|
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 November 17 2025 23:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 17:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 18:57 Acrofales wrote:On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
Demand congress impeach him? Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future. Okay, fine. Riot and lynch your congresspeople who refuse to act in good faith? That what you wanted to hear? I mean, my faith in American politics crashed and burned ages ago. But my faith in the American people to dig themselves out of that mess is possibly even lower. I mean, these are the same American people who elected Trump for a second term in the first place, right? At some point you just have to pray for a miracle (or as JJR likes to say: leave). Let's not pretend I haven't offered the best electoralism plan for Democrats presented here to date. The best you get from Dem supporters is some variation of "win the primaries against the bad Democrats over time" but when you press them for a metric to determine the "bad Democrats" for 2026 you get crickets. I've also asked about whether people like you would advocate taking in people from the US as refugees, and to clarify if we're all welcome or if just "the good ones" would be allowed? Basically crickets from the "run for your life" crowd. That people recognize and act on the necessity of socialism to help guide us out of this mess (not as a perfect solution, but the "lesser evil" to capitalism for those that like that framing) is the "miracle" I'm "praying for". USians crossing the Atlantic in leaky boats would be a crazy development, but I think I've said before that I am a huge proponent of migration in general. You'll need to specify the "good ones" a bit more, though: if you're on the Interpol red list, then maybe not. + Show Spoiler +But why exactly do you need my approval? Do you think our customs control gives a shit about what I said on TL.net? If you have an American passport you can just fly in without worrying about what I think. You already have a leg up on almost all other refugees: Ukrainians, Sudanese, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians, etc. all have to worry about how to even get to Spain (Europe) before they can apply for asylum. If you don't mind, for the moment I'll continue to try to support those peoples' rights to stay, instead of worrying about what Vox would think about USian refugees. But if you feel you need the "welcome" of a random dude on the internet to flee your country as a refugee, then I guess you have it! "Good ones" in this context would be people that can already choose to travel to Europe (in this case) and would relatively easily be accepted as immigrants (distinct from asylum seekers/refugees). I'm basically asking about USians that wouldn't be accepted as immigrants for various reasons. Less severe than being wanted by Interpol (but who knows what Trump might try lol) but not your typical tourists either. Maybe the "Tired...poor...huddled masses" types? Well then they wouldn’t? No European government is going to officially make it a matter of policy that the US is so shit that they’ll accept asylum claims. And it’s even less likely that Europeans start to operate some kind of Underground Railroad for Americans who can’t migrate via regular channels. Well then telling homeless trans teenagers and any other multitude of vulnerable people their best bet is to throw up their hands and run (but they won't take them in or fight for their asylum) pray is pretty cruel/obscene then right?
It's giving a sort of German ocean liner St. Louis vibe.
|
On November 18 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 23:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. Republicans will 100% pretend like there is nothing. But enough has already been made public that there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children. They just don't care. Heck at this point the biggest Trump related revelation of the Epstein files is whether or not Trump gave Bill Clinton a blowjob. No doubt Trump raped underaged children? How do you get there? I don't think even the Comet Pizza conspiracy theorists had no doubt about the Clintons. A 2011 email sent by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein says that United States President Donald Trump “spent hours” with one of the victims – an allegation that is likely to further fuel calls for releasing files relating to the late, disgraced financier. www.aljazeera.com
I'm sure a complete coincidence and he was just helping her with her homework.
Yes I have no doubt.
|
On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant.
"Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit.
This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me.
