this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
1013 points (98.7% liked)

politics

31051 readers
1621 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Svengarlic@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

While I'm not a fan of the president, I am interested in the veracity of the claim, or the supposed investigation that cleared him of suspicion. I wouldn't be shocked if he did do it, but want to have more supporting facts.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't really seem like the kind of thing he would be around for. He has others do the dirty work, and thinks it's below him to just be around people he isn't presently takening advantage of (as in, unless he was doing her at the time, why would he be there). Doesn't mean there wasn't some strange combination of events that caused him to be there, and I can't see him caring one way or another about the baby, so he would totally be aware of it and not care.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Here's probably what happened, because it fits Trump and is incredibly dark:

He had sex with a pregnant 13 yo that was being sex trafficked - he accidentally shock induced birth through rough sex (which is actually common) - and then expected another person to handle it (which was her "uncle" + Epstein).

Sounds plausible and very likely given that Epstein was into enabling these horrors to gain influence over these people. He'd likely be complicit in the worst crimes imaginable if it meant gaining an advantage over his clientele.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure maybe, but he wouldn't have stuck around to literally witness the killing and disposal, which I think is the claim. And also, he has been pretty blatant about how he likes fit and thin women. I'm not seeing him wanting to rape a pregnant girl.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I generally agree with you, except the details of the event that provide a pretty valid reason he stuck around: you can't immediately leave a boat if something goes wrong.

Having sex in the middle of Lake Michigan to avoid police means not being able to leave that area if something like a birth happens. Donald stuck around because leaving would require him crossing a lake by himself. Something I doubt he's capable of, even in a boarding vehicle by himself if they had one.

And pedophilia is mostly about sexual attraction to power and influence, not youth. There are studies I'm not going to link, that you can readily find about this. So it's a least possible pregnancy may not be attractive to Donald, but 13 > pregnant, so fair game for the ghouls to ghoul.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's why I threw in the maybe. Anything is possible. On the witness thing... I am sure it wasn't a small boat. He could just go to a room and witness nothing.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He's done little to nothing to hide from his crimes while he commits them.

There's a whole very necessary trial this nation will never ever have about hundreds of boxes of our most top secret national security information being lost then found in the bathroom of his international hotel implying their very obvious sale for profit. He did little to hide those boxes for what amounts to the biggest violation of our national security in the history of the US. He did literally nothing to return those boxes in a timely manner when he should have to avoid detection. Because crimes aren't something he's ever held responsible for, so he has no problem acting like there's no consequences to his actions. So he acts with no shame.

So I doubt he'd hide from a baby being killed on a boat. He has no shame because he knows he'll never be punished. Going to a room to witness nothing would require him to have shame or awareness when he has none for even the biggest crimes he has commited.

He still thinks the below was a "perfectly normal phone call" and not a highly illegal scheme to turn over the 2020 election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

If you want me to believe he would hide from the shame of such a crime as killing an infant, show me a single moment he's ever displayed such awareness to the consequences of his actions, or shame over their possible effects. I won't hold my breath, because there are none.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Look, I didn't read your whole thing, because if you think trump personally picked up a single box of those docs or even was there when they were moved, you are crazy. He probably just told someone to keep the "best" documents. But I also said that your theory is possible. I just don't find it likely.