this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
876 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22913 readers
3768 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 2 years 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
[–] [email protected] 183 points 9 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I dont doubt it one bit. These people belong in mental institutions. Yet they're allowed (encouraged?) to vote, as well as raise (indoctrinate) children into their ridiculous way of thinking.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

I was one of those children. It's a crazy life, and there are tons of people who live it and believe it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Why are the dumb people driving the car?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think evangelicals see this sort of thing as a positive.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

They think they might get a chance to do it too

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The body has ways to shut down violent rape.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

not that fucking guy

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

It should be revealing with a story like this just how controlled the media has actually become. The vast majority of major media outlets have been slowly bought out and/or heavily funded by right-wing groups. The story should be everywhere, but you'll probably only see it in niche news sites and maybe MSNBC. This is also why all we really see are negative stories about Biden regardless of what Trump does or says.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

That's a bingo.

They don't want to shed light on it because it could implicate way more than just trump.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

Christians have a thing about fucking kids, remember?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, as others said, it’s probably because it’s a 2016 article about a story that never got anywhere.

Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn’t, who knows. But it’s definitely not the best thing to give press announcements about, especially considering all the horrible stuff Trump has verifiably done.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

I don't think they've read the article, which is a shame because it's an interesting one. But it does make that point and comments about Clinto campaign

But the Clinton campaign hasn’t touched Johnson’s allegation, and with good reason. 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Jimmy carter sold his peanut farm to be president. Dan Quayle spelled potato wrong and lost the presidency.

But rape allegations are fine, because it might not be true. He's such a trustworthy guy after all.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

That’s not the point I’m making. I’m saying between inciting an insurrection, spending campaign funds for silencing pornstars, telling people to inject disinfectant in their veins, and sexual assault sentences… I’d say one shady rape allegation that never went anywhere is definitely not the main reason why he shouldn’t be president.