|
On November 17 2025 23:56 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 23:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Many Congressional Republicans are slowly walking back their pro-pedophile / pro-rapist positions on Trump and the Epstein files, and finally flipping in favor of releasing the information. Now that it appears that Congress's votes will not only agree to release the Epstein files but also possibly even be veto-proof, Trump has given in. He's done a 180 and is jumping on the bandwagon of releasing the files, undoubtedly hoping he can hide or dismiss or spin or redact whatever new information is revealed about him (not that his most ardent supporters would ever be convinced to leave his side anyway). "The president’s shift is an implicit acknowledgement that supporters of the measure have enough votes to pass it the House, although it has an unclear future in the Senate. It is a rare example of Trump backtracking because of opposition within the GOP. ... Lawmakers who support the bill have been predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for it, bucking the GOP leadership and the president. ... The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted. “There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.” https://apnews.com/article/epstein-files-house-sex-trafficking-investigation-c46716743f6f65f2f3b74906365da58b My best guess is Trump knows what’s in there, and it ain’t good, hence the prior reluctance. But increasingly it’s not something he can dodge. It’s not exactly a prediction that takes much brainpower to make. It’s gonna be ‘look at those Dems, and I OKed it being released despite it painting me in a bad light too!’ That’s gonna be the pivot here. Hell, it may even work. I'm sure whatever Trump says, it will work for his cult followers, yeah. And I also can't fathom anything that would convince Republicans to remove Trump from office prematurely (and not just impeach him again), or anything that would get Trump actual jail time. He's already committed more felonies than 99.99% of Americans throughout the history of the country.
|
How likely is it that the DOJ can hide some files from being released? To me, that seems the most obvious outcome. This gives them a nice delay and uncertainty, and many conspiracy theories will follow anyway.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On November 18 2025 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 23:52 WombaT wrote:On November 17 2025 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 17:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 18:57 Acrofales wrote:On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
Demand congress impeach him? Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future. Okay, fine. Riot and lynch your congresspeople who refuse to act in good faith? That what you wanted to hear? I mean, my faith in American politics crashed and burned ages ago. But my faith in the American people to dig themselves out of that mess is possibly even lower. I mean, these are the same American people who elected Trump for a second term in the first place, right? At some point you just have to pray for a miracle (or as JJR likes to say: leave). Let's not pretend I haven't offered the best electoralism plan for Democrats presented here to date. The best you get from Dem supporters is some variation of "win the primaries against the bad Democrats over time" but when you press them for a metric to determine the "bad Democrats" for 2026 you get crickets. I've also asked about whether people like you would advocate taking in people from the US as refugees, and to clarify if we're all welcome or if just "the good ones" would be allowed? Basically crickets from the "run for your life" crowd. That people recognize and act on the necessity of socialism to help guide us out of this mess (not as a perfect solution, but the "lesser evil" to capitalism for those that like that framing) is the "miracle" I'm "praying for". USians crossing the Atlantic in leaky boats would be a crazy development, but I think I've said before that I am a huge proponent of migration in general. You'll need to specify the "good ones" a bit more, though: if you're on the Interpol red list, then maybe not. + Show Spoiler +But why exactly do you need my approval? Do you think our customs control gives a shit about what I said on TL.net? If you have an American passport you can just fly in without worrying about what I think. You already have a leg up on almost all other refugees: Ukrainians, Sudanese, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians, etc. all have to worry about how to even get to Spain (Europe) before they can apply for asylum. If you don't mind, for the moment I'll continue to try to support those peoples' rights to stay, instead of worrying about what Vox would think about USian refugees. But if you feel you need the "welcome" of a random dude on the internet to flee your country as a refugee, then I guess you have it! "Good ones" in this context would be people that can already choose to travel to Europe (in this case) and would relatively easily be accepted as immigrants (distinct from asylum seekers/refugees). I'm basically asking about USians that wouldn't be accepted as immigrants for various reasons. Less severe than being wanted by Interpol (but who knows what Trump might try lol) but not your typical tourists either. Maybe the "Tired...poor...huddled masses" types? Well then they wouldn’t? No European government is going to officially make it a matter of policy that the US is so shit that they’ll accept asylum claims. And it’s even less likely that Europeans start to operate some kind of Underground Railroad for Americans who can’t migrate via regular channels. Well then telling homeless trans teenagers and any other multitude of vulnerable people their best bet is to throw up their hands and run (but they won't take them in or fight for their asylum) pray is pretty cruel/obscene then right? It's giving a sort of German ocean liner St. Louis vibe.
I’m not bloody Dumbledore I just can’t magic up solutions in contravention to current material realities.
There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of folks with claims to asylum, and a capacity to take them in, and Americans ain’t high on that list.
There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of potential landing spots for American asylum seekers in terms of practicality, including elsewhere in America, Europe ain’t exactly top of that list either.
There’s nothing to my knowledge that would legally preclude Americans from sheltering such folks, assuming they’re adults.
|
On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me.
