Team Trump v/s Everyone

[UNI88]

Lighten up Francis. I was using hyperbole, being facetious, giving MAQA a taste of their own medicine, whatever you want to call it.

Why does this one bother you? How many times has trump, BDK or another MAQA yahoo called a Democrat/liberal an unhinged, radical lunatic or similar and you thought nothing of it? Why is it ok for them to do it but suddenly a problem when I stoop to their level and do it?

I'm tired of being silent while they bash their opponents with unfounded hyperbolic bullshit while whining like little bitches when similar rhetoric is used against them. They like to dish it out but they can't take it.

I can take it just fine. You‘re the one who whines like a little bitch all the time about something Trump/the Trump admin did because your TDS is always in hyperdrive.

You've never, ever complained about trump being called a fascist/Nazi/Hitler or insinuated that those statements led to attempts to assassinate him? I know other MAQA yahoos have.

And you've certainly used all sorts of hyperbolic rhetoric like unhinged, radical lunatic against anyone that opposes trump or his policies.

[89Hen]

This is why I left this place. Sane people go insane.

Lighten up Francis. I was using hyperbole, being facetious, giving MAQA a taste of their own medicine, whatever you want to call it.

Why does this one bother you? How many times has trump, BDK or another MAQA yahoo called a Democrat/liberal an unhinged, radical lunatic or similar and you thought nothing of it? Why is it ok for them to do it but suddenly a problem when I stoop to their level and do it?

I'm tired of being silent while they bash their opponents with unfounded hyperbolic bullshit while whining like little bitches when similar rhetoric is used against them. They like to dish it out but they can't take it.

Read what I wrote again.

[UNI88]

Lighten up Francis. I was using hyperbole, being facetious, giving MAQA a taste of their own medicine, whatever you want to call it.

Why does this one bother you? How many times has trump, BDK or another MAQA yahoo called a Democrat/liberal an unhinged, radical lunatic or similar and you thought nothing of it? Why is it ok for them to do it but suddenly a problem when I stoop to their level and do it?

I'm tired of being silent while they bash their opponents with unfounded hyperbolic bullshit while whining like little bitches when similar rhetoric is used against them. They like to dish it out but they can't take it.

Read what I wrote again.

You wrote:

This is why I left this place. Sane people go insane.

In response to my post:

the more trump shows himself to be an unhinged radical lunatic

Was I wrong in assuming that you were insinuating that I had gone insane by saying that trump "the more trump shows himself to be an unhinged radical lunatic"?

My apologies if I was and please tell me what you meant because I didn't get it.

[kalm]

Read what I wrote again.

You wrote:

This is why I left this place. Sane people go insane.

In response to my post:

the more trump shows himself to be an unhinged radical lunatic

Was I wrong in assuming that you were insinuating that I had gone insane by saying that trump "the more trump shows himself to be an unhinged radical lunatic"?

My apologies if I was and please tell me what you meant because I didn't get it.

I didn’t see 89 (who despite our differences, I liked and considered a good person) having MAGA sensibilities.

[UNI88]

You wrote:

In response to my post:

Was I wrong in assuming that you were insinuating that I had gone insane by saying that trump "the more trump shows himself to be an unhinged radical lunatic"?

My apologies if I was and please tell me what you meant because I didn't get it.

I didn’t see 89 (who despite our differences, I liked and considered a good person) having MAGA sensibilities.

We haven't heard 89's explanation yet. It could be that he doesn't mind when BDK calls Democrats/liberals unhinged, radical lunatics or similar because he agrees with him (which could make his taking exception to my post somewhat hypocritical). It could be that he thinks BDK is already insane. Or it could be something else altogether. Let's hear what he says.

[89Hen]

It could be that he thinks BDK is already insane.

[Skjellyfetti]

[GannonFan]

For the Epstein stuff to hit Trump, it's going to have to be like the Prince Andrew stuff, namely something comes out that shows Trump has lied about something related to Epstein. Right now, and I don't think he's ever said otherwise, Trump clearly knew and was an acquaintance of Epstein and Maxwell, especially through the 90's and early '00's. Trump says they had a falling out, and it was related to Epstein hiring away girls from Mar Lago who were Trump employees. No one, victims, from the Epstein saga have implicated Trump in anything illegal - not Epstein (in emails), not Maxwell, not the girl who committed suicide who was tied to Prince Andrew, not anyone. And that's kind of significant as there are certainly others not related to the Epstein stuff who did accuse him of things.

