Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only that some people will be worried perhaps but also how tawdry such things have become when they're less about the victims and more about the politics of doing damage on 'them'.." Agreed. It feels like it’s increasingly commonplace that people seek vindication for their political choices over justice. I don’t think the world’s getting any better for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? " Ia it photoshopped or real ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ?" Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? " The photo on the BBC news website just shows trump looking like Trump and Epstein with a smile on his face.. That you could infer he looks like a rat and it's deliberate etc might be biased yes.. Tbh how they look is sort of irrelevant given most people's perception is already set in stone whichever way they think.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. " Surely your own earlier response is the same  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same "Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice. "The very same photos have been in the media numerous times 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would an innocent man like trump concern himself with others who would be implicated by releasing the files if they proved his total innocence?" Releasing the files wouldn't prove anyone's innocence. Even if there's nothing in them, people will believe that there are some files hidden away that haven't been released, and that Trump is covering it up. "He doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone so in my opinion he's protecting himself by not releasing the files and im pretty sure I'm not alone" The files were available to Biden when he was in office. If there was anything interesting about Trump in the files, Biden would have released it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...and there will now be a House vote on whether or not to release the Epstein files. Should be interesting to see who votes how... And whether any veto is used. What's crass is the politicians saying "this is about justice for the victims" - it's nothing of the sort, for any of them."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice. "'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease.."I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump will " it's fake news" his way out of it claiming he is the bestest most honourable greatest president ever yes ever. " Of course  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..
I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind "As i pointed out the picture on the main BBC news website showed a normal (none ratty) looking Trump and Epstein.. If someone is determined to confirm their bias then they will do as you did and search out an image to do that.. Which is of course your absolute prerogative. The real story in all this is the victims of course.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The real story in all this is the victims of course.." No, it really isn't. It's the sordid and evil shenanigans that manifest in the corridors of power. The victims should not be the story, unless they specifically want to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The real story in all this is the victims of course.. No, it really isn't. It's the sordid and evil shenanigans that manifest in the corridors of power. The victims should not be the story, unless they specifically want to be." The fact is and absolutely the wishes of the victims must be front and centre in anything, but they have been turned into a reason to savage others politically.. It's dragging on and on as it's now just something to hit out with and for them it only reminds them every time some side wants to sling mud.. Fully agree that it's the system but at the heart of it is power and the abuse by some, not just in politics nor exclusive to the States.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it weird when he was about to sue the BBC Someone is playing chess" Is what weird? That they like literally every major media organisation in most of the world ran with the emails..? If they didn't do so that's a failure and would be highlighted by those who want to destroy the model and sign everyone up to pay for such things.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it weird when he was about to sue the BBC Someone is playing chess" The democrats and republicans care that much about the BBC, so as to time the release of the documents accordingly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..
I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind
As i pointed out the picture on the main BBC news website showed a normal (none ratty) looking Trump and Epstein..
If someone is determined to confirm their bias then they will do as you did and search out an image to do that..
Which is of course your absolute prerogative.
The real story in all this is the victims of course.."The reporting isn't about the victims though, and that is the point I'm making. The media are setting this up to play out like scenes from a movie, that they control, with the BBC also on that bandwagon. The reality is they don't control the story, they are being played by democrats and republicans a like. The Epstein files have been made out to be something huge, something that holds all the secrets to the sordid world of crooked politicians and movie stars. Are they really going to be that or are they likely to only prove that some who said they hadn't been to his parties actually did, or those that said they cut ties with him never did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..
I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind
As i pointed out the picture on the main BBC news website showed a normal (none ratty) looking Trump and Epstein..
If someone is determined to confirm their bias then they will do as you did and search out an image to do that..
Which is of course your absolute prerogative.
The real story in all this is the victims of course..
The reporting isn't about the victims though, and that is the point I'm making. The media are setting this up to play out like scenes from a movie, that they control, with the BBC also on that bandwagon. The reality is they don't control the story, they are being played by democrats and republicans a like.
The Epstein files have been made out to be something huge, something that holds all the secrets to the sordid world of crooked politicians and movie stars. Are they really going to be that or are they likely to only prove that some who said they hadn't been to his parties actually did, or those that said they cut ties with him never did.
"That's a strange take on what is essentially an ongoing story because the continual drip drip of material is only down to the Reps/Dems not the a tusk media.. Don't agree that the media (and the BBC who seem to be living in your head) can in any way be setting it up like a movie when they are responding to the releases.. They're not huge I'll grant you that, not quite Watergate possibly yet but who knows what else is in there.. That's not a conspiratorial point of view either, we know that all states lock away evidence that they don't want the public to know.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...and there will now be a House vote on whether or not to release the Epstein files. Should be interesting to see who votes how... And whether any veto is used. What's crass is the politicians saying "this is about justice for the victims" - it's nothing of the sort, for any of them." They had been putting that vote for 50 days by refusing to swear in the democrat who won the special election.. they claimed they couldn’t because of the shutdown even though they swore in 2 republicans in the shutdown before… Anyway they needed 218 votes.. at the moment it’s 214 democrats plus 4 republicans (Thomas massie, Lauren bobert, MTG and nancy grace) let’s see if the republicans manage to strong arm one of the ladies into backing out…. It won’t be massie as he is the co-signer, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"...and there will now be a House vote on whether or not to release the Epstein files. Should be interesting to see who votes how... And whether any veto is used. What's crass is the politicians saying "this is about justice for the victims" - it's nothing of the sort, for any of them. They had been putting that vote for 50 days by refusing to swear in the democrat who won the special election.. they claimed they couldn’t because of the shutdown even though they swore in 2 republicans in the shutdown before… Anyway they needed 218 votes.. at the moment it’s 214 democrats plus 4 republicans (Thomas massie, Lauren bobert, MTG and nancy grace) let’s see if the republicans manage to strong arm one of the ladies into backing out…. It won’t be massie as he is the co-signer, " Sorry… meant 318 not 218 and the dems have 314 not 214 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would an innocent man like trump concern himself with others who would be implicated by releasing the files if they proved his total innocence? Releasing the files wouldn't prove anyone's innocence. Even if there's nothing in them, people will believe that there are some files hidden away that haven't been released, and that Trump is covering it up. He doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone so in my opinion he's protecting himself by not releasing the files and im pretty sure I'm not alone The files were available to Biden when he was in office. If there was anything interesting about Trump in the files, Biden would have released it." Fair enough, but why wouldn't trump just say ok release them ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..
I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind
As i pointed out the picture on the main BBC news website showed a normal (none ratty) looking Trump and Epstein..
If someone is determined to confirm their bias then they will do as you did and search out an image to do that..
Which is of course your absolute prerogative.
The real story in all this is the victims of course..
The reporting isn't about the victims though, and that is the point I'm making. The media are setting this up to play out like scenes from a movie, that they control, with the BBC also on that bandwagon. The reality is they don't control the story, they are being played by democrats and republicans a like.
The Epstein files have been made out to be something huge, something that holds all the secrets to the sordid world of crooked politicians and movie stars. Are they really going to be that or are they likely to only prove that some who said they hadn't been to his parties actually did, or those that said they cut ties with him never did.
That's a strange take on what is essentially an ongoing story because the continual drip drip of material is only down to the Reps/Dems not the a tusk media..
Don't agree that the media (and the BBC who seem to be living in your head) can in any way be setting it up like a movie when they are responding to the releases..
They're not huge I'll grant you that, not quite Watergate possibly yet but who knows what else is in there..
That's not a conspiratorial point of view either, we know that all states lock away evidence that they don't want the public to know.."With Trump everything is a distraction until it’s usefulness is used up… I just think if he gets desperate and can’t find any more distractions that’s the time he will attack Venezuela…. Or send a massive provocation of ice agents into a specific city… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They had been putting that vote for 50 days by refusing to swear in the democrat who won the special election.. they claimed they couldn’t because of the shutdown even though they swore in 2 republicans in the shutdown before…" That was actually a disgusting vandalism of democracy itself. As was this most recent stupid, but customary, shutdown. US politics is generally robust, but it really needs an overhaul. Filibuster, shutdown, abuse of process, PACs, corrupt senators with conflicting business interests and investments... It all stinks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My thoughts on BBC news online reporting of the Epstein Files. Do they ever learn? Right now on BBC news site, under "LIVE", there is a photo of Trump that makes him look like a rat, badly timed photo, next to a photo of Epstein with the smuggest of grins. Click into the piece and the banner is trump looking worried. Do they ever learn, or is it me looking at this in biased way and the BBC are being genuine? Ia it photoshopped or real ? Your response highlights perfectly the reason media outlets are rage baiting, they have the audience. Surely your own earlier response is the same
Possibly, and not ruling it out. However, the photos of Trump the BBC used, amongst the tens of thousands they have access to makes me feel uneasy in their choice.
