-7
Most Democrats want Biden to drop out, but overall race is static, poll finds
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
-7 points (43.9% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2634 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No tangible evidence?? Have you read the transcripts and other documents that have been released on Epstein? Have you read the complaint for the rape allegations? Have you seen the interview where Trump says he would unseal 9/11 classified documents but not files on Epstein? Have you seen the interviews where Trump denies knowing Epstein, and the many pictures of Trump with Epstein throughout the years? Have you seen the interview where Trump says he liked to walk into the dressing room of minors at the beauty pageant he owned so he could see them naked? Have you seen the interview with Trump where he says that when you are famous, you can just grab women by the pussy and nobody can stop you? Have you listened to the interview with Trump and Howard Stern where Trump agrees that his daughter, 30 years younger than him, is voluptuous and beautiful and a piece of ass? Any of that build any credible picture of any particular pattern of behavior for you?
None of that is tangible evidence now is it. Barring photos, a video or a rape kit, all of that sounds a lot like every other allegation against Trump.
Grand jury testimony is taken under oath. If testimony taken under oath in a court of law isn't tangible evidence to you then you're an idiot and part of the "both sides" problem. These people are actively dismantling our constitution and this idiot over here is pounding the table for a rape kit for a rape that took place on a private island years ago.
Dude, just because someone thinks another Democrat has a better chance at beating Trump doesn't mean they are a "both sider." Nor does it automatically make them an idiot. That is just reductive and dismissive on your part.
No one is saying Biden is just as bad as Trump, or Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. We're saying Biden doesn't have a chance at beating Trump and we need a stronger candidate.
They've got a candidate that can literally be criminally charged and it won't matter. We've got a candidate who voter will stay home for because he's old. That's a huge problem.
I don't have a problem with their estimation of the odds of winning an election. I have a problem with them dismissing any insinuation that the proven rapist is a proven rapist unless and until they see a rape kit or a video of a rape. That is some pre-Me Too, but what was she wearing, ignorant ass rapist apologist garbage and I won't not call it out. Trump is a rapist. There is evidence. Judges and Juries of the United States have decided this, even without having to rely on a video or rape kit!
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/
He's definitely a rapist, no doubt about that. Appreciate you linking the case, too. But just because his being on Epsteins flight logs isn't blowing up in the same way Biden getting pressured out of his campaign is blowing up, doesn't mean the media is trying to get Trump elected. They're advancing their own interests, for sure, and those interests are inherently capitalistic, but to say or infer this push to replace Biden is originating as a right wing media campaign to get Trump elected is just nonsense to me.
I did not say or infer that. I'm only responding to the "no rape kit = no rape" statement. No perspective on media coverage or fitness for presidency is intended to be inferred.
Sorry, you're right. The original person you responded to was pushing back against someone saying
I didn't even say that, it's likely the rape happened, but without tangible evidence it sounds like every allegation against him. Testimony is simply more allegations and his voters won't believe it. FWIW, he is already a civilly convicted rapist and it didn't move the needle at all.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+testimony+evidence+us+law
Tangible evidence is what I said. Not evidence. Not testimony. Tangible.