Trump Presidency Round 2

[GATTACA!]

So, you falsely accuse me of gish gallop, and you ignore my post and call it horseshit. You still haven't refuted anything I posted as fact.

lol, you don't want to debate or listen or learn. You just want to live in your manufactured narrative and shout at the sky. You do you.

NO ONE WAS ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A PEDOPHILE WAS. No one said Megyn Kelly’s definition was wrong. Are you dense??

 

[GATTACA!]

😂

 

[sixstar]

NO ONE WAS ARGUING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A PEDOPHILE WAS. No one said Megyn Kelly’s definition was wrong. Are you dense??

The clip LLF posted is literally where MK is discussing the definition of pedophilia. How do you not see that?
And then LLF used that clip to manipulate MK's point and accuse her of excusing pedophilia.

I take back my statement. If you don't see this direct connection, you aren't willfully ignorant; the only explanation is that you are unwittingly ignorant. I apologize for expecting more of you.

 

[GATTACA!]

The clip LLF posted is literally where MK is discussing the definition of pedophilia. How do you not see that?
And then LLF used that clip to manipulate MK's point and accuse her of excusing pedophilia.

I take back my statement. If you don't see this direct connection, you aren't willfully ignorant; the only explanation is that you are unwittingly ignorant. I apologize for expecting more of you.

LLF did not post that clip because he disagreed with the linguistic distinction Megyn was making. He posted that clip as an example of what he believes right wing commentators are going to start doing. Trying to shift the conversation away from Epstein being a pedophile because they believe the optics of abusing slightly older children is less repulsive.

You can disagree with that theory. You can disagree that that’s what Kelly was trying to do with that segment.

What you did was write a 6,000 word response explaining something that no one was disagreeing with. No one in this thread disagreed with the definitions MK outlined.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

LLF did not post that clip because he disagreed with the linguistic distinction Megyn was making. He posted that clip as an example of what he believes right wing commentators are going to start doing. Trying to shift the conversation away from Epstein being a pedophile because they believe the optics of abusing slightly older children is less repulsive.

You can disagree with that theory. You can disagree that that’s what Kelly was trying to do with that segment.

What you did was write a 6,000 word response explaining something that no one was disagreeing with. No one in this thread disagreed with the definitions MK outlined.

"This person has told me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile," Megyn said. "This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls."

Megyn continued, "I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I’m just giving you facts that he wasn’t into, like, eight-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby.”

Megyn added that she didn't change her opinion on the case until she learned that the feds had evidence that Epstein possessed thousands of videos containing child sexual abuse.

"For the first time I thought, 'Oh no, he was an actual pedophile.' Only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos," Megyn said.

MK's full quote only proves your/llf point even more. She clearly was trying to downplay the pedophilia only to turn around and say he was a pedophile.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

 

[TorontoGold]

Like you said: I made, what, two posts on it? And those posts focused on the facts that MSM covered up the story.
I don't police name calling here, be it Pedo President or Biden Crime Family. Not my interest area. But I do interact when people misinterpret facts.

No you don’t. You can drop the impartial arbiter of facts guise. We just saw that you did in fact post about the Biden laptop scandal. Then we noted that there were no legal reviews done of the accusations of those about the Biden crime family. So, no, you don’t interact when facts are misrepresented but when you feel someone is wrong in their opinion of a Republican. It’s totally fine to admit you have biases, I have plenty and I’ve never shied away from being called a Lefty or far left.

False titles aren’t it.

You literally did. I quoted you: "You're asking the public to treat Trump significantly less harsh than Andrew."
Again - I never said that.

When I have made repeated statements about how Trump should be publicly shamed as much as Andrew and suffer the same societal impacts that he has you’ve gone silent. Why can’t you say yes or no that Donald Trump should suffer the same publicly that Andrew has?

Let's be accurate here:
You started by saying that the emails implicated Trump and that you expected posters here to condemn him, as if a single-sided uncorroborated email actually proved anything. That's where you began.

This is a complete simplification.

These threads have been filled with posts saying everyone wants the Epstein lists to be released. I know you’re able to use the internet and aren’t fooled by AI like some others or tout credentials that you don’t have so you aren’t actually expecting a document called “Epstein List”, correct?

The flight logs, the emails, the pictures, the notes etc. all make up parts of the “List”. It just doesn’t make up enough for you to believe it yet. The other true believers will never believe it.

