DOJ released Epstein files with dozens of nudes and victims’ names, reports say
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
We could have waited six months or six years and this group of incompetents would still have released personal info? Why? Bc they're incompetent but mostly bc they're efforts to protect people were focused in powerful elites and like Trump and Musk and not victims.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
Probably an attempt to make those people self erase so they can not a witnesses at any trials. This has already happened to some of the known victims.
Just wait for the personal attacks and vilification through highly bribed/paid media to discredit them, hound them, and shut them up...permanently if needed.
Yea, that is the realm of the rich and famous.
If the prince of Sweden can be publicly held accountable, then Andrew formally known as Price Andrew should be sent to the USA, and/or be held accountable (not demoted), and imprisoned for life too.
And take Trumps golf courses off him, sell them to compensate the victims, make his last years him watching everything in his life slowly stripped away from him and his family...and follow that money to make sure its all collected.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
We can all guess at the only name the DOJ is interested in redacting, but as that name is fully aware that he hired chimps, he may be sweating a little more than usual.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
If you want an option, you have to vote in the primary elections when possible to throw out the corrupt AIPAC-funded DINOs such as Pelosi, Jeffries, Schumer, and Fetterman and replace them with good Democrats.
Upvote
26
(31
/
-5)
In other words, we live in the real world. You are exactly right.
I wish more people looked at voting like picking a route home through rush hour traffic. Pick the least bad way and go home. Teleportation isn't an option sadly, so look at your gps and choose.
Instead we need a hero and perfection, apparently, or we don't bother voting. The President is a goddamn administrator, or should be. 95 million people couldn't be arsed. At the very least these people don't get to complain. Be happy with the situation you did absolutely nothing to prevent and zip it.
Hey I'm all for improving the Democrats or even any better party that comes along that has a chance to win. The word of the day for them, and it's really better than they deserve, is milquetoast. But on election day, when I look over and see Trump and Stephen fucking miller and the money coming from scum like Elon Musk....not a hard decision at all.
Last edited:
Upvote
44
(47
/
-3)
Well over a 1000 known victims, probably equally number of unknown ones... this was industrial scale abuse.
Did you notice, no LGBTQ+ perps involved, but lots professing their "christianity"
Upvote
39
(41
/
-2)
This has been a thing going back to Carter and probably before. Democrats/liberals aren't a great choice most of the time, but it's a "better than the other guy" thing MOST of the time. We could have done without Clinton, I think, even if Bush Sr. and (god forbid) Perot were the other choices.
The liberals almost always lack cohesion of purpose, and a clear plan. Those have usually been a conservative thing. I think Obama did the best in unifying the liberals and coming out more center left than anyone in my lifetime has done. The rest seem to just wander off into some delusional fantasy world where everything would be sunshine and rainbows while having no plans to avoid flooding and sunburn.
Conservatives seem more organized (until they fall apart) while liberals seem hopelessly disorganized (until they find that one thing that unites most of them for a brief time).
What we should have is a five party system and force coalition governments on the people. Five parties (ultra conservative to ultra liberal) represent the demographics of our country better than the defacto two party system we have. It gives a voice to the center. Each party should cover their representative percentage of registered voters. Registration should be simple and by mail as well, as should voting be.
I'd also force the legislative agenda to be based on all of the five parties representation by their percentage of overall votes. So if the ultra conservative party got 5% of the total vote, they can submit 5% of the items on the docket for the session. This way everyone gets a voice, even the lunatic fringe, and even if that's voted down by the rest of the legislative bodies. I'd also get rid of the Senate. It was created to ensure the minority had a voice in government. But by creating representative voices by ideology in a five party system, it amounts to the same thing.
These are MY cliff notes for after the civil war ousting Trump and his band of repressive fascists in how to rebuild the nation - assuming there's anything left of it - after the fires are out and the bodies are buried. I don't expect to live though that, but maybe someone can run with this, if they think it's a good idea, too.
