- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
he’s the pedophile they’re all protecting
But trump isn’t a pedophile protector as much as he’s an actual pedophile.
The American people have apparently decided that he can do both.
What’s another name for a pedophile protector?
Pedophile.
Unfortunately I’ve seen my fair share of non-pedophiles protecting actual pedophiles, under various circumstances, usually emotional manipulation by the pedophiles themselves. Some later realized the damage they helped causing just because someone told them they’re saving a child from “deep poverty” or “letting them go to college in the future without getting into debt”.
And he protects himself, checks out.
The poor guy has been misunderstood, he wasn’t trying to insult Trump. After Slytherin was renamed to “Hogwarth MAGAs” he has been sent to shield Trump from harm with his “Protecto Pedophilus” spell.
Por que no los dos?
Last month, a protester repeatedly shouted “pedophile” at Trump and gave him two middle fingers while he toured a Mack truck factory in Macungie, Pennsylvania.
Buy this guy a beer!
“Flips out” This hyperbolic shit really grinds my gears. The protester didn’t shut up until everyone got annoyed, the Trump made a “joke” and went on a brief tangent full of lies, as normal. This isn’t a flip out. In fact this is barely worth reporting.
Didn’t you see him get SLAMMED and DESTROYED!
/s
Fully agree with you though. This wording is getting very irritating.
Click/engagement-bait.
I’m wondering if all media in a capitalist society gradually just become providers of content?
The pedophile he is protecting? DJT
Maybe he was upset at the lack of brevity?
The protestor could’ve just clipped it to the one word.
He’s not just protecting pedos, he is a pedo. He is part of a whole ring of disgusting perverts.
honestly. Why are people shouting “pedophile protector” instead of the much more damaging and relevant “child rapist?”
Because there’s evidence of protecting paedophiles (heavy redaction of the Epstein files) but no public evidence of him having raped a child, so statements like that are viewed as hyperbolic expressions of hatred instead of genuine criticism.
There is so much evidence of him raping at least one child, a jury found him civilly liable and those damages have been upheld on appeal
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of anything was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
Are you thinking of something else?
The only case I know of in which trump was found civilly liable of** anything** was the E Jean Carroll case, which happened in 1995. Carroll was born in 1943.
Are you thinking of something else?
He’s raped kids and gotten away with it. He’s talked about having no inhibition when it comes to sexually assaulting vulnerable people on hot mic. He talked about how sexy his teen daughter is. You know it. Everyone knows it.
“the only case I know of” lol sure.
You know of another case where he was found civilly liable? Wanna… say what it is?
it’s about time for some people to rub two thoughts, “convicted rapist” and “pedophile protector” together in their minds for a few moments to reach the frankly braindead obvious conclusion.
If you think that’s a “braindead obvious conclusion” then let’s keep you away from any courtrooms, hmm?
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred. So, to those people who don’t hate Trump (they still exist, sadly) it is not effective. There are many things that Trump has done, with evidence, that you can criticise him about. Let’s start with the children’s deaths he has caused in Iran, or the people his stormtroopers have shot dead in cold blood on the streets?
He drops bombs on kids but he won’t rape em? Sure buddy.
If you just assume that the all guys who had child sex slave ownership disputes with Jeffery Epstein (gosh who hasn’t?) are rapists then you’d eventually accuse everyone, right?
Why the fuck would being willing to murder children (at arms length only, obviously) mean you’d fuck them? You ever killed anything? Would you fuck it?
The only reason the evidence isn’t known is because the very MAGA perverts who are exposed in the Epstein Files are now in charge of their release. If they are going to perform an OFFICIAL criminal cover-up of one of the most heinous conspiracies in human history, then we can be allowed to assume the worst speculation possible, until MAGA offers up the evidence to the contrary.
More to the point though, what you call an obvious conclusion is nothing more than speculation fueled by hatred.
Mostly with you, but this, I think, is overplaying your point and just isn’t true. This makes it sound like something just made up because you don’t like someone, like Obama not being an American citizen or something. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that Trump has indeed had sex with minors. His role and behavior in underage beauty pageants, frequent trips to the island we know these things happened on, etc.
Not enough to convict someone, yes, but enough that even someone with no opinion at all of Trump (impossible, but hypothetically), if told of this circumstantial evidence, probably wouldn’t trust their daughter to be alone with him.
I think the point that there’s enough to tar him with that’s completely proven and on the record there’s no need to venture into such circumstantial accusations is well taken, but let’s also not pretend those accusations are baseless and purely from hatred. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence that would lead even a pretty impartial observer to at least consider it.
That’s a fair take.
But I think my main point that it isn’t convincing to anyone except the already convinced remains true, and this is why it’s not really a rallying cry you hear used to try and win people over.
That I do agree with you on. For Trump criticisms and attacks… well, there’s plenty of meat on that bone that we don’t need to go gnawing for scraps, as it were.