Then I brought up Andrew, and you shifted to him.

And they call ME the vortex! Lol

No, you started by saying that the emails implicated Trump. I explained how they objectively do not implicate him. I then used Andrew for context. I introduced the Andrew discussion, not you. Don't try to rewrite the facts.

Exactly, why bring him up if you don’t want to explore the similarities between the two and then shutdown when I discuss them?

"Disgraced similarly"? What does that even mean?

Loss of social status etc. Effectively have the Republican Party take the role of the Royal Family. Really seems like Al Franken got a raw deal! (FTR - I don’t care for him.)

Are the allegations equivalent? No. Andrew was accused of having sex with a trafficked minor on multiple occasions. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing a 50-year old woman one time. These are fundamentally different legal and cultural categories.

Can you equate them? No.

Should they both be shamed for what's been established? Absolutely. Both acts are vile and morally reprehensible.

Well, you see there are also allegations outside of that.

There is two groups of allegations regarding his misconduct regarding young girls. Remember, Andrew was not criminally or civilly liable for any of the allegations.

1) Miss Teen USA - Young girls
2) Plaza parties - Young girls

There’s an entire wiki dedicated to just Trump’s allegations. If we’re going to compare allegations, we need to be clear on the full scope of those allegations.

Sure. Sexual abusers deserve their consequences. Forcing yourself on an unwilling person is sick stuff.

But also - I recognize that you are shifting goalposts. Your original statement said that the emails implicated Trump. They do not.

Trump is included on a document prepared by Epstein that lists him as a participant. This was done over a span of nearly a decade, multiple times. I’m not a lawyer, but I think having multiple sources of concerning items over decades and additional evidence from a persons history you build your case that way.

The people here wanted a list, they got a piece of documental evidence that shows Epstein listing Trump as a participant.

I agree that suspicion is certainly warranted. No argument there. But suspicion isn't evidence by itself.

If Trump wrote a private email to someone stating, "Pedro Pascal participated at Epstein's island" would you believe him? Why or why not? If you don't believe Trump because he has a history of lying (and he does), why would you believe Epstein, who also has a documented history of lying?

If the person running the place says someone was involved that is completely different than someone who was not running the place. If there were multiple emails from Epstein saying Pedro Pascal was on the island then I would refer to him as Pedo Pascal. Put any name in Trump’s place on the emails, I don’t care.

 

[sixstar]

Toronto - stay till the end. I think you will be surprised.

What you did was write a 6,000 word response explaining something that no one was disagreeing with. No one in this thread disagreed with the definitions MK outlined.

my original response to him was 40 words, followed by a 166 word post on the definitions.
Exaggerate much?

"This person has told me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile," Megyn said. "This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls."

Megyn continued, "I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I’m just giving you facts that he wasn’t into, like, eight-year-olds. But he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passerby.”

Megyn added that she didn't change her opinion on the case until she learned that the feds had evidence that Epstein possessed thousands of videos containing child sexual abuse.

"For the first time I thought, 'Oh no, he was an actual pedophile.' Only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos," Megyn said.

You forgot the first part:

Kelly: "Whatever. It’s sick. Every time we start talking about Epstein, it makes your skin crawl. You’re right. The whole thing is just disgusting. (Brief pause) As for Epstein, I've said this before, but just as a reminder, I do know somebody very, very close to this case who is in a position to know virtually everything... And this person has told me from the start, years and years ago, that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person’s view, was not a pedophile..."

If people here want to acknowledge the middle, they have to acknowledge the entire monologue.

She clearly was trying to downplay the pedophilia only to turn around and say he was a pedophile.

I can't assume her angle. I do recognize that the general Democrat interpretation of her statements is downplaying pedophilia to protect Trump. I see her trying to use accurate language discussing the topic, because that is what I do. That said, I don't watch MK, so I don't know enough about her background to comment confidently on her angle. I just caution against assuming what someone is saying rather than taking what they actually say at face value.

No you don’t. You can drop the impartial arbiter of facts guise. We just saw that you did in fact post about the Biden laptop scandal. Then we noted that there were no legal reviews done of the accusations of those about the Biden crime family. So, no, you don’t interact when facts are misrepresented but when you feel someone is wrong in their opinion of a Republican. It’s totally fine to admit you have biases, I have plenty and I’ve never shied away from being called a Lefty or far left.

