|
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 February 01 2026 04:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 03:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Just straight up ignoring that the new file release includes Trump raping a girl described as 13-14, huh? If someone now said their friend told them you raped them, would you find it credible? Probably not. Then after submitting that to a tip line and making a record of it, would you find the format of the accusation, now having been recorded by someone who archived it, increases the credibility of the accusation? I wouldn't. My favorite tip from the document you linked is this one. Show nested quote +Online complainant reported she was a victim and
witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf
Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995-
1996 Imagine being raped in 1995 at a golf club that Trump opened in 2006. This is the comparable credibility that led follow-ups to those tips to lead nowhere. It’s been very disappointing to see otherwise believably competent and somewhat informed people buy into online rumors as all the proof they need. It’s like the pee tape and the most idiotic Gaza reporting all over again. The Nigerian prince just needs you to pay a fee to receive millions saw three children raped by Trump on a golf course and called the FBI.
These are people saved only by their lack of fame from having five or ten people report rumors of their sexual deviancy online or by phone tip. And they know it. But it doesn’t matter. Partisanship uber alles.
My favorite was the credulous portrayal of accusations made by someone with 3 separate incidents with police who requested mandatory psychiatric evaluations.
|
"Online rumors" being the Epstein files that Trump, who is already an adjudicated rapist, campaigned on releasing, changed his mind after winning the election, then begged Congress not to release, after a photo was released of him literally buying a woman from Epstein, after the release of the birthday book where his signature on a doodle of a prepubescent girl's genitals wished him happy secret keeping, after he appointed the man responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal to his cabinet, after he bragged that he loved girls as young as Epstein does. But sure, you are very intelligent to dismiss this off hand. Wouldn't want anything unbecoming to stain the reputation of your president (that's already an adjudicated rapist).
|
On February 01 2026 03:27 oBlade wrote:People have been poring over the 2-3 million new DOJ documents that they say represent their compliance with the Massey/bipartisan law from last year. Highlights so far are Bill Gates asking Epstein for antibiotics to slip to his wife after he got an STD from Russian associates of Epstein, while Epstein was banned from Xbox Live. This next one MIGHT explain Musk's crashout last year. Epstein inviting him to a party and the combination of Elon being so focused and busy and Epstein's indirect way of speaking and 50 IQ typing style led to a funny misunderstanding: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01956458.pdfWhile more proof of unbridled sleaze comes out I wait with bated breath for evidence of systemic rape of minors/children by... dozens, scores, hundreds? of people over decades which would implicate way more criminals than the cases we already have.
Why are you focusing on those emails from Musk and not the ones where he asks Epstein to be invited to the island for the wildest parties ?
|
When someone‘s done sifting through the stuff and figuring out who comes out as the worst we unironically will get a good estimate of who the person is going to be that has the most potential of being elected as the next US president.
|
On February 01 2026 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:
"Online rumors" being the Epstein files that Trump, who is already an adjudicated rapist, campaigned on releasing, changed his mind after winning the election, then begged Congress not to release, after a photo was released of him literally buying a woman from Epstein, after the release of the birthday book where his signature on a doodle of a prepubescent girl's genitals wished him happy secret keeping, after he appointed the man responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal to his cabinet, after he bragged that he loved girls as young as Epstein does. But sure, you are very intelligent to dismiss this off hand. Wouldn't want anything unbecoming to stain the reputation of your president (that's already an adjudicated rapist). This appears to be a lot of words to confirm exactly what I said, namely that online rumors reported to the FBI are included in the Epstein files. All this surrounding stuff on why you believe online rumors don’t exactly contest it.
|
On February 01 2026 08:38 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 07:52 LightSpectra wrote:
"Online rumors" being the Epstein files that Trump, who is already an adjudicated rapist, campaigned on releasing, changed his mind after winning the election, then begged Congress not to release, after a photo was released of him literally buying a woman from Epstein, after the release of the birthday book where his signature on a doodle of a prepubescent girl's genitals wished him happy secret keeping, after he appointed the man responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal to his cabinet, after he bragged that he loved girls as young as Epstein does. But sure, you are very intelligent to dismiss this off hand. Wouldn't want anything unbecoming to stain the reputation of your president (that's already an adjudicated rapist). This appears to be a lot of words to confirm exactly what I said, namely that online rumors reported to the FBI are included in the Epstein files. All this surrounding stuff on why you believe online rumors don’t exactly contest it.
I’m sure he was best friends with Epstein for 15 years and is completely clean. All those ndas not to mention lawsuits about his behavior before he was was a a politician were all political attacks. And all the sex talk and compliments of his daughters tits and ass on radio and tv are completely normal fatherly behaviour, no way this guy is a creep. Lightsaber just has TDS, you are the reasonable one.
|
It's entirely normal for innocent people to make feverish, panicked efforts to suppress the release of baseless Internet chatter. I am very smart.
|
On February 01 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:
It's entirely normal for innocent people to make feverish, panicked efforts to suppress the release of baseless Internet chatter. I am very smart.
Technically it can be. The chatter is often spanned a lot more ahead of the cart.
|
On February 01 2026 04:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 03:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Just straight up ignoring that the new file release includes Trump raping a girl described as 13-14, huh? If someone now said their friend told them you raped them, would you find it credible? Probably not. Then after submitting that to a tip line and making a record of it, would you find the format of the accusation, now having been recorded by someone who archived it, increases the credibility of the accusation? I wouldn't. My favorite tip from the document you linked is this one. Show nested quote +Online complainant reported she was a victim and
witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf
Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995-
1996 Imagine being raped in 1995 at a golf club that Trump opened in 2006. This is the comparable credibility that led follow-ups to those tips to lead nowhere.
How many times has Trump lied about his association with epstein? And his word is still credible?
|
On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 04:19 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2026 03:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Just straight up ignoring that the new file release includes Trump raping a girl described as 13-14, huh? If someone now said their friend told them you raped them, would you find it credible? Probably not. Then after submitting that to a tip line and making a record of it, would you find the format of the accusation, now having been recorded by someone who archived it, increases the credibility of the accusation? I wouldn't. If someone accused me of raping them, I would immediately do everything I can to prove my own innocence by demanding the public release of every document that could possibly exonerate me, not smear the victim(s) and beg Congresspeople to cover up those documents.
You basically can't "prove" innocence in these cases. You don't have to prove yours either. You aren't compelled to give any testimony.
Saying that victims were smeared presupposes that people whose claims were not found credible by the FBI and whose identities are not known to us, that their claims were true and they are actually victims of something - like the person who said someone threatened to bury her at a golf course 10 years before it opened.
On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote + My favorite tip from the document you linked is this one. Online complainant reported she was a victim and
witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf
Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995-
1996 Imagine being raped in 1995 at a golf club that Trump opened in 2006. This is the comparable credibility that led follow-ups to those tips to lead nowhere. Ah, so if dozens of people are accusing you of rape, all you have to do is find a single minor error or inconsistency in one of those accusations, and then all of them are now utterly debunked. I hope one day Trump is indicted for child molestation and he tries that strategy on the jury.
Here is an accusation that the late George HW Bush raped someone after his feet were cut off by a scimitar. You do not have to debunk things that are self-evidently bunk. These documents are released for transparency. You can believe certain accusations found in them, but the fervency of your belief alone does not carry persuasive power. For example, it has yet to cause any of his 3 wives or children or grandchildren to disown him for the child rape which appears so obvious to you.
+ Show Spoiler +
On February 01 2026 08:12 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 03:27 oBlade wrote:People have been poring over the 2-3 million new DOJ documents that they say represent their compliance with the Massey/bipartisan law from last year. Highlights so far are Bill Gates asking Epstein for antibiotics to slip to his wife after he got an STD from Russian associates of Epstein, while Epstein was banned from Xbox Live. This next one MIGHT explain Musk's crashout last year. Epstein inviting him to a party and the combination of Elon being so focused and busy and Epstein's indirect way of speaking and 50 IQ typing style led to a funny misunderstanding: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01956458.pdfWhile more proof of unbridled sleaze comes out I wait with bated breath for evidence of systemic rape of minors/children by... dozens, scores, hundreds? of people over decades which would implicate way more criminals than the cases we already have. Why are you focusing on those emails from Musk and not the ones where he asks Epstein to be invited to the island for the wildest parties ?
