https://youtu.be/Ofg-609wlxg?si=X4ts9i87muMbttGY
Printable View
So Trump is yet again using the courts and threats of legal action to get his way...Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
How do you feel about the potential release of the Epstein files then? Would you still be a dedicated supporter if the evidence showed he was complicit? Where would you draw the line in what is acceptable in your mind compared to what is unacceptable?
We know you don't care about rape and sexual assault of adult women, would rape of children be enough to stop you supporting Trump? How about turning a blind eye to other people raping children, would that be enough to stop your support?
For some weird reason you seem to think this is about Trump. It is not. He is just a major actor in the effort to push back the darkness.
I'm not sure why it gives you comfort to fetishize the man so. He's just one player on a stage, with many millions of Americans behind him.
Your rape accusations are bizarre. You're really reaching if you think that kind of issue has anything to do with a societal movement growing in achievements and gaining more adherents every day.
What is it that blinds you to the real issues, anyway? Something certainly produces a lot of rabid overreaction.
You clearly do exactly that. Nice attempt at deflecting PD's question though. Where is your line?Quote:
I'm not sure why it gives you comfort to fetishize the man so
Trump has been found guilty of sexual assault, boasted about walking into women's changing rooms at beauty pageants and you must have heard his own words about where is is acceptable to grab a woman. So, in light of the smell around Epstein, this really does beg the question: where is your line?
The BBC lawsuit is going nowhere. A poorly judged edit is not the same as defamation, there's no indication of malice and there's no indication of reputational harm given that he was subsequently re-elected. If Trump really wants to got to court over this, it will mean litigating whether he actually did incite insurrection and his speech, taken in it's entirety and in the context of the other speeches that were given that day, clearly did that. It will also mean relitigating his claims of the election being stolen and he does not want to do that given the plethora or parties who did suffer reputational damage as a result of his lies in the 3 months preceding that speech.
Trump just throwing a hissy fit and making noise.
Yeah, there was nothing in his response that answered PD's question.Quote:
Nice attempt at deflecting PD's question though. Where is your line?
But I don't think his "line" would be relevant anyway. His mind wouldn't let him believe that Trump crossed it, no matter what the evidence was. He would find someone on YouTube to tell him it was all fake and that would be enough. After all, he doesn't even think it's about Trump,
Somehow PD's direct question about Trump was actually,Quote:
He is just a major actor in the effort to push back the darkness.
In what reality did PD's post make anything close to a statement about "societal movement"? In Dil's reality. So, Trump crossing a "line" in our reality and Dil's reality probably aren't the same, even if we have the same line.Quote:
You're really reaching if you think that kind of issue has anything to do with a societal movement growing in achievements and gaining more adherents every day.
This has about zero chance of happening. Even if the House approves it.Quote:
How do you feel about the potential release of the Epstein files then?
Such is our politic system. But just passing the measure is a win of sorts.Quote:
The Epstein measure is likely to pass the House but has no path to enactment.
If every representative who signed the petition also votes for the Epstein measure, it would pass the House.
In fact, it is expected to draw even more votes than that. Republican leaders expect that some of their members who did not sign the discharge petition — which many lawmakers frown upon as an act of party disloyalty that undercuts their leaders — are likely to vote for the resolution itself. Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska already told reporters this week that he would support the measure, even though he did not join the effort to force a vote on it.
But unlike the subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee for its investigation into Mr. Epstein, which this week yielded emails in which the disgraced financier asserted that Mr. Trump knew more about Mr. Epstein’s abuses than he had acknowledged, the resolution has no force unless it is enacted into law. That would require passage by both chambers of Congress and a presidential signature.
If the bill were to pass the House, it would be sent to the Senate, where it would face tough odds.
It would take 60 votes to bring up the bill in that chamber. Democrats hold 47 seats, so even if all of them back the measure, they would still need 13 Republicans to buck Mr. Trump and join them.
If the bill were to pass the Senate, it would be sent to the president’s desk, and he would be all but certain to veto it. Even if he did not, the only way to compel cooperation with such a measure would be for the House to enforce it by holding the attorney general in contempt of Congress for failing to comply, an exceedingly unlikely scenario.
Another crumbled narrative:
With the identification of the Capitol Pipe Bomber, the entire conspiracy around January 6 may be imploding. Complicity apparently even reaches to the BBC with the recent resignations of top executives there. The pipe bomber no identified using FBI software has been identified as a Capitol Police Officer who resigned the week before January 6 and the "bombs" were designed to pull security personnel away from other areas of the Capitol to allow radicals to incite the crowd. The person who planted the bombs then was hired by the CIA a short time after this all went down. This is beginning to look like the single most widespread scandal in modern history.
