this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
-4 points (46.4% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3556 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Grand jury testimony is taken under oath. If testimony taken under oath in a court of law isn't tangible evidence to you then you're an idiot and part of the "both sides" problem. These people are actively dismantling our constitution and this idiot over here is pounding the table for a rape kit for a rape that took place on a private island years ago.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Dude, just because someone thinks another Democrat has a better chance at beating Trump doesn't mean they are a "both sider." Nor does it automatically make them an idiot. That is just reductive and dismissive on your part.

No one is saying Biden is just as bad as Trump, or Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. We're saying Biden doesn't have a chance at beating Trump and we need a stronger candidate.

They've got a candidate that can literally be criminally charged and it won't matter. We've got a candidate who voter will stay home for because he's old. That's a huge problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don't have a problem with their estimation of the odds of winning an election. I have a problem with them dismissing any insinuation that the proven rapist is a proven rapist unless and until they see a rape kit or a video of a rape. That is some pre-Me Too, but what was she wearing, ignorant ass rapist apologist garbage and I won't not call it out. Trump is a rapist. There is evidence. Judges and Juries of the United States have decided this, even without having to rely on a video or rape kit!

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He's definitely a rapist, no doubt about that. Appreciate you linking the case, too. But just because his being on Epsteins flight logs isn't blowing up in the same way Biden getting pressured out of his campaign is blowing up, doesn't mean the media is trying to get Trump elected. They're advancing their own interests, for sure, and those interests are inherently capitalistic, but to say or infer this push to replace Biden is originating as a right wing media campaign to get Trump elected is just nonsense to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I did not say or infer that. I'm only responding to the "no rape kit = no rape" statement. No perspective on media coverage or fitness for presidency is intended to be inferred.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Sorry, you're right. The original person you responded to was pushing back against someone saying

Ask yourself why the question on every MSM article is about bidens age instead of trumps pedophilia, then you'll see why we like to blame the media

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I didn't even say that, it's likely the rape happened, but without tangible evidence it sounds like every allegation against him. Testimony is simply more allegations and his voters won't believe it. FWIW, he is already a civilly convicted rapist and it didn't move the needle at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+testimony+evidence+us+law

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Tangible evidence is what I said. Not evidence. Not testimony. Tangible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's testimony, not evidence. No one has to believe it. And suddenly I'm an idiot and pounding the table? You wanted to know why the media is talking about Joe Biden and not Donald Trump and I gave you answer. The fact that "people are actively dismantling our constitution" is actually completely irrelevant to the facts. Trump is a known piece of trash and Biden should also know where he is. Both things can be true and the new dementia information is actually far more interesting to people and the media.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I did not want to know about the media coverage.

Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+testimony+evidence+us+law

Say it with me - there is substantiated evidence that Donald Trump is a rapist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

This entire comment thread was about media coverage. Find yourself another strawman.