'points of view' is still an option to assuage your unease..
I'm aware enough to notice the images caused a reaction, that is why I said is it my bias. My bias will be with the BBC, not Trump, and if I'm questioning their motives others will be. It would have been so much wiser to add images of Trump that didn't cause a reaction and flatten the curve, but it is the BBC who have an axe to grind
As i pointed out the picture on the main BBC news website showed a normal (none ratty) looking Trump and Epstein..
If someone is determined to confirm their bias then they will do as you did and search out an image to do that..
Which is of course your absolute prerogative.
The real story in all this is the victims of course..
The reporting isn't about the victims though, and that is the point I'm making. The media are setting this up to play out like scenes from a movie, that they control, with the BBC also on that bandwagon. The reality is they don't control the story, they are being played by democrats and republicans a like.
The Epstein files have been made out to be something huge, something that holds all the secrets to the sordid world of crooked politicians and movie stars. Are they really going to be that or are they likely to only prove that some who said they hadn't been to his parties actually did, or those that said they cut ties with him never did.
That's a strange take on what is essentially an ongoing story because the continual drip drip of material is only down to the Reps/Dems not the a tusk media..
Don't agree that the media (and the BBC who seem to be living in your head) can in any way be setting it up like a movie when they are responding to the releases..
They're not huge I'll grant you that, not quite Watergate possibly yet but who knows what else is in there..
That's not a conspiratorial point of view either, we know that all states lock away evidence that they don't want the public to know.."BBC are not living in my head LOL, they are just front and centre of noise they are creating recently.. Drip feeding the thirsty is the story, what more do we expect from these files? If there was law breaking that could be proved it would be out now, guilty by association is what is being played out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...?" trump is not only a confirmed pedophile, but also the least popular among them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...? trump is not only a confirmed pedophile, but also the least popular among them." Where was that confirmed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...? trump is not only a confirmed pedophile, but also the least popular among them. Where was that confirmed? " There are some interesting titbit I don’t think the republicans realised they were releasing An email from Epstein where he claims bill Clinton never visited the island Epstein saying he spent thanksgiving 2017 with Trump… interesting because that would be in year 1 of the trump presidency, and trump claiming he hadn’t spoken to Epstein since 2004! Epstein calling Trump a nasty piece of work Epstein consulting the Russians on how to deal with Trump | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...? trump is not only a confirmed pedophile, but also the least popular among them." What's your source for this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...? trump is not only a confirmed pedophile, but also the least popular among them. Where was that confirmed? There are some interesting titbit I don’t think the republicans realised they were releasing An email from Epstein where he claims bill Clinton never visited the island Epstein saying he spent thanksgiving 2017 with Trump… interesting because that would be in year 1 of the trump presidency, and trump claiming he hadn’t spoken to Epstein since 2004! Epstein calling Trump a nasty piece of work Epstein consulting the Russians on how to deal with Trump " Maybe like him who once was a Prince Trump has memory issues.. Epstein says in 2018 that he could bring Trump down then dies in 2019.. At least he didn't fall from a hotel balcony.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If it gets to the point where trump personally vetoes publication of the files would be wild " Tesco, Magnit, Walmart and Schwartz would all run out of popcorn 🍿. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s now basically a mini bill… The funny thing about this is this is just step one… republicans are twisting in the wind… the White House ordered Lauren bobert and Nancy Grace in to try and strong arm them in changing their votes The speaker tried to put this through as a UC (uncontested) which means it would just go through on a nod… but the democrats shot that down mean that every single member is going to be on the record either yes or no on releasing them After the house.. it would go to the senate.. because it’s not money raising the filibuster rules would not apply.. which would mean it would just need a majority.. It would mean that 4 senate republicans would need to vote against trump to release And then if it passes that… it goes to the president’s desk… he can either sign it, or veto it If it gets to the point where trump personally vetoes publication of the files would be wild " As I understand this, the Epstein files are court documents, court evidence, that is sealed under existing laws to protect victims and people who are named and have no connection to wrongdoing. The evidence has been through courts, prosecutors and used to charge Epstein, if there was criminal activity in that information wouldn't it have been used to prosecute others? This isn't documents under one sitting POTUS, this has been going on for an age. Is it the association that is in question, or is there a real hope that Trump will be found to have been documented as wrongdoing that is driving the frenzy over these documents? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s now basically a mini bill… The funny thing about this is this is just step one… republicans are twisting in the wind… the White House ordered Lauren bobert and Nancy Grace in to try and strong arm them in changing their votes The speaker tried to put this through as a UC (uncontested) which means it would just go through on a nod… but the democrats shot that down mean that every single member is going to be on the record either yes or no on releasing them After the house.. it would go to the senate.. because it’s not money raising the filibuster rules would not apply.. which would mean it would just need a majority.. It would mean that 4 senate republicans would need to vote against trump to release And then if it passes that… it goes to the president’s desk… he can either sign it, or veto it If it gets to the point where trump personally vetoes publication of the files would be wild As I understand this, the Epstein files are court documents, court evidence, that is sealed under existing laws to protect victims and people who are named and have no connection to wrongdoing. The evidence has been through courts, prosecutors and used to charge Epstein, if there was criminal activity in that information wouldn't it have been used to prosecute others? This isn't documents under one sitting POTUS, this has been going on for an age. Is it the association that is in question, or is there a real hope that Trump will be found to have been documented as wrongdoing that is driving the frenzy over these documents? " DOJ can actually release the Epstein files if they want and redact the names of the victims That is actually what the democrats on the oversight committee did yesterday with the files they published that were directly subpoenaed from the Epstein estate (that is how we found out about the birthday book) It was the republicans on the oversight committees that released everything unreleased the documents yesterday unredacted which is how we found out yesterday that one of the trump emails related to Virginia dufree The media have done a good job so far of not releasing the names of any of the other victims… So DOJ can release the files if they want to but decided not to… so which this whole thing is is a bill called the “release the Epstein files act” , it basically compels the DOJ to release all the information, but redacting the victims names Because it’s a bill.. it needs to pass both house and senate… the house part looks like that is now going to be next week It will be interesting to see what happens when it gets to the senate… the leader of the senate doesn’t have to bring it up for a vote (which is what the White House will pressure him not to) Problem for Trump is that there are 13 republicans senators up for reelection in 2026.. plus a couple that are retiring, and if they vote no… that’s a lot of pressure… Susan Collins in Maine, Tom tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, plus some very moderate Republicans.. Lisa murkowski in Alaska, rand Paul in Kentucky.. even Mitch McConnell in Kentucky You only need 4 republicans.. again no one is going to be on the record voting no or they will upset their own base So the bill gets to trump’s desk… he can sign it and it’s out of his hands or he can veto it, in which case trump will have to own that he is the single person who stopped the release There is an option where the senate can bail trump out but I don’t think they are that smart (enough republicans vote to release the files in which case it would be veto proof so Trump hands are clean) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The orange cunt will huff and puff and find someone to sue ...Again " seek help, your hatred is very toxic. Do you have the hate for starmer, where the leader of the country actually affects you. Or you just hate the ones the bbc tells you to hate? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s now basically a mini bill… The funny thing about this is this is just step one… republicans are twisting in the wind… the White House ordered Lauren bobert and Nancy Grace in to try and strong arm them in changing their votes The speaker tried to put this through as a UC (uncontested) which means it would just go through on a nod… but the democrats shot that down mean that every single member is going to be on the record either yes or no on releasing them After the house.. it would go to the senate.. because it’s not money raising the filibuster rules would not apply.. which would mean it would just need a majority.. It would mean that 4 senate republicans would need to vote against trump to release And then if it passes that… it goes to the president’s desk… he can either sign it, or veto it If it gets to the point where trump personally vetoes publication of the files would be wild As I understand this, the Epstein files are court documents, court evidence, that is sealed under existing laws to protect victims and people who are named and have no connection to wrongdoing. The evidence has been through courts, prosecutors and used to charge Epstein, if there was criminal activity in that information wouldn't it have been used to prosecute others? This isn't documents under one sitting POTUS, this has been going on for an age. Is it the association that is in question, or is there a real hope that Trump will be found to have been documented as wrongdoing that is driving the frenzy over these documents? DOJ can actually release the Epstein files if they want and redact the names of the victims That is actually what the democrats on the oversight committee did yesterday with the files they published that were directly subpoenaed from the Epstein estate (that is how we found out about the birthday book) It was the republicans on the oversight committees that released everything unreleased the documents yesterday unredacted which is how we found out yesterday