this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
301 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18986 readers
3870 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 76 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Family values.

Sex work is work, no shade on her but the hypocrisy is Gates and Co are abhorrent.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A hand job is still a job, Officer!

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Sir, this is a Wendy's, and I clearly already have a job. Now, do you want fries with that or not?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Meh. Lemme know when they have evidence of the minors. I have no problem with adults trading money for sex. Sure, he might have lied about it, but that can be explained by the stigmatization of the act by society.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the guy. But this is pretty not-so-damning in my mind.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Because if you could buy sex, then the rest of our economy collapses.

Or only the rich get to indulge while the rest of us are punished.

Either way. Prolly more options.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a George Carlin quote.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[–] prayer@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Only the rich get to indulge

Literally 1984

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

Her profile showed 17 years old at the time, but something tells me you aren't actually looking for the proof, because that already exists.

Maybe that would be true if he was personally paying for sex, but he was paying her to have sex with other men. That muddies the waters alot. There's an assumption of control since he's rich and well connected. To me this isn't much different than what Espsein was doing. Flying girls to islands for sexual favors with business partners.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It didn't matter initially when it was a child, why would it matter now that it's a woman instead?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because one is acceptable to the GQP. The other is not.

[–] DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyz -3 points 7 months ago

You seem to have some pretty concrete ideas about what our Esteemed Colleagues on the Right Side of the Aisle would accept, that I don't think they would necessarily share.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He will never not look like the bad guy in a movie.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Maybe if it's a Lego movie

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well at least it was a woman and not an underage cuban boy.

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago

Surely not child sex trafficker matt gaetz?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] HoustonHenry@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

That'll be...lessee...$2 million please 🫡