Good Gourd, what a bunch of little girls!
This is Dil's reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Yep, that's Trump's preference, right there.Quote:
what a bunch of little girls
So from the recent email drop we know he appears, despite lying to you that he didn't. Crossed your line yet?
we know that he knew what Epstein was doing and, at best, did nothing. Crossed your line yet?
We know he spent a large amount of time alone with the one of the victims. Crossed your line yet?
We know that he moved Maxwell to a minimum security facility - with puppy - despite knowing what she had done. Crossed your line yet?
We know that Epstein had photos of him with girls in bikinis. Crossed your line yet?
We know that he "Blew Bubba" - though I kinda doubt Bubba was underage. Personally, I'm good with that one, he's allowed to. But I do wonder if it crosses a line for you.
You don't. It's very inappropriate for this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Actually, your right. I've removed the comment and subsequent requotes.Quote:
It's very inappropriate for this forum.
Thanks. Besides Trump gives you plenty of ammunition to work with.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Well, for those who have been wanting to know what's in the Epstein files, there has been progress. The House will be sending the bill to the Senate. What's going to happen there? I have no idea.
It has been interesting watching this thing play out. If nothing else, it'll be good theater watching what happens next.
It's all good theatre, except for the one in the East Wing. That's no longer a good theatre.
Wow, that was quick. It pasted both houses of congress (controlled by Republicans) in one day. That probably doesn't happen without Trump pushing for it.
I'm not sure "Russia aids Trump" is really the argument you want to make.
The Epstein files don't really matter. Trump has been Trump for as long as he has been in the public eye, and probably longer. Back in the 80s, he espoused Democratic views, but was still a singularly horrible person. In the 90s, he became more ambiguous in his politics, yet remained a singularly horrible person. Since then he has espoused other views that enthused conservatives, but he hasn't changed.
Anybody who paid attention would note that his actions were appalling. Everybody who was around him acknowledged that he was a terrible person. Epstein isn't the first to say that. He isn't even the dozenth to say that.
Still, US politics is so broken for so many people that there were those who were willing to overlook his character flaws because he said some things that they wanted to hear. We have some serious issues with affordability, which neither party was addressing. He talked about it, so they listened. Had they paid attention to his business practices in the 80s and 90s, they would know that this WAS his business practice: Say what people want to hear to get them onside, then do whatever you want.
In any case, the Republican party has hitched their wagon to this horse and are now desperately trying to assert that they meant to go where it is taking them. People inside and outside of the party warned them that this was going to happen. Those inside were kicked out, and those outside are just denigrated. They have hitched their wagon to an amoral force, so they've had to pretend all the moral lines they once held no longer exist.
There is no line, because if you state a line, Trump just going to cross it. He has spoken to the right, he has spoken to the left, but the one constant throughout his entire life is that he has no moral compass. Those who have tied themselves to him, are now forced to go where this boat without a moral keel takes them and pretend that's the direction they always wanted to go.
Unfortunately, for some people, it IS the direction they wanted to go.
This is the key but I'd expand it to our whole government/capitalistic system.Quote:
Still, US politics is so broken for so many people that there were those who were willing to overlook his character flaws because he said some things that they wanted to hear.
Trump has his true believers but most of his votes came from people disgruntled with life as it is in the US. Trump told them what they wanted to hear. Which isn't new for a politician but the extent that people were willing to overlook Trumps flaws is exceptional.
I guess that really speaks to what people think about the current state of our country. Then again complaining is one of our national past times. :)
Yeah, it's the government system, but really at the top. The swamp is inside the beltway...in more ways than one, considering that DC was never very stable or dry ground, and it is now flooding more and more frequently. People thought, perhaps, that he really would drain the swamp.
The swamp is of our own creation, though. The politicians reflect an aspect of the people. There are strong divisions in views, which isn't being made any better when there is no common truth. I don't doubt their honesty in what they say, I just doubt that they are bad people....but the person they elected, he was always a terrible person.
He was fading out of the spotlight. He had blown through all his inheritance and was basically getting by on selling his family name. THEN came the Apprentice. And he was able to convince people he was important. The rest, as they say, is history.
