, yes. I'm very extroverted, and have an exhaustingly large network of friends. I get invited to things by people I'm not that close with because I'm fun and entertaining.

It can be very exhausting if I'm down in the dumps, but generally it's great. I have a lot of people in life that care for me and I give back to them how I can.