this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
192 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3527 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee 47 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Imagine for a moment that you are president of the United States and you are given an intelligence briefing with information that is vital to an allied nation's safety. Under no circumstances are you to share this information with anyone. You are then in a candid two-hour conversation with a jovial diplomat from a nation hostile to that other nation. If you didn't keep your wits about you, you might accidentally discuss the secret information.

Donald Trump is not a man who has ever had his wits about him.

[–] Worx@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 8 months ago

Your premise is flawed. Trump would purposefully say the secret things in order to show off.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 45 points 8 months ago (2 children)

She should definitely go for it.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 22 points 8 months ago

it's like stealing a kids candy and saving the world at the same time

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

Oh absolutely she should. No question.

[–] frefi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

New?? As in a 3rd one???

Wow, I had to double check this wasn't on The Onion

Plz do it Ms. Carroll 🙏

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 8 months ago

That poor Onion has been languishing for 8 years now. They've accidentally become a "completely believable misinformation" website.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago

You know that episode of The Office where Michael gets a talking to by his bosses for constantly making sexual jokes and then immediately after leaving the meeting he makes a "that's what she said" joke? Yeah that's Trump leaving the court house and immediately tweeting defamatory statements.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

“based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never heard of.”

Can someone explain to him that you don't have to know someone to sexually assault them?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

"Never seen her, she doesn't exist, who is Donald Trump, never knew him" --djt probably

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh so this IS the same woman! While i did get confused, I'm glad they leaned into her identity as a writer for the defamation case as opposed to an SA survivor. Poor woman has to deal with enough shit with the orangutan and I'm sure just wants to get it all behind her.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

At this point I think she may start enjoying it. Not trying to undermine the pain she went through but if this continues and she continues to win large settlements against him then I have to think she starts to enjoy that.

[–] Zellith@kbin.social 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I think its time for Trump to recieve some kind of care. He is obviously not well. I'm not qualified to say what his illness could be, but his behaviour just isn't normal.

[–] Gonkulator@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Good news. Plenty of qualified people have diagnosed him. They wrote an entire book about it. Hes a narcissistic sociopath. The dementia is newer though.

[–] kirbowo808@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, one of his relatives is a psychiatrist/psychologist I think and she also said, he’s a narcissist too so I think it adds up with the consistencies tbh.

[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

He's likely diagnosable with multiple personality disorders including narcissistic PD and antisocial PD. This is to say, he lacks empathy and sees it as a weakness to be exploited, and he has a severe deficit in representing other people's perspectives. He is the main and only character that really matters and the rest of us are just NPCs.

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago

Oh man he just like my dad

[–] kablammy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

I know this kind of requires some cunning, but maybe he's playing at developing dementia in order to get out of any upcoming sentences, as a backup plan in case he doesn't manage to win or steal the presidency.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Malignant narcissist at that. Incurable.

[–] K3zi4@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

The man has dementia. Like, pretty far along, too. At this point, he's just being used as a MAGA figurehead because they fed the beast of the US right wingers far too much that they backed themselves into a corner.

People can sue him into oblivion until his handlers finally accept he's unfit, which they can't do.

As a non-American, it's fun to watch play out. I fully believe people will try to 'weekend at bernies' him into office if it comes to it.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

He's got too much poopie in his brain hole

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

makes me sick these people dealing in tens of millions when I would be so happy with just $83.

[–] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

This pretty much scuttles his appeal for $83m being excessive, too

Clearly it's not

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

If only we could put him in a room and delete the door. 😔

[–] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago

And then the urn as well

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

But then he might pee himself and we know his feelings on that...

[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Chubbs is going to have to cough up a bigger bond. I wonder if there’s a world record for biggliest person in debt..?

[–] HWK_290@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

That's the thing about chubbs. Under the right circumstances, they just keep getting bigger and bigger

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

“Why do you keep saying that you didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carroll?”

“Because I pay her every time I do!”

“…”

“…”

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"~~Spank~~ sue me harder, mommy!" -Donald J Trump

[–] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

DJT is just a global-scale findom sub.

[–] ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Quickly now: what's 83 times 16?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Lmao what the fuck this is incredible

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Attorney Roberta Kaplan, who represents 80-year-old writer E. Jean Carroll, noted in a statement that the statute of limitations for defamation in most jurisdictions ranges from one to three years.

“As we said after the last jury verdict, we continue to monitor every statement that Donald Trump makes about our client, E. Jean Carroll,” Kaplan said.

Her statement came after the Republican front-runner in this year’s presidential race angrily complained during a nearly two-hour speech at a Rome, Georgia, rally on Saturday that he had “just posted” a $91.6 million bond to cover the January verdict by a Manhattan jury while he appeals.

He told the rally that the verdict was “based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never heard of.”

Trump, 77, followed up his Saturday rally statements with an interview on Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in which he labeled Carroll as “Miss Bergdorf Goodman” and said, “I have no idea who she is.”

The trial judge instructed the jury that it was only to determine what damages, if any, Trump owed as a result of his 2019 statements.


The original article contains 466 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

LOL.. he just can't help himself

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 1 points 8 months ago

In a way, I'm glad.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Do it! Do it! Do it!