471
submitted 10 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] eatCasserole@lemmy.world 139 points 10 months ago

Some social media users have noted the irony in Cruz’s gaffe, as the politician voted against an amendment that would have forced the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.

Not a gaffe.

Shame on the independent, why are they running damage control for this bozo?

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 51 points 10 months ago

as the politician voted against an amendment that would have forced the Justice Department to release the Epstein files.

When I see someone voting AGAINST releasing the Epstein files, I can only make the assumption that they are in it.

Seeing that we are talking about an already horrible person, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Cruz is trying to cover his ass.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago

When I see someone voting AGAINST releasing the Epstein files, I can only make the assumption that they are in it.

Cruz's career was largely post-Epstein. But a bunch of his allies and big-ticket donors have straight lines to the Birthday Book and the Flight Logs. He's got a vested interest in protecting them.

[-] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 3 points 10 months ago

Cruz is trying to cover his ass.

Great now I have the mental image of video taken by one of Epstein's Kompromat Cameras, of a room with a freshly raped teen and Grandpa Munster doing his best to hide behind a towel

[-] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

they didn't vote Johnson cut it short to not swear in, the vote to release them

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Johnson cut it short

In the Senate?

[-] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

to avoid a vote, and swear in the 218 yes vote, Democrat, I believe in Minnesota. but yeah he shut it down government is down now

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In the House, the Speaker normally controls the agenda, and nothing can be schedules without their approval. However, there is a process where if a member gathers the signatures of a majority of Members on an issue, the Speaker is forced to put it on the agenda.

Their petition to release the Epstein files currently has 217 out of the 218 signatures necessary, it has every sitting Democrat on board, and enough Republicans to bring it to the threshold. But there was a vacant seat, which a Democrat won recently. That Democrat is on the record as wanting to sign the petition.

Normally, these special election winners are sworn in right away, but Speaker Johnson adjourned the House before she could be sworn in. Adjourning the House looked particularly bad, because it all but guaranteed a shutdown.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

Adjourning the House looked particularly bad, because it all but guaranteed a shutdown.

I don't think they're concerned about that. They rely on the fact that most voters won't know this and the Republicans can just run around saying "the Democrats forced us to shut down!" even though the Republicans were the ones who did it early and stopped any chance of continued negotiations.

Republicans revel in the lack of nuanced discussion. :(

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

In it, or are being blackmailed by someone who's in it.

[-] SwampYankee@feddit.online 14 points 10 months ago
[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

It's like rain on your wedding day.

[-] JaymesRS@piefed.world 10 points 10 months ago

The gaff being saying it out loud in front of cameras…

[-] Draces@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, I don't think people know what gaffe means. He can say something he believes and not mean to. That's still a gaffe

Edit: another valid definition was pointed out elsewhere. Guess it can or can't be based on which you pick

[-] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

they didn't vote Johnson cut it short to not swear in, the vote to release them

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

This post smells like toast

[-] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The worst part is it's only missing a comma, and maybe one or two more words to clarify, but they would be optional once the comma was in.

[-] vegeta@lemmy.world 74 points 10 months ago
[-] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 10 points 10 months ago
[-] Bonifratz@sh.itjust.works 41 points 10 months ago
[-] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Nope.

I remember when Qanon pretended to think that, though.

[-] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

The meme is an old one, but the code checks out.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Was that so there would be more for himself?

[-] Lexam@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Has he said it was a gaffe?

[-] iThinkDifferentThanU@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

but, it really wasn't

[-] cabbage@piefed.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

a remark or action that is a social mistake and not considered polite

Isn't this pretty precise, according to Cambridge dictionary? It's outside my active vocabulary so what the hell do I know

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 24 points 10 months ago

I think their point is, did he correct himself later on to indicate that he misspoke?

[-] baggins@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It was a social mistake, not nessicarily a mistake of speech or intent.

[-] cabbage@piefed.social 5 points 10 months ago

Exactly this. If you try ticking a grizzly bear it's a mistake even if it is intentional.

But again, I'm not a native speaker so I'm not saying this is the correct interpretation of the word, but that's the impression I get from the dictionary.

[-] PixeIOrange@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago
[-] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Ted gets one honest statement per fiscal year (shutdown or not) and this is what he burns it on.

[-] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago

How was this a "gaffe"? He clearly meant it, although the context is a bit more nuanced than just, "Ted Cruz loves pedophiles". He's obviously trying to downplay their importance in the current political conversation, in an effort to get people to stop caring about Donald Trump's Epstein connections.

This wasn't a slip of the tongue. It's just an objectively bad take, and people should roast the shit out of him for it.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Very soon a portion of the country will be perfectly ok with openly defending pedophiles.

[-] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 10 months ago

They've been fine with it since before November.

[-] DrFistington@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Why are people assuming it was a gaffe?

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah - I’m struggling to figure out what he meant instead

[-] Killer57@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

Fairly sure he was just saying the quiet part out loud again.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Hey hey hey, that's not what he meant to say. What he meant to say was "Stop attacking my mega-donors."

[-] Hozerkiller@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Rafael has honestly done more damage since he stopped being the zodiac killer than he ever did as the zodiac killer.

[-] wirebeads@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

Death to pedophiles and at this point the monsters that help protect them.

[-] wheezy@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Fun fact. The monsters that help to protect them, also pedophiles.

[-] lemmyausmister@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago

Don't boo him for being honest..

this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
471 points (99.2% liked)

politics

30937 readers
2556 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS