|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it?
People with the means to do so.
Edit: A non-provisional patent for a micro entity costs $69 USD. A corpo can cost a few hundred and lasts for 1 year from date of filing. A provisional costs $25k (50/50 costs of filing and attorney to look it over and submit it, plus argue/change once it is rejected (always on the first go usually.)) To a corpo like Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Facebook, etc, that is change in their pockets. So they just grab a bunch of shit and file either one. No one wants to take the time to wade through the literal hundreds to thousands of patents to see if you could possibly infringe. When I did my non-provisional, I searched a few hundred. But you have to reference any similar or derived patents in your patent, as to show that it was non-obvious (which is very, very, very fucking subjective) in order to be granted a patent. Then you get to maintenance fees and most small businesses can't afford the fees, so what happens? They forfeit and a large corpo slobbers it up or they get smart and license it.
|
On July 10 2019 09:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? People with the means to do so.
And they are? Doesn't seem to be anyone here?
EDIT: Are you saying the people that exploited the system and have the power to change/enforce it are the same people (not us)?
|
On July 10 2019 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? People with the means to do so. And they are? Doesn't seem to be anyone here? EDIT: Are you saying the people that exploited the system and have the power to change it are the same people (not us)?
You're like a mini IgnE with your derivative questioning. Worst fisherman ever.
The people that exploited the system tested the waters and when nothing was being done, went hog fucking wild. The people with the power to do so, congress mostly, don't care. Why would they unless they were paid to look the other way. Which may be an issue, but then think about it; Apple is losing a lot of money from China not honoring our patent laws. That would be incentive enough for Apple to poke a congressman/woman or two and get something done, right? They don't care.
|
On July 10 2019 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? People with the means to do so. And they are? Doesn't seem to be anyone here? EDIT: Are you saying the people that exploited the system and have the power to change it are the same people (not us)? You're like a mini IgnE with your derivative questioning. Worst fisherman ever. The people that exploited the system tested the waters and when nothing was being done, went hog fucking wild. The people with the power to do so, congress mostly, don't care. Why would they unless they were paid to look the other way. Which may be an issue, but then think about it; Apple is losing a lot of money from China not honoring our patent laws. That would be incentive enough for Apple to poke a congressman/woman or two and get something done, right? They don't care.
It's because we want to understand what you're saying instead of assuming the worst.
"the people that exploited the system" is one group I'm trying to identify more specifically under your reasoning. Who are they and how did they have the ability to exploit the system?
Important questions if the solution presented is going back to the system they exploited and turned into the one we have now that they prefer.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 09:21 xDaunt wrote:So yesterday we were talking about Epstein connections and the ridiculous plea deal that he got 10 years ago. Trump's labor secretary, Alexander Acosta, came up given that he's the one that negotiated the plea deal with Epstein. Of course, the obvious stink here is that Acosta is somehow dirty or compromised for giving Epstein such a deal. It turns out that Acosta has his own story to tell, which goes in a much darker direction: Show nested quote +A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up.
Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.
Epstein’s name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who’d infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and trafficking.
“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)
And so, it seemed—until the news of Epstein’s arrest on Saturday for allegedly trafficking minors—thus continuing a pattern of blatant exceptionalism that surrounded him, and his social and business nexus.
For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves is well-known in his circle, remained untouchable. Read the rest here.
It’s very convenient that Acosta looks corrupt but was able to explain that the Deep State made him be corrupt so it’s fine really. That justifies him allowing a pedophile to prey on children for decades.
|
On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to?
This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss.
|
On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss.
I think Epstein is involved with the giant UK pedophilia ring. It would explain why he was considered too big a fish. And it is likely that Clinton and others are also a part of it.
|
On July 10 2019 09:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? People with the means to do so. Edit: A non-provisional patent for a micro entity costs $69 USD. A corpo can cost a few hundred and lasts for 1 year from date of filing. A provisional costs $25k (50/50 costs of filing and attorney to look it over and submit it, plus argue/change once it is rejected (always on the first go usually.)) To a corpo like Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Facebook, etc, that is change in their pockets. So they just grab a bunch of shit and file either one. No one wants to take the time to wade through the literal hundreds to thousands of patents to see if you could possibly infringe. When I did my non-provisional, I searched a few hundred. But you have to reference any similar or derived patents in your patent, as to show that it was non-obvious (which is very, very, very fucking subjective) in order to be granted a patent. Then you get to maintenance fees and most small businesses can't afford the fees, so what happens? They forfeit and a large corpo slobbers it up or they get smart and license it.
