this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
546 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31539 readers
2560 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub 122 points 1 year ago

From 2006:

ROBIN QUIVERS: Yeah, do you have an age limit or would you–

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If I- No, no, I have no age–. I mean, I have an age li–.

ROBIN QUIVERS: The upper bracket–.

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

He started to say he had no age limit, then seemingly corrected himself by deflecting onto Former Congressman Mark Foley, who sent sexually explicit instant messages to 16 and 17 year old boys. Whether he was more deterred by the ages themselves or the fact that it was a scandal is an exercise left to the reader.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 113 points 1 year ago (18 children)

How can this guy be your president, US folks? It was absolutely well known.

Even now, still no appropriate response. Instead, just more of what was also totally foreseeable: corruption and fascism.

How can you allow this to happen?

If you don't act now, you will be the next dictatorship.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago (6 children)

A lot of us didnt vote for this guy...

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there won't be a next election if you don't fight back.

Why do you think ICE needs a budget of 100 billion? Are you seriously so naive as to believe that it's about illegal immigrants?

Edit: This is not a call to violence, but merely a warning to finally wake up. I don't think you can still rely on your legal system as it is obvious broken beyond repair, but I do think it is possible to remove this despot by civil means. My suggestion: a general strike across all industries – if there's one thing that scares your rulers, it's loss of profit.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What would you have a normal person who likely can't afford to miss much in the way of work do? I am asking sincerely.

Outside of throwing everything away to Luigi it up, I'm not sure what a single person could hope to accomplish.

Even considering the protests, which one would think have had enough people to accomplish something an individual could not... what exactly are they to do that would make things better? Seems like the nonviolent protests are just being ignored to me, but even if they were violent, what exactly are they to direct it towards?

It's a thing I have been wondering in the face of the calls to "do something", and I don't know the answer to what this "something" is.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Organize a general strike - on the biggest scale possible, a scale that cannot be ignored by your news outlets (social media giants included, of course).

Your employer won't be able to do anything about it if there are enough people participating.

Find allies even in the ranks of the conservatives as there must be people not ok with this wreched course.

I have nothing better to offer. Only the warning not to remain inactive like my great-grandparents, Germans who were not Nazis but who did not act when it was still possible.

But yes, this will take courage and might mean hardship. I'd say it's still the best option - but yes, it's easy to say for me as I'm not involved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Dude, you are getting angry at the wrong person, and also preaching to the choir. 99% of people on this site agree with your point. So why are you yelling at me over an innocuous comment?

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the majority here believe that a few lawsuits from the Democrats could settle the matter — I don't think so.

Edit: How do you think I'm yelling?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

It seems like we didn't vote for this guy and he cheated his way to winning the election. He made suspicious comments about Elon Musk and how he helped with the election, mentioning something about how he's really good with that technology. Which Musk also mentioned, claiming that Trump would never have been elected without him.

Then there's an active lawsuit going on where several counties in New York state found that absolutely no one voted for Kamala Harris in their location during the election, despite having large groups of Democrat residents. Their electronic voting machines received patches right before voting started, which is highly suspicious. That's being investigated right now.

It appears that the election was likely stolen and we have a president who was never elected. This is how fascist takeovers start, and unless people organize against the government, they're just going to keep enabling this downfall of our country.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How can this guy be your president, US folks? It was absolutely well known.

Because millions of people didn't care

[–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Worse than that, millions of people actively chose this. AGAIN.

[–] III@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Millions of people were convinced by their media and algorithms that they didn't care.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hate is a hell of a drug. The religious people (primarily Christians) in our country are particularly susceptible to it. Trump pretends to be religious, and his cruelty is embraced by these types.

It's just layers of indoctrination, basically. It's not the majority of Americans, it's around a third, but they vote in very high percentages, and the actual majority of Americans don't vote.

So, we have this loud, delusional group with the most power right now purely because the majority of Americans don't care to vote.

pew research graphs showing the alarming non-voter demographic in the US in 2024

Media and propaganda. They are very powerfull. Greed as well.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

If I didn't know any other context, I'd say these two were exploring each others brown starfish.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

More than likely yes, and they were fucking children too.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Wtf? They’re very brazen.

[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 81 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Tldr: he draws the line at 12 years old

So, 13 is too old, huh?

[–] edg@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Does he? He says he doesn't want to be like Foley with 12 year olds. That's not an answer.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I guess that's true... He didn't say anyone below 12, he just said he has no age limit, then added that 12, specifically, was an age he wasn't interested in.

What an absolutely disgusting old man this guy is. He really is the personification of everything wrong with this country.

Release the list and investigate+arrest every fucking person on it.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

look as much as I detest the guy, that's not what was actually said

[–] credo@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The question was whether he had an age limit.. a maximum age he would consider as a cutoff.

Trump went to the opposite extreme.

Makes you think.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Are you sure that's not exactly what that number was?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ... His cut off is fucking TWELVE?!

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not exactly. The quote is:

I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

So I guess his cutoff is 13 which is absolutely no better.

[–] iamnotme@feddit.uk 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Twelve could be his upper limit

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or he just doesn't like numbers that have a word equivalent, like "dozen" or "score". So anything other than 12- or 20-year-olds is fine. Cue up Nate Bargatze as George Washington.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Or you could read it the other way he's disgusted the congressman would risk his career over someone so old.

But he stops himself. What he really meant was "No, I have no age limit."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

Was that Mark Foley? IIRC, he was caught with (male) Congressional Pages, who are older than 12. But the key thing about Foley was that he was caught. So I read this as "I don't want to get caught with someone underage"....

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

I demand Trump be arrested

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Ignoring the actual content of what he's saying here for a minute, it's amazing to hear how different his speech patterns were at this point. He's actually capable of composing a single sentence. Now it sounds like he's just creating a mashup of a bunch of unrelated sentences.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 year ago

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

Ok, so thirteen and above. Now we know.

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who could do that to a twelve year old? I only beat and rape 13 year olds

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

If you put this in context to all of the other things he's said and done, then it's a no brainer that 12 is the bottom age.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

put together by auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com

load more comments
view more: next ›