So really, at this point, is there any evidence that Trump has lied about his interactions in the Epstein orbit? That's what finally did in Prince Andrew, he said he hadn't had any involvement with Epstein after a certain date, and then emails surfaced that clearly contradicted that. If the emails the Dems have produced are the worst of the worst, they don't show any contradiction of what Trump has said so far. It'll be political fodder, but I'm not sure I see this landing, granted, given what we've seen so far.

[UNI88]

For the Epstein stuff to hit Trump, it's going to have to be like the Prince Andrew stuff, namely something comes out that shows Trump has lied about something related to Epstein. Right now, and I don't think he's ever said otherwise, Trump clearly knew and was an acquaintance of Epstein and Maxwell, especially through the 90's and early '00's. Trump says they had a falling out, and it was related to Epstein hiring away girls from Mar Lago who were Trump employees. No one, victims, from the Epstein saga have implicated Trump in anything illegal - not Epstein (in emails), not Maxwell, not the girl who committed suicide who was tied to Prince Andrew, not anyone. And that's kind of significant as there are certainly others not related to the Epstein stuff who did accuse him of things.

So really, at this point, is there any evidence that Trump has lied about his interactions in the Epstein orbit? That's what finally did in Prince Andrew, he said he hadn't had any involvement with Epstein after a certain date, and then emails surfaced that clearly contradicted that. If the emails the Dems have produced are the worst of the worst, they don't show any contradiction of what Trump has said so far. It'll be political fodder, but I'm not sure I see this landing, granted, given what we've seen so far.

Photo evidence would change things.

MAQA yahoos won't believe anything, liberals will believe everything, it's the people in the middle that swing elections that need to be convinced.

[GannonFan]

For the Epstein stuff to hit Trump, it's going to have to be like the Prince Andrew stuff, namely something comes out that shows Trump has lied about something related to Epstein. Right now, and I don't think he's ever said otherwise, Trump clearly knew and was an acquaintance of Epstein and Maxwell, especially through the 90's and early '00's. Trump says they had a falling out, and it was related to Epstein hiring away girls from Mar Lago who were Trump employees. No one, victims, from the Epstein saga have implicated Trump in anything illegal - not Epstein (in emails), not Maxwell, not the girl who committed suicide who was tied to Prince Andrew, not anyone. And that's kind of significant as there are certainly others not related to the Epstein stuff who did accuse him of things.

So really, at this point, is there any evidence that Trump has lied about his interactions in the Epstein orbit? That's what finally did in Prince Andrew, he said he hadn't had any involvement with Epstein after a certain date, and then emails surfaced that clearly contradicted that. If the emails the Dems have produced are the worst of the worst, they don't show any contradiction of what Trump has said so far. It'll be political fodder, but I'm not sure I see this landing, granted, given what we've seen so far.

Photo evidence would change things.

MAQA yahoos won't believe anything, liberals will believe everything, it's the people in the middle that swing elections that need to be convinced.

Again, photo evidence of something we didn't know or something that contradicts what Trump has already said. Everyone knows he was friends with Epstein for awhile.

But even the girl mentioned in the email today was the one who figured prominently in the Prince Andrew saga. She had ample opportunity to accuse Trump, including in her posthumous book, and she never accused him of anything. Fittingly, the Dems who released that email today knew that, so they redacted her name to make it seem more sinister. Like you said, the extremists on both sides aren't changing their minds, only the folks in the middle.

[kalm]

Photo evidence would change things.

MAQA yahoos won't believe anything, liberals will believe everything, it's the people in the middle that swing elections that need to be convinced.

Again, photo evidence of something we didn't know or something that contradicts what Trump has already said. Everyone knows he was friends with Epstein for awhile.

But even the girl mentioned in the email today was the one who figured prominently in the Prince Andrew saga. She had ample opportunity to accuse Trump, including in her posthumous book, and she never accused him of anything. Fittingly, the Dems who released that email today knew that, so they redacted her name to make it seem more sinister. Like you said, the extremists on both sides aren't changing their minds, only the folks in the middle.

Eh…there’s a whole bunch of smoke based on Trump’s behavior and words alone. And he controls the DOJ which protects him. He has not acted like an innocent man.

