XCancel doesn’t show notes. But you can enjoy the replies.
Nancy Mace’s fixation on her transgender colleague, combined with her stubborn reluctance to interrogate the files of a heavily trafficked high profile human trafficker, absolutely screams “Skeletons in the Closet”.
I remember when Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert were making all the same noises about gay men back in the Bush Era.
That X is OUTDATED! Things CHANGE!
-Republican Voters who see NOTHING WRONG with Moving the Goal Posts for Pedophiles!
Unfortunately, not confined to a single party.
Carter replacing Nixon/Ford, Clinton taking office in the wake of Iran-Contra and the S&L Crash, Obama coming in after a slew of scandals under Bush/Cheney, and Biden coming in under Trump 1 all sang the same song. Everyone seems ready to pass the buck, for fear that a future administration might use prosecutorial powers against them in turn. Nobody seems to care that the next office-holder’s corruption and power hording might upend their legacy or threaten their livelihoods.
Its weird how Trump made the entire republican party pro-pedophile.
Spoiler : They were pro-pedophile long before 2016.
Even weirder is how they somehow got a lot of people’s votes on the basis they would protect children and expose the pedophiles.
Seriously these Quentin Tarantino defenders
Don’t worry Nancy, Elon will go in and “fix” the issue with those pesky notes telling on you.
A good feature that Elon added.
Yes, the one feature I’d love to see on Lemmy and on the fediverse in general.
Lemmy already has downvotes and the ability to reply to posts, I’m not sure how different “community notes” would be when the entire platform is already effectively a big community notes
Countdown to him altering notes so this kind of thing doesn’t happen to certain people.
Sometimes, often even, it’s no steps at all.
Twitter comments are absolutely nuts
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Every Single Republican voted to hide the Epstein files in the house, and all except 2 in the senate:
https://www.congress.gov/votes/house/119-1/194?q={"search"%3A"hres+580"}&s=8&r=3
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00512.htm
Then I am just going to assume they’re all also in the files. Prove it otherwise, cunts.
You know they won’t, until they can get away with releasing an obvious fake.
I for one am extremely surprised that we didn’t recieve some obviously bullshit, AI-written “files” that conveniently implicate all of Trump’s opponents while leaving him and his posse out.
Pleasantly surprised, don’t get me wrong, but I fully expected that out of this administration. They’ve already proven time and again that they have zero shame or accountability, this would be right up their alley.
And now it’s been suggested where it can be indexed.
They’ve been putting AI slop all over official white house correspondence all year, I promise they didn’t need me to give them this idea.
Enabling is worse than the crime itself. “all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing” -motherfuckign J RR Tolkien. Fuck the bible.
-motherfuckign J RR Tolkien
Evidence? The closest match I find is
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
―John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
Enabling is worse than the crime itself.
Fuck no. In some cases it can be as bad as the crime, but most of the time the crimes are far worse than those that let it happen.
Fuck no was my first thought also. Yes everyone involved should be held accountable, but the fucking criminal is the worst one.
I think the point is that enabling a: allows an individual to repeatedly comit the crime and b: allows more people to comit the same crime. Ergo worse than an individual criminal act.
That is committing a crime as an accomplice, which is different than enabling a crime which by default is passive or encouraging.
Trump is a rapist and Epstein is an accomplice. Johnson avoiding a vote is a form of enabling, but that is not as bad as the rapist and their accomplice.
The term enabling when it comes to crime is used differently than for people who enable overeating or substance abuse by covering symptoms because there are more specific terms for active involvement in crimes.
Fuck the bible.
I tried, but I kept getting paper cuts.
If you’re defending someone who is accused of a crime… Well… you better have a really good fucking reason. Like being their defense attorney. Except, IMO, lawyers caught doing shenanigans shouldn’t just get disbarred and MAYBE prison time. They deserve to be enslaved on sugar plantations. As well as their children. Just my 2 cents. If you give them a carrot, and have a suitcase nuke in their crawl space where their family lives… Well, would have to be pretty motivated to not take the carrot.
Ah, to be 15…
Absolute ripper of a take.
If you believe in the rule of law (which you should unless you’re a fascist) you can defent a pedofile or any othet criminal without being on their side. Point is just to make sure they get a fair trial and justice happens.
You should, even. Being a pedophile is not a crime. Acting it out by harming children is a crime. And by far not all child sexual abuse is done by pedophiles.
You are replying to someone who is advocating enslaving children due to the actions of their parent. This is not reasonable.
I don’t think that’s equivalent. An attorney isn’t obstructing justice, they are a crucial part of the system, there to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and that any possibility of them being innocent is taken into consideration. Even if they’re defending an obvious criminal.
These people aren’t part of the justice system. They’re blocking the release of information surfaced under a criminal investigation because they know that its release will impact them negatively, and they’re already not exactly popular.
an attorney isn’t obstructing justice
I see you’ve never been in the same building as a prosecutor.
The discussion was about defense attorneys.
an attorney isn’t
Unspecified. The one the context suggests, yes but they’re using suspiciously broad language so as to support the concept of legal process as synonymous with justice.
I think that much broader implication is fucked up and wrong, and needed a gentle correction that could re-specify their meaning to only the narrow context under discussion.
This has been enlightening to all, and not at all tedious. Thank you.
Like being their defense attorney
No, further up, before that.
Lick whatever boots you like, but dont bother me about it again.
She was just trying to get us to think she’s a step away from what she is.
