this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
563 points (99.3% liked)

politics

24922 readers
3194 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
563
Trump’s Stunning Response When Asked if He Has Sexual ‘Age Limit’ Resurfaces as Epstein-Mania Boils (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub 128 points 4 days ago

From 2006:

ROBIN QUIVERS: Yeah, do you have an age limit or would you–

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: If I- No, no, I have no age–. I mean, I have an age li–.

ROBIN QUIVERS: The upper bracket–.

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

He started to say he had no age limit, then seemingly corrected himself by deflecting onto Former Congressman Mark Foley, who sent sexually explicit instant messages to 16 and 17 year old boys. Whether he was more deterred by the ages themselves or the fact that it was a scandal is an exercise left to the reader.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 88 points 4 days ago (2 children)

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

If I didn't know any other context, I'd say these two were exploring each others brown starfish.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago

More than likely yes, and they were fucking children too.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Wtf? They’re very brazen.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 118 points 4 days ago (18 children)

How can this guy be your president, US folks? It was absolutely well known.

Even now, still no appropriate response. Instead, just more of what was also totally foreseeable: corruption and fascism.

How can you allow this to happen?

If you don't act now, you will be the next dictatorship.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (6 children)

A lot of us didnt vote for this guy...

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there won't be a next election if you don't fight back.

Why do you think ICE needs a budget of 100 billion? Are you seriously so naive as to believe that it's about illegal immigrants?

Edit: This is not a call to violence, but merely a warning to finally wake up. I don't think you can still rely on your legal system as it is obvious broken beyond repair, but I do think it is possible to remove this despot by civil means. My suggestion: a general strike across all industries – if there's one thing that scares your rulers, it's loss of profit.

[–] Sciaphobia@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

What would you have a normal person who likely can't afford to miss much in the way of work do? I am asking sincerely.

Outside of throwing everything away to Luigi it up, I'm not sure what a single person could hope to accomplish.

Even considering the protests, which one would think have had enough people to accomplish something an individual could not... what exactly are they to do that would make things better? Seems like the nonviolent protests are just being ignored to me, but even if they were violent, what exactly are they to direct it towards?

It's a thing I have been wondering in the face of the calls to "do something", and I don't know the answer to what this "something" is.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Organize a general strike - on the biggest scale possible, a scale that cannot be ignored by your news outlets (social media giants included, of course).

Your employer won't be able to do anything about it if there are enough people participating.

Find allies even in the ranks of the conservatives as there must be people not ok with this wreched course.

I have nothing better to offer. Only the warning not to remain inactive like my great-grandparents, Germans who were not Nazis but who did not act when it was still possible.

But yes, this will take courage and might mean hardship. I'd say it's still the best option - but yes, it's easy to say for me as I'm not involved.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (5 children)

General strikes don’t work if you are living paycheck to paycheck. Most people in America are in a bad situation financially.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 days ago

I interviewed old timers who were involved in the early unionization struggles of auto workers and other industries. Those folks really lived under the thumb of landlords and employers and segregation and so much more bullshit than people remember.

Resistance to employer shit and abuse develops by people being neighbourly and helpful, by building bonds, by sharing their common outrage, and by connecting the dots.

Talk about pay with coworkers, it’s illegal for an employer to restrict such talk. You don’t necessarily have to unionize, but you do have to organize. This means finding solidarity at work, even if the coworkers are boring or misogynistic or different.

You know, apes strong together and all that. Build community around resistance to authoritarianism.

[–] joostjakob@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

General strikes worked in 19th century Europe. I think y'all might have it a little better then they did. More to the point: union memberships are used at the time of strikes exactly to break the cycle of not being able to protest for being too poor.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Dude, you are getting angry at the wrong person, and also preaching to the choir. 99% of people on this site agree with your point. So why are you yelling at me over an innocuous comment?

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that the majority here believe that a few lawsuits from the Democrats could settle the matter — I don't think so.

Edit: How do you think I'm yelling?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago

It seems like we didn't vote for this guy and he cheated his way to winning the election. He made suspicious comments about Elon Musk and how he helped with the election, mentioning something about how he's really good with that technology. Which Musk also mentioned, claiming that Trump would never have been elected without him.

Then there's an active lawsuit going on where several counties in New York state found that absolutely no one voted for Kamala Harris in their location during the election, despite having large groups of Democrat residents. Their electronic voting machines received patches right before voting started, which is highly suspicious. That's being investigated right now.