There are 2 million documents? Looking at any single one is "focusing" on it at the expense of others. If you saw something else interesting, talk about that instead of the limits of my focus. Really your question couldn't make less sense. Why am I "focusing" on emails of him LITERALLY BEING INVITED instead of emails of him asking to be invited?
The email says nobody over 25, probably tongue in cheek but also can be serious. Did a rich guy who made his money helping people avoid taxes have parties with young models, that certain rich men like to party with, no doubt. Did Elon want to go, was he invited, did he go or not, do I care? Not particularly? It's not a secret that the rich are known to delve into decadence. Now do I care if there was a child rape party Elon went to? 100%. That's different. Problem is vaguely conflating the two just because the same dead sleaze was involved. The more people are involved, the bigger the party, the greater the points of failure of the conspiracy are, or in other words the more likely there should be corroborating evidence/witnesses.
|
On February 01 2026 15:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:On February 01 2026 04:19 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2026 03:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Just straight up ignoring that the new file release includes Trump raping a girl described as 13-14, huh? If someone now said their friend told them you raped them, would you find it credible? Probably not. Then after submitting that to a tip line and making a record of it, would you find the format of the accusation, now having been recorded by someone who archived it, increases the credibility of the accusation? I wouldn't. If someone accused me of raping them, I would immediately do everything I can to prove my own innocence by demanding the public release of every document that could possibly exonerate me, not smear the victim(s) and beg Congresspeople to cover up those documents. You basically can't "prove" innocence in these cases. You don't have to prove yours either. You aren't compelled to give any testimony. Saying that victims were smeared presupposes that people whose claims were not found credible by the FBI and whose identities are not known to us, that their claims were true and they are actually victims of something - like the person who said someone threatened to bury her at a golf course 10 years before it opened. Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote: My favorite tip from the document you linked is this one. Online complainant reported she was a victim and
witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf
Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995-
1996 Imagine being raped in 1995 at a golf club that Trump opened in 2006. This is the comparable credibility that led follow-ups to those tips to lead nowhere. Ah, so if dozens of people are accusing you of rape, all you have to do is find a single minor error or inconsistency in one of those accusations, and then all of them are now utterly debunked. I hope one day Trump is indicted for child molestation and he tries that strategy on the jury. Here is an accusation that the late George HW Bush raped someone after his feet were cut off by a scimitar. You do not have to debunk things that are self-evidently bunk. These documents are released for transparency. You can believe certain accusations found in them, but the fervency of your belief alone does not carry persuasive power. For example, it has yet to cause any of his 3 wives or children or grandchildren to disown him for the child rape which appears so obvious to you. + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 08:12 Geiko wrote:On February 01 2026 03:27 oBlade wrote:People have been poring over the 2-3 million new DOJ documents that they say represent their compliance with the Massey/bipartisan law from last year. Highlights so far are Bill Gates asking Epstein for antibiotics to slip to his wife after he got an STD from Russian associates of Epstein, while Epstein was banned from Xbox Live. This next one MIGHT explain Musk's crashout last year. Epstein inviting him to a party and the combination of Elon being so focused and busy and Epstein's indirect way of speaking and 50 IQ typing style led to a funny misunderstanding: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01956458.pdfWhile more proof of unbridled sleaze comes out I wait with bated breath for evidence of systemic rape of minors/children by... dozens, scores, hundreds? of people over decades which would implicate way more criminals than the cases we already have. Why are you focusing on those emails from Musk and not the ones where he asks Epstein to be invited to the island for the wildest parties ? There are 2 million documents? Looking at any single one is "focusing" on it at the expense of others. If you saw something else interesting, talk about that instead of the limits of my focus. Really your question couldn't make less sense. Why am I "focusing" on emails of him LITERALLY BEING INVITED instead of emails of him asking to be invited? The email says nobody over 25, probably tongue in cheek but also can be serious. Did a rich guy who made his money helping people avoid taxes have parties with young models, that certain rich men like to party with, no doubt. Did Elon want to go, was he invited, did he go or not, do I care? Not particularly? It's not a secret that the rich are known to delve into decadence. Now do I care if there was a child rape party Elon went to? 100%. That's different. Problem is vaguely conflating the two just because the same dead sleaze was involved. The more people are involved, the bigger the party, the greater the points of failure of the conspiracy are, or in other words the more likely there should be corroborating evidence/witnesses.
