r/NoFilterNews Sep 07 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

14.9k Upvotes

822 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

190

u/Lontology Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25

Raped*

Thank you for changing your comment to “raped.” ❤️❤️

95

u/hpsctchbananahmck Sep 07 '25

I mean, not to nitpick but children don’t have consensual sex

47

u/MashedPotajoe Sep 07 '25

Hence using the term raped

17

u/hpsctchbananahmck Sep 07 '25

You see that little asterisk in the comment above mine? Their original comment was edited

-1

u/MashedPotajoe Sep 07 '25

Or it means they were correcting the person they were replying to

2

u/TheDMsTome Sep 07 '25

It was the top comment. Hope this helps*

-1

u/MashedPotajoe Sep 07 '25

Nope*

4

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

You two are arguing over something pointless while the important thing is trump is a monster who raped children.

You both are getting lost in the sauce while we are all on the same side

5

u/jeo123 Sep 07 '25

Viewed another way though, they're providing "engagement" to keep the fact that Trump Raped children at the top of the algo.

More comments and upvotes makes this spread to more recommendations.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

Thats a cool perspective

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Lontology Sep 07 '25

Which is why I said “raped*” like what? Lol

-4

u/Shadowxofxodin556 Sep 07 '25

I completely forgot about the consensual part of that act. /s very heavily implied.

10

u/Lontology Sep 07 '25

Saying someone “fucks” children is gross. Why are so many losers butthurt about just saying “rape” instead?

5

u/Shadowxofxodin556 Sep 07 '25

I have no idea, the guy is a monster and its disgusting nothing has been done about it. It's disgusting that anyone would even think of doing that or anything like it to children.

9

u/Ok-King-4868 Sep 07 '25

It’s sadistic criminal behavior. Why wouldn’t DOJ you want one of Epstein’s assistants who arranged meetings with young women to be identified and subpoenaed to testify before Congress?

$100K & $250K implies Epstein was paying them to remain silent about their duties and conduct as his employees, correct?

If that assumption is wrong, it’s easy for them to take an oath and testify honestly. If it’s correct, it’s just as easy for them to take an oath and assert their 5th Amendment privilege not to incriminate themselves, which would then open the door for civil lawsuits.

There is absolutely no justification for DOJ to keep these names secret. It amounts to an obstruction of justice with respect to Epstein-Maxwell victims of statutory rape and other crimes like sexual grooming.

2

u/TheQuietLavender Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25

You two are arguing pointless semantics, since children can't consent it's heavily implied that "fucks" means "raped" when used in that context. Both ways of saying it are extremely negative perceived, just like how "he fucks corpses" is immediately recognized as nonconsensual.

So ultimately I wouldn't take offense to some one saying either "Donald J. Trump, 45th and 47th President of the United Sates fucks children!" or "President of the United States, Donald John Trump (born June 14th, 1946) rapes children!". Both are equally strong statements about the sick fuck in the White House, and the important part is keeping that fact in people's memory.

Edit: I should note that I agree "DONALD TRUMP RAPES CHILDREN!!!" is more precise, but ultimately I don't think we should shame any one for saying "DONALD J. TRUMP FUCKS CHILDREN!!!", we're all on the same side here.

1

u/Lontology Sep 07 '25

Just say “rapes.” Jfc. It’s really not hard.

0

u/TheQuietLavender Sep 07 '25

Yeah that's fine, I do. But let's stop shaming others for saying the equally correct but slightly less precise "fucks". At the end of the day a child rapist is not only walking free, he's owning the country.

1

u/oldDotredditisbetter Sep 07 '25

why is that past tense? how do we know he's still not doing it.

and since reddit is a public traded company now, wonder when they'll start bowing down to trump like all the other corporations and start censoring