that one of the trump emails related to Virginia dufree The media have done a good job so far of not releasing the names of any of the other victims… So DOJ can release the files if they want to but decided not to… so which this whole thing is is a bill called the “release the Epstein files act” , it basically compels the DOJ to release all the information, but redacting the victims names Because it’s a bill.. it needs to pass both house and senate… the house part looks like that is now going to be next week It will be interesting to see what happens when it gets to the senate… the leader of the senate doesn’t have to bring it up for a vote (which is what the White House will pressure him not to) Problem for Trump is that there are 13 republicans senators up for reelection in 2026.. plus a couple that are retiring, and if they vote no… that’s a lot of pressure… Susan Collins in Maine, Tom tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, plus some very moderate Republicans.. Lisa murkowski in Alaska, rand Paul in Kentucky.. even Mitch McConnell in Kentucky You only need 4 republicans.. again no one is going to be on the record voting no or they will upset their own base So the bill gets to trump’s desk… he can sign it and it’s out of his hands or he can veto it, in which case trump will have to own that he is the single person who stopped the release There is an option where the senate can bail trump out but I don’t think they are that smart (enough republicans vote to release the files in which case it would be veto proof so Trump hands are clean) " I feel US political processes to be on par with UK tax rules, but hey it is what it is. Is it in the interest of the US public that these files are released, or is it a push to get them released in the hope to nail Trump? Do you see what I'm getting at, where is the pressure coming from for these legal documents to be unsealed? They are sealed as part of the process, not to hide information but to protect the victims. Is that correct or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Did Trump himself abuse the girls? Epstein mentions that Trump spent hours with one of the victims. Not sure if that's good enough to implicate him in a court." It completely exonerates Trump. If it lasted more than 5 minutes, it would not have been sexual contact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Did Trump himself abuse the girls? Epstein mentions that Trump spent hours with one of the victims. Not sure if that's good enough to implicate him in a court. It completely exonerates Trump. If it lasted more than 5 minutes, it would not have been sexual contact." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tried reading various bits published online. I think there is enough in it to show that Trump knew what was going on. Did Trump himself abuse the girls? Epstein mentions that Trump spent hours with one of the victims. Not sure if that's good enough to implicate him in a court. If all the files are published, it is bound to take down lots of powerful people around the world in both sides of politics. I don't think Democrats will come out of it in a good way either. They haven't been published to protect victim privacy which I understand. But there must be some way to publish it after redacting information about victims. I personally hope they publish it." What information do you think is in these legal documents that have been shared with courts, prosecutors, defence lawyers, jurors and victims? What are people concerned about? Is it a government cover up and the legal documents contain enough info to convict others, but no other agency who had access wanted to prosecute over a 20 year period, and multiple presidents? I feel out of step on this and no matter how much I try to understand the frenzy over the release of the information I just don't see anything other than association being the outcome. There was a comment that Trump said he hadn't spoke to Epstein since date X and an email indicated he had been in contact years later, what does that prove other than they are liars, which we know, and they associated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What are people concerned about? Is it a government cover up and the legal documents contain enough info to convict others, but no other agency who had access wanted to prosecute over a 20 year period, and multiple presidents? " Yes, that's the concern. There is a good chance that it is a government cover up because politicians from both sides are implicated. Not to mention more powerful people from different countries. People have a reason to be cynical here considering the circumstances in which Epstein died. Also, why did the Democrats release just parts of the files and why only now? It looks like they got desperate. Sure we may not have enough evidence to convict someone for the abuse itself. But we may find out that many knew what was happening and kept silent about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What are people concerned about?" It's just a modern day witch hunt. Last century it was Satanic Ritual Abuse, this century it's the Powerful Political People Paedo Problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The orange cunt will huff and puff and find someone to sue ...Again seek help, your hatred is very toxic. Do you have the hate for starmer, where the leader of the country actually affects you. Or you just hate the ones the bbc tells you to hate?" If you don't like it free to scroll past 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The orange cunt will huff and puff and find someone to sue ...Again seek help, your hatred is very toxic. Do you have the hate for starmer, where the leader of the country actually affects you. Or you just hate the ones the bbc tells you to hate?" Anyone who cheats at golf deserves all the hatred he gets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When the vote happens in the house on Tuesday there are 2 numbers just to keep an eye on … If the vote gets to 218, the motion (bill) will pass.. and it then goes on to the senate If the vote gets to 290, the motion will have a veto proof majority… which means if the senate did the same thing, then there is nothing trump could do to stop it if it gets to his desk " I do appreciate these insights, the nuances in US political processes are minefield, well for me they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...?" There will be nothing of great interest as they said they will release the "non classified" files. It is the classified ones that we all want to see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any conspiracy theorist would wonder if he’s managed to get the FBI to hide sorry make top secret files related to him after he asked them to investigate the democrats like Clinton etc mentioned in them . "after everything the democrats tried to stop him running again why didnt they release the files it would of finished trump, there could be a couple of reasins why they didnt 1: there isnt anything to incriminate trump or 2:they didnt release them as there are top people from both partys and other very powefull figures in those lists, my money is on number 2 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump now branding his biggest cheerleader, Marjorie Taylor Greene, as a traitor for her repeated calls for release of all the Epstein files. Her now claiming that she has now been subjected to a pipe bomb threat and pizza doxxing. With Laura Loomer another Trump brown noser claiming that MTG has made up these threats. Is this now a case of the MAGA gang starting to eat itself? As often happens in authoritarian and cult of leadership regimes." A couple of things… the split between Trump and MTG is interesting because the don’t actually disagree on much, it just happens to be the biggest issues… Epstein, healthcare, American foreign policy on bombing and intimidating other countries, dropping the ball on concentrating of domestic economy So making an example of her to show others what will happen was the game plan But because everyone’s name will be on the record as to which way they vote knows it will be held against them in the midterms I think a lot of republicans were going to vote for releasing the files that it would make Trump look super weak, which is why this morning he did a 180 and suggested republicans should vote to release (kinda ignoring he could tell the DOJ to release them anyway!) I think the gameplan now is defeat in the house and apply loads of pressure for the senate to not take up any vote … knowing in the senate it would take 67 votes to veto proof it and take it out of his hands… that would take 20 republicans to flip Otherwise… it passes in the senate and Trump vetos it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit " He's everything that's wrong with the world today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. " you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years" In some ways perhaps but he's the only one who has served at that level who has mocked a disabled person, spoken about 'grabbing them by the pussy' and has a track record on racist views and words .. And such shitty views can't be levelled at anyone who has held the highest office in this country (not even Boris) nor trump's predecessors in office.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years" please don't make excuses for him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years please don't make excuses for him. " Besides I'd like to believe that Obama was a honourable decent man. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump has dug himself a hole that he can't get out of. First saying he wanted the files released, then saying he didn't want them released, now saying he does want them released. Let's say the files are released and there's nothing serious that damages Trump in them. Then people will simply say that the only files that have been released are the "unclassified" ones and that there's been a massive cover up. And given that he's appointed sychophants who will do his bidding into virtually every corner of the political system then even if in reality it's just a conspiracy theory, it's one that will have legs for decades to come." Well guaranteed that anything that incriminates him has long been deleted from history by the time it goes public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any conspiracy theorist would wonder if he’s managed to get the FBI to hide sorry make top secret files related to him after he asked them to investigate the democrats like Clinton etc mentioned in them . "Just seen this…. There maybe a sinister backstop being set up here Backstory time… literally just in July when they were last asked to look into people the DOJ said there was nothing they could find in evidence to prosecute any named 3rd persons in the documents…. So by Trump demand the DOJ yet again investigate just these democratic figures… and the DOJ swiftly bowing to his orders… what could happen is that if the bill were to get to his desk and he couldn’t veto it, the DOJ could then stop any release of files due to it “conflicting with an ongoing investigation “ But we shall see what happens tomorrow.. and then it becomes the senate’s issue | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Any conspiracy theorist would wonder if he’s managed to get the FBI to hide sorry make top secret files related to him after he asked them to investigate the democrats like Clinton etc mentioned in them .
Just seen this…. There maybe a sinister backstop being set up here
Backstory time… literally just in July when they were last asked to look into people the DOJ said there was nothing they could find in evidence to prosecute any named 3rd persons in the documents….