I was replying to your post which states that the "highlights" for the latest Epstein files release is A) something very damning for Gates and B) something anecdotal for Musk.
I'm asking you why you chose that B) when the files contain emails that show Musk actively wanted to socialize with Epstein, even after 2008 and even wanted to go to the Island.
Why this is relevant in this conversation is because Musk is on the record saying he declined all of Epstein's invitations and never wanted anything to do with him, which was clearly a lie. Instead you chose to "highlight" some other emails from Musk where he declines an invitation which makes him look good. If you don't see your own bias in that, I don't know what to tell you.
|
On February 01 2026 15:38 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2026 15:21 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote:On February 01 2026 04:19 oBlade wrote:On February 01 2026 03:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Just straight up ignoring that the new file release includes Trump raping a girl described as 13-14, huh? If someone now said their friend told them you raped them, would you find it credible? Probably not. Then after submitting that to a tip line and making a record of it, would you find the format of the accusation, now having been recorded by someone who archived it, increases the credibility of the accusation? I wouldn't. If someone accused me of raping them, I would immediately do everything I can to prove my own innocence by demanding the public release of every document that could possibly exonerate me, not smear the victim(s) and beg Congresspeople to cover up those documents. You basically can't "prove" innocence in these cases. You don't have to prove yours either. You aren't compelled to give any testimony. Saying that victims were smeared presupposes that people whose claims were not found credible by the FBI and whose identities are not known to us, that their claims were true and they are actually victims of something - like the person who said someone threatened to bury her at a golf course 10 years before it opened. On February 01 2026 04:30 LightSpectra wrote: My favorite tip from the document you linked is this one. Online complainant reported she was a victim and
witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf
Course in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA between 1995-
1996 Imagine being raped in 1995 at a golf club that Trump opened in 2006. This is the comparable credibility that led follow-ups to those tips to lead nowhere. Ah, so if dozens of people are accusing you of rape, all you have to do is find a single minor error or inconsistency in one of those accusations, and then all of them are now utterly debunked. I hope one day Trump is indicted for child molestation and he tries that strategy on the jury. Here is an accusation that the late George HW Bush raped someone after his feet were cut off by a scimitar. You do not have to debunk things that are self-evidently bunk. These documents are released for transparency. You can believe certain accusations found in them, but the fervency of your belief alone does not carry persuasive power. For example, it has yet to cause any of his 3 wives or children or grandchildren to disown him for the child rape which appears so obvious to you. + Show Spoiler +On February 01 2026 08:12 Geiko wrote:On February 01 2026 03:27 oBlade wrote:People have been poring over the 2-3 million new DOJ documents that they say represent their compliance with the Massey/bipartisan law from last year. Highlights so far are Bill Gates asking Epstein for antibiotics to slip to his wife after he got an STD from Russian associates of Epstein, while Epstein was banned from Xbox Live. This next one MIGHT explain Musk's crashout last year. Epstein inviting him to a party and the combination of Elon being so focused and busy and Epstein's indirect way of speaking and 50 IQ typing style led to a funny misunderstanding: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 10/EFTA01956458.pdfWhile more proof of unbridled sleaze comes out I wait with bated breath for evidence of systemic rape of minors/children by... dozens, scores, hundreds? of people over decades which would implicate way more criminals than the cases we already have. Why are you focusing on those emails from Musk and not the ones where he asks Epstein to be invited to the island for the wildest parties ? There are 2 million documents? Looking at any single one is "focusing" on it at the expense of others. If you saw something else interesting, talk about that instead of the limits of my focus. Really your question couldn't make less sense. Why am I "focusing" on emails of him LITERALLY BEING INVITED instead of emails