I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers.
|
On November 18 2025 01:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 WombaT wrote:On November 17 2025 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 17:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 18:57 Acrofales wrote:On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
Demand congress impeach him? Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future. Okay, fine. Riot and lynch your congresspeople who refuse to act in good faith? That what you wanted to hear? I mean, my faith in American politics crashed and burned ages ago. But my faith in the American people to dig themselves out of that mess is possibly even lower. I mean, these are the same American people who elected Trump for a second term in the first place, right? At some point you just have to pray for a miracle (or as JJR likes to say: leave). Let's not pretend I haven't offered the best electoralism plan for Democrats presented here to date. The best you get from Dem supporters is some variation of "win the primaries against the bad Democrats over time" but when you press them for a metric to determine the "bad Democrats" for 2026 you get crickets. I've also asked about whether people like you would advocate taking in people from the US as refugees, and to clarify if we're all welcome or if just "the good ones" would be allowed? Basically crickets from the "run for your life" crowd. That people recognize and act on the necessity of socialism to help guide us out of this mess (not as a perfect solution, but the "lesser evil" to capitalism for those that like that framing) is the "miracle" I'm "praying for". USians crossing the Atlantic in leaky boats would be a crazy development, but I think I've said before that I am a huge proponent of migration in general. You'll need to specify the "good ones" a bit more, though: if you're on the Interpol red list, then maybe not. + Show Spoiler +But why exactly do you need my approval? Do you think our customs control gives a shit about what I said on TL.net? If you have an American passport you can just fly in without worrying about what I think. You already have a leg up on almost all other refugees: Ukrainians, Sudanese, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians, etc. all have to worry about how to even get to Spain (Europe) before they can apply for asylum. If you don't mind, for the moment I'll continue to try to support those peoples' rights to stay, instead of worrying about what Vox would think about USian refugees. But if you feel you need the "welcome" of a random dude on the internet to flee your country as a refugee, then I guess you have it! "Good ones" in this context would be people that can already choose to travel to Europe (in this case) and would relatively easily be accepted as immigrants (distinct from asylum seekers/refugees). I'm basically asking about USians that wouldn't be accepted as immigrants for various reasons. Less severe than being wanted by Interpol (but who knows what Trump might try lol) but not your typical tourists either. Maybe the "Tired...poor...huddled masses" types? Well then they wouldn’t? No European government is going to officially make it a matter of policy that the US is so shit that they’ll accept asylum claims. And it’s even less likely that Europeans start to operate some kind of Underground Railroad for Americans who can’t migrate via regular channels. Well then telling homeless trans teenagers and any other multitude of vulnerable people their best bet is to throw up their hands and run (but they won't take them in or fight for their asylum) pray is pretty cruel/obscene then right? It's giving a sort of German ocean liner St. Louis vibe. I’m not bloody Dumbledore I just can’t magic up solutions in contravention to current material realities. There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of folks with claims to asylum, and a capacity to take them in, and Americans ain’t high on that list. There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of potential landing spots for American asylum seekers in terms of practicality, including elsewhere in America, Europe ain’t exactly top of that list either. There’s nothing to my knowledge that would legally preclude Americans from sheltering such folks, assuming they’re adults.
Yeah, Maybe we should advise them to find a nice place behind a bookcase in an office building and stay real quiet or something like that...
On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never!
Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond?
|
Wasn't there more pressure from the Reps to release the files? What if it's actually way worse or shows exactly what a disgusting dude he is.
I see it as a last hail mary we can use to teach the Republicans some humility. If this can't do it, if some of them can't turn because Trump is openly, explicitly mentioned in the big pedo report, we are actually doomed. That's basically the gist.
|
On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond?
That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans).
I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:28 WombaT wrote:On November 18 2025 00:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 WombaT wrote:On November 17 2025 18:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 17 2025 17:24 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 18:57 Acrofales wrote:On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 16 2025 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
Demand congress impeach him? Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future. Okay, fine. Riot and lynch your congresspeople who refuse to act in good faith? That what you wanted to hear? I mean, my faith in American politics crashed and burned ages ago. But my faith in the American people to dig themselves out of that mess is possibly even lower. I mean, these are the same American people who elected Trump for a second term in the first place, right? At some point you just have to pray for a miracle (or as JJR likes to say: leave). Let's not pretend I haven't offered the best electoralism plan for Democrats presented here to date. The best you get from Dem supporters is some variation of "win the primaries against the bad Democrats over time" but when you press them for a metric to determine the "bad Democrats" for 2026 you get crickets. I've also asked about whether people like you would advocate taking in people from the US as refugees, and to clarify if we're all welcome or if just "the good ones" would be allowed? Basically crickets from the "run for your life" crowd. That people recognize and act on the necessity of socialism to help guide us out of this mess (not as a perfect solution, but the "lesser evil" to capitalism for those that like that framing) is the "miracle" I'm "praying for". USians crossing the Atlantic in leaky boats would be a crazy development, but I think I've said before that I am a huge proponent of migration in general. You'll need to specify the "good ones" a bit more, though: if you're on the Interpol red list, then maybe not. + Show Spoiler +But why exactly do you need my approval? Do you think our customs control gives a shit about what I said on TL.net? If you have an American passport you can just fly in without worrying about what I think. You already have a leg up on almost all other refugees: Ukrainians, Sudanese, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians, etc. all have to worry about how to even get to Spain (Europe) before they can apply for asylum. If you don't mind, for the moment I'll continue to try to support those peoples' rights to stay, instead of worrying about what Vox would think about USian refugees. But if you feel you need the "welcome" of a random dude on the internet to flee your country as a refugee, then I guess you have it! "Good ones" in this context would be people that can already choose to travel to Europe (in this case) and would relatively easily be accepted as immigrants (distinct from asylum seekers/refugees). I'm basically asking about USians that wouldn't be accepted as immigrants for various reasons. Less severe than being wanted by Interpol (but who knows what Trump might try lol) but not your typical tourists either. Maybe the "Tired...poor...huddled masses" types? Well then they wouldn’t? No European government is going to officially make it a matter of policy that the US is so shit that they’ll accept asylum claims. And it’s even less likely that Europeans start to operate some kind of Underground Railroad for Americans who can’t migrate via regular channels. Well then telling homeless trans teenagers and any other multitude of vulnerable people their best bet is to throw up their hands and run (but they won't take them in or fight for their asylum) pray is pretty cruel/obscene then right? It's giving a sort of German ocean liner St. Louis vibe. I’m not bloody Dumbledore I just can’t magic up solutions in contravention to current material realities. There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of folks with claims to asylum, and a capacity to take them in, and Americans ain’t high on that list. There’s a pretty clear hierarchy of potential landing spots for American asylum seekers in terms of practicality, including elsewhere in America, Europe ain’t exactly top of that list either. There’s nothing to my knowledge that would legally preclude Americans from sheltering such folks, assuming they’re adults. Yeah, Maybe we should advise them to find a nice place behind a bookcase in an office building and stay real quiet or something like that... Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond?
Are you involved in finding some kind of housing and relocation for these asylum seekers?
|
On November 18 2025 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. Republicans will 100% pretend like there is nothing. But enough has already been made public that there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children. They just don't care. Heck at this point the biggest Trump related revelation of the Epstein files is whether or not Trump gave Bill Clinton a blowjob. No doubt Trump raped underaged children? How do you get there? I don't think even the Comet Pizza conspiracy theorists had no doubt about the Clintons. Show nested quote +A 2011 email sent by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein says that United States President Donald Trump “spent hours” with one of the victims – an allegation that is likely to further fuel calls for releasing files relating to the late, disgraced financier. www.aljazeera.comI'm sure a complete coincidence and he was just helping her with her homework. Yes I have no doubt.
The [VICTIM] is Virginia Giuffre. How do you account for him getting away with it when the person referenced in the email, Virginia Giuffre, accused everyone else and then went under oath and in her memoir saying she didn't think Trump was involved with anything, and never witnessed anything?
