|
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 05 2026 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2026 23:06 ChristianS wrote:
Is there a word for when rhetorical excess winds up undercutting an otherwise reasonable argument? It wasn't a reasonable argument. It could have been in a parallel universe where Democrats were tripping over themselves to slavishly defend Bill Clinton's behavior, which is the impression Introvert was trying to foment, but is just not the case.
I was much too young to be paying attention but my impression is at the time, Democrats painted the reaction as Republicans just being a bunch of prudes. That probably remained the retrospective for quite a while, to the extent they thought about it at all. Now it’s extremely unlikely anybody’s spending much time thinking about it, but to the extent they are they’d probably say “okay, that was a pretty bad thing to do” – everybody’s had some reevaluation of men with power using it to obtain “consensual” sex from subordinates since then.
But I’m not sure you and I are disagreeing. Intro and I might agree that Bill Clinton is probably a bad person (even before any Epstein-related revelations!), and that among both Republicans and Democrats, political tribalism results in reflexively defending friendlies. But he wants to inflate that into a much bigger, sillier point that undercuts the rest.
|
I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?"
|
On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?"
Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them.
|
On February 05 2026 23:02 misirlou wrote:
At least he got one thing 100% right. People aren't voting for Trump anymore.
Whether we'll be president in 2029 or not is still not knowable though.
-
so canadians turn hostile when you start spewing your nonsense towards them? I can't believe it He'll be president for part of January in 2029. People that think he'll be president for longer are deluding themselves. Whether that be doomer leftists or populist MAGA weirdos.
|
On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them.
"Democrats, who made Al Franken resign over a tasteless photo, who made Joe Biden drop out for sounding too old, definitely would've been fine with child molestation" - an insane person.
|
On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them.
I don't know why you keep inventing hypotheticals to try to make Democrats as bad as Republicans. If both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were child molesters and still won their primaries and were not disqualified/removed, then sure... one of those two terrible people would still inevitably become president. But regardless of that bizarre hypothetical, the reality is that only Trump - not Harris - molested children (and adults).
|
On February 06 2026 01:07 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2026 23:02 misirlou wrote:
At least he got one thing 100% right. People aren't voting for Trump anymore.
Whether we'll be president in 2029 or not is still not knowable though.
-
so canadians turn hostile when you start spewing your nonsense towards them? I can't believe it He'll be president for part of January in 2029. People that think he'll be president for longer are deluding themselves. Whether that be doomer leftists or populist MAGA weirdos.
On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them. Clinton's been out of power for decades now, and people still retcon/rehab Clinton's abuse and vicious attacks on his accusers. If Clinton's survival of scandal and lying under oath meant that Republicans would lose power or stay out of power, they would be pledging him their vote and downplaying any and all nasty behavior towards younger women.
They have democracy to save and fascism to stop, so what's ignoring a half dozen women. Once there are stakes, the logic will change.
|
All the people who voted for a child molester seem extremely confident that the people who didn't vote for a child molester would have probably done so in the hypothetical they made up.
|
On February 06 2026 01:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them. I don't know why you keep inventing hypotheticals to try to make Democrats as bad as Republicans. If both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were child molesters and still won their primaries and were not disqualified/removed, then sure... one of those two terrible people would still inevitably become president. But regardless of that bizarre hypothetical, the reality is that only Trump - not Harris - molested children (and adults).
I have repeatedly made the point that Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans. So you should recognize that is not what I'm doing.
Pretty specifically making the point that Democrats can also rationalize horrific things and support the people doing them. I know it's not molestation/rape (or a hypothetical), but materially supporting genocide is also very bad.
|
On February 06 2026 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 01:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them. I don't know why you keep inventing hypotheticals to try to make Democrats as bad as Republicans. If both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were child molesters and still won their primaries and were not disqualified/removed, then sure... one of those two terrible people would still inevitably become president. But regardless of that bizarre hypothetical, the reality is that only Trump - not Harris - molested children (and adults). I have repeatedly made the point that Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans. So you should recognize that is not what I'm doing. Pretty specifically making the point that Democrats can also rationalize horrific things and support the people doing them. I know it's not molestation/rape (or a hypothetical), but materially supporting genocide is also very bad.
Such a brave take lol.
|
On February 06 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2026 01:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them. I don't know why you keep inventing hypotheticals to try to make Democrats as bad as Republicans. If both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were child molesters and still won their primaries and were not disqualified/removed, then sure... one of those two terrible people would still inevitably become president. But regardless of that bizarre hypothetical, the reality is that only Trump - not Harris - molested children (and adults). I have repeatedly made the point that Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans. So you should recognize that is not what I'm doing. Pretty specifically making the point that Democrats can also rationalize horrific things and support the people doing them. I know it's not molestation/rape (or a hypothetical), but materially supporting genocide is also very bad. Such a brave take lol. Too "brave" for Democrats and their supporters I guess? Though "Very bad, but also acceptable" is probably more accurate.
|
On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here?
Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy.
On February 06 2026 01:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. + Show Spoiler +But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" Unless it was Harris after her nomination, or a similar situation. Then Democrats would also rationalize supporting them. I don't know why you keep inventing hypotheticals to try to make Democrats as bad as Republicans. If both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were child molesters and still won their primaries and were not disqualified/removed, then sure... one of those two terrible people would still inevitably become president. But regardless of that bizarre hypothetical, the reality is that only Trump - not Harris - molested children (and adults).
You really have to stop posting to him like he’s a regular guy. This is 100% of his posts, just and faith bad dem shit on repeat.