Only an extremist would not see the smoke here. You at least recognize the smoke don’t ya?

[GannonFan]

Again, photo evidence of something we didn't know or something that contradicts what Trump has already said. Everyone knows he was friends with Epstein for awhile.

But even the girl mentioned in the email today was the one who figured prominently in the Prince Andrew saga. She had ample opportunity to accuse Trump, including in her posthumous book, and she never accused him of anything. Fittingly, the Dems who released that email today knew that, so they redacted her name to make it seem more sinister. Like you said, the extremists on both sides aren't changing their minds, only the folks in the middle.

Eh…there’s a whole bunch of smoke based on Trump’s behavior and words alone. And he controls the DOJ which protects him. He has not acted like an innocent man.

Only an extremist would not see the smoke here. You at least recognize the smoke don’t ya?

I'm not looking for smoke, I'm looking for something real. Again, his relationship with Epstein has been known for years now, that's not new. We live in an age when people constantly come out of the woodwork to accuse people, and again, that hasn't happened here. Maybe the DOJ protects him now, but we just had 4 years where the DOJ didn't protect him (and actually worked against him) and they didn't produce anything new regarding him and Epstein - if they had something there is literally no doubt that it would've come out. Trump behaves like he normally does - a crazed lunatic. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. I agree that everything should be released, let's have at it. But it's also likely, at the end of the day, there won't be anything to pin on Trump related to Epstein.

[UNI88]

Eh…there’s a whole bunch of smoke based on Trump’s behavior and words alone. And he controls the DOJ which protects him. He has not acted like an innocent man.

Only an extremist would not see the smoke here. You at least recognize the smoke don’t ya?

I'm not looking for smoke, I'm looking for something real. Again, his relationship with Epstein has been known for years now, that's not new. We live in an age when people constantly come out of the woodwork to accuse people, and again, that hasn't happened here. Maybe the DOJ protects him now, but we just had 4 years where the DOJ didn't protect him (and actually worked against him) and they didn't produce anything new regarding him and Epstein - if they had something there is literally no doubt that it would've come out. Trump behaves like he normally does - a crazed lunatic. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. I agree that everything should be released, let's have at it. But it's also likely, at the end of the day, there won't be anything to pin on Trump related to Epstein.

Fair points. It's also fair to ask about/point out the "smoke". Why did trump call Beetlejuice to the White House to try to get her to change her vote on the petition? Why did he call an emergency meeting in the Situation Room? Are those the actions of an innocent man?

Why didn't the Democrats do something when they had the opportunity? I can only speculate but my guess is that there are prominent Democrats on the list (not just Bill Clinton) and they were protecting them. They foolishly didn't think trump would get this far. Now they're finally willing to sacrifice them.

It's about time. The people who preyed upon these kids should be exposed and prosecuted. trump included if he's one of them.

[kalm]

I'm not looking for smoke, I'm looking for something real. Again, his relationship with Epstein has been known for years now, that's not new. We live in an age when people constantly come out of the woodwork to accuse people, and again, that hasn't happened here. Maybe the DOJ protects him now, but we just had 4 years where the DOJ didn't protect him (and actually worked against him) and they didn't produce anything new regarding him and Epstein - if they had something there is literally no doubt that it would've come out. Trump behaves like he normally does - a crazed lunatic. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. I agree that everything should be released, let's have at it. But it's also likely, at the end of the day, there won't be anything to pin on Trump related to Epstein.

Fair points. It's also fair to ask about/point out the "smoke". Why did trump call Beetlejuice to the White House to try to get her to change her vote on the petition? Why did he call an emergency meeting in the Situation Room? Are those the actions of an innocent man?

Why didn't the Democrats do something when they had the opportunity? I can only speculate but my guess is that there are prominent Democrats on the list (not just Bill Clinton) and they were protecting them. They foolishly didn't think trump would get this far. Now they're finally willing to sacrifice them.

It's about time. The people who preyed upon these kids should be exposed and prosecuted. trump included if he's one of them.

Leon Panetta is mentioned in the emails regarding Epstein’s work with the Mossad. Drop Site News and Meidas Tuch are both reporting on it. Meidas has a Never Trump bias but they’re all moderates and careful with sourcing their info. Drop Site and Ryan Grim are known for solid old school journalism.

