507
Why the fuck would she not care that ~1000 underage girls were being raped and abused?
Because she is a republican. They don’t care about things unless it affects them personally.
Or people are having sex they don't approve of.
But in this case the sex is between one consenting adult and an underage girl, so they are fine with that.
Ironically if it was just the one adult by himself that would be a no no.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because the GOP is a party of grifters, liars, and criminals
Gropey Old Pedophiles; its right there in the name.
Because as long as they haven't seen the files they can make themselves believe that maybe the whole Epstein affair is speculation and grossly exaggerated and that they can't possibly be that bad. When they finally see the truth they can no longer make those mental gymnastics. It also helps that they also likely realize that the truth will get out sooner or later and don't want to be among the ones who protected those monsters.
It also helps that they also likely realize that the truth will get out sooner or later and don't want to be among the ones who protected those monsters.
It's about a decade late for that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because none of the ~1000 girls were part of their family or entourage, so they don't give a fuck.
She probably saw a Democrat in the list and wants to win the next election.
load more comments
(4 replies)
That's nice but it means nothing if she doesn't do something about it. Release the files and impeach Trump. Anything less is just putting on a show to try to sway voters for the midterms.
Impeachment does nothing, he was impeached 4 times his first term and still finished it out.
That's because Impeachment tis only half of the process, and occurs in the House. The Senate chose not to remove him from office... This article is about a Senator changing their position.
And would of course require yet another impeachment to remove him.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Lummis, 71, told Capitol Hill reporter Pablo Manriquez on Monday, Feb. 9, that while she previously had said, “I don’t care” about Congress’ efforts to force the release of Epstein evidence, she now believes the issue was “worth investigating.”
The cynic in me thinks she ignored pages and pages of trump named referenced crimes and saw Clinton's name at least once, so now she's wants to make political hay only against Clinton.
God does it suck that what you're saying makes so much sense.
Worst fucking timeline ever
load more comments
(4 replies)
A 71 year-old Senator who's brain failed during the last election! Retire and GTFO!
Republicans are just horrible people.
Well, at least a critical thought did happen
More like she had to admit a thing she was conveniently for her career ignoring. She is a nihlist, believing in nothing. There was no conscience at work here, no appeal to justice. Just a cold calculation of positions.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So there's about 3 million files and Trump appears on more than 1/3 of them? They should probably be called the Trump/Epstein files
ding! ding! ding!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Alternate title:
Ancient GOP Senator says there is enough visibility now for it to affect her career so she is considering acknowledging and maybe at a future date having something meaningful to say about it.
Amazing how they all grow spines after announcing that they're not running for reelection.
It's almost like the only reason they vote like pieces of shit is because their party. They hold no values of their own while they're in office, and don't vote based on what their constituents want. It's solely what the party tells them to do.
I feel like the words “I don’t care” should never escape a politician’s mouth. Their entire job is to care. Why are they representing us if they don’t?
Money.
It is probably effecting the voting numbers for her and therefore she needs to pretend again to get the sweet sweet suckers to vote for her again come next cycle.
It is probably effecting [sic] the voting numbers for her
Dude, she's a senator from Wyoming who isn't running for reelection in 2026. Did you even check before you speculated about this?
Aah, so a peaceful retirement where she can say she changed her mind so the people with pitchforks and torches don’t camp out the residence.
Okay, so instead of an "oops, my bad; maybe I'll back off on this one", you're just going to make up literally whatever feels right to you regardless of evidence – and I say this as someone who, unlike you, knows anything at all about Cynthia Lummis and therefore has the capacity to hate her for the terrible things she's done.
This is pathetic. Do better.
Okay, in more polite terms: it's fine to be uninformed, and it's fine to be wrong. What's not fine is to be confidently incorrect on a subject you know nothing about, get shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, and then (the wrong part) instead of reflect on that and try to learn more so you can develop an informed opinion, just kneejerk pivot to whatever idea pops into your head next – just keep throwing spaghetti at the wall.
For you, that's the quickest way to never learn anything, and for the people around you, it's just polluting the discussion with uninformed, unsubstantiated noise.
load more comments
(4 replies)
You don't care about illegal bombings of boats in the ocean, ICE's cruel treatment of immigrants and the US citizens who care about them, nor massive sexual assault against underage girls until your face is smeared in it. What do you care about? The Republican party are monsters.
Her: Ummmmm . . America! *waves flag, takes bribes*
She can tell the truth because she isn't running for reelection.
She can see that its going to be impossible to completely ignore this and has to finally admit that its pretty damning.
See, that's why they redact the shit, so they can skirt responsibility. It's sad it took this long for people to open their eyes, but at least it seems to be starting to happen?
load more comments
(1 replies)
What a CUNT
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
507 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30709 readers
1117 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