“just 44% of Republicans thought Trump was handling the Epstein situation well.”
Never trust conservatives. Holy shit is this behavior embarrassing to us all.
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
252 points (98.1% liked)
politics
26576 readers
1819 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I forget the actual numbers, but the rule of thumb is that it would basically take multiple 9-11s during COVID-2-Electric-Boogaloo AND a sex scandal to get a president below (ass pulling) 30%. Which, accounting for a party specific poll, makes that 44% look REALLY bad.
Because anyone who has spent any time in the hell that is dating apps can tell you: Only the nuttiest of nutbars identify as "conservative". The rest of the chuds are "moderate" or "apolitical" because they still want to get their fuck on.
Independent is another tell.
Came here to say this, and I'm not on the dating scene at all, but you see it in just so many other contexts. It became so ridiculous even decades ago, reaching ludicrous speed under donnie. The Professional Left podcast, at least, constantly mocks the notion.
When someone says they are an "independent", I think very few are genuine. I think many of them are just conservatives that are lying, some are possibly Libertarian who are also just lying, some may be very low-info, but thinks this makes them sound S-M-R-T, and then the very last group may possibly be actually independents.
Lots of 'libertarians' are also just republicans with enough self awareness to be embarrassed about admitting it.
Most "libertarians" I've met will say that both sides suck and then only talk shit about one side. I'm sure you can guess which.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's super annoying, because that term should belong to "if you've got an hour we can grab coffee and I'll explain my politics to you. You don't? Uhh .... 'rather to the left'?", and not "I'm fine with the gays and poors, but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the government helping or protecting them".
Maybe I'm in the minority, but over 20 years ago I never signed up for a party because I thought they were both suspect at the time. I'm further left than when I left highschool, and as I've watched the working class get fucked over more and more I see little reason to change that. Briefly considered joining the Green party around 2016 (actually briefly did some phone banking for them), but decided against it. I don't trust any political party in the US at this point, so not planning on changing that any time soon.
signed up for a party
Do you think this "signing up for a party" nonsense is why Americans can't see past allegiances and pick based on the plans and theme a party puts forth in a given election cycle?
My voting has been consistent between three parties, but only because the platform varied and one edged the other out. I can't imagine deciding based on identity instead.
load more comments
(5 replies)
A month ago Patel and Bondi were saying there was no files, so they lied underoath. But, obviously there's no accountability under this administration.
So, what changed in a month? Everything of substance has been scrubbed from the files. We're not going to get any justice or accountability. Par for the fucking course
obviously there’s no accountability under this administration
When was the last administration that experienced accountability? Even Nixon got a pardon
After the Senate approved the measure on Tuesday, a senior White House official said Trump will sign the bill when it gets to the White House.
I don’t know what games are suddenly being played but this is sus af
They announced that they are investigating Democrats regarding Epstein.
An investigation can prevent the release of the Epstein files, regardless of whether the president signed the bill or not.
Yep, going to play this as "I was always for releasing them the whole time" but "oh no, the mean DoJ says no one can see anything right now".
I would totally release my tax returns, but I'm being audited, sorry.
In BOTH situations, he was legally capable of releasing either any time. He could have released taxes during the audit, he could have declassified Epstein files with a flick of the wrist.
According to him he can declassify documents just by thinking about it. No wrist flicking required. Of course, that only applies to documents stored in the bathroom on his golf course.
Would also require the ability to think...
I'm okay with them just releasing the parts of the Epstein files that involve Republicans. I mean, I want the full files eventually, but I'm perfectly fine starting with the Republicans.
A LOT of this narrative reeks of "See, chuck schumer is actually a heroic genius"
But the basic idea is that trump can still pocket veto this. I forget the specifics but essentially it is the idea that he can ignore the bill for 10 days which would expire it and punt it back to the House. And if The House is out of session (which they will be because it is thanksgiving and our politicians would NEVER dare inconvenience themselves for The American People) it basically kills the bill entirely and they have to re-pass it.
By getting it through the Senate ridiculously quickly it makes it MUCH harder to argue that the white house ran out of time. And it does sound like House republicans may have been counting on that since johnson was talking about how the Senate would take forever to pass this.
The other theories I have seen are all based around "investigating the Democrats". Either insist that NO files can be released because they are part of an active investigation or insist the reason it is predominantly republicans and bill clinton is because all the Democrat files had to be held.
Personally? I think both immediately trigger massive leaks because of just how widespread they are and how bipartisan the access has been in the past. And any token sacrificial republicans will IMMEDIATELY narc on everyone else before they can hang themselves in a jail cell.
And if the big beautiful bill ever faces even a chance of consequences for his actions, you can bet that he (and mostly Hilary) would start blabbing about trump sucking him off.
He can't, because pocket vetos only work if both chambers are adjourned during the 10 day period. Not at recess, adjourned. If he doesn't sign it within 10 days or just becomes law.
But they are scrubbing away all Republicans from the files before releasing.....
I'm sure that's probably the case but also whoever is indicated is basically a witness. Hopefully someone will talk. Hopefully this opens up other evidence from those caught in the net.
Indicted
My friend, I've stopped fighting autocorrect ages ago. I can't wait for AI to tell us how the politicians got indicated!
The correction helped me realize what you meant though.
Not me. I thought they meant "indicted," not "indicated." It got more confusing until I realized they spelled it wrong twice. "Endigted" was at least phonetically closer.
I thought they meant ignited.
Welcome to our future, where intent is more important than expression.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The shitstain had the FBI redact his name. It's going to be pages and pages of black marks, and one Bubba Clinton.
You're assuming a level of competency that the current FBI and DOJ have not demonstrated they possess.
I am afraid the majority of the real files are just TBs of CSAM. How does anyone ensure that gets prosecuted?
They didn't try to dodge shit. They just stalled until the FBI could sanitize and re-write them. The Epstein Files Saga will soon be over, and nothing will come of it.
Yeah judging by their attitudes on it all the sudden, they got it all covered up and edited.
On the bright side maybe we won’t be invading one of our southern neighbor countries as a distraction.
Oh, there's no chance we don't go to war with Venezuela. Trump needs an excuse to cancel elections. The CIA already has boots on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/us/politics/trump-covert-action-venezuela.html
It's not actually legal for him to do so, but who's going to stop him?
Venezuela also has the largest oil reserves in the world.
Excellent excellent point. There is that as well.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
They were when a plumber did that. Not the Mario bro though, it was for sure somebody else
Anyone asking donnie about the status of it will now get the "quiet, piggy!" response.
Lol
Strong man authoritarian leader can't offer definitive evidence that he isn't a pedophile
Not trying to defend Trump here...just pointing out the error in what you said.
Could you offer definitive evidence that you aren't a pedophile?
That's kinda why we have due process and stuff...it's on the state to offer definitive proof that you are. It's very difficult to definitively prove a negative.
view more: next ›