Like your beyond all doubt evidence is a 14 year old email referencing something allegedly probably 25 years ago. Why is the meaning not
1) Epstein and Ghislaine in the middle of a court case being surprised Trump didn't know because having met Virginia, the accuser, 10 years before, she could have told him also, or
2) E. and G. being surprised Trump did know, but nevertheless didn't publicly "bark," or
3) E. and G. simply wondering to each other why Trump wasn't joining the public condemnations of E. at the time, as some people were and some people weren't, if you read the other emails it's a lot of "look at this article and who's shitting on you this time"
but rather the meaning is 100% he raped someone who said on the record he didn't rape her and that she never had any inkling he raped anyone involved.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging.
It should in theory be pretty fertile ground, I don’t think you can shift across the board, but yeah in general if we’re talking Congressional.
I think a general push for more aspirational leaning left is a good bet for places receptive to it. Perhaps elsewhere it’s gotta be a tailored more centrist aspirations. Then there may be places where the GOP being so shite may open the door a crack where it was firmly closed prior, and maybe focusing on the failures of the opponents is the only ‘in’ there, but not one I’d rely on too much in the aforementioned scenarios.
It really shouldn’t be that complicated to do well, so I’m interested to see how the party apparatus manage to screw it up this time
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On November 18 2025 03:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 18 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. Republicans will 100% pretend like there is nothing. But enough has already been made public that there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children. They just don't care. Heck at this point the biggest Trump related revelation of the Epstein files is whether or not Trump gave Bill Clinton a blowjob. No doubt Trump raped underaged children? How do you get there? I don't think even the Comet Pizza conspiracy theorists had no doubt about the Clintons. A 2011 email sent by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein says that United States President Donald Trump “spent hours” with one of the victims – an allegation that is likely to further fuel calls for releasing files relating to the late, disgraced financier. www.aljazeera.comI'm sure a complete coincidence and he was just helping her with her homework. Yes I have no doubt. The [VICTIM] is Virginia Giuffre. How do you account for him getting away with it when the person referenced in the email, Virginia Giuffre, accused everyone else and then went under oath and in her memoir saying she didn't think Trump was involved with anything, and never witnessed anything? Like your beyond all doubt evidence is a 14 year old email referencing something allegedly probably 25 years ago. Why is the meaning not 1) Epstein and Ghislaine in the middle of a court case being surprised Trump didn't know because having met Virginia, the accuser, 10 years before, she could have told him also, or 2) E. and G. being surprised Trump did know, but nevertheless didn't publicly "bark," or 3) E. and G. simply wondering to each other why Trump wasn't joining the public condemnations of E. at the time, as some people were and some people weren't, if you read the other emails it's a lot of "look at this article and who's shitting on you this time" but rather the meaning is 100% he raped someone who said on the record he didn't rape her and that she never had any inkling he raped anyone involved.
My aunty worked for one of our more famous killers over here, even had dramatisations made of the lad.
He was a perfect gent according to her, and last I checked didn’t kill her so, he obviously couldn’t have been a killer right?
I don’t think one can say Trump is definitely a child rapist either, but this really isn’t a great argument to the contrary. It’s not like Epstein was only operating with a couple of lasses.
Personally my intuition is Trump isn’t a kiddy fiddler, prone to basically every other form of sexual impropriety, but not that.
Bit of the Prince Andrew there. You might not be heading to Epstein land to bang kids, but you’re a big enough piece of shit that you don’t notice or ignore obvious trafficking of people into your mate’s harem
|
On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand.
I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026.
As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Show nested quote +Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
Why do you want to primary them? Do you want to do so because you think it’ll make a vaguely similar platform win with a better quality of candidate, or do you want a completely different platform that you think can also win and is a better platform?