It appears that the election was likely stolen and we have a president who was never elected. This is how fascist takeovers start, and unless people organize against the government, they're just going to keep enabling this downfall of our country.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

How can this guy be your president, US folks? It was absolutely well known.

Because millions of people didn't care

[–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

Worse than that, millions of people actively chose this. AGAIN.

[–] III@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Millions of people were convinced by their media and algorithms that they didn't care.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Hate is a hell of a drug. The religious people (primarily Christians) in our country are particularly susceptible to it. Trump pretends to be religious, and his cruelty is embraced by these types.

It's just layers of indoctrination, basically. It's not the majority of Americans, it's around a third, but they vote in very high percentages, and the actual majority of Americans don't vote.

So, we have this loud, delusional group with the most power right now purely because the majority of Americans don't care to vote.

pew research graphs showing the alarming non-voter demographic in the US in 2024

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Media and propaganda. They are very powerfull. Greed as well.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 85 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Tldr: he draws the line at 12 years old

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 58 points 4 days ago

So, 13 is too old, huh?

[–] edg@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Does he? He says he doesn't want to be like Foley with 12 year olds. That's not an answer.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

I guess that's true... He didn't say anyone below 12, he just said he has no age limit, then added that 12, specifically, was an age he wasn't interested in.

What an absolutely disgusting old man this guy is. He really is the personification of everything wrong with this country.

Release the list and investigate+arrest every fucking person on it.

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

look as much as I detest the guy, that's not what was actually said

[–] credo@lemmy.world 71 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The question was whether he had an age limit.. a maximum age he would consider as a cutoff.

Trump went to the opposite extreme.

Makes you think.

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Are you sure that's not exactly what that number was?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 49 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ... His cut off is fucking TWELVE?!

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 54 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Not exactly. The quote is:

I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

So I guess his cutoff is 13 which is absolutely no better.

[–] iamnotme@feddit.uk 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Twelve could be his upper limit

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Or he just doesn't like numbers that have a word equivalent, like "dozen" or "score". So anything other than 12- or 20-year-olds is fine. Cue up Nate Bargatze as George Washington.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

Or you could read it the other way he's disgusted the congressman would risk his career over someone so old.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

But he stops himself. What he really meant was "No, I have no age limit."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 41 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Okay seriously is it Elon? Why are they finally fucking attacking this again when we have KNOWN for two decades at least. Why is this news again? Who is pushing this? I want to know WHY it's suddenly sacrifice trump time. I have no love for him but this doesn't just happen.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago

Because he didn’t release the files, said they didn’t exist, and then said they were created by the democrats. It’s the Streisand effect. So people are applying pressure by finding what they can without him

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

I think it's Elon.

Trump also pays outsized mind to social media in general and Twitter in particular.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The most common theory is it is push back from him trying to replace Powell.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ah, the old blood. That makes sense. If there's one thing I've learned over the last 10 years it's that it doesn't matter if we have the information and evidence. It matters if the news is willing to play your story and spin it for you

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

It went from locker room talk with him acting offended children were being harmed (also by "illegals") to why won't he release the records.

His baddy status is more confirmed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 36 points 4 days ago (1 children)

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

Was that Mark Foley? IIRC, he was caught with (male) Congressional Pages, who are older than 12. But the key thing about Foley was that he was caught. So I read this as "I don't want to get caught with someone underage"....

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You forget that Trump is a pathological liar. Never tell the truth when a lie will do.

Trump was almost certainly aware that the congressional pages were around 16 or 17 years old. But Trump wanted to say something nasty to tear someone else down, and that’s exactly what he did. It’s exactly what he always does.

So what Trump was really saying was, “don’t look at me! Look at that other “perv”! I’m definitely not a perv! “

[–] jimjam5@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Classic projection, as with practically every other statement that flies out of that disgusting mouth of his.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 days ago

I demand Trump be arrested

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

Ignoring the actual content of what he's saying here for a minute, it's amazing to hear how different his speech patterns were at this point. He's actually capable of composing a single sentence. Now it sounds like he's just creating a mashup of a bunch of unrelated sentences.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 4 days ago

FUTURE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.

Ok, so thirteen and above. Now we know.

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Who could do that to a twelve year old? I only beat and rape 13 year olds

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago

If you put this in context to all of the other things he's said and done, then it's a no brainer that 12 is the bottom age.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

put together by auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com

load more comments
view more: next ›