this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
249 points (92.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3228 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
 

President Biden on Monday night issued a plea for supporters to donate to his campaign in the wake of former President Trump’s victory in Iowa.

“Looks like Donald Trump just won Iowa. He’s the clear front runner on the other side at this point,” Biden wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“But here’s the thing: this election was always going to be you and me vs. extreme MAGA Republicans. It was true yesterday and it’ll be true tomorrow,” Biden added, posting a link to a fundraising page.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They voted for a rapist last time, and the time before, why would that stop them now? These allegations aren't new, and we've known since epstein was caught that Trump frequented the lolita express, and trump himself said epstein was a 'good friend'.

Why would that change any of these peoples minds now? They've had ample time to educate themselves, if ever they wanted to, and I doubt they're voting based on trump anyway as much as 'muh elephant better than ur donkey'.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You're not trying to change everyone's minds, you're trying to repeat what happened four years ago, when he lost, even before he was found liable for rape and insurrection in courts.

They didn't vote for a rapist, they voted for a bully.

He was, in 2020, in a better position than he is in now, and now if you debate anyone, you can mention that Trump is a rapist, committed direct election fraud and insurrection.

Which makes him a poor candidate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nothing has changed other than the government killing trumps 'good friend' epstein to hide his client list

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Non-sequitir and unsubstantiated, but I'll agree that your theory is very entertaining and forcefully circumstantial.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I'll add more to the theory: Given the number of times epstein met with the former prime minister of isreal in his personal home stateside (and specifically never at the island), it's extremely likely that the reason epstein was killed is because he was working with the CIA and Mossad to run a blackmail ring of the richest and most influential people in the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't misunderstand my reticence to imply that these things cannot happen, conspiracies obviously often occur and have tons of historical substantial weight, I just prefer my conspiracies incontrovertible.

Why do you believe that the CIA and mossaf specifically were running this pedophile ring with Epstein?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay so like circumstantial, proximal attribution.

I get it, I just don't think it helps to assert suspicions as fact until those facts are less malleable.

I have not read that first book, have you read that book?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I did specifically note the word "theory" when I posited my assertion.

Additionally the book is called "Epstein: Dead men tell no tales" and I can't make a 100% confirmation that the books integrity has been maintained as I read a translated version (overview here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48720807-epstein), the overview presented by the book is, in my opinion, extremely watered down and appears to have been censored, either in context or content, to provide a minimally invasive view of what happens behind closed doors.

The book could be used as a foray into questioning authority, but not as a reason to riot or scream, more as a thought provoking and reflecting work to allow others to look more seriously at those they've allowed into power.

It's not as though it's terribly 'eye opening' as I've worked with various governments and government related organizations so not a lot phazes me any more, but it isn't something I would recommend against reading.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Yea, fair.

If any circumstantial conspiracy deserves to be looked at, it's the one where the multi-millionaire friendly with presidents is arrested for his private island pedophile ring, put on suicide watch, and still commits an unrecorded, unwitnessed suicide before he has the opportunity to make any statements.