544
It sure looks like Donald Trump was disguised as 'Doe 174' in the newly unsealed Jeffrey Epstein documents
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
544 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19170 readers
5692 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The question is what people who conclude the truth will do next. I think we're stuck between a rock and the hard place that is human nature. I'm growing increasingly cynical about grassroots democracy having any hope of victory in the age of the algorithm controlled internet.
Sam Harris made a good point during the pandemic that is if everyone had just followed the lockdown instructions to perfection for three solid weeks, the virus really would have been eliminated in the US, and the world if we in the global community all followed suit. Millions of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved. But we fucking suck at acting in our own best interests, and if Covid had been as deadly as we first feared, we'd already be fucked.
I think there's a reason fascist authoritarians are so seductive to so many, and it's because most of us are suckers for charismatic leaders telling us what to do. Enter stage right a left-wing populist, and the left will get just as horny for them as the right is for Trump.
This happened in NZ (where I live) over Jacinda Ardern. Turned out she was just in it for her career and the rest of her party was just downright incompetent. Ironically, they did well early pandemic which won them and the left an overwhelming majority in 2020. They honestly just got lucky. Not only did they screw up royally late-pandemic, but in the aftermath, they totally fucking failed to do anything worthwhile with the power they had to move the progressive agenda forward in any enduring way. They just lost the 2023 election in a complete landslide. The only silver lining is the new right-wing three-way coalition is very likely to be even more incompetent, so maybe the left will get another chance in three years.
Point is, populists always win elections because most people don't vote for policy, or if they do, vote single issue, and rarely strategically. Then, anything that would improve the situation at the grass roots in the short term (e.g. integrating civics and critical thinking into school curriculums) would lead to accusations of progressive bias since science and progressivism are natural allies. Even so, change of this kind might still be possibly perhaps if it didn't threaten capitalism as a whole which thrives on the left/right oscillations of so-called "representative" democracy.
I think we're fucked in the near term unless one of the following two miracles occurs:
A charismatic left-wing politician more popular than Trump emerges in the US for the 2028 election who is scientifically literate, a competent leader, an excellent sales and business person, and genuinely interested in advancing the UNs "Global Goals" agenda in the most effective ways already known to world leaders in their respective academic and technical fields.
Benevolent aliens announce themselves with a power comparable to God of Abrahamic and they strong arm us into adopting a Solar Punk society.
I put (2) as being as likely as God actually existing, which is, basically nil. So... Taylor Swift 2028?