I do know one thing: The country wasn't as unbalanced as it is now, and until recently, we've had a lot more than two parties to deal with. We need more representation of each ideology, instead of forcing us to pick between the rock and the hard place like we do now.
Upvote
-3
(13
/
-16)
They could have delayed it until after Mango Musso's divine ascension, as confirmed by Cardinal Dolan, and those photos and names would have still been present. This was about punishing the victims, as much as whitewashing the perps.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
You’re missing the elephant in the room. The fundamental problem with American politics is the voting system. Having the candidate with a plurality of votes take office is the central issue. Replace the “first past the post” system with literally anything else, and the highly polarised politics will dissipate over time. It’ll give third party candidates a fighting chance. It also would mean that people who care about politics can vote for their preferred candidate, instead of holding their nose and voting against their least preferred candidate.
Everything else follows from that one reform.
Upvote
45
(48
/
-3)
That isn't on "the founders." Rather, it's a mathematically inevitable consequence of first-past-the-post voting. Voting is controlled by the states. We could change it at any point. Several states have. I don't particularly love IRV either, but let's not pretend that we couldn't change this tomorrow if we wanted to.
Just changing primary voting from plurality to approval would solve a LOT of the issues, frankly, and that wouldn't even require a vote.
Upvote
19
(22
/
-3)
Australia, you get fined if you do not vote
Many far better democracies than the travesty called the USA have proportional representation, here in NZ we have 6 parties in parliament.
Get an indépendant body to set voting districts, with clear and brutal punishment if they fail to act "democratically". I would consist of a member from each party, 2 independents, and an independent judge. No more gerrymandering
Work hard to get as many people on the electoral roles as possible, no voter suppression
Get far more ballot boxes out there for people to vote in. Make people responsible/liable if wait periods get above 30 minutes (long queues with no toilets. water, food, etc is just another for of voter suppression.
iE, become a democracy.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
The level of incompetence is so incredible, it either underscores the ridiculously poor hiring practices under the Trump administration, or (more nefariously) points to the administration literally wanting to shame specific victims through middle-high-school-level bullying tactics.
The DoJ should be sued by these victims for every penny that can be taken.
The DoJ should be sued by these victims for every penny that can be taken.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity etc.
Trump only values loyalty. Nothing more at all. So we end up with reliable kakistocracy because it takes a lot of competence to run a government agency, and he only picks on the basis of loyalty. It was like this last time too.
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
ColdWetDog
Ars Legatus Legionis
I think it's way past time we bury Hanlon's razor.
Incompetence AND malfeasance are perfectly happy coinciding with themselves.
Incompetence AND malfeasance are perfectly happy coinciding with themselves.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
Neither of these traits should be pulling a paycheck from the tax payers.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure waiting 3+ years for the next, hopefully somewhat competent administration, would have been the right answer, either.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
This is an essential starting point, absolutely.
Next steps, esp. for those of us feed up with the current Democrats in power: participate in primaries to advance politicians who might manage something better than "not actually evil" (as already pointed out by @jnv11). Keep pressure on those in office to commit to prosecuting the lawbreakers in the current administration. Keep speaking up; don't let anyone pretend this is ok.
But step 1 has to be voting the GOP out of power, decisively and inarguably. Establishment Dems could still drop the ball... but that will at least give us a chance.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
That was a feature and not a bug. A message was sent "Sure sure what he did was wrong but do NOT think you can report any more of this, without...you know people finding out what you look like nude and that you're a bad bad bad person too. Just think about that before you go rushing to report these types of crimes again."
I wish I wasn't so cynical and didn't know ahead of time that nothing would happen, even with proof out there. the GOPers are gaslighting us and telling us that call logs, and eyewitness sworn testimony is just not the kind of proof they can use to file lawsuits. BS.
I wish I wasn't so cynical and didn't know ahead of time that nothing would happen, even with proof out there. the GOPers are gaslighting us and telling us that call logs, and eyewitness sworn testimony is just not the kind of proof they can use to file lawsuits. BS.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
You've been around here long enough to know better. You just sound like a butthurt maga because this makes your rotten orange leader look bad.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
I saw it on slashdot and reddit. People completely glossing over the fact Cheeto is in the documents committing heinous acts, claiming they were just waiting to see gates and Clinton in the documents and if people would care then.
