385
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
385 points (99.5% liked)
politics
30775 readers
2616 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think this is Katie Johnson, since she came forward in 2016. This is the one they're talking about:
Edit: And this
Perfect how they are talking about child rape and the victim defending their selves by biting the penis. But let's sensor the word bitch, the readers would be shocked and outraged if they read such a foul word. Wtf is wrong with people these days....
It's not people. If I recall correctly it has to do with ads. Like if your website has ads on it for the XYZ company, and their automatic content reading bot sees too many "bad words", then they won't advertise on your site anymore and the site owner loses the ad revenue. It's stupid, but it explains why the word itself is more important than the content of the article. Because the bots look for words and have a threshold or something.
I saw a tv show where, in one episode, a rapist got bit and they were able to use the scar as evidence.
Junk science.
Those shows are propaganda. Propublica has done some good reporting on this, I can link it if you care to read any of it.
Not saying it’s good science. It’s just a good point. If you have a bite scar on your dick, it’s most likely because you tried putting it somewhere that it should not be.
In the context where a lady comes out of the shadows and says she put a scar on Trumps mushroom, where nobody had ever mentioned a scar on Trumps mushroom before, and it is later revealed that Trump does indeed have a scar on his mushroom…
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… what is it?
Preaching to the choir, I was speaking technically.
The odds that the president would be convicted with such junk sciencer were zero when he was just a rich asshole. There is no chance this holds as of now. Someone of character needs to take the lead, if you get my drift.
Old man time is on the case though, and it changes little, without a popular alternative we are fucked.
It doesn't require much science. Victim testifies she bit the attacker and it drew blood. Attacker has scar of approximately the same age. That's not going to secure a conviction on its own, but it adds to the prosecution's evidence.
If it didn't draw blood, it'd be harder to find a lasting mark.
It's all bullshit, and has been proven to be bullshit. You are like one of those people still thinking dinosaurs were reptiles while we have known they were birds.
Bite matching is absurdly inaccurate, unfortunately. TV loves it though.
The existence of a scar would be telling and they already know who did the biting so it's not a matter of bite matching.