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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! 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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
It is amazing how butthurt someone can get when they perceive their message was misunderstood. Herein lies the problem, I did not misunderstand rather just introduced sarcasm and ridicule to cope with how fucked the situation is.
Ridiculous situations are deserving of ridicule. When someone takes it personally it shows they have an invested interest. I am to believe they are on my side and just clarifying a technicality.
This guy has survived his entire life on legal technicalities using this as a tool to continue raping and looting all that is around him. We are to have a civil conversation about something that is so uncivil it literally breaks the normal social contracts that exist. Instead of focusing on this we are worried about feelings being hurt.
The circle jerk you guys are building up to is rather momentous.
This situation definitely deserves ridicule but I think you've managed to do more damage yourself than I could've.
See, here we are again worried about your feelings. I guess you did help prove a point though.
Truly a baffling comment. The other person was just saying that since it wasn't proven it technically was just an accusation and you threw a shitfit about that.
I suppose the irony of using the same tactics the Rapist in Chief uses is lost on you. Please keep up the circle jerk, it is pretty amusing watching you at this point.
What is the tactic?
The former POTUS has been in thousands of court cases. He is one of the most litigious individuals of all time. His entire adult life has been in the courtroom using technicalities to avoid responsibility.
When someone defends him on a technicality that is the very definition of irony. OP was wrong to do this so they got some ridicule. Rightfully so.
The situation itself is so absurd it is at times hard to comprehend. For instance, just because it has not or cannot be proven in courtroom beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean it didn't happen.
So OP can take their smugness about being technically correct and stick it.
Right. But the person said it wasn't an accusation because Trump lost the lawsuit. And that's something that's just wrong. It's not a technicality or even a defence to point out such an error, they were just wrong about him losing the case. Someone pointing out a big factual error shouldn't be cause for this sort of shitfit, if you ask me.
No one did and your faux outrage is just as bullshit as you are. You don't know the difference between a shitfit and sarcasm so pardon me if I don't trust your reading comprehension.
You don't have any skin in this game, you have never been raped nor do you have daughters. Just another rape apologist pretending to be a bro.
From the article, right below the title
Wikipedia:
You don't have to trust my reading comprehension since the comment and the links are right there. Surely you trust your own comprehension.
It's not rape apologia to say that Trump didn't lose the case. Unless you are accusing Vox (and Wikipedia) of rape apologia.
I never even disputed that. Yes, you are incapable of reading comprehension. You can't read the room and often miss the point. It is painfully obvious.
Person 1:
Person 2:
You:
The person 2 wasn't even giving the benefit of the doubt, they were just confused about what case the earlier person was talking about (likely because Trump didn't lose the mentioned Jane Doe case)
Person 3:
You:
Person 3:
I think here Person 3 thought you were Person 1 who originally said the "technically not an accusation" thing.
You:
That's when I commented. I really don't know how this looks to you (and it gets worse from there) but nobody was playing devil's advocate, nobody was giving benefit of the doubt even, there was no rape apologia. I'm not sure if it was meant to be a joke on your part but it just seems like you misinterpreted what was being said and flew off the handle.
I guess Sarcasm really is above some people. I never disputed what they said no matter how hard you want to twist this narrative.
I just answered their pondering with sarcasm because of how ridiculous this whole thing is.
You must be on the spectrum to push this hard on me being snarky.
Also just to absolutely clarify to everyone, when you said they are "playing devils advocate to a rapist" and called me "rape apologist" and so on, was that also sarcasm?
Everyone knew it was sarcasm but why you decided to start all sarcastic about it.
What was ridiculous about it, in your mind?
I don't think they take that kind of comments well here. I don't mind but just a heads up.
Classic overreact to my overreaction.
I would have probably just pissed off after venting a couple times about the ridiculousness of arguing legal semantics in a case involving one of the most prolific serial rapists of our time.
How tone-deaf it looks... but you all haven't experienced rape firsthand. You don't have daughters who have been raped.
You think the difference between someone losing a case and the case against them being dismissed/dropped is legal semantics..? Not to mention, the first person was just wondering what case it was they said Trump lost...
Holy shit this doomrider guy is dumb af. Stop wasting your time with him.
You're right, I should've stopped a while ago