I posted about MSM cover-up (which is true). I didn't make any posts overstating suspicions as evidence regarding the laptop or the Biden family.

In the last month, I've both defended Obama and have been critical of Trump.
I've also stated that I'm a conservative-leaning moderate. My post history tracks with all of that.

But when I enter a debate, I do so with facts and logic. If someone has a problem with something I post? Be specific, and I'll respond, just as you and I have done for months.

You should at least be able to acknowledge that I don't make baseless statements.

When I have made repeated statements about how Trump should be publicly shamed as much as Andrew and suffer the same societal impacts that he has you’ve gone silent. Why can’t you say yes or no that Donald Trump should suffer the same publicly that Andrew has?

False. I already answered your question. You even quoted my answer in your post.

"Disgraced similarly"? What does that even mean?

Are the allegations equivalent? No. Andrew was accused of having sex with a trafficked minor on multiple occasions. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing a 50-year old woman one time. These are fundamentally different legal and cultural categories.

Can you equate them? No.

Should they both be shamed for what's been established? Absolutely. Both acts are vile and morally reprehensible.

I have a problem with the word "same" because the situations are not equivalent.

This is a complete simplification.

It was an accurate summary of the timeline of our back and forth. If there's a disconnect here, we're probably talking past each other. Follow the quote chain.

These threads have been filled with posts saying everyone wants the Epstein lists to be released. I know you’re able to use the internet and aren’t fooled by AI like some others or tout credentials that you don’t have so you aren’t actually expecting a document called “Epstein List”, correct?

The flight logs, the emails, the pictures, the notes etc. all make up parts of the “List”. It just doesn’t make up enough for you to believe it yet. The other true believers will never believe it.

I have repeatedly said that I want all files to be released and all guilty parties punished to the fullest extent of the law, no matter who they are.

Trump promised he would do it, and now he's actively fighting against it. Why?

Exactly, why bring him up if you don’t want to explore the similarities between the two and then shutdown when I discuss them?

I haven't shut down; I've answered everything you responded back with. I brought him up to highlight both the similarities and differences.

Yes, both committed heinous acts. And while the acts were of different degrees, both should suffer the consequences of their actions.

Loss of social status etc. Effectively have the Republican Party take the role of the Royal Family. Really seems like Al Franken got a raw deal! (FTR - I don’t care for him.)

What do you mean by loss of social status? Public disgrace isn’t something you assign; it's something that happens organically based on public consensus.

Would I hope that people would repudiate Trump based on his past actions? Yes. Can I expect them to? Maybe, in a vacuum. But there were many other factors at play that galvanized Trump amongst the Rs that his sexual deviancy took a back seat in their minds.

And in case you are wondering: I did not vote for Trump in the primaries, and I did not vote at all in the presidential election. I didn't feel that either candidate deserved my vote.

Well, you see there are also allegations outside of that.

There is two groups of allegations regarding his misconduct regarding young girls. Remember, Andrew was not criminally or civilly liable for any of the allegations.

1) Miss Teen USA - Young girls
2) Plaza parties - Young girls

There’s an entire wiki dedicated to just Trump’s allegations. If we’re going to compare allegations, we need to be clear on the full scope of those allegations.

Yeah, and I acknowledged those disturbing allegations. The difference with Andrew is that Giuffre pressed charges and gave a sworn testimony. None of the Miss Teen or Plaza Hotel stories resulted in charges or a sworn testimony. Those claims against Trump haven't been tried in court, so they aren't directly comparable.

Trump is included on a document prepared by Epstein that lists him as a participant. This was done over a span of nearly a decade, multiple times. I’m not a lawyer, but I think having multiple sources of concerning items over decades and additional evidence from a persons history you build your case that way.

The people here wanted a list, they got a piece of documental evidence that shows Epstein listing Trump as a participant.

For the record: I believe Trump is in the files. I'm highly confident he participated in some forms of debauchery with or around that group of people. I think it's possible he participated in sex trafficking.

I'm not fully convinced he participated, though. if the files show that he participated, then help me find any reason the Ds didn't expose him prior to the most recent election. They threw everything else at him, so why not this?

