Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
1682
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • An Atlantic journalist dubbed a "top-notch hater" by Rep. Jasmine Crockett's team and thrown out at Crockett's rally in Lubbock, Texas, on Friday, released audio from the moment she was told to leave the lawmaker's campaign event. 

    Elaine Godfrey, a staff writer covering national politics for the outlet, was wearing her press badge identifying who she was and had "attempted to join a closed-door press scrum with the congresswoman that was open to the other reporters at the rally," but was turned away. Instead, she decided to start interviewing people in the crowd when a security guard walked up to her and told her she needed to leave, escorting her away. 

    In the unedited transcript Godfrey reveals what happened during the incident. 

    Woman: Can you get your stuff? (Speaking to someone else.) Her team wants her to leave, and they’re asking her to leave.

    Godfrey: Why are you asking me to leave?

    Woman: They just said, ‘Elaine from Atlantic, white girl with a hat and notepad. She’s interviewing people in the crowd. She’s a top-notch hater and will spin. She needs to leave.’ (Speaking to someone else.) I just told her to get her bag and go unintelligible] that’s from her team.

    Godfrey, who needed to get an Uber from the location, was then told by a security guard to go wait outside the event, along the side of a country road. 

    She got an Uber and then followed up with Crockett directly on Friday. 

    "After getting picked up by the Uber, I went straight to Lubbock’s famous Prairie Dog Town, where I received a warmer welcome," Godfrey wrote. "I called Crockett directly today to ask about all of this. When she answered, and I told her who was calling, she said, 'Oh!,' sounding surprised, and hung up. She did not respond to my follow-up texts."

    Crockett's team has said there is no evidence that a journalist was booted from the rally. 

    Godfrey told CNN that plenty of people also witnessed what happened — and that she has the receipts to show for it, including the recording.

  • I mean, no.

    You can’t make someone a pedophile any more than you can make someone prefer blondes or grannies. It’s an attraction that can’t be helped or influenced. You don’t just become a pedophile.

    “Fake child porn” isn’t even a thing. Child porn is illegal, mainly, because it is inherently abuse. Which is why it has been “rebranded” to child sexual abuse material or “CSAM”. Adults that look young is in no way child porn, and to brand it as such is to stigmatize people for how they look.

  • Different team.

  • Pretty common term tbh. You’re making a jump to assume it’s tailored to pedophiles.

    And honestly, even if it was, why is that a problem? Wouldn’t you want them looking at adults instead of children?

  • Is it though? Or is that your assumption?

  • You realize that isn’t at all what is happening, right?

  • This is the adorableporn situation all over again.

    If a verifiable adult looks young, what’s the issue?

    Imagine being told your body is so controversial that you’re not allowed to post pictures of it.

  • My only resistance to leaving discord is that it’s where 99% of my gaming communities are. There’s no way I’m convincing hundreds of people to move off to something I self host, or to self host themselves. It’s just not feasible.

  • I do want to point out, the British monarchy has zero power in Canada. Any status they have is purely symbolic.

  • Like I said, this is already clear. No new law needed.

  • If we wanna be technical, there’s nothing to do. They can saber rattle, but until the executive order is signed, there’s not really much to do. It’s already illegal, so working towards making it illegal is silly.

    There’s also the fact that even if he signed it, congress wouldn’t really play a part in what comes next. It would get struck down by the courts, make its way to the Supreme Court, and then who the fuck knows.

    Now, do I think the republican majority congress would actually stop it if given the choice? Not likely.

  • Most kids phones are hand me downs from parents these days. At least they were with my kids other than the first line purchase, and most of their friends. A 6 year old with an iPhone 11 wouldn’t be that weird.

  • The only one I turned off was the sidebar, because that’s kinda dumb. The rest seem semi useful.

  • Eh… I have mixed feelings on that.

    Firstly, I don’t think his position made him a monster. I absolutely think it made it easier to become one, but there are plenty of opportunistic pedophiles who aren’t princes. In fact I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say the vast majority aren’t princes

    Secondly, correct me if I’m wrong but hasn’t the majority of his privilege been stripped from him? Yeah, he can still visit royal places and such, but doesn’t he have about the same “power” as an in law or something?

    There’s also the question of if the monarchy enabled his actions. Though, again I admit they may not have done enough after learning of his actions.

    As a Canadian who never really paid attention to British royalty, this feels a lot like blaming a family for one member committing a mass murder. But that could just be a lack of understanding on my part.

  • Lmao, semi common design mistake? MUST BE INTENTIONAL!

  • Feels like you’re splitting moral hairs. “I hope their kids die, and it’s okay because I’m not the one killing them.”

  • Hey man, if you don’t mind killing children I’d say that makes you just as bad as them, but you do you I suppose.

  • Are you also for punishing children for the crimes of their parents? What about making a child pay for their parents debts?

  • No? Don’t punish the children for their fathers idiocy.

  • I’m sorry, but paying a third party subscription for a janky solution isn’t “incredible”.

  • Voyager @lemmy.world

    Issues with iOS 26 B1