Call me crazy, but I don’t want pedophile supporters on my side.
I didn’t say confronting people with the, yes fucking braindead obvious conclusion of putting “notoriously friends with and protector of pedophiles whose name appears literally more than anyone else in the epstein documents, requiring literally thousands of manhours of redactions of specifically his name from the epstein documents,” and also “is a rapist” together would solve anything: there will always be people who will refuse to trust even their own instincts, let alone the testimony of multiple mutually corroborating victims, FBI documents with repeated, mutally corroborating anonymous tips about Trump individually and Trump in connection with Epstein (and I really could go on at some considerable length further here); I said it was necessary (about fucking time).
Sure. Let’s all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious1 child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week. why not. yeah great idea. who cares about an uncounted number of children who wont even speak up for themselves for some reason. all those politicians around the world connected to this are probably like, low level and unimportant anyway. no princes or princesses or kings or presidents or pms or senators or entire national alliances are implicated in this. youre so fucking smart and reasonable dude, it was such a wise and ethical idea to ignore all those child rapes good call bro
- like, comically obvious:
edit: “Sure, he’s capable of operating concentration camps and bombing countries just to manipulate the stock market, but I draw the line at any suggestion he might have RAPED CHILDREN. Be reasonable.”
edit2: a thing can be necessary but insufficient in itself. the two are not incompatible.
edit3: he had to be talked out of pardoning ghislane for the love of all that is good in this world… how fucking obtuse can you be?
From what I have read about the claims that Trump raped children, the evidence is weak. I haven’t dug into it that much, but I live in a country where I trust some of the media to have looked at it and flagged anything serious that I therefore didn’t spot.
At the same time, we live in a time when people are willing to call any Republican anything, regardless of evidence, so the assertions of a rando on the internet doesn’t really sway me, I’m afraid.
Let’s all just ignore the credible, repeated, unadjudicated claims of child rape for whatever catastrophe the obvious child rapist is causing to distract from all his other crimes this week.
This doesn’t make sense. You can’t in usefully distract from crimes by committing other serious crimes. It just draws attention to your new crimes.
You have a poor grasp of American politics and media.
Alliteration goes a very long way.
Minor Molester doesn’t quite hit the spot.
not only pedophile, but a RAPIST.
Why are we calling Republicans “pedophile protectors” instead of just pedophiles
We don’t call serial woman abusers “woman abuser protectors”, we just call them cops
Rapepublicans
Why both both?
He didn’t really flip out, as much as he was just trying to ignore him, and when he couldn’t anymore he tucked his micro-dick inside and whimpered that the guy “is a communist”.
The more egregious part is the fact his dumbfuck base cheered the guy’s removal and Trump calling him a communist. They know Trump rapes kids. They love it.
Not recognizing boundaries and not understanding consent are what made the USA possible.
Alas, I have but one upvote to give.
Apparently, as far as Trump is concerned, only communists would think that protecting pedophiles is a bad thing.
If I had to choose between pedo’s and commie rat bastards… Well. I can live with the rat bastards.
though socialism is preffered over both.
What are commie rat bastards and why are socialists preferred, while communists are dehumanized?
Communists kind of have a track record of putting fascist dictators in charge, kinda undermines the whole ideology.
Ah yes, the far left has this special secret strategy where they actually put far right dictators in charge.
When has the far left put anyone in power that wasn’t a fascist dictator?
You don’t even know the difference between left and right ideologies, so it doesn’t really matter who I bring up, you’re just going to screech “Fascist!”
Oh rly? Which communists put fascist dictators in charge? Please, enlighten me.
Is there an example of a functioning properly communist state?
Okay, so, I see that as an admission that you were just spewing bullshit and now can’t defend it.
Is there an example of a functioning properly communist state?
If anything, then it’s socialist states, as Communism is per definition a state-less society, which can’t develop as long as Capitalism is still a thing. Socialism is the phase between Capitalism and Communism, when the working class has seized power and starts to socialize every aspect of production, infrastructure and housing.
I’m not going to put down a lengthy answer, but I found a good one on reddit. There you can read about actual existing socialist states, if you’re actually interested.
And luckily for these “chosen” benevolent leaders who just happen to reside in palaces, these socialist states have no end in sight. In one of your linked examples, dprk has been trying to reach communism for over 70 years now. And their chosen leader happened to choose his son to benevolently lead their people. And that son happened to choose his son to continue his work to bring upon communism. Almost like a monarchy, but not quite because they’re socialist and they have “democratic” in name so they’re actually good and totally different.
“Commie bastards” are what i grew up hearing soviets called (i was born just before the end of the Cold War).
My dad still has a knee jerk reaction to anything communist.
As for why socialism is preferred, it’s because communism is authoritarian- which yields too much power to the state. Either side getting authoritarian is bad.
