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
As a Republican this Leaves me ANGRY because I THOUGHT the CLINTONS were on that List but if Trump, who was Epstein's Best Friend, says there is No List then that means the CLINTONS never Raped kids either!
Only a republican could be upset that kids weren't raped.
Honestly I think it's kind of funny the administration is trying to bury this, because there is already very public information on Trump being a rapist and making creepy remarks towards young girls.
If it releases with him on it his supporters would absolutely do the mental gymnastics required to use it as proof the liberal elite are an evil cabal, while also insisting that dear leader is blameless.
Really wouldn't be that hard, they could point to several passages in the Bible that could justify him being a rapist and paedophile because they took it wildly out of context. IIRC Mary was something like 13 when she's was betrothed to Joseph.
The Bible contradicts a lot about how these guys handle stuff while invoking it, but that's one area where, because of the times in which it's referencing, there are examples that fit their narrative. Honestly I'm surprised they haven't used that already, but it's probably because none of them have actually read it.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/trump-epstein-2016-complaint.pdf
This court filing is horrific and names both trump and Epstein as defendants. The victim withdrew after the deposition, if I’m remembering correctly.
There’s that word, which Marjorie TG mispronounced as cable in a Qanon promotional video years ago. Fucking dumbass.
They would do mental gymnastics to wave off dear leader fucking little girls, yes.
Would they forgive him for fucking little boys though?
Is he a Catholic priest? Survey sayyys...
Trump infiltrated the pedo ring to bring it down, naturally.
I know the /s is there (mentally) but the idea that someone is mad that kids weren't raped is abhorrent.
Bro he's good friends with the Clinton's too
You don't need an apostrophe to make something plural.
He's is a conjunction of "he" and "is", so what the devil are you on about.
He's referring to "Clinton's"
It's not plural it's possessive.
Is it? Are you sure?
Yes, it's basic English. 's after a pronoun generally doesn't denote plural but rather possession in this case implying the Clintons have been purchased.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be fuckin weird about it but yes, I am in fact sure.
So, if it's possessive, you can replace it with a possessive pronoun right?
"It was John's friend" -> "It was his friend"
"The Hamiltons' house is white" -> "Their house is white"
"We could all smell The Rock's cooking" -> "We could all smell his cooking"
"The motorcade was because of the Clintons' visit" -> "The motorcade was because of their visit."
Note, that when it's a couple it's both plural and possessive, and the rule in that case is to add the apostrophe after the s.
So, for your sentence:
"Bro he's good friends with the Clinton's too" -> "Bro, he's good friends with their too"
Are you sure it's not just a plural:
"Bro he's good friends with the Clintons too" -> "Bro, he's good friends with them too"
If it's just plural, you could replace "the Clintons" with "the Clinton family" which is clearly not possessive and it wouldn't change the sentence:
"Bro he's good friends with the Clinton family"
Also, if you insist it's possessive and not plural, are you saying it's the possessive form of "The Clinton"? Is that how you refer to Bill?
I will say, you're correct that it is basic English.
If you refer to them as property which is the implication yes it works.
Though thank you professor weird guy. Now tell me how it changes anything at all or what exactly your point is?
My point is that it's basic English and:
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19647028
Should be a ; not :
Oh? Could you explain why?
Two complete but tangentially connected sentences that you're trying to link are joined with a semi colon. If it were only a quote and not intending to connect two separate but related sentences or thoughts a colon would have been appropriate.
Notice how I didn't change the intent of your comment, I merely offered advice rather then insisting you don't know what the intent of the sentence you wrote is.
What's the second sentence you think I was trying to link?
The linked comment you used the wrong punctuation on you absolute bafoon, the hypocrisy is cute though.
What linked comment?
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19657728
Really working that tedious twat gig huh?
Oh, that one, the one I linked to. You see, colons are used when you introduce or define something. Since I was introducing the link to you, I used a colon. You can see another example of this here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19661366
You were joining two related thoughts. If you're going to be a Grammer Nazi you better be correct every time or people will throw it in your face.
And again, leave me alone professor disingenuous.
I was joining a thought and a link. It's common to put a colon before a link.
Common isn't always correct, the proper punctuation is a semi colon because it's not just a quote it's your quote linking two sentences to make one more complete thought.
If you're going to be a pedant to me twice at least try to be correct once.
And again I can't make it more clear, stop contacting me.
You think a URL is a sentence? That's strange. Why do you think that?
My point is you're a tedious pedant. What does your modification actually change in my point? Nothing either way? Neat, thanks professor.
My modification makes it grammatically correct English. That makes it easier for people to read. It's basic English.
Does it change the point? No?
Then you're solely being a tedious pedant looking for a win. Go away or at the very least don't bother me Mrs. Foster.
Ed: ps.
It might in your eyes but it also changes the point of the sentence, you're removing context not adding any.
What does?
That is not in fact a complete sentence, I do so enjoy the hypocrisy though.
Does what change what point? See, your inability to articulate your thoughts in English is the whole issue here. I'm not just looking for a win, I have a win, whereas you have a loss. But, my win isn't just important for my sake. It's important because when people use English correctly, it makes it easier for other people to read.
The point of the comment you are attempting to "correct" while ignoring the writers intent.
Not at all, a correction that changes intent isn't a correction it's a modification and an incorrect one at that.
If you had kept the intent and not argued that I don't know my own intent you may have had a point.
And again, the high horsing while you're actively kicking your own ass is priceless.
Try again bud, hypocrisy is fun though.
You need to use an apostrophe when using a possessive. It's basic English.
You're still wrong boss your correction is shit and you're just an annoying pedant.
You missed a comma.
Can't reason your way out of the hole you dug so you're just going to harass me now? Let's see how that works out boss.
Harass you? I'm simply trying to help you communicate better. It's basic English.
Let me be absolutely clear since apparently it's hard to comprehend.
Leave me alone, I don't need nor want any communication with you.
No means no, go away means go away. Take the absolutely glaring goddamn hint and go the fuck away from me specifically.
Sorry, I'm confused. If you don't want me to talk to you, why do you keep replying to my posts?
So I can tell you to leave me the fuck alone.
Remind me again who made contact with whom? I'm pretty sure it was you making contact with me to make a pedantic point you'd subsequently get too worked up about. So conventionally when someone makes contact with someone else and made it very clear that your repeated unwanted contact is becoming problematic we generally call that harassment.
Leave me alone, I can't reply if you don't go out of your way to contact me again knowing full fucking well I'd rather you shoot yourself to the moon then speak at me.
Similarly you're really gonna go with that "then why you dress like that" rapist mentality bullshit?
You do realize that you're on a social media platform in which people interact with other people, right? Again, if you want to stop the conversation, you're free to stop replying to me at any time.