The associations are too numerous to ignore, but not strong enough to count as evidence today. Trump is fighting hard to hide the files after platforming on releasing them immediately; obviously red flag levels of suspiciousness.

If I had to guess: I believe that he will be implicated if the files are released, and he'll try to blame it on D misinformation, just like he tried to slander E Jean Carroll after her accusations.

 

[NDWarrior]

Trouble in MAGA-dise...

Trump withdraws support for longtime ally Marjorie Taylor Greene

I said months ago that Trump and his admin would leverage the pressure to release the Eppy Files to indict the Democrats only as the only guilty pedos and also to vilify those MAGA repubs who go against him in this Files witch hunt. And here we are.

 

[Irish#1]

Someone entered the Sixstar vortex.

There’s only one vortex.

 

[Fbolt]

Sixstar, logic does not work here. Responses are based on emotion, and if they feel an emotion, it must be true and therefore elevated into facts. Just enjoying the circle jerk closing in-hell, the tips must be touching at this point-salivating and claiming victory.

Me? Still waiting for anything new to pop out before I'll render a new opinion.

Hey, just offering my thoughts.

 

[TorontoGold]

“…emotion!”

 

[drayer54]

Dems are back to flailing on the Epstein thing. Hakeem Jeffries folks tried to fundraise off Epstein as the Brooklyn Barack and now is back to lies and smoke.

 

[drayer54]

Good breakdown on house Dems colluding with Epstein against their common enemy. When Dems say he is bad, they mean in a partnership sort of way.

 

[LifelongFan]

Another one of the deeply concerned MAGAtards that Irish#1 promised would flip on his precious pedo president.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

Another one of the deeply concerned MAGAtards that Irish#1 promised would flip on his precious pedo president.

Hey now, he's not a pedo, he likes young girls that have already gone thru puberty. Huge difference

 

[drayer54]

Another one of the deeply concerned MAGAtards that Irish#1 promised would flip on his precious pedo president.

I have proof Dems peddle to pedo donors and collaborate with him this week and you still have no smoking gun.

 

[LifelongFan]

Hey now, he's not a pedo, he likes young girls that have already gone thru puberty. Huge difference

New MAGA hats for IE!

 

[TorontoGold]

View attachment 3061221
New MAGA hats for IE!

Why would you ever think this! No one supports this!

I just can’t seem to think why anyone would think IE MAGA folks don’t have an issue with sex pests.

 

[Irish#1]

Fall out already starting.

'I am deeply ashamed': Larry Summers to step back from public commitments after new Epstein emails

Sen. Elizabeth Warren had called for institutions affiliated with Summers, who was treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, to sever ties with him.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Irish#1]

I'm really confused. I trust one of our libs here can explain how this is happening. You told us the Repubs are all about Pedo and do what they can to keep things covered up yet here they are getting ready to make everything available.

Congress passes bill to force the release of the Epstein files

The overwhelming bipartisan votes come after President Donald Trump reversed course and encouraged Republicans to support the measure he had previously opposed.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[drayer54]

Reviewing the thread-

We don’t even have this much evidence that Trump is a Pedo. Only bullshit excitement from left-wing posters.

However- we see that Epstein did not like Trump, he colluded with House Dems during a house hearing and we know of dems who also tried to fund raise off him for Hakeem Jeffries. We don't yet know how many house Dems were texting or had Epstein as a contact yet, but expect clarity on that soon. We know more about Larry Summers at this point, but that's ok. This illusion like the Russiagate BS will blow up too.

I'm really confused. I trust one of our libs here can explain how this is happening. You told us the Repubs are all about Pedo and do what they can to keep things covered up yet here they are getting ready to make everything available.

Congress passes bill to force the release of the Epstein files

The overwhelming bipartisan votes come after President Donald Trump reversed course and encouraged Republicans to support the measure he had previously opposed.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm still waiting to hear why the Dem house,Dem senate, and Dem POTUS backed with left wing activist autopen couldn't release it if it was so damaging???

 

[Irish#1]

I'm still waiting to hear why the Dem house,Dem senate, and Dem POTUS backed with left wing activist autopen couldn't release it if it was so damaging???

This is the biggest question out there IMO. The excuses given so far are lame at best.

 

[GATTACA!]

Reviewing the thread-

We don’t even have this much evidence that Trump is a Pedo. Only bullshit excitement from left-wing posters.