Lol every state that you think is authoritarian communist is a socialist state. Socialism is the intermediate stage of socioeconomic development between capitalism and communism, where capitalism is a system where the economy (and thus politics) is owned and controlled by a few individual, and communism is a classless, stateless society where the economy is controlled by everyone equally. Socialism, as an intermediate stage, is a system where politics and the economy are controlled by a state composed of the working class - a so-called dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes. Please. Tell me what I think and keep lecturing over a fucking sarcastic comment citing shit Trump is spewing.
Please, I’m just a dumb uninformed American who knows nothing l!
(That’s more sarcasm.)
No need to be all butthurt. It’s always an option to accept not to know everything.
I’m just a dumb uninformed American
Communism is authoritarian
Checks out.
Do you know about the Red Scare? It‘s the systematic negative propaganda towards anything questioning the capitalist system that underpins the US-American existence. And that‘s usually Communism, as that‘s the system in direct opposition to Capitalism.
The knee jerk reaction your dad (but you also, up there) showed is a result of that. One hardly can escape that, as it‘s part of the lived reality.
However, it‘s just that, propaganda. Once you start to realize that, you can take steps to see through it. Here Trump is invoking the same boogeyman to vilify his opposition, even tho it‘s likely not even communist or socialist, but just against the capitalist oligarchy.(Simplified) Communism is a stateless society, where the economic basis of class differences has been overcome. Socialism is one step towards that, it‘s the situation after the means of production, but also stuff like housing have been socialized.
Class difference refers to the contradiction between the exploited working class (any wage laborer, not able to live off of their wealth alone) and the exploiting owning class, the Capitalists (owning the means if production and the land)Communism is a stateless society, where the economic basis of class differences has been overcome.
True in an academic sense, but his clarification makes it pretty obvious he’s referring to the Marxism-Leninism of the USSR since he referenced that directly. Using “communism” as a shorthand for that has been common in both western and eastern media and news since the Cold War. I live in a former satellite state of the USSR, and adherents here would use the same language, it’s not just an outside polemic.
Not really looking to debate the merits of it, but I think pretending not to understand what someone means when they use a very wide and commonly accepted usage of a word and instead pedantically clinging to only an academic definition rather than addressing the actual point is a little obnoxious.
Sorry, what was the actual point you want me to address to not be as obnoxious as you, since you could address it yourself? Obviously I’m replying to a specific aspect of the user’s commentary, which was dehumanizing in nature.
You’re saying that Cuba, DPRK, China are not also recried as Commies? Wonder who’s being pedantic for whatever reason.
Also, Communism and Communists are real things, not solely academic concepts. Reducing it as such is a questionable approach. Why should we adhere to the propaganda of the US to redefine what words mean?
Addressing the point or not isn’t what’s obnoxious; pretending not to understand what is meant by a common, widely accepted usage of a word to shift a discussion towards semantics is. It’s similar to people correcting common use of “theory” to “hypothesis”; these also have distinct meanings, but the common use of “theory” doesn’t really get in the way of discussion… providing people don’t feign not knowing what’s meant when the person has made which they’re using clear. It’s the same here: you knew very well he’s not referring to a stateless, classless society, but rather the communist states of the world.
Again, using “communism” in this way is not purely a polemic and it’s dishonest to characterize it as such. Even here behind the old iron curtain, “communism” as shorthand for “aspirational communism under a vanguard socialist state” is and was extremely common use of the word. Members of the communist parties would refer to themselves and their states as communist all the time. It isn’t “adhering to US propaganda”… all sides used this. It’s really only young, contemporary communists causing a stink over this, honestly.
COMMUNISTS want to PROSECUTE PEDOPHILES!
-LITERALLY Republicans!
they are telling on themselves.
Just imagine how much he’d flip out if even a single American had the balls to start a revolt because of his corruption and tyranny, just like our sacred founding documents demand
They would call us “traitors” for doing the most patriotic thing— hurting their delicate fee-fees
what’s frustrating and insane is there may already have been several people who’ve “taken a stand” or tried to revolt in earnest already… but because the entire media ecosystem is captured by elitists, those stories would never get coverage and we’d never hear about them.
the headline would just be something innocuous like:
Local man perishes in officer involved shooting, motive unknown
occupy wallstreet was that time, when the elites knew nothing else was going to happen, they dont expect any serious threat to thier power. as in no rioting, no throwing items, dare i say no excessive physical protesting.
I remember. I was there, for all that was fucking worth.
MSM, and right wing grifters(roegan, j peterson, the manosphere) have hypnotized alot of sexually frustrated men in america.
More in-depth journalism revealing the facts and truth! /s When did the billionaire-owned, mainstream media become the Enquirer? Titillating headlines with no real substance.
… And the worst thing that the idiot can think of is that the guy yelling is a “communist” not even a “terrorist”.
Oh man, that was amazing! Thanks for sharing that.
Different youtube front-end: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=ZaZPiwxPqO4
That’s not a flip out?
Are you asking that, or stating it?
Yes