So by Trump demand the DOJ yet again investigate just these democratic figures… and the DOJ swiftly bowing to his orders… what could happen is that if the bill were to get to his desk and he couldn’t veto it, the DOJ could then stop any release of files due to it “conflicting with an ongoing investigation “
But we shall see what happens tomorrow.. and then it becomes the senate’s issue
"I'm starting to wonder if we should be calling him Teflon Trump? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years In some ways perhaps but he's the only one who has served at that level who has mocked a disabled person, spoken about 'grabbing them by the pussy' and has a track record on racist views and words .. And such shitty views can't be levelled at anyone who has held the highest office in this country (not even Boris) nor trump's predecessors in office.. " I think you give Boris an easy ride when it comes to Trump... Boris has been accused of groping a woman, which of course he denies. He has 9 children that we know about, and plenty of affairs. He has said racist comments on more than a few occasions, far more direct than Trump and Farage and disparaging comments about people is his calling card. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you give Boris an easy ride when it comes to Trump... Boris has been accused of groping a woman, which of course he denies. He has 9 children that we know about, and plenty of affairs. He has said racist comments on more than a few occasions, far more direct than Trump and Farage and disparaging comments about people is his calling card." Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years In some ways perhaps but he's the only one who has served at that level who has mocked a disabled person, spoken about 'grabbing them by the pussy' and has a track record on racist views and words .. And such shitty views can't be levelled at anyone who has held the highest office in this country (not even Boris) nor trump's predecessors in office.. I think you give Boris an easy ride when it comes to Trump... Boris has been accused of groping a woman, which of course he denies. He has 9 children that we know about, and plenty of affairs. He has said racist comments on more than a few occasions, far more direct than Trump and Farage and disparaging comments about people is his calling card. " I wasn't going to list all of Boris's previous tbh.. Not sure why you've dragged Farage into the mix ? Unless by mentioning him against the other two your seeking to make him look like a 'decent fellow '.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I just re-read an old 2016 report on the Central Park Five. Google Guardian Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue. It's worth reading to see how little Trump has changed since the 1980's." Which part of his ad was racist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which part of his ad was racist?" I didn't say it was, but I don't think his ads were about the two men who r*ped a black women on the same day and threw her off the roof of a four-storey building, but maybe you think it was? Everyone knew who the targets of the ads calling for executions were and Trump has never claimed otherwise. Indeed even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent he was unapologetic and called the $41 million settlement the heist of the century. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which part of his ad was racist? I didn't say it was, but I don't think his ads were about the two men who r*ped a black women on the same day and threw her off the roof of a four-storey building, but maybe you think it was? Everyone knew who the targets of the ads calling for executions were and Trump has never claimed otherwise. Indeed even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent he was unapologetic and called the $41 million settlement the heist of the century. " As an aside trump has never apologised either even though they were unequivocally found innocent But if you want other examples of trump being close to the line, you could always go back to the point where Donald and the family business allegedly not renting to people of colour in New York City | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which part of his ad was racist? I didn't say it was, but I don't think his ads were about the two men who r*ped a black women on the same day and threw her off the roof of a four-storey building, but maybe you think it was? Everyone knew who the targets of the ads calling for executions were and Trump has never claimed otherwise. Indeed even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent he was unapologetic and called the $41 million settlement the heist of the century. " You specifically called out the race of the teenagers in your previous post replying to a post saying that Boris Johnson was a racist. If it's not racist, the only problem with his ad was his support for death penalty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You specifically called out the race of the teenagers in your previous post replying to a post saying that Boris Johnson was a racist. If it's not racist, the only problem with his ad was his support for death penalty." I try to use language carefully. I said that I didn't say the ads were racist. That's not the same as saying that Trump's motivation in paying for them wasn't to stir up racist sentiment. I think he may be slightly racist but it's not a fundamental aspect of his personality. From what I can see he doesn't give a damn about anyone other than himself so the ethnicity of others probably doesn't matter that much to him. So calling him a racist is kind of redundant. But I suspect he knows that some of his supporters are racist so he plays to their sentiments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You specifically called out the race of the teenagers in your previous post replying to a post saying that Boris Johnson was a racist. If it's not racist, the only problem with his ad was his support for death penalty. I try to use language carefully. I said that I didn't say the ads were racist. That's not the same as saying that Trump's motivation in paying for them wasn't to stir up racist sentiment. I think he may be slightly racist but it's not a fundamental aspect of his personality. From what I can see he doesn't give a damn about anyone other than himself so the ethnicity of others probably doesn't matter that much to him. So calling him a racist is kind of redundant. But I suspect he knows that some of his supporters are racist so he plays to their sentiments. " Ok, so the ad wasn't racist but it appeals to "racist sentiments"? Did you read the contents of the ad? What makes you think that it appeals to racist sentiments? In fact, he clearly says, "Many New York families - White, Black, Hispanic and Asian - have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the park at dusk". No part of the ad seems to have anything that stirs up racial sentiment. If it's not racist, how does this ad make him worse compared to Boris Johnson? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok, so the ad wasn't racist but it appeals to "racist sentiments"? Did you read the contents of the ad? What makes you think that it appeals to racist sentiments? In fact, he clearly says, "Many New York families - White, Black, Hispanic and Asian - have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the park at dusk". No part of the ad seems to have anything that stirs up racial sentiment. If it's not racist, how does this ad make him worse compared to Boris Johnson?" Perhaps if you read my words more carefully you'd understand what I say. Let's look at some of his more recent appeals to racism... There are good and bad on both sides - where one side were neo-Nazi white supremacists. They are eating the dogs and the cats. They are poisoning the blood of our nation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Perhaps if you read my words more carefully you'd understand what I say. Let's look at some of his more recent appeals to racism... There are good and bad on both sides - where one side were neo-Nazi white supremacists. They are eating the dogs and the cats. They are poisoning the blood of our nation. " You responded to a post comparing Boris Johnson and Trump saying, "Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers." These were your words. And now you are claiming that the ad was not racist. So how does that ad make him worse compared to Boris Johnson? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...?" i bet trump has had a lot of people going through them all to remove any link with him,,, now he know they have all been remove and replaces his rivals he is happy to release them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well. Politics just got interesting again. Any thoughts, as we digest the 20,000 pages released by republicans...? i bet trump has had a lot of people going through them all to remove any link with him,,, now he know they have all been remove and replaces his rivals he is happy to release them "They're nearly finished, they started in January | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You responded to a post comparing Boris Johnson and Trump saying, "Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers." These were your words. And now you are claiming that the ad was not racist. So how does that ad make him worse compared to Boris Johnson?" I'm not going to repeat myself or rephrase things just because you have poor comprehension skills. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as I hear Epstien I switch off. I wouldn't be surprised it's all a hoax orchestrated by Ghislaine to sell books interviews and news stories, after all she is the daughter of a media mogul. She knows what sells news. Epstien looks boring and his exploits sound boring. No doubt a movie will be out in a couple of years too. Zzzzzzzz. " And yet here you are replying 🤷♂️ And "boring" ? "Boring" seems to affected the lives of many young girls at least one of whom committed suicide | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You responded to a post comparing Boris Johnson and Trump saying, "Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers." These were your words. And now you are claiming that the ad was not racist. So how does that ad make him worse compared to Boris Johnson?" "I'm not going to repeat myself or rephrase things just because you have poor comprehension skills." It's not down to his comprehension skills, it's down to your inability to spot the logical inconsistencies in your own argument. You stated earlier on that you "try to use language carefully", and yet you describe Trump's advert as a "full page ad calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". It wasn't that at all. The ad called for the enforcement of the death penalty, and it went out of its way to say that all races were being affected by violent crime. And you posted that example as a rebuttal to someone saying that Boris Johnson could be considered racist. If you weren't using it as an example of how much more racist Trump is, then your post makes no sense at all. For you to now claim that your post wasn't about race is disingenuous at best. To further claim that someone has been 'reading it wrong' smacks of desperation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As soon as I hear Epstien I switch off. I wouldn't be surprised it's all a hoax orchestrated by Ghislaine to sell books interviews and news stories, after all she is the daughter of a media mogul. She knows what sells news. Epstien looks boring and his exploits sound boring. No doubt a movie will be out in a couple of years too. Zzzzzzzz. " https://youtu.be/FEz_Yoa1QCE?feature=shared You really need to hang your head in shame….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For you to now claim that your post wasn't about race is disingenuous at best. To further claim that someone has been 'reading it wrong' smacks of desperation." It seems you have poor comprehension skills too. I did not claim that my post wasn't about race. Go back and read my posts with greater care and you'll see that I was explaining that there is a difference between ads being overtly racist and the purpose of the ads. Do you really think the ads were just some coincidental abstract campaign promotiing the death penalty? Even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent Trump complained about the compensation they received. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I did not claim that my post wasn't about race." No, but you did distance yourself from the claim that the ad was racist, which rather defeats the point of your using it as an example of racism. "Go back and read my posts with greater care and you'll see that I was explaining that there is a difference between ads being overtly racist and the purpose of the ads." I got that the first time round. But you were using the ad as an example of Trump being racist, which it isn't. "Do you really think the ads were just some coincidental abstract campaign promotiing the death penalty?" I think the ad was Trump's way oh having a go at mayor Koch, who he didn't like, as well as gaining some popularity points by exploiting a recent tragedy. "Even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent Trump complained about the compensation they received." Now you're trying to add extra credibility to your claim that the ad was racist by adding something that happened after the event without enough context for anyone else to make a reasoned decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you really think the ads were just some coincidental abstract campaign promotiing the death penalty? I think the ad was Trump's way oh having a go at mayor Koch, who he didn't like, as well as gaining some popularity points by exploiting a recent tragedy. Even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent Trump complained about the compensation they received. Now you're trying to add extra credibility to your claim that the ad was racist by adding something that happened after the event without enough context for anyone else to make a reasoned decision. " I might be able to add a little bit so here it is … if it helps Crime had been on the rise in Central Park , five black boys were accused of the sexual assault of a white girl, the boys initially claimed and insisted they were not in the park, the boys were held in self containment by the NYPD , and under duress eventually “confessed” to the crime At the trial the boys rescinded the confessions…. Boys were found guilty even though they were professing their innocence Later it was found that they DNA was never found near or on the victim, and another person who was a serial offender admitted to the crime, their DNA was found at the scene their convictions were eventually quashed and they were found completely innocent of the charges They eventually got 45 million dollars between them in compensation from the city of New York and the NYPD Donald Trump put a full length ad in the New York daily news basically calling for the death penalty So the fact that the 5 were found innocent AND the true criminal was found… and Donald Trump to this day still refuses to give them an apology Hope that helps for context….. back to Epstein! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I might be able to add a little bit so here it is …" Thanks for the summary. But the point here is that in 1989 an horrific crime was committed. After some people were arrested Donald Trump took out an advert calling for the death penalty. He didn't mention the names or the ethnicity of the attackers. Indeed he didn't even mention a specific crime, though the timing makes it easy to determine what the trigger was. Someone above tried to use this as an example of Trump's racism, saying that he "paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". That's a gross mischaracterisation of what actually happened. Calling for the death penalty to be applied is viewed dimly over here, but in the US it's a fairly standard viewpoint. Decades later the people convicted were found to be innocent. Trump refused to apologise for his ad on the reasonable grounds that he didn't know they were innocent at the time, and that he hadn't aimed it at anyone specific. The guy above is trying to use that as more proof that Trump is racist, when all it demonstrates is that Trump is a dick who never apologises for anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He didn't mention the names or the ethnicity of the attackers. Indeed he didn't even mention a specific crime, though the timing makes it easy to determine what the trigger was." So you know that the ads were referring to this specific case. "Someone above tried to use this as an example of Trump's racism, saying that he "paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". That's a gross mischaracterisation of what actually happened." No it's not. You've already admitted that the ads were referring to this specific case. And as I've explained several times the ads themselves were't overtly racist but they were intended to stoke racist sentiment. "Trump refused to apologise for his ad on the reasonable grounds that he didn't know they were innocent at the time, and that he hadn't aimed it at anyone specific." But you've already admitted that the ads were referring to this specific case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Decades later the people convicted were found to be innocent. Trump refused to apologise for his ad on the reasonable grounds that he didn't know they were innocent at the time, and that he hadn't aimed it at anyone specific. The guy above is trying to use that as more proof that Trump is racist, when all it demonstrates is that Trump is a dick who never apologises for anything." It’s not that Trump has never apologised for the ad… if he feels that way about the death penalty that’s his opinion It’s the fact that trump has both refused to apologise for comments made about the Central Park 5… and criticised the compensation payments made to them, especially ironic since he is the first to sue anyone over anything! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You're contradicting yourself." Try reading more carefully. "He didn't mention the names or the ethnicity of the attackers. Indeed he didn't even mention a specific crime, though the timing makes it easy to determine what the trigger was." "So you know that the ads were referring to this specific case." No. My reading is that Trump was stating his long-held view that being tough on crime would be a good thing. That particular crime probably triggered him to make the ad, but the ad wasn't specifically about that one crime, or those specific defendants. "Someone above tried to use this as an example of Trump's racism, saying that he "paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". That's a gross mischaracterisation of what actually happened." "No it's not. ... " Yes it is. There's nothing in that ad which references black people or Hispanics or teenagers as the criminals. Nor us there anything to specifically link to that particular crime. The ad was calling for the execution of criminals, not specific groups. Claiming that the ad called for the execution of black people and Hispanics is just wild hyperbole. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s the fact that trump has both refused to apologise for comments made about the Central Park 5… and criticised the compensation payments made to them, especially ironic since he is the first to sue anyone over anything!" I've not seen any evidence of that, but I'll assume it's true. That makes Trump a horrible person, but that won't surprise anyone. It isn't proof that the ad was racist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So your argument is that it's easy to determine that this specific case triggered the ads but because the ads didn't explicitly state this then he wasn't calling for the execution of the people he believed were guilty in this specific case?" It's almost like you're deliberately failing to understand. My argument is that the specific case probably triggered the ad, but the ad wasn't about the specific case, it was a general call for tougher sentencing (as well as a dig at the mayor, who had been preaching leniency). I don't know the timing so I don't know if identities of suspects had been released when the ad was written. Assuming that they had, yes, Trump would have wanted the death penalty for them because he believed them to be criminals. That would also have been the case if they were white. Trump calling for the death penalty for violent criminals is not the same thing as Trump "calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem I have with your argument is that it's ignoring the fact that everyone understood that Trump was specifically calling for the execution of these black and hispanic teenagers and that Trump has never claimed otherwise." I'm not ignoring that 'fact', I'm just unaware of it. You've not mentioned it up to now, and you've not presented any evidence for it. Certainly the text of the ad on its own doesn't support that claim. Even if it's true that "everyone understood" that, your original statement is still overblown. Trump calling for the death penalty for people convicted of a violent crime is not the same thing as Trump calling for the general execution of black and Hispanic teenagers. "His ads didn't just pop up coincidentally and there's a long history of violent crime in New York. If he ever paid for ads calling for executions when crimes commited by white people were in the news then obviously my argument would fold but AFAIK he never has. He seems very selective about who commits crimes. Did he call for the white supremacist who murdered a protestor and injured 35 others at the Unite the Right rally to be executed?" Trump has only ever published this one ad. There have been plenty of other black or Hispanic criminals over the years, and Trump hasn't published a statement saying they should get the death penalty. I see the ad as being a one-off call for tougher sentencing that wasn't specific to any particular crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not ignoring that 'fact', I'm just unaware of it. You've not mentioned it up to now, and you've not presented any evidence for it. Certainly the text of the ad on its own doesn't support that claim." I brought it up about ten posts ago... "Everyone knew who the targets of the ads calling for executions were and Trump has never claimed otherwise. Indeed even when the Central Park Five were proven innocent he was unapologetic and called the $41 million settlement the heist of the century." "Even if it's true that "everyone understood" that, your original statement is still overblown. Trump calling for the death penalty for people convicted of a violent crime is not the same thing as Trump calling for the general execution of black and Hispanic teenagers." I didn't say it was a call for the general execution of black and hispanic teenagers. I've said repeatedly that it was a very specifc call. We are never going to agree on this, just like we'll never agree on Jan 6th or perhaps anything to do with Trump. You seem to think he's nothing more than a bit of a knob. I see him as a dangerous man who despite his lack of foresight, intellectual depth or planning abilities is enabling the far-right to advance in the US. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... we'll never agree on Jan 6th or perhaps anything to do with Trump. You seem to think he's nothing more than a bit of a knob. I see him as a dangerous man who despite his lack of foresight, intellectual depth or planning abilities is enabling the far-right to advance in the US." I think he's quite a lot of a knob (with none of the good bits of real knobs), as well as being a generally awful person. Yes he is moving things a bit to the right, but my belief is that he's going that way to chase the voters. He's not leading them to the right, he's following them over that way. Trump really doesn't care about skin colour, or immigration status. He's just using those issues to get attention. Those issues don't come from Trump, they were already there, but unacknowledged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I didn't say it was a call for the general execution of black and hispanic teenagers. I've said repeatedly that it was a very specifc call. " If we interpret it as a call for death penalty for a specific crime, how does that make him worse compared to Boris Johnson? Because you were using this as an example to show that Trump is worse than Boris. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think he's quite a lot of a knob (with none of the good bits of real knobs), as well as being a generally awful person. Yes he is moving things a bit to the right, but my belief is that he's going that way to chase the voters. He's not leading them to the right, he's following them over that way. Trump really doesn't care about skin colour, or immigration status. He's just using those issues to get attention. Those issues don't come from Trump, they were already there, but unacknowledged." I think there's a rough 50/50 split in US public thinking about politics with most people more or less in the middle. Indeed I think this is true the world over as human beings are human beings. It seems more extreme in the US because of polarising discourse going back to the cold war era and Reagan (and back much further in time but that's even further off topic). The word socialism for instance is seen by many as a synonym for communism and the notion of democratic socialism that's fairly common in Europe is seen as far-left even though if talked about using neutral terminology quite a few US citizens think such ideas make a lot of sense. So although it might appear that Trump is chasing the voters to the right, I think this isn't true. And if you look at the polling he ain't exactly the most popular of Presidents. To be clear I don't think Trump himself is intrinsically very right-wing he's just open to being surrounded by people on the far-right and is easily persuaded by their ideas. I see him as a puppet who has a natural bullying tendency so authoritarianism seems attractive to him as long as he is at the centre of attention. My worry is about the people pulling his strings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we interpret it as a call for death penalty for a specific crime, how does that make him worse compared to Boris Johnson? Because you were using this as an example to show that Trump is worse than Boris." My original post on this branch off was "Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". This was in response to an exchange between two other posters debating the relative merits of Trump v Johnson (and one added Farage but let's not go there). My point was that although there are similarities between Trump and Johnson, Trump went much further in his populist nonsense and actually paid for full page ads in a moment of hightened racial tension. I don't think much of Johnson - he talked a lot of anti-EU bollocks about straight bananas and played the populist race card a few times but I can't imagine him doing what Trump did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The word socialism for instance is seen by many as a synonym for communism and the notion of democratic socialism that's fairly common in Europe " What Europe has is not democratic socialism but social democracy. Two different things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we interpret it as a call for death penalty for a specific crime, how does that make him worse compared to Boris Johnson? Because you were using this as an example to show that Trump is worse than Boris. My original post on this branch off was "Johnson never paid for full page ads calling for the execution of black and hispanic teenagers". This was in response to an exchange between two other posters debating the relative merits of Trump v Johnson (and one added Farage but let's not go there). My point was that although there are similarities between Trump and Johnson, Trump went much further in his populist nonsense and actually paid for full page ads in a moment of hightened racial tension. " His ad was specifically about crimes and death penalty, something which is already there in the US. Where does racial tension come from? No part of his ad calls out any specific race as bad. In fact, the ad goes out of its way to say that violent crimes have made life difficult for people from all races. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Europe has is not democratic socialism but social democracy. Two different things." I don't make a distinction. I realise that some do (usually nerdy people on the right) but to me it's like arguing that a sweet white wine isn't really a white wine that is sweet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"His ad was specifically about crimes and death penalty, something which is already there in the US. Where does racial tension come from? No part of his ad calls out any specific race as bad. In fact, the ad goes out of its way to say that violent crimes have made life difficult for people from all races." I'm not going to repeat myself. We could debate capital punishment on another thread perhaps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"His ad was specifically about crimes and death penalty, something which is already there in the US. Where does racial tension come from? No part of his ad calls out any specific race as bad. In fact, the ad goes out of its way to say that violent crimes have made life difficult for people from all races. I'm not going to repeat myself. We could debate capital punishment on another thread perhaps." The ad was about capital punishment. You are the one who keeps bringing up the topic of racial tension and you back off every time someone asks you where the racial element is coming from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What Europe has is not democratic socialism but social democracy. Two different things. I don't make a distinction. I realise that some do (usually nerdy people on the right) but to me it's like arguing that a sweet white wine isn't really a white wine that is sweet. " That only shows you don't understand socialism well. Socialism is a society where the state owns the means of production. A social democracy is still capitalistic and uses taxation to help people out to an extent which people find reasonable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That only shows you don't understand socialism well. Socialism is a society where the state owns the means of production. A social democracy is still capitalistic and uses taxation to help people out to an extent which people find reasonable." I think you are talking about state socialism or communism not democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is about full democratization where regulation and ownership of natural monopolies and essential services are under collective rather than individual or corporate control. People can still have private property and a market economy can exist alongside state-owned services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also if "social democracy is still capitalistic and uses taxation to help people out to an extent which people find reasonable" then what is the difference between social democracy and capitalism? As far as I know capitalism doesn't preclude the use of taxation - so the term social democracy as you use it is effectively meaningless. " Social democracy is still capitalistic. Capitalism doesn't preclude use of taxation. But taxation for social welfare isn't a necessity for capitalism, it is a necessity for social democracies. " I think you are talking about state socialism or communism not democratic socialism. " A communist society doesn't have a state. This is another mistake that many Americans make - Confusing Marxism and Communism. The state taking ownership of the means of production is socialism. This is what Marx said would happen under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and eventually the state will "wither away" and result in a communist society. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Social democracy is still capitalistic. Capitalism doesn't preclude use of taxation. But taxation for social welfare isn't a necessity for capitalism, it is a necessity for social democracies." Would you define the US as a social democracy? If not then what do you think their taxes are used for? "A communist society doesn't have a state. This is another mistake that many Americans make - Confusing Marxism and Communism. The state taking ownership of the means of production is socialism. This is what Marx said would happen under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and eventually the state will "wither away" and result in a communist society." So a communist society couldn't be a state? Could a capitalist society be a state? I often struggle to understand your use of language. It seems so abstract and academic, like everything comes from reading books rather your own thoughts or conversations with people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Social democracy is still capitalistic. Capitalism doesn't preclude use of taxation. But taxation for social welfare isn't a necessity for capitalism, it is a necessity for social democracies. Would you define the US as a social democracy? If not then what do you think their taxes are used for? A communist society doesn't have a state. This is another mistake that many Americans make - Confusing Marxism and Communism. The state taking ownership of the means of production is socialism. This is what Marx said would happen under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and eventually the state will "wither away" and result in a communist society. So a communist society couldn't be a state? Could a capitalist society be a state? I often struggle to understand your use of language. It seems so abstract and academic, like everything comes from reading books rather your own thoughts or conversations with people. " I can answer all these. But I don't want to derail this thread. I am still waiting for you to explain where in his ad Trump caused racial tensions to rise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can answer all these. But I don't want to derail this thread. I am still waiting for you to explain where in his ad Trump caused racial tensions to rise." It obviously doesn't matter how many times things are explained to you or in how much detail. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can answer all these. But I don't want to derail this thread. I am still waiting for you to explain where in his ad Trump caused racial tensions to rise. It obviously doesn't matter how many times things are explained to you or in how much detail. " You never did. You have been dodging this question right from the beginning of the conversation. You keep saying that the ad was intended to stroke racial tensions. But still no answer about which part of the ad shows that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never did. You have been dodging this question right from the beginning of the conversation. You keep saying that the ad was intended to stroke racial tensions. But still no answer about which part of the ad shows that." I posted ages ago that the ads weren't overtly racist in themselves. I'm beginning to wonder if you can read properly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never did. You have been dodging this question right from the beginning of the conversation. You keep saying that the ad was intended to stroke racial tensions. But still no answer about which part of the ad shows that. I posted ages ago that the ads weren't overtly racist in themselves. I'm beginning to wonder if you can read properly. " It wasn't overtly racist themselves... Ok... So what makes you believe that it was to stroke racial tensions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also if "social democracy is still capitalistic and uses taxation to help people out to an extent which people find reasonable" then what is the difference between social democracy and capitalism? As far as I know capitalism doesn't preclude the use of taxation - so the term social democracy as you use it is effectively meaningless. Social democracy is still capitalistic. Capitalism doesn't preclude use of taxation. But taxation for social welfare isn't a necessity for capitalism, it is a necessity for social democracies. I think you are talking about state socialism or communism not democratic socialism. A communist society doesn't have a state. This is another mistake that many Americans make - Confusing Marxism and Communism. The state taking ownership of the means of production is socialism. This is what Marx said would happen under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and eventually the state will "wither away" and result in a communist society." So when Trump want to take a stake in various companies in exchange for contracts for investment… for example, intel… that would make him communist wouldn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also if "social democracy is still capitalistic and uses taxation to help people out to an extent which people find reasonable" then what is the difference between social democracy and capitalism? As far as I know capitalism doesn't preclude the use of taxation - so the term social democracy as you use it is effectively meaningless. Social democracy is still capitalistic. Capitalism doesn't preclude use