|
On November 18 2025 03:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 18 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. Republicans will 100% pretend like there is nothing. But enough has already been made public that there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children. They just don't care. Heck at this point the biggest Trump related revelation of the Epstein files is whether or not Trump gave Bill Clinton a blowjob. No doubt Trump raped underaged children? How do you get there? I don't think even the Comet Pizza conspiracy theorists had no doubt about the Clintons. A 2011 email sent by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein says that United States President Donald Trump “spent hours” with one of the victims – an allegation that is likely to further fuel calls for releasing files relating to the late, disgraced financier. www.aljazeera.comI'm sure a complete coincidence and he was just helping her with her homework. Yes I have no doubt. The [VICTIM] is Virginia Giuffre. How do you account for him getting away with it when the person referenced in the email, Virginia Giuffre, accused everyone else and then went under oath and in her memoir saying she didn't think Trump was involved with anything, and never witnessed anything? Like your beyond all doubt evidence is a 14 year old email referencing something allegedly probably 25 years ago. Why is the meaning not 1) Epstein and Ghislaine in the middle of a court case being surprised Trump didn't know because having met Virginia, the accuser, 10 years before, she could have told him also, or 2) E. and G. being surprised Trump did know, but nevertheless didn't publicly "bark," or 3) E. and G. simply wondering to each other why Trump wasn't joining the public condemnations of E. at the time, as some people were and some people weren't, if you read the other emails it's a lot of "look at this article and who's shitting on you this time" but rather the meaning is 100% he raped someone who said on the record he didn't rape her and that she never had any inkling he raped anyone involved. When the whole stories relies on nobody looking up [VICTIM] to understand [She specifically said under oath that she didn’t think Trump was involved and never witnessed anything herself], you know it’s thin gruel out there. It’s a narrative of sexual abuse that is in search of evidence, and people that say “there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children” are beclowning themselves.
A real headline would read something like New Epstein emails conflict with Victim’s testimony, which invites the reader to judge whether they are more trusting of Epstein or Epstein’s victims.
|
On November 18 2025 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 18 2025 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 18 2025 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. What do you mean? Nothing's gonna change either way, even if the Epstein files are completely about Trump being an immoral monster. The Democrats giving in to the Republicans during the government shutdown was way worse off for Democrats (and the American people) than anything that could be in the Epstein files. Separate from anything related to Epstein, we already know that Trump raped people, preyed on children, committed nearly a hundred crimes, and is a fascist and racist and sexist and terrible human being, yet he still has a large amount of support from Republicans. Epstein won't change or add anything significant. "Dems are doomed" is the takeaway there I think. Epstein files are a sort of "last gasp" in a painfully long agonal breathing fit. This does feel a bit like the Mueller kabuki/WWE to me. I can see the parallels there, yeah. The Mueller report led to dozens of indictments, established significant Russian interference, and even identified 10 ways that Trump personally obstructed justice, yet Trump never really experienced serious consequences. Same goes for his 34 felony convictions or his total of 88 criminal charges or his bragging about preying on children or sexually assaulting women. Doing illegal and immoral things hasn't ever stopped Trump before, so why should this be any different? Dems are wrong if they think Trump will eventually be toppled by the Epstein files; Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers. Hell yeah, better late than never! Can we turn that into a reasonable metric for primaries in 2026 and beyond? That works for me, for both the primary elections and the general elections. Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to run for a third term, so I would implore Dems to focus less on him (the past/present) and focus more on the future. I also hope they make a concerted effort to outline a helpful, positive, pro-left agenda (similar to Mamdani and Sanders), as opposed to running a campaign that's just anti-right / anti-Republican (even as many Democrats still ultimately run against MAGA Republicans). I'd go so far as to say that even when running against an incumbent (either for Congress or for the presidency), the messaging should still be at least mostly positive and mostly aimed towards things you want to implement and improve, as opposed to having mostly anti-opposition messaging. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking if we can turn your assertion that Show nested quote +Dems should instead be energizing and galvanizing the left instead of trying to convince the right that they're gullible cult followers into a metric for who to primary in 2026. As in, can we look at who is doing which and use that as a reasonable metric to determine which Democrats need to be primaried in 2026? I'm also curious if you (or any Democrat supporters) can identify any Democrats that need to be primaried in 2026 based on that or any other metric?