of him asking to be invited? The email says nobody over 25, probably tongue in cheek but also can be serious. Did a rich guy who made his money helping people avoid taxes have parties with young models, that certain rich men like to party with, no doubt. Did Elon want to go, was he invited, did he go or not, do I care? Not particularly? It's not a secret that the rich are known to delve into decadence. Now do I care if there was a child rape party Elon went to? 100%. That's different. Problem is vaguely conflating the two just because the same dead sleaze was involved. The more people are involved, the bigger the party, the greater the points of failure of the conspiracy are, or in other words the more likely there should be corroborating evidence/witnesses. I was replying to your post which states that the "highlights" for the latest Epstein files release is A) something very damning for Gates and B) something anecdotal for Musk. I'm asking you why you chose that B) when the files contain emails that show Musk actively wanted to socialize with Epstein, even after 2008 and even wanted to go to the Island. Why this is relevant in this conversation is because Musk is on the record saying he declined all of Epstein's invitations and never wanted anything to do with him, which was clearly a lie. Instead you chose to "highlight" some other emails from Musk where he declines an invitation which makes him look good. If you don't see your own bias in that, I don't know what to tell you.
Because you're again reading it as "I am posting this because it means he refused all invitations and never went" and not "Look who was invited." Literally read the sentence "This next one MIGHT explain Musk's crashout last year." Think.
What was Musk's crashout last year? Him ragequitting the administration and tweeting "Trump is in the Epstein files." Why would he do that? He was in the Epstein files. It is very possible that Elon doth protest too much. (But that'd obviously still be a far cry from "look, this proves he raped kids.")
|
On January 31 2026 18:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2026 17:37 maybenexttime wrote:
But China is neither communist nor socialist. It's a capitalist single-party dictatorship, authoritarian and verging on totalitarian. It didn't prosper economically until it adopted capitalism under Deng. What exactly would modern socialists be pointing at here? That's kinda the point ChristianS is making. China is an example of how communism failed. Anybody serious about trying again will have studied these examples in order to learn lessons of what not to do (e.g. Cultural Revolution = bad). Just like anybody serious about liberal democracy in the 19th century would've studied the French Revolution in order to learn what not to do (e.g. guillotining everyone = bad). His point was simply that just because some countries tried it and failed doesn't mean it can't work. There's nothing fundamentally flawed about the economics. There are, however, problems. Problems that Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Albania, Cuba and all the other communist experiments faced and failed to overcome. So the same way later revolutionaries learned from the French Revolution about what is and isn't a good idea, modern communists have learned from the failed communist revolutions. A detractor would point to the failures and try to make the point that all those failures means humans just aren't capable of creating that kind of society, but that is a flawed argument when we have communist systems in small scale.
It's a weak point in the case of communism. The communist revolutions didn't all happen at the same time yet all of them have devolved into poor authoritarian states. Somehow none of them seem to be able to learn from previous attempts. When they start liberalising their economies they're suddenly capable of growing rapidly.
but that is a flawed argument when we have communist systems in small scale.
Your counter argument is the flawed one. What works on a small scale does not necessarily work on a large scale. There's a reason why we're not hunters and gatherers anymore. One of the primary reasons markets work is because it's able to accumulate and transfer a large amount of information rapidly via the price mechanism. The command and control type economies we see in communist states aren't capable of replicating that.
Besides that we have an academic discipline dedicated to studying economics. No prominent economist is a communist despite the fact that many sympathize with or are even inspired by someone like Marx. The only Marxist economists are fringe ones that never properly engage with the mainstream like most other heteredox economists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_-r82KWMAApC51.jpg)