Politics aside it's an absolutely insane mindset to be ok with him raping kids because he claims to hate the same things you hate.
Once any of it is proved I would happily pull the lever on them and wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it. Sadly I suspect nothing will happen. The scariest thing that may happen is doing something nuts like going to war to distract.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
For presidential primaries, the election would need to be on one day for the whole country to allow everyone a full set of choices. With the current schedule, the presidential ballot has usually been reduced down to two or three candidates before I get to vote. In some years, a candidate has already locked in a majority of delegates and my vote doesn’t mean anything at all.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Several posts about voting for the Democrats not always having the best candidates. Yea, I agree with those comments, but the next question is: Are you voting in the primaries? Because that's were you are going to make the changes to the party. Not the general election. It can be a slog and a pain to comb through the options and make informed choices but really, it needs to be done. You can't really complain about the state of the party if you are not partaking in the primaries. Be informed, request your primary ballot, vote. Then when the general election comes, you back the party's candidate regardless. Full Stop.
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I don’t believe in any kind of life after death, but I do wish there was a Hell for these people to burn in.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
The primaries?
Where I live the outcome of the Democratic primary is more preordained than the outcome of the general election. Unless you can whip the membership of a large organization to show up and vote in the primary you're a political non-entity.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
"Release the Epstein Files"
"Oh wait, don't release the Epstein files"
"We can't trust them anyway there was information redacted."
"Why would they release all of that and not redact it?"
"Ok so just release the ones we believe exist but don't have any proof of"
"Oh wait, don't release the Epstein files"
"We can't trust them anyway there was information redacted."
"Why would they release all of that and not redact it?"
"Ok so just release the ones we believe exist but don't have any proof of"
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised that they reviewed all the files using Grok and vibes.
I mean, after the initial search and replace for anything related to Trump.
I mean, after the initial search and replace for anything related to Trump.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Cat_Herder
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Excuse me, but isn't it your job to rectify that before publishing the files?
But far be it from me to tell you how to do your job....
Upvote
12
(14
/
-2)
I absolutely will vote for Dems or maybe third party in cases where my vote has absolutely no sway, due to heavy blue bias.. though probably will just vote blue cause I generally don't find even the 3rd party options appealing.
At the same time I think there's much more than just casting a ballot once a year to two shitty (one obviously worse) options.
I think for example, ICE would be doing even more in Minnesota if it weren't for the relentless protests, and having people in the streets sends a message far beyond a single vote.
I'm personally trying to figure out what can be done, but I think I need to do more than vote in national elections. Some examples being: participating in boycotts, protests, organizing/supporting organizations like labor unions, strikes, helping local community, understanding local politics, learning etc.. not saying these will magically fix anything, but realistically if the status quo is so deeply unpopular that's it's basically a farce of democracy (both options suck, but I guess I will just pick the least bad one), we collectively shouldn't just give up and say nothing is possible. At least for me, it's too depressing to think that way. At the end of the day, there's far more of us than them!
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
The former UK ambassador to the US fits within the LGBTQ+ banner. You need to look a bit deeper.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Coming from a country that has mandatory voting - and that holds elections on weekends so people don't have to choose between earning a crust and going to vote, I generally agree with the oft-voiced "if you don't vote you don't get to complain"
That said, has there ever been any research in the US into those who don't vote out of apathy or, ridiculously, "they're all the same" faux-protest, and those who are effectively prevented by arbitrary de-facto restrictions?
Anything from, as mentioned above, having election on a work day, making it harder for those already on the bottom to take even one day off and drive (walk?) to who knows where because gerrymandering has put their election booths on the Moon? Who may get fired if they take a day off if they could afford it? Even being outright denied on flimsy grounds (but really, because you're black and trying to vote in bumfuck Alabama with the election stations run by people with a KKK mindset)?