The comment about sensitive Canadians was an observation that is generally true in my experience. I meant that comment seriously. This is just my experience, but Canadians are not generally "rah rah Canada" *until* you start talking about Canada vis a vis America. Now I'm not being mean, I don't know what it's like to have so much of your politics be about your much bigger nextdoor neighbor. Bur I knew as soon as Trump started talking about making Canada a state that it was just about the worst thing Trump could have said, which as you will remember, was in my list of criticisms. [/QUOTE]
Sensitive is just clearly the wrong word. Watch a hockey game and you will get a decent idea of our collective mentality. Play hard play tough no problem. Play dirty, talk like a bitch and you are going to get punched in the face. Literal or figuratively doesn’t much matter to us.
|
On February 06 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here? Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy.
Who among us hasn't fucked a porn star while their wife was in labor and then used campaign funds to pay for their silence? Let they cast the first stone.
|
On February 06 2026 02:05 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote:On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here? Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy. Who among us hasn't fucked a porn star while their wife was in labor and then used campaign funds to pay for their silence? Let they cast the first stone.
Or talked repeatedly about their daughter’s tits and ass. On his what 3rd wife. Who knows how many NDAs. I mean the list goes on and on.
Poor oBlade his family must be a complete disaster. Lots of his crazy takes make so much more sense.
|
On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?"
How do you get Bannon pedo other than the equation "Epstein Bad + Bannon Altright Bad = Epstein Bannon" exactly? Bannon's interview of him he's literally sitting there calling him a sex offender and criminal and fucked up and the devil. Even in our wildest dreams nobody is stupid to buy child rape from the most notorious such person in society and then invite them for an exhaustive interview. Besides which they met in like 2017? Late in the saga. Well after his worst known crimes and after even all of the alleged ones.
On February 06 2026 02:05 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote:On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here? Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy. Who among us hasn't fucked a porn star while their wife was in labor and then used campaign funds to pay for their silence? Let they cast the first stone.
He didn't use campaign funds for the Stormy Daniels payment. At all. Your words lack a connection to the case.
You have it basically completely flipped.
Cohen paid her. Then Trump, or his accountants/people, reimbursed Cohen, calling it "legal expenses" in various ledgers 34 separate times.
The people who charged and convicted him said this incorrect accounting was a felony. The elevation to a felony only comes from the fact that the misrepresentation is with the intent to commit or cover up another crime. Without that element, it cannot be more than a misdemeanor. Luckily for the prosecution, they didn't have to prove any specific predicate crime happened. They didn't even have to prove intent to commit a specific one. Instead, they got to give the jury a choose your own adventure of: 1) Tax fraud because of Cohen's wrongly categorized income or deductibility of the payment, 2) campaign finance violation by hiding what amounts to a campaign contribution, or 3) interference by Donald Trump in the election of himself
1: without intent this is a "tax mistake"
2: if you buy a car, and also use it to drive to a debate, it's not automatically a campaign expense - you can have a car for personal reasons
3: laughable
If he had actually reported it as campaign expenses, people after the fact would have charged him with the inverse, that he categorized personal expenses as campaign expenses and paid for them with the wrong money, which amazingly is what you wrongly think actually happened. Like there are arguments for and against but you just messed up the summary to begin with as usual.
|
What was the verdict again?
Guilty on how many charges?
Oh and I like how you just skipped over what he actually did to get him in this mess. But well, you defend his raping so all I know is that the Mariana trench is way too shallow for the depths your willing to go to defend your pedo in chief.
|
On February 06 2026 03:17 Velr wrote:
What was the verdict again?
What the fuck do you think "convicted" means?
|
On February 06 2026 02:58 oBlade wrote:
Even in our wildest dreams nobody is stupid to buy child rape from the most notorious such person in society and then invite them for an exhaustive interview.
Chef's kiss of a reply. I want to build a shrine around this sentence and sponsor pilgrimages from across the world to see it in all its audacity.
|
On February 06 2026 02:58 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" How do you get Bannon pedo other than the equation "Epstein Bad + Bannon Altright Bad = Epstein Bannon" exactly? Bannon's interview of him he's literally sitting there calling him a sex offender and criminal and fucked up and the devil. Even in our wildest dreams nobody is stupid to buy child rape from the most notorious such person in society and then invite them for an exhaustive interview. Besides which they met in like 2017? Late in the saga. Well after his worst known crimes and after even all of the alleged ones. Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 02:05 LightSpectra wrote:On February 06 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote:On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here? Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy. Who among us hasn't fucked a porn star while their wife was in labor and then used campaign funds to pay for their silence? Let they cast the first stone. He didn't use campaign funds for the Stormy Daniels payment. At all. Your words lack a connection to the case. You have it basically completely flipped. Cohen paid her. Then Trump, or his accountants/people, reimbursed Cohen, calling it "legal expenses" in various ledgers 34 separate times. The people who charged and convicted him said this incorrect accounting was a felony. The elevation to a felony only comes from the fact that the misrepresentation is with the intent to commit or cover up another crime. Without that element, it cannot be more than a misdemeanor. Luckily for the prosecution, they didn't have to prove any specific predicate crime happened. They didn't even have to prove intent to commit a specific one. Instead, they got to give the jury a choose your own adventure of: 1) Tax fraud because of Cohen's wrongly categorized income or deductibility of the payment, 2) campaign finance violation by hiding what amounts to a campaign contribution, or 3) interference by Donald Trump in the election of himself 1: without intent this is a "tax mistake" 2: if you buy a car, and also use it to drive to a debate, it's not automatically a campaign expense - you can have a car for personal reasons 3: laughable If he had actually reported it as campaign expenses, people after the fact would have charged him with the inverse, that he categorized personal expenses as campaign expenses and paid for them with the wrong money, which amazingly is what you wrongly think