Yes, I think we can use it as a metric for who to primary in 2026. In my opinion, just because a seat is already blue doesn't mean it can't be a better version of blue. I hope that more left-wing progressive politicians are willing to challenge moderate-left incumbents, and if that happens in elections that I can vote in, I'll happily support those further-left progressive challengers. I don't have the time or bandwidth right now to look into future seats that I hope will soon be challenged during the next election cycle, but when they do happen in spaces where I can vote (local, state, national), I pay attention to who's running and try to help whoever I consider to be the best option.
|
On November 18 2025 05:13 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 03:14 oBlade wrote:On November 18 2025 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 18 2025 00:16 oBlade wrote:On November 17 2025 23:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 17 2025 23:29 Uldridge wrote:
If the Epstein files have nothing though, the Dems are doomed and Trump becomes untoucheable. Republicans will 100% pretend like there is nothing. But enough has already been made public that there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children. They just don't care. Heck at this point the biggest Trump related revelation of the Epstein files is whether or not Trump gave Bill Clinton a blowjob. No doubt Trump raped underaged children? How do you get there? I don't think even the Comet Pizza conspiracy theorists had no doubt about the Clintons. A 2011 email sent by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein says that United States President Donald Trump “spent hours” with one of the victims – an allegation that is likely to further fuel calls for releasing files relating to the late, disgraced financier. www.aljazeera.comI'm sure a complete coincidence and he was just helping her with her homework. Yes I have no doubt. The [VICTIM] is Virginia Giuffre. How do you account for him getting away with it when the person referenced in the email, Virginia Giuffre, accused everyone else and then went under oath and in her memoir saying she didn't think Trump was involved with anything, and never witnessed anything? Like your beyond all doubt evidence is a 14 year old email referencing something allegedly probably 25 years ago. Why is the meaning not 1) Epstein and Ghislaine in the middle of a court case being surprised Trump didn't know because having met Virginia, the accuser, 10 years before, she could have told him also, or 2) E. and G. being surprised Trump did know, but nevertheless didn't publicly "bark," or 3) E. and G. simply wondering to each other why Trump wasn't joining the public condemnations of E. at the time, as some people were and some people weren't, if you read the other emails it's a lot of "look at this article and who's shitting on you this time" but rather the meaning is 100% he raped someone who said on the record he didn't rape her and that she never had any inkling he raped anyone involved. When the whole stories relies on nobody looking up [VICTIM] to understand [She specifically said under oath that she didn’t think Trump was involved and never witnessed anything herself], you know it’s thin gruel out there. It’s a narrative of sexual abuse that is in search of evidence, and people that say “there is no doubt Trump raped underaged children” are beclowning themselves. A real headline would read something like New Epstein emails conflict with Victim’s testimony, which invites the reader to judge whether they are more trusting of Epstein or Epstein’s victims.
You two might want to sit down, because I'm about to blow your minds!
+ Show Spoiler +Virginia Giuffre is not the only victim. So it entirely possibly that Trump didn't have sex with VG but did have sex with underage women as stated in the files.
|
United States43987 Posts
VG was trafficked from Mar-a-Lago though. Thats where she had a massage job as a child. Mar-a-Lago is where Maxwell and Epstein were hunting for vulnerable children and found her. The narrative that there is no overlap between Trump and Epstein preying on VG gets a little weird when you remember that Trump and Epstein were best friends and that Epstein got VG from Trump. The friendship isn’t in dispute. The location of the meeting isn’t in dispute. The timeline isn’t in dispute.
So let us dismiss the idea that Trump wasn't in any way associated with it. He was a part of the pipeline, without Mar-a-Lago there's no VG Epstein meeting. But let us instead assume that he didn't know that Maxwell and Ghislaine were trafficking girls. The problem we have with that is the 1997 newspaper article that describes Anouska De Georgiou, one of Epstein's underage rape victims, being set up with Trump by their mutual friend, Ghislaine Maxwell.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/How suite! Trump's Brit of all right.-a061140675
After their meeting, Trump flew Madam Maxwell and the model south to the sunshine state, where all three enjoyed a happy weekend together. When they returned to New York, Anouska was installed in one of Donald's many apartments there.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.threads.com/@beingliberal/post/C4nvJperkt0/media?hl=zh-hk
The girl's name is Anouska De Georgiou. She was one of Epstein's rape victims.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-british-teen-model-was-lured-jeffrey-epstein-s-web-n1056901
Now it's possible that we can't trust the source behind the newspaper article. The Sunday Mirror is a bit of a gossip rag, we don't necessarily know who they heard it from. The newspaper is printing stories about Ghislaine Maxwell but we don't know if they researched those stories or spoke to anyone close to Ghislaine. We might guess based on the fact that the Sunday Mirror was owned by Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell, but I guess we can't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