We've got the same phenomenon over here at the moment with Farage and Reform absolutely smashing it in our polls. They're good at identifying grievance, which seems to be enough for most people. They're not actually offering any solutions but that doesn't seem to matter.Quote:
Trump has his true believers but most of his votes came from people disgruntled with life as it is in the US.
I often wonder why people continue to follow known habitual liars like Musk and Trump on social media.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news...201251946.html
I guess as long as they are saying things they like to hear, it doesn't matter to them if it's true.
Other than friends and family, I can't think of anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
You don't know anything about my friends or family. What an ignorant thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
It seems you want to stereotype all people as habitual liars.
I didn't. Just used them as example of the fact you don't know anything about the people you were making a judgement statement about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
That's an ignorant thing to do.
Now you want to claim you were talking about your family and friends. That's fine with me.
You know what. Never mind. Forget I said anything.
That also is fine with me. Consider it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
:thumb:
Problem solved!!!
Yeah, the whole "double tap" thing is disturbing. Though I personally think bombing boats without any due process should qualify as extra judicial killing whether a second missile is required or not.
In more practical terms, why are you dropping hundred thousand dollar missiles on small boats when you could, e.g. simply pull up alongside them and board them for much less cost? As far as I can tell this is nothing but chest puffing ego.
It's theatre. Everybody knows that this WILL fail, and how it will fail. We have decades of experience. If you shut down one avenue, the flow shifts to a different one.
In the late 80s, drug interdiction efforts boosted in the south Florida area, so drugs started coming into ports further up the east coast. So long as demand is very strong, there will be a great incentive to supply it.
On the other hand, Trump is fundamentally a coward at heart. He expects that people will cower before force, because that's what seems natural to him. Perhaps he really does think this will work.
Come on man, don't tell me you bought into this war on drugs nonsense. I'm from this region of the world, and everyone here knows this is pure high-grade bullshit. This is and has always been 100% about controlling Venezuela's oil. Nothing more, nothing less. The goal here is to install a puppet regime that obeys US dictates. [EDIT] Or to get Maduro's regime to bow to US dictates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The US violates international law as a matter of foreign policy. The US isn't doing anything here that it hasn't always been doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Trump obviously doesn't care about drugs coming into America, if he did why would he be pardoning people like Juan Orlando Hernandez or Ross William Ulbricht? Drugs are just his ongoing justification for doing whatever he wants to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, we've seen this movie several times. Attacking the supply chain just leads to a different supply chain. Trump is simple minded enough to think it will work because he doesn't spend much time thinking things through. Plus, he really doesn't care about solving the problem. As you said it's theater. And he will claim he has reduced the flow of drugs by 7,000%.Quote:
It's theatre. Everybody knows that this WILL fail, and how it will fail. We have decades of experience. If you shut down one avenue, the flow shifts to a different one.
It's theatre. Everybody knows that this WILL fail, and how it will fail. We have decades of experience. If you shut down one avenue, the flow shifts to a different one.
In the late 80s, drug interdiction efforts boosted in the south Florida area, so drugs started coming into ports further up the east coast. So long as demand is very strong, there will be a great incentive to supply it.
On the other hand, Trump is fundamentally a coward at heart. He expects that people will cower before force, because that's what seems natural to him. Perhaps he really does think this will work.
On the other hand, Trump is fundamentally a coward at heart. He expects that people will cower before force, because that's what seems natural to him. Perhaps he really does think this will work.
I'm curious if we'll get a true account of what happened. Right now there's been nothing but accusations and denials.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The US and other Caribbean countries spend a lot on "pulling up alongside them". Been doing that for decades, it a big ocean and they're hard to catch. They catch some but most gets through. Using missiles wont have any long term success either.
As for "extra judicial killing". It truly is that and the worst part is it feels like most people here are OK with it. Then again, we've been dropping missiles into populated areas in the name of fighting terrorism for a long time.
The thing is, this isn't even remotely possible as a supply chain, there is no way those boats could make the trip to America without having to refuel multiple times (in the order of 20 times). Just how much drugs could they carry on one of those boats, and would it really be worth the effort and risk to make such a crossing (and somehow have a second boat with fuel meet you several times) for the limited amount of drugs they could carry. Most of the profit would be taken up on fuel, plus the fuel for the refuelling vessel that would be following (so why aren't the drugs on that boat???).Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
As Niya said, this is 100% an attempt to gain access to oil reserves and killing innocent fishermen is a small price to pay as far as Trump and his followers are concerned.