News
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Because there's evidence of protecting paedophiles (heavy redaction of the Epstein files) but no public evidence of him having raped a child, so statements like that are viewed as hyperbolic expressions of hatred instead of genuine criticism.
There is so much evidence of him raping at least one child, a jury found him civilly liable and those damages have been upheld on appeal
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of anything was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
Are you thinking of something else?
He's raped kids and gotten away with it. He's talked about having no inhibition when it comes to sexually assaulting vulnerable people on hot mic. He talked about how sexy his teen daughter is. You know it. Everyone knows it.
"the only case I know of" lol sure.
You know of another case where he was found civilly liable? Wanna... say what it is?
it's about time for some people to rub two thoughts, "convicted rapist" and "pedophile protector" together in their minds for a few moments to reach the frankly braindead obvious conclusion.
If you think that's a "braindead obvious conclusion" then let's keep you away from any courtrooms, hmm?
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred. So, to those people who don't hate Trump (they still exist, sadly) it is not effective. There are many things that Trump has done, with evidence, that you can criticise him about. Let's start with the children's deaths he has caused in Iran, or the people his stormtroopers have shot dead in cold blood on the streets?
He drops bombs on kids but he won't rape em? Sure buddy.
If you just assume that the all guys who had child sex slave ownership disputes with Jeffery Epstein (gosh who hasn't?) are rapists then you'd eventually accuse everyone, right?
Why the fuck would being willing to murder children (at arms length only, obviously) mean you'd fuck them? You ever killed anything? Would you fuck it?
The only reason the evidence isn't known is because the very MAGA perverts who are exposed in the Epstein Files are now in charge of their release. If they are going to perform an OFFICIAL criminal cover-up of one of the most heinous conspiracies in human history, then we can be allowed to assume the worst speculation possible, until MAGA offers up the evidence to the contrary.
Mostly with you, but this, I think, is overplaying your point and just isn't true. This makes it sound like something just made up because you don't like someone, like Obama not being an American citizen or something. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that Trump has indeed had sex with minors. His role and behavior in underage beauty pageants, frequent trips to the island we know these things happened on, etc.
Not enough to convict someone, yes, but enough that even someone with no opinion at all of Trump (impossible, but hypothetically), if told of this circumstantial evidence, probably wouldn't trust their daughter to be alone with him.
I think the point that there's enough to tar him with that's completely proven and on the record there's no need to venture into such circumstantial accusations is well taken, but let's also not pretend those accusations are baseless and purely from hatred. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that would lead even a pretty impartial observer to at least consider it.
That's a fair take.
But I think my main point that it isn't convincing to anyone except the already convinced remains true, and this is why it's not really a rallying cry you hear used to try and win people over.
That I do agree with you on. For Trump criticisms and attacks... well, there's plenty of meat on that bone that we don't need to go gnawing for scraps, as it were.
Call me crazy, but I don't want pedophile supporters on my side.
I didn't say confronting people with the, yes fucking braindead obvious conclusion of putting "notoriously friends with and protector of pedophiles whose name appears literally more than anyone else in the epstein documents, requiring literally thousands of manhours of redactions of specifically his name from the epstein documents," and also "is a rapist" together would solve anything: there will always be people who will refuse to trust even their own instincts, let alone the testimony of multiple mutually corroborating victims, FBI documents with repeated, mutally corroborating anonymous tips about Trump individually and Trump in connection with Epstein (and I really could go on at some considerable length further here); I said it was necessary (about fucking time).
Sure. Let's all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious^1^ child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week. why not. yeah great idea. who cares about an uncounted number of children who wont even speak up for themselves for some reason. all those politicians around the world connected to this are probably like, low level and unimportant anyway. no princes or princesses or kings or presidents or pms or senators or entire national alliances are implicated in this. youre so fucking smart and reasonable dude, it was such a wise and ethical idea to ignore all those child rapes good call bro
edit: "Sure, he's capable of operating concentration camps and bombing countries just to manipulate the stock market, but I draw the line at any suggestion he might have RAPED CHILDREN. Be reasonable."
edit2: a thing can be necessary but insufficient in itself. the two are not incompatible.
edit3: he had to be talked out of pardoning ghislane for the love of all that is good in this world... how fucking obtuse can you be?
From what I have read about the claims that Trump raped children, the evidence is weak. I haven't dug into it that much, but I live in a country where I trust some of the media to have looked at it and flagged anything serious that I therefore didn't spot.
At the same time, we live in a time when people are willing to call any Republican anything, regardless of evidence, so the assertions of a rando on the internet doesn't really sway me, I'm afraid.
This doesn't make sense. You can't in usefully distract from crimes by committing other serious crimes. It just draws attention to your new crimes.
You have a poor grasp of American politics and media.