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
Clinton was also a close friend of Epstein. Protecting him is likely why the Democrats didn't use Trump's friendship with Epstein effectively.
You need to stop making that mistake. Defending and protecting Clinton, who is a predator (as the Lewinsky affair among many shows) means protecting Epstein, and thus Trump.
The original comment was about Clinton's blowjob only. I was very clear in my question, and constrained it to that only because at the time you had not explicitly extended it to all of Clinton's involvement with Epstein.
Now that you've decided to do so, I'll preface by saying I'm Canadian, and I don't give a shit about Clinton, so if indeed his involvement is as bad as Trump, then punish him the same. Obviously they should be punished - as the law is intended to do - according to the severity of their crimes. I will say this: The Trump involvement in the last drop has been nightmarish, if even 5% is true, and I can't help but consider that the Justice department is incentivized to release material that amplifies Clinton's involvement and diminishes Trump's, and if this is the best they can do then Trump is truly a monster.
Yeah, he, and everyone else connected with Epstein, are monsters and should hang.
These crimes are horrendous, but I'm guessing you haven't really thought about the implications of the death penalty very deeply, and in particular in relation to crimes of CSA. For one thing, it's a sure fire way to end up with a lot more dead kids.
Yeah, I have. My family includes criminal defense attorneys who are staunch opponents of the death penalty.
And I am in most cases - with the exception being cases like this, or war crimes, where the very powerful are inflicting massive harm with confidence they will get away with it. That is when it is useful, as something even the powerful must fear. China's execution of bankers follows this.
Ok so you're not talking about CSA in general;, in fact you're not talking about any crime in particular, but rather the power possessed by those who perpetrate them?
How would this work? Is torture ok? How do you determine who is powerful enough? How do you prevent uncertainty and/or other powerful interests hijacking the justice system?
You know what's easier and remains in line with fundamental values of liberal justice systems? Just no death penalty. Start by actually enforcing laws against the powerful, with penniless and impotent lifetimes spent in prison. Avoid creating martyrs and endless cycles of violence and retribution.
And in the case of CSA, again, avoid creating piles of dead kids. If all of these criminals thought they were facing the death penalty the crimes and corruption would just get worse, to absolutely no benefit to us other than satisfying emotional blood lust.