of taxation. But taxation for social welfare isn't a necessity for capitalism, it is a necessity for social democracies. I think you are talking about state socialism or communism not democratic socialism. A communist society doesn't have a state. This is another mistake that many Americans make - Confusing Marxism and Communism. The state taking ownership of the means of production is socialism. This is what Marx said would happen under the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and eventually the state will "wither away" and result in a communist society. So when Trump want to take a stake in various companies in exchange for contracts for investment… for example, intel… that would make him communist wouldn’t it? "That really depends how you want to sell the idea, it can work both ways. I think the point on socialism is, it has been so fragmented by splinter groups the average person hasn't got a clue what socialism means, along with most socialists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"With DT’s u turn on releasing the Epstein files the US House of Representatives has now voted unanimously to have the files made public. Though Trump has for months dismissed the continued scrutiny over the government’s handling of the Epstein case as a “Democrat hoax”. Is this really the case or did he see that with MTG and other prominent MAGA gang members pressing for there release is it just a case of him being an opportunist by trying to shore up his support or does he really have nothing to hide?" He saw that he was going to lose the vote.. and republicans really didn’t want a no vote held against them in the midterms, so you would likely have seen a lot of them breaking (cover in numbers) Claiming to get in front of it to save embarrassment So now the senate have agreed to wave it through via unanimous consent… which means it will now go to trump’s desk to sign This is where we see Trump, the DOJ and the FBI slow down release | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You never did. You have been dodging this question right from the beginning of the conversation. You keep saying that the ad was intended to stroke racial tensions. But still no answer about which part of the ad shows that." "I posted ages ago that the ads weren't overtly racist in themselves." And you've also posted that the ad was "intended to stoke racial tension", and your argument for this is that "everyone knew" what Trump was saying. You've provided no evidence that "everyone knew", and there's nothing in the ad which could be read that way. "I'm beginning to wonder if you can read properly." This is your standard insult thrown out whenever people point out that your argument doesn't make sense. If it seems to you that a lot of people are unable to understand your words, maybe you should consider the possibility that the problem might not lie with the readers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is where we see Trump, the DOJ and the FBI slow down release " Making sure that it “gets lost” in the bureaucracy of the federal government. Then use that as an excuse to hack away at it and replace it with privatised organisations that the Trump family and cronies have vested interests in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't overtly racist themselves... Ok... So what makes you believe that it was to stroke racial tensions?" Because by this time many people considered Trump to be a notorious racist due to the Department of Justice suing him and his father for racial discrimination against black people. It was front page news and virtually everybody knew about it. Now if one considers Trump to be racist then one is going to interpret his actions in a different way to someone who doesn't. Similarly if one considers Trump to be a SA then one will view the Epstein case in a different way to someone who doesn't. For racists who thought Trump was one of them, his actions confirmed their hatred to be legitimate. For others who thought Trump was a racist, his actions confirmed that he really was a racist and that he was exploiting the situation in order to incite other racists. For people who didn't believe that Trump was a racist, his actions probably looked like nothing more than support for capital punishment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't overtly racist themselves... Ok... So what makes you believe that it was to stroke racial tensions? Because by this time many people considered Trump to be a notorious racist due to the Department of Justice suing him and his father for racial discrimination against black people. It was front page news and virtually everybody knew about it. Now if one considers Trump to be racist then one is going to interpret his actions in a different way to someone who doesn't. Similarly if one considers Trump to be a SA then one will view the Epstein case in a different way to someone who doesn't. For racists who thought Trump was one of them, his actions confirmed their hatred to be legitimate. For others who thought Trump was a racist, his actions confirmed that he really was a racist and that he was exploiting the situation in order to incite other racists. For people who didn't believe that Trump was a racist, his actions probably looked like nothing more than support for capital punishment. " Lots of mental gymnastics there. First of all, Trump being sued for racial discrimination didn't make him a racist then. He wasn't even convicted. And from there, you made a ridiculous leap saying that just because Trump was sued for such a case, the racists imagined he is one of them and some ad which says nothing about race of the criminals somehow was meant to stroke the racial tension. I have read fantasy fiction that's more believable than this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And you've also posted that the ad was "intended to stoke racial tension", and your argument for this is that "everyone knew" what Trump was saying. You've provided no evidence that "everyone knew", and there's nothing in the ad which could be read that way." See my last post. On the everyone knew point. My argument was that everyone knew that the ads were referring to this specific case. Even though the text doesn't explicitly mention it, the ads appeared 12 days after the crime and widespread media commentary and the segment "At what point did we cross the line from the fine and noble pursuit of genuine civil liberties to the reckless and dangerously permissive atmosphere which allows criminals of every age to beat and r*pe a helpless woman" is hard to interpret in any other way. The "criminals of every age" is presumably referring to the young age of the suspects - two of them being 14. "This is your standard insult thrown out whenever people point out that your argument doesn't make sense." I get frustrated when seemingly intelligent people bang on about points I've already addressed. In this case the other poster's "But still no answer about which part of the ad shows that". It looks either to be disingenuous or down to skimming over things. I prefer the latter interpretation, as this is after all just an opinion thread on a swingers website. "If it seems to you that a lot of people are unable to understand your words, maybe you should consider the possibility that the problem might not lie with the readers." It seems to be just you and the other poster. I don't consider two people to be a lot of people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't overtly racist themselves... Ok... So what makes you believe that it was to stroke racial tensions?" "Because by this time many people considered Trump to be a notorious racist due to the Department of Justice suing him and his father for racial discrimination against black people. It was front page news and virtually everybody knew about it." Every time someone points out a logical flaw in your argument, you pull out another unsubstantiated 'fact' that you've so far unaccountably failed to mention. It's like you're posting based on your emotions and haven't actually spent the time to get a respectable argument in place. So, looking at the new 'fact', let's assume that the DoJ lawsuit was indeed front page news (no proof presented), and people associated it with Donald Trump and not just his father who was the one that owned the company that got sued (also no proof given). That lawsuit was filed in 1973. Are you really saying that the American public in 1989 when the ad was published had it in the front of their minds that Donald Trump was a racist because of a failed lawsuit 16 years beforehand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lots of mental gymnastics there. First of all, Trump being sued for racial discrimination didn't make him a racist then. He wasn't even convicted." Anyone interested can look up the details of the case and evaluate it for themselves. Trump's famous lawyer Roy Cohn launched a countersuit and contempt of court charge against one of the prosecutors but these were dismissed in court and the Trumps eventually gave up and signed a consent decree. "And from there, you made a ridiculous leap saying that just because Trump was sued for such a case, the racists imagined he is one of them and some ad which says nothing about race of the criminals somehow was meant to stroke the racial tension. I have read fantasy fiction that's more believable than this." We all have our opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I get frustrated when seemingly intelligent people bang on about points I've already addressed." Perhaps you haven't addressed them. Perhaps you've just re-stated your own thoughts, but not addressed the issues that people are complaining about. "It seems to be just you and the other poster. I don't consider two people to be a lot of people." Another way of phrasing it would be 'all of the people that have engaged with your posts on this matter'. I don't see anyone posting to say that you're right and we're wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Every time someone points out a logical flaw in your argument, you pull out another unsubstantiated 'fact' that you've so far unaccountably failed to mention. It's like you're posting based on your emotions and haven't actually spent the time to get a respectable argument in place. So, looking at the new 'fact', let's assume that the DoJ lawsuit was indeed front page news (no proof presented), and people associated it with Donald Trump and not just his father who was the one that owned the company that got sued (also no proof given). That lawsuit was filed in 1973." I assume that the people I am debating with are at least as intelligent and resourceful as I. But if you can't be arsed to look stuff up to confirm what I write is true or not then fair enough. If you could be bothered then you could find the New York Times article about the lawsuit from Aug. 27, 2016 that contains the following paragraph... "The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. It was front-page news, and for Donald, amounted to his debut in the public eye." "Are you really saying that the American public in 1989 when the ad was published had it in the front of their minds that Donald Trump was a racist because of a failed lawsuit 16 years beforehand?" I'm saying that Trump was considered by many to be a racist. Just like many people today think he is, based on history going all the way back to the 1970's. Historical perspective is a wonderful thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Trump's famous lawyer Roy Cohn launched a countersuit and contempt of court charge against one of the prosecutors but these were dismissed in court and the Trumps eventually gave up and signed a consent decree. " A decree where he didn't admit any wrongdoing " We all have our opinions. " Your opinions seem to have zero factual basis and are coming purely based on emotions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you could be bothered then you could find the New York Times article about the lawsuit from Aug. 27, 2016 that contains the following paragraph... "The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. It was front-page news, and for Donald, amounted to his debut in the public eye."" I explicitly stated in my post above that I assumed all that to be true. My point was that you've again provided a 'fact' with no evidence to back it up. Now that you have provided evidence, I can see that my assumption was a good one. "I'm saying that Trump was considered by many to be a racist. Just like many people today think he is, based on history going all the way back to the 1970's." And again, you're saying that without providing any proof. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I explicitly stated in my post above that I assumed all that to be true. My point was that you've again provided a 'fact' with no evidence to back it up. Now that you have provided evidence, I can see that my assumption was a good one." ROFL. "And again, you're saying that without providing any proof." In a 2020 Washington Post / Ipsos poll 83% of African Americans responded that they believed President Trump was a racist (error margin +/- 3.5%). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And again, you're saying that without providing any proof." "In a 2020 Washington Post / Ipsos poll 83% of African Americans responded that they believed President Trump was a racist (error margin +/- 3.5%)." Sigh. It's no secret that a lot of people think he's racist now. And even then you've chosen a survey of black people, not a survey representative of the white people that you claim he was trying to influence with his ad. But your original claim was that Trump's ad was intended to stir up racial hatred because Trump was known to be a racist. Do you have evidence that Trump was considered racist by the majority in 1989? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sigh. It's no secret that a lot of people think he's racist now. And even then you've chosen a survey of black people, not a survey representative of the white people that you claim he was trying to influence with his ad. But your original claim was that Trump's ad was intended to stir up racial hatred because Trump was known to be a racist. Do you have evidence that Trump was considered racist by the majority in 1989?" Why do you think that lots of people think he is a racist now? I suppose I could try to find an opinion poll from 1989 about Trump but I doubt one was commissioned. One thing that's for sure is that black clergy leaders weren't happy because they responded with their own full-page ad denouncing Trump's ads as ''thinly veiled racist polemic’’. And if black people thought he was racist then I'd guess that white racists thought he was too. It would be slightly odd if this wasn't the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" Why do you think that lots of people think he is a racist now? " Because he is a politician and he is anti-immigration. " I suppose I could try to find an opinion poll from 1989 about Trump but I doubt one was commissioned. " So you don't have any evidence. Not to mention that, people have their racial tensions rising just because someone who they perceived as racist posted an ad is a ridiculous assumption to begin with. " One thing that's for sure is that black clergy leaders weren't happy because they responded with their own full-page ad denouncing Trump's ads as ''thinly veiled racist polemic’’. And if black people thought he was racist then I'd guess that white racists thought he was too. It would be slightly odd if this wasn't the case. " Multiple baseless leaps of reasoning here. The Black clergy do not represent all the black people. And just because the clergy thought he was racist, it doesn't mean white racists would have thought he was one too. When has that happened really? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Quiet piggy ............" Hey, at least he didn't bring out a bone saw. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released" It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents." That’s one version… it’s likely to be redacted because the current DOJ can pretend they are protecting the innocent people named, or anything they deem to be that may conflict with any current information Oh and by the way.. the current Trump administration and the current DOJ literally in July concluded there was nothing in there that can be charged to any currently unnamed 3rd party…. So for Trump to put on social media that they should investigate certain democratic figures.. and then DOJ literally 210 minutes later to announce they are opening an investigation…. Is just a stalling tactic for them to say “can’t release anything!” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents." Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released" "It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents." "Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein" I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets." Again…. In JULY…. After the last Trump ordered investigation.. the DOJ found there was no 3rd party not already named that they would prosecute… So why would trump need a further investigation? The whole point is that the bill has an out for “any ongoing investigation that may lead to further prosecution” That is the out they will use to slow down, redact or refuse any particular release We already know that bondi ordered the FBI to flag any mention of Trump in any of the emails…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets. Again…. In JULY…. After the last Trump ordered investigation.. the DOJ found there was no 3rd party not already named that they would prosecute… So why would trump need a further investigation? The whole point is that the bill has an out for “any ongoing investigation that may lead to further prosecution” That is the out they will use to slow down, redact or refuse any particular release We already know that bondi ordered the FBI to flag any mention of Trump in any of the emails…." Curious, why do you think the Democrats didn't release them when they were in power? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets. Again…. In JULY…. After the last Trump ordered investigation.. the DOJ found there was no 3rd party not already named that they would prosecute… So why would trump need a further investigation? The whole point is that the bill has an out for “any ongoing investigation that may lead to further prosecution” That is the out they will use to slow down, redact or refuse any particular release We already know that bondi ordered the FBI to flag any mention of Trump in any of the emails…. Curious, why do you think the Democrats didn't release them when they were in power?" I heard somewhere it was because Ghislaine Maxwell's court case was ongoing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets. Again…. In JULY…. After the last Trump ordered investigation.. the DOJ found there was no 3rd party not already named that they would prosecute… So why would trump need a further investigation? The whole point is that the bill has an out for “any ongoing investigation that may lead to further prosecution” That is the out they will use to slow down, redact or refuse any particular release We already know that bondi ordered the FBI to flag any mention of Trump in any of the emails…. Curious, why do you think the Democrats didn't release them when they were in power? I heard somewhere it was because Ghislaine Maxwell's court case was ongoing " That’s is correct… for the first half of the Biden presidency he couldn’t because of the maxwell trial… after that some of it was tied up in the litigation between Virginia roberts and Prince Andrew But it was Trump on the campaign trail who made the release of the Epstein files a big part of his agenda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You can be sure they will be missing important stuff on Trump when they are released It'll be 'missing' because it was never there. Remember that Biden had access to all of those documents. Trumpet is backed into a corner but like the rat he is he'll bite, if people have to die to protect him that's what will happen and probably did with Epstein I see the TDS has blinded you. Biden had access to all of those documents, and would have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb looking for dirt to dish on Trump. The fact that he didn't publish anything means that there's nothing there. But you're going to ignore that and instead claim that Trump is having people executed to keep his secrets. Again…. In JULY…. After the last Trump ordered investigation.. the DOJ found there was no 3rd party not already named that they would prosecute… So why would trump need a further investigation? The whole point is that the bill has an out for “any ongoing investigation that may lead to further prosecution” That is the out they will use to slow down, redact or refuse any particular release We already know that bondi ordered the FBI to flag any mention of Trump in any of the emails…. Curious, why do you think the Democrats didn't release them when they were in power? I heard somewhere it was because Ghislaine Maxwell's court case was ongoing That’s is correct… for the first half of the Biden presidency he couldn’t because of the maxwell trial… after that some of it was tied up in the litigation between Virginia roberts and Prince Andrew But it was Trump on the campaign trail who made the release of the Epstein files a big part of his agenda " Hasn't Trump ordered Pam of the DOJ to investigate high ranking Democrats over links with Epstein. To gum up the works again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hasn't Trump ordered Pam of the DOJ to investigate high ranking Democrats over links with Epstein. To gum up the works again. " I think we are going to end up starting a new Epstein files thread…. 2 big bits of info coming out in the last few hours 1) there has been an leak in that the house oversight committee believes there been an “ intensive White House cover up” of the Epstein files and that the New investigation is basically going to be weaponised to stop or redact major pieces of information 2) ghislane maxwell is going to refuse to answer any questions the house committee will ask or will plead the fifth to anything they ask as part of their investigation You knew there was going to be some sort of back up plan here…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Basically he tried to get in front of it and stopped it Then tried strong arming people into changing their minds Now he trying to jump in front of it and take credit He's everything that's wrong with the world today. you could level that against every prime minister and president for the last 20_30 years please don't make excuses for him. Besides I'd like to believe that Obama was a honourable decent man. " Obama wasn't any better,droned a US citizen. Built cages at the border and deported hundreds of thousands of illegals but shah we must mention that,and as for making excuses for trump where did I do that,I just pointed out every president or pm for the last 30 years has had a hand in the shit we are in today,unlike yourself I can see the left and right are Whitehouse who care nothing for the general public,rely on yourself not politicians they will not make your life better | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hasn't Trump ordered Pam of the DOJ to investigate high ranking Democrats over links with Epstein. To gum up the works again. I think we are going to end up starting a new Epstein files thread…. 2 big bits of info coming out in the last few hours 1) there has been an leak in that the house oversight committee believes there been an “ intensive White House cover up” of the Epstein files and that the New investigation is basically going to be weaponised to stop or redact major pieces of information 2) ghislane maxwell is going to refuse to answer any questions the house committee will ask or will plead the fifth to anything they ask as part of their investigation You knew there was going to be some sort of back up plan here…. " Two weeks later and nothing. Another conspiracy theory dwindling away. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hasn't Trump ordered Pam of the DOJ to investigate high ranking Democrats over links with Epstein. To gum up the works again. I think we are going to end up starting a new Epstein files thread…. 2 big bits of info coming out in the last few hours 1) there has been an leak in that the house oversight committee believes there been an “ intensive White House cover up” of the Epstein files and that the New investigation is basically going to be weaponised to stop or redact major pieces of information 2) ghislane maxwell is going to refuse to answer any questions the house committee will ask or will plead the fifth to anything they ask as part of their investigation You knew there was going to be some sort of back up plan here…. Two weeks later and nothing. Another conspiracy theory dwindling away." Didn't you read the bit where they have 30 days to release the files then ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