In short: how many non-voters are truly part of the problem and how many are essentially disenfranchised?
That said, has there ever been any research in the US into those who don't vote out of apathy or, ridiculously, "they're all the same" faux-protest, and those who are effectively prevented by arbitrary de-facto restrictions?
Anything from, as mentioned above, having election on a work day, making it harder for those already on the bottom to take even one day off and drive (walk?) to who knows where because gerrymandering has put their election booths on the Moon? Who may get fired if they take a day off if they could afford it? Even being outright denied on flimsy grounds (but really, because you're black and trying to vote in bumfuck Alabama with the election stations run by people with a KKK mindset)?
In short: how many non-voters are truly part of the problem and how many are essentially disenfranchised?
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)
Well I got seriously down voted but I am still glad I posted as the number of down votes and comments answered a couple of questions I have been wondering about lately: 1) Is politics as a team sport going to destroy our country? Looks like that answer is yes. 2) Are we past the point of no return as far as fixing this? Looks like that may be the case as well. If you think that either of the two "teams" are going to fix anything you have swallowed the bait. While I feel like I have been smart enough to figure out what is really going on I have yet to be smart enough to figure out how to position myself for what appears to be coming.
Upvote
-9
(6
/
-15)
Many of these problems would be greatly reduced, probably most simply, by expanding ranked-choice voting by the states. One obstacle I see is that the possibility of manipulating the ranked-choice algorithm, which should probably be open-sourced and carefully-reviewed by independent purely-advisory groups provided government funding without further control.
This still leaves the problem that first-past-the-post has too much unchecked control. Although it would require a constitutional change, maybe the top two candidates for any office should both win, with each allowed a fractional vote on issues equal to his percentage of the final popular vote.
This still leaves the problem that first-past-the-post has too much unchecked control. Although it would require a constitutional change, maybe the top two candidates for any office should both win, with each allowed a fractional vote on issues equal to his percentage of the final popular vote.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
I guarantee you it is "drive" in the vast majority of cases.
I think in the past 20-some years I've lived one place I could safely walk to to vote (I actually did, because it was so unusual and "convenient"!)
Granted, this doesn't help a ton with your overall point re: why are people not voting, but certainly that plays a role.
The "two poles party system" is also abysmal because of how it affects our ability to even communicate on the subject.
In my less-politically-connected/aware days "ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal" above would make perfect sense to me. Now I have a notion of how many people read "liberal" to see that range can be read by some as "Fascist to conservative". But I also recognize the probable intent behind the word "liberal" as used above to not mean that (or, worse for communication, to not intend to mean that, but implicitly mean it anyway). It's all a giant fucking mess because everything has to fit into two buckets because of that system: "left" and "right", as if that's a useful way to divide things. Somehow "neo-liberal" == "socialist" == "communist" == "Democrat".
So I have to pause and think: "Okay, what does this exact person probably mean by 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'left' or 'right' or…" while sometimes not really being all that certain at all. Socially, there's a huge reflex to assume that each word has a consistent definition for everyone both saying/writing and hearing/reading them. When there isn't. At all. And we've got many massive figures (particularly politicians and pundits) stretching or misusing these words and sowing confusion out of sheer ignorance and/or malintent that it all just inevitably ends up even worse.
I watch various conversations here and wonder how much people don't catch agreements and disagreements because of these absolutely uselessly huge buckets we're stuck with.
Me? I've become utterly disillusioned with Democrats at this point, but I still rankle a touch at the petty phrasing of "Democrat party" and vote pretty much straight Democratic tickets and have for as long as I have been able to vote—and yet, my vote is generally less "for the Democratic Party" and more "Not for the Republican Party", to the point that that's what I write in on races where I have no other options besides them (fairly common where I live, alas).
This is not because I'm an "enlightened centrist" who thinks "both sides are just as bad", but because I'd like something better than "Well, at least it's not a Republican". Even if I continue to vote for that every damned time because it's all there is….if there's even that option.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)