Trump may be squeaky clean but he isn’t acting like it…at all. Todd Blanche’s interview with Maxwell and her move to a minimum security prison adobe are highly suspect.

[GannonFan]

I'm not looking for smoke, I'm looking for something real. Again, his relationship with Epstein has been known for years now, that's not new. We live in an age when people constantly come out of the woodwork to accuse people, and again, that hasn't happened here. Maybe the DOJ protects him now, but we just had 4 years where the DOJ didn't protect him (and actually worked against him) and they didn't produce anything new regarding him and Epstein - if they had something there is literally no doubt that it would've come out. Trump behaves like he normally does - a crazed lunatic. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of everything. I agree that everything should be released, let's have at it. But it's also likely, at the end of the day, there won't be anything to pin on Trump related to Epstein.

Fair points. It's also fair to ask about/point out the "smoke". Why did trump call Beetlejuice to the White House to try to get her to change her vote on the petition? Why did he call an emergency meeting in the Situation Room? Are those the actions of an innocent man?

Why didn't the Democrats do something when they had the opportunity? I can only speculate but my guess is that there are prominent Democrats on the list (not just Bill Clinton) and they were protecting them. They foolishly didn't think trump would get this far. Now they're finally willing to sacrifice them.

It's about time. The people who preyed upon these kids should be exposed and prosecuted. trump included if he's one of them.

The thing is, are we even seeing prominent Democrats in these files? Nothing that's come out yet shows anything. Really, there's just one British Lord who had something, other than that there's been nothing of note from the releases so far (and so far it's been like 20k-40k emails). If there was something in the files on Trump it would've been really easy to leak that and just that and not endanger anyone else - heck, even the Dems in the minority now have been able to leak things, would've been even more so in the majority. No one is arguing here that this all shouldn't be made public, of course it should, but we should see it first before we lay out the accusations.

Judging the actions of what an "innocent" man would or wouldn't do is foolish and just partisan. Trump's a nut, and he's a political nut. He's always wanted to dominate conversations and topics (i.e. the whole sucking the air out of the room thing). It's really hard to make a good analysis why he does anything. The danger here, assuming that he's not innocent because people think he's acting like he's not innocent, is that this could just be another wild-goose chase that tries to tie Trump to something damaging and once we get into the weeds we find out it wasn't anything like what people were speculating - so more of the political gamesmanship rather something substantial. We don't need more things to get people to not believe in government.

[GannonFan]

Fair points. It's also fair to ask about/point out the "smoke". Why did trump call Beetlejuice to the White House to try to get her to change her vote on the petition? Why did he call an emergency meeting in the Situation Room? Are those the actions of an innocent man?

Why didn't the Democrats do something when they had the opportunity? I can only speculate but my guess is that there are prominent Democrats on the list (not just Bill Clinton) and they were protecting them. They foolishly didn't think trump would get this far. Now they're finally willing to sacrifice them.

It's about time. The people who preyed upon these kids should be exposed and prosecuted. trump included if he's one of them.

Leon Panetta is mentioned in the emails regarding Epstein’s work with the Mossad. Drop Site News and Meidas Tuch are both reporting on it. Meidas has a Never Trump bias but they’re all moderates and careful with sourcing their info. Drop Site and Ryan Grim are known for solid old school journalism.

Trump may be squeaky clean but he isn’t acting like it…at all. Todd Blanche’s interview with Maxwell and her move to a minimum security prison adobe are highly suspect.

I don't think Trump's squeaky clean - there are more than 20 credible cases of him sexually abusing women over the past 30 years or so, and he was convicted in one of them. He's a rotten person, especially when dealing with women in the past. But that doesn't mean that he's guilty in any and everything. He hung out with Epstein (we all know that), he probably saw and knew that Epstein was a bad guy (we all know that). Did he break a law or commit a crime himself in the Epstein orbit? Odd that we wouldn't have already known that considering everything else we know about Trump and how long the Epstein stuff has been out there.

[BDKJMU]

Leon Panetta is mentioned in the emails regarding Epstein’s work with the Mossad. Drop Site News and Meidas Tuch are both reporting on it. Meidas has a Never Trump bias but they’re all moderates and careful with sourcing their info. Drop Site and Ryan Grim are known for solid old school journalism.

Trump may be squeaky clean but he isn’t acting like it…at all. Todd Blanche’s interview with Maxwell and her move to a minimum security prison adobe are highly suspect.