Large corporations exploited it, congress didn't/doesn't care. I thought that might be what you meant but now I know.
So while Falling's proposal seems eminently reasonable (though far from what I'd consider ideal) it's dead in the water and we're consigned to what we've got (or worse).
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss.
To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying.
|
On July 10 2019 10:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. I think Epstein is involved with the giant UK pedophilia ring. It would explain why he was considered too big a fish. And it is likely that Clinton and others are also a part of it.
Why UK?
|
On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying.
Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups?
|
|
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 10:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying. Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups?
I'm not saying it's implausible. The Nuremberg defence was perfectly plausible. I'm saying it's not a good look when the orders you're following are to let a pedophile go back to preying on children. And that's the positive spin that he proactively put on it. He came forward and volunteered "Sure, I allowed children to get raped but in my defence someone asked me to allow it and what was I meant to do, say "no"? resign? go to the press? I think we'll all agree that letting the pedophile get back to work was a perfectly reasonable decision in the circumstances".
|
On July 10 2019 09:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 08:52 Falling wrote:
re: IP
I see no reason to radically overhaul it when we could just go back to the original formulation as expressed in the US and try that again.
The more I think about how they formulated the problem the more genius I think it is. IP is a limited monopoly. "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors…the exclusive Right to their…Writings"
Emphasis on limited. Just go back to 14 years default IP and an additional 14 years IF you renew. By default it goes into the public domain otherwise.
14-28 years is tons of time to make profit from your ideas and then everyone else can build on your ideas and go from there. Incentive to create, but you don't have corporate dragons sitting on IP for generations, long after the original creators are dead. Why/how do you think we went from that to what we have now and what is preventing us from changing it back tomorrow (since it's such an obviously [this is sincere, it's clearly better] better method than what we have currently)? People exploited the system and we don't care enough to change/enforce it. Who exploited the system and who doesn't care to change it? People with the means to do so. Edit: A non-provisional patent for a micro entity costs $69 USD. A corpo can cost a few hundred and lasts for 1 year from date of filing. A provisional costs $25k (50/50 costs of filing and attorney to look it over and submit it, plus argue/change once it is rejected (always on the first go usually.)) To a corpo like Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Facebook, etc, that is change in their pockets. So they just grab a bunch of shit and file either one. No one wants to take the time to wade through the literal hundreds to thousands of patents to see if you could possibly infringe. When I did my non-provisional, I searched a few hundred. But you have to reference any similar or derived patents in your patent, as to show that it was non-obvious (which is very, very, very fucking subjective) in order to be granted a patent. Then you get to maintenance fees and most small businesses can't afford the fees, so what happens? They forfeit and a large corpo slobbers it up or they get smart and license it.
“silicon valley” has been fighting with “big pharma” for several years now about the nature and extent of patent coverage. there are several prominent software/network companies that advocate diminishing patent protections, but big pharma says this will cripple their businesses and we won’t get any more medical innovation. both positions are, of course, based in different models of profit through appropriation
|
On July 10 2019 11:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:55 IgnE wrote:On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying. Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups? I'm not saying it's implausible. The Nuremberg defence was perfectly plausible. I'm saying it's not a good look when the orders you're following are to let a pedophile go back to preying on children. And that's the positive spin that he proactively put on it. He came forward and volunteered "Sure, I allowed children to get raped but in my defence someone asked me to allow it and what was I meant to do, say "no"? resign? go to the press? I think we'll all agree that letting the pedophile get back to work was a perfectly reasonable decision in the circumstances".
this just strikes me as naive. what is he supposed to say? the point is that it’s a better look than being the one in charge. that’s it
|
On July 10 2019 10:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying. Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups?
You're getting confused because Kwark is making a very irrelevant point. Whether Acosta is the guy who "de facto" protected Epstein is immaterial to the larger issue of him getting orders from above to protect Epstein.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 11:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 11:01 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:55 IgnE wrote:On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying. Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups? I'm not saying it's implausible. The Nuremberg defence was perfectly plausible. I'm saying it's not a good look when the orders you're following are to let a pedophile go back to preying on children. And that's the positive spin that he proactively put on it. He came forward and volunteered "Sure, I allowed children to get raped but in my defence someone asked me to allow it and what was I meant to do, say "no"? resign? go to the press? I think we'll all agree that letting the pedophile get back to work was a perfectly reasonable decision in the circumstances". this just strikes me as naive. what is he supposed to say? the point is that it’s a better look than being the one in charge. that’s it
It's not at all naive. One of the first things we learn in professional ethics is that if your boss asks you to do something unethical you say no because if you do it then it's not the boss doing something unethical, it's you. The boss probably has a boss too and his boss probably has a boss and so forth. To the people under him Acosta was the one in charge protecting Epstein. The idea that it's not his fault for protecting Epstein, he was just following orders, ignores the obvious, that he did protect Epstein. No different to how I would be committing fraud if I was asked to commit fraud and then did so.
As for what he's supposed to say, at this point a suicide note would be appropriate. Or at the very least telling us about how his family were threatened and that a mysterious government vehicle picked up his kids from daycare only to return them later with a warning for him. When you're admitting to helping free a pedophile so they can continue to rape kids explaining that you were asked very nicely to help them doesn't look better.
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 11:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 10:55 IgnE wrote:On July 10 2019 10:18 KwarK wrote:On July 10 2019 10:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 10 2019 09:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
What exactly are you saying here? I'm confused to what you are wanting a discussion about. Is it that he was let loose to terrorize young girls/women and no one tried to bring him in? Or because trump was accused of having something to do with him, when it was "deep state" protecting epstein this whole time and trump couldn't go after him? Did he try to and was told not to? This has nothing to do with Trump. Acosta's story is basically that he was given directions from above to give that sweetheart deal to Epstein and it was explained to him that Epstein was part of some intelligence agency (the implication in the article is that it was a foreign intelligence agency), thus he was too big of a fish for Acosta to really prosecute. This narrative (presuming it is true) raises numerous disturbing questions such as why the hell are high ranking government officials protecting a pedophile (as an aside, this happened during the Bush years), what intelligence agency could a pedophile be a part of, and if it's a foreign intelligence agency, why the hell would American officials be protecting it? When you start really pondering these questions, you quickly find yourself staring into the abyss. To be clear, Acosta is saying that he protected Epstein. He's saying that he was told to protect Epstein by the Deep State but he's also saying that he protected Epstein. That's not a great thing for him to be saying. Do you not find it plausible that DoJ attorneys are sometimes told to drop (or pursue) certain cases by higher ups? You're getting confused because Kwark is making a very irrelevant point. Whether Acosta is the guy who "de facto" protected Epstein is immaterial to the larger issue of him getting orders from above to protect Epstein.
It's just that there are two issues here. Firstly, Acosta is stating that he materially participated in a conspiracy to assist a pedophile in raping kids because someone told him to. Secondly, Acosta's boss was allegedly also in that conspiracy.
I'm not ignoring the second. Acosta's boss is just as culpable as he is, as is Acosta's boss's boss and so forth. We should absolutely investigate who these people are and follow it right up the chain. I just want to make sure that in all the excitement we don't somehow overlook the bombshell that is casually placed in his defence, that he willingly joined this conspiracy to release a pedophile to prey on kids because he was asked politely to join.
It's like if a prison guard alleged that he beat a prisoner to death on the orders of the warden. I'm absolutely going to want to know more about the warden part because that totally needs to be investigated and the warden, plus whoever told him to do it, need to be held accountable. But we shouldn't ignore the whole "prison guard just confessed to a murder" aspect of it.
|
I briefly saw an alert saying Trump is recorded defending Epstein in question by reporter the day after Epstein recently got arrested. I’ll find it when I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
