this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
785 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26418 readers
2688 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] henfredemars@lemdro.id 126 points 1 week ago

Look at those goalposts go!

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 118 points 1 week ago (5 children)

It is so predictable that conservatives would end up in "Pedophilia isn't that bad" once it became undeniable that Great Leader raped little girls.

[–] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

funny that QAnon stuff circled around Dems having pedo-leanings and that was an OUTRAGE yet now it turns out to be OK, Humane even... wtf? Their morals exist only to stick it to anyone opposing them and they evaporate the second one of their own is caught doing exact thing

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Q-anon was never about children.

It was always about the fantasy headline: "Uneducated Everyman Uncovers Massive, World-Altering Secrets and Becomes Huge Hero by Decoding Publicly Published Materials for Unique Connections and Number Puzzles"

They are entirely damaged or dumb or religiously brainwashed people who are so deeply insecure about their lack of factual understanding of the world, that Q-anon became their "gateway" to some kind of real way to impact the world and be recognized for something good.

When a family member of mine fell down this pitcher-plant of mental illness and delusion, I went deep and hard into learning everything I could about the movement and conspiracy culture. Sadly my family member could not be pulled out and was at one point arrested for trying to... abduct girls. Seriously. He rationalized that he was trying to "save" them.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 70 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Im sorry, is this a conversation about the degree to which he is a pedophile?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] JustKeepStretching@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is one of the wildest most disgusting goal post moves I've ever heard

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

From the people who brought you pizzagate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago

What are they even defending here. Even if they were 18 year old trafficked women it would be heinous.

It’s not like he was dating young girls or some shit, this is about sex crimes of which their age is only one of the awful awful factors.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 49 points 1 week ago (3 children)

When you start making defenses that involve distinguishing between pedophilia and hebephilia you lost a long time ago.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago

Getting out in front of the Epstein release I see.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Law enforcement baits out pedos to arrest using fake 16 year olds all day long. They can't spin this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here it begins. Republicans will want to normalize pedophilia.

These people are sick. Saying this is public should earn a person an automatic 48 hour mental welfare hold.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls," she continued. "I'm just giving you facts that he wasn't into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."

"And that is what I believed and that is what I reliably was told for many years."

Kelly admitted that she began to change her opinion after Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Epstein had thousands of videos with child sexual abuse material.

"For the first time, I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile," the conservative host recalled.

Megan "I was fine with him fucking teenagers" Kelly, everyone.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."

How does this make any sense at all? How does one "pass as even younger" but still somehow "look legal to passersby"? Those are directly conflicting concepts.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

I wonder if I'm even capable of being so dedicated to someone that I'd become such a gross fucking weirdo to defend them.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Fuuuuuuuuuck

"This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls," she continued. "I'm just giving you facts that he wasn't into, like, 8-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby."

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

15 still isn't legal though.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Plus, she's saying epstein went as young as he could get away with. That he liked the 13 year olds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

barely legal

15

Someone explain to this bitch what "barely" means.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Narcissists Prayer

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad. <----- We are here
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

progress at last

[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

He's a hebephile not a pedophile isn't much of a defence. So he goes after 11+yo children instead of children less than 11yo? Also most people don't know, or rightly care, about the age distinction - both are child abusers.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

The "um it's ackchually ephebophilia" is spreading to the auth-right!

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

REPUBLICANS LOVE CHILD RAPE

simple as that.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"Raping 12 year olds is OK"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago

The child bride party strikes again

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 13 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists.[1] It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.

For example, a person might say "I did not lie; I merely stretched the truth a little bit."[2]

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I would bet good money that she banged a guy in his 30s when she was 15 and she is REALLY invested in maintaining the personal illusion that she wasn't victimized.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

In the next episode she will argue that domestic volence against women is a love language

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bss03@infosec.pub 12 points 1 week ago

Hebephilia vs. pedophilia? That's a defense I've seen before. Didn't work for creepy Internet boyz. Let's see if it works for the Republican party.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›