I don't think Trump's squeaky clean - there are more than 20 credible cases of him sexually abusing women over the past 30 years or so, and he was convicted in one of them. He's a rotten person, especially when dealing with women in the past. But that doesn't mean that he's guilty in any and everything. He hung out with Epstein (we all know that), he probably saw and knew that Epstein was a bad guy (we all know that). Did he break a law or commit a crime himself in the Epstein orbit? Odd that we wouldn't have already known that considering everything else we know about Trump and how long the Epstein stuff has been out there.

No he wasn‘t.

[GannonFan]

I don't think Trump's squeaky clean - there are more than 20 credible cases of him sexually abusing women over the past 30 years or so, and he was convicted in one of them. He's a rotten person, especially when dealing with women in the past. But that doesn't mean that he's guilty in any and everything. He hung out with Epstein (we all know that), he probably saw and knew that Epstein was a bad guy (we all know that). Did he break a law or commit a crime himself in the Epstein orbit? Odd that we wouldn't have already known that considering everything else we know about Trump and how long the Epstein stuff has been out there.

No he wasn‘t.

The Carroll case still stands as a sexual abuse conviction, no?

[UNI88]

No he wasn‘t.

The Carroll case still stands as a sexual abuse conviction, no?

He's going to BDKnitpick it that he wasn't actually convicted of rape despite the fact that the judge found that her words/allegations were “substantially true” and that “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law. “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis. It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

[GannonFan]

The Carroll case still stands as a sexual abuse conviction, no?

He's going to BDKnitpick it that he wasn't actually convicted of rape despite the fact that the judge found that her words/allegations were “substantially true” and that “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law. “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis. It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

The judge was dumb in that case, they should've known better not to conjecture from the bench and not to say something that factually, based on the jury findings, wasn't true. Saying stuff like that is what can and still could lead to the conviction being overturned. Unlikely, but still shouldn't have opened the door to it. As for the charge, it was a civil case, not criminal, and Trump was held liable for sexual abuse (as well as defamation). That still stands today and was what I was referring to.

[Caribbean Hen]

The Carroll case still stands as a sexual abuse conviction, no?

He's going to BDKnitpick it that he wasn't actually convicted of rape despite the fact that the judge found that her words/allegations were “substantially true” and that “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law. “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis. It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

Judge has full blown TDS

She probably imagined Trump raped her after he ran for Prez in 2016

[kalm]

He's going to BDKnitpick it that he wasn't actually convicted of rape despite the fact that the judge found that her words/allegations were “substantially true” and that “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law. “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis. It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

Judge says E Jean Carroll allegation Trump raped her is ‘substantially true’ in court dismissal

Judge has full blown TDS

She probably imagined Trump raped her after he ran for Prez in 2016

You’re so aware of the intricacies of the trial you knew the judge was really a female.

[Caribbean Hen]

Nolte: NY Times, Michael Wolff Begged Epstein for Trump Dirt and Came Up Empty

Here is a sample in these emails to Epstein:

"Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now. Still, this necessary [sic] involves you going public,” Wolff wrote. The “strategic plan,” Wolff added, would involve “your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finally to be put in place.”
Nine days later, Wolff wrote, “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?"

[kalm]

Nolte: NY Times, Michael Wolff Begged Epstein for Trump Dirt and Came Up Empty

Here is a sample in these emails to Epstein:

"Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now. Still, this necessary [sic] involves you going public,” Wolff wrote. The “strategic plan,” Wolff added, would involve “your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finally to be put in place.”
Nine days later, Wolff wrote, “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?"

Wolff seems like a complete douche bag.

[GannonFan]

Nolte: NY Times, Michael Wolff Begged Epstein for Trump Dirt and Came Up Empty

Here is a sample in these emails to Epstein:

"Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now. Still, this necessary [sic] involves you going public,” Wolff wrote. The “strategic plan,” Wolff added, would involve “your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finally to be put in place.”
Nine days later, Wolff wrote, “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?"

Wolff seems like a complete douche bag.

Even NPR last night was not singing the guy's praises - think they even referred to him as "decidedly not the way a journalist should behave" or something. Consider that a lot of those emails were in the 2015-2019 timeframe - well after it was established that Epstein was a bad guy who did a lot of bad things. To still be really good friends and to be exchanging so much communication with Epstein at that point says a lot about someone.