this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
557 points (97.4% liked)

News

27753 readers
4256 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump has not been accused of paying for sex, but several supporters protesting outside of his trial on Monday wanted to make it clear that they have. It seems the crowds that come out to protest the persecution of the former president are getting smaller, and weirder

Today, however, the crowd had thinned to a handful of true believers and true characters – those who don’t leave their house without a giant flag, a bullhorn, and an offensive T-shirt they made themselves.

It’s not only that the crowds are getting smaller, it’s that they are getting significantly weirder.

Of the people willing to step up to a microphone outside the courthouse and defend Mr Trump for allegedly paying off a porn star to hide his alleged affair from prospective voters, two offered something of a wild defence: that they opposed the charges because they too had paid for sex on more than one occasion, and assumed most men had done the same

It didn’t matter to them that Mr Trump is not being accused of paying for sex, but rather accused of having embarked on several extra-marital affairs and falsifying business records over payments made to hide those affairs from the voting public in 2016.

(page 3) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 11 months ago

Chud Life Baby 😎

Yes, let’s legalize and give protections to all the sex workers.

Chuds: No, not like that!!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The fact that the article leads with “SKETCH” makes me think it’s satire.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

TIL “sketch” has an additional meaning in UK English.

Thanks!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 133 points 11 months ago (3 children)

FFS he is not in trouble for paying for sex. He is in trouble for paying hush money using campaign funds. Good lord, conservatives are so brainwashed

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Just like Clinton wasn't in trouble for the blowjob. He was in trouble for lying about it under oath. But everyone who talks about it now says he got impeached for a blowjob.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

Exactly. He got impeached for lying about questioning unrelated to the investigation on him after the actual subject of the investigation bore no fruit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 64 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I just had this argument with a friend of mine. It’s even legal to pay someone to sign an NDA. The charges are “Falsifying business records in the first degree.”

It’s not a “hush-money trial” it’s “criminal business fraud.”

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just like Jesus from his pedestal... Let whoever amungst us hasn't paid for sex throw the first felony.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Actually Jesus said "Let whoever among us who hasn't falsified business records throw the first felony."

The paying for sex was a mistranslation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

It's an easy mistranslation to make, especially when you had a large group of scholars reading hundreds of accounts of stuff that happened hundreds of years earlier written in several different languages and deciding which stories were "real" and worth putting in one book. Then a thousand years later you had another group of people translating THAT.

I'm surprised there aren't more stories about Jesus falsifying his business records after trying to cover up a sex scandal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

They're mad that they had to pay for sex because they expect to get their wee-wees wet for free.

[–] [email protected] 253 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (26 children)

Well, let’s legalize prostitution. Regulate it, tax it, legitimize it.

Conservatives: hell no, we can’t have that depravity and vice. We need to punish women for sex outside of marriage. Oh, yeah…and no abortions for them either. (Unless it’s my daughter or mistress)

[–] [email protected] 70 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Also conservatives: Yeah, we still pay for sex. Rules only apply to other people.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, and make it more difficult for those trapped in their situation to get out of it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Gotta keep women in their place and under control, even if we say it’s the wrong place. It’s all about control and restricting their autonomy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

hey producing more slave class is important to. its not just about the women.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Isn't that a crime in the US? Did these people just confess to crimes? But of course they're "conservatives" so it's OK.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Not everywhere. Prostitution is legal in Nevada (just not within the city limits of Vegas).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What an amazing little carveout, and since almost everyone has a phone with a camera...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not a crime everywhere in the US, cat houses are still around in Nevada. I’m assuming the gentlemen making these statements frequented a couple cities in that state to come to this assumption.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago (2 children)

TBF, I wouldn't want people to be persecuted just for saying out loud that they did a crime. Imagine if I went outside today and shouted, "My house doesn't have a secondary fire escape and is therefore outside building regulations!". Should I then be investigated for committing a crime, or should someone just tell me to shut up and stop shouting in the middle of the road?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Oddly specific, weird example

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

Haha definitely not relevant to me 😅

I was just struggling to think of an example of a crime which wouldn't warrant investigation. Flying Squid has a good example further down of confessing to a murder which had just happened, which would need to be investigated probably

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe this person should be investigated

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Haha yeah you'd expect an example to be something somewhat close to a thing that people would actually say.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

Home ownership be like

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I would say it depends on the type of crime and the amount of detail. If you say out loud, "I murdered John Smith last Tuesday" and John Smith had been murdered last Tuesday, I think you should probably get investigated for the murder of John Smith.

If you say "I've had sex with a prostitute" but don't go further than that in terms of any details, definitely not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Hence why I picked such a banal example :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Slow down, I think nuance might not be well understood by this person.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's just locker room talk

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

If you're rich, they let you do it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure that the author wasn't taken in by a Yes Men style prank. Because honestly, that sounds like satire and the satire wasn't coming from the author of the article.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Reality has become indistinguishable from satire.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but I think there are hints here and there.

For example-

“What do you think I do in Thailand, just sit in a chair?” he asked, incredulously. “That’s what we do as men, you know?”

Thailand isn't really famous for it's ciswomen prostitutes...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Thailand isn't really famous for it's ciswomen prostitutes...

Uhh, what? Yes it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That isn't what they are famous for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

That doesn’t refute my point. Thailand has ladyboys, sure, but there are easily 10x the number of female sex workers. It’s one of the most well known cis sex tourism destinations.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you're confused. I'm not talking about the reality, I'm talking about why I think this is a hint that it's satire.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›