However- we see that Epstein did not like Trump, he colluded with House Dems during a house hearing and we know of dems who also tried to fund raise off him for Hakeem Jeffries. We don't yet know how many house Dems were texting or had Epstein as a contact yet, but expect clarity on that soon. We know more about Larry Summers at this point, but that's ok. This illusion like the Russiagate BS will blow up too.


I'm still waiting to hear why the Dem house,Dem senate, and Dem POTUS backed with left wing activist autopen couldn't release it if it was so damaging???

Holy shit. It’s wild seeing a non boomer fall this hard into the newsmax level propaganda.

 

[TorontoGold]

Holy shit. It’s wild seeing a non boomer fall this hard into the newsmax level propaganda.

But Biden!!!! Biden! Biden!

I remember our lovely IE MAGA folks thought there was no blame for Trump for inflation, and it was all Biden. Now, it’s all Biden because he didn’t do anything. But I mean Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and appeals continued on for the rest of his term.

They really struggle with justifying why the guy who gave Epstein a light sentence was part of Trump’s first cabinet. Of course, that doesn’t make its way into the Facebook algo and PatriotNancy and EagleJim haven’t shared it.

 

[RDU Irish]

Fall out already starting.

'I am deeply ashamed': Larry Summers to step back from public commitments after new Epstein emails

Sen. Elizabeth Warren had called for institutions affiliated with Summers, who was treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, to sever ties with him.

www.nbcnews.com

Harvard Harbors Pervert Prof should be a headline somewhere. Another mark in the defund Harvard column.

Sunlight is the best antiseptic - expose them all and let them burn NOW.

 

[drayer54]

But Biden!!!! Biden! Biden!

I remember our lovely IE MAGA folks thought there was no blame for Trump for inflation, and it was all Biden. Now, it’s all Biden because he didn’t do anything. But I mean Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and appeals continued on for the rest of his term.

They really struggle with justifying why the guy who gave Epstein a light sentence was part of Trump’s first cabinet. Of course, that doesn’t make its way into the Facebook algo and PatriotNancy and EagleJim haven’t shared it.

Biden spent trillions in an overheated economy. American Recovery Plan, IRA, and executive actions. Trump had very low inflation in term one and low in term two. Biden had “not so transitory” inflation. You’re the data guy, supposedly.

Why did the Democrats sit on the Epstein files if they were so damaging?
Why did House Democrats collaborate with Epstein?

 

[TorontoGold]

Biden spent trillions in an overheated economy. American Recovery Plan, IRA, and executive actions. Trump had very low inflation in term one and low in term two. Biden had “not so transitory” inflation. You’re the data guy, supposedly.

Why did the Democrats sit on the Epstein files if they were so damaging?
Why did House Democrats collaborate with Epstein?

Yes, I am the data guy. You’re making it quite clear you’re the political operative guy.

You have the proof the Dems had all this evidence and sat on it? I would have thought the former prosecutor from Florida who was part of Trump’s cabinet would have had the connections to get the files. Why did that guy resign from the Bubba Blower cabinet?

 

[drayer54]

You have the proof the Dems had all this evidence and sat on it? I would have thought the former prosecutor from Florida who was part of Trump’s cabinet would have had the connections to get the files. Why did that guy resign from the Bubba Blower cabinet?

The Epstein case blew up before Joe was in office. They had the keys at DOJ. They had the desire to sink Trump by any means necessary.

Also prepare for framing and political operatives in the media-

 

[TorontoGold]

The Epstein case blew up before Joe was in office. They had the keys at DOJ. They had the desire to sink Trump by any means necessary.

Also prepare for framing and political operatives in the media-

Yes, exactly. The Trump admin had the keys and could release all of the Epstein stuff. They even had the attorney from the Florida case on staff, why did he resign from the Trump admin? Someone who has intimate knowledge of Epstein who could have released the name of all those Dems under suspicion, why didn’t he do this before?

Yeah I’m sure I’ll see a lot of people on these forums lining up to excuse Larry Summers. “It wasn’t actually pedophilia!” Or “Well I don’t have a document called “Epstein list” so I can’t believe it” or “Well, legally Larry Summers is innocent so we must not pass any judgement”.

lol you won’t see anyone trying the #1 or sixstar defenses, and if they do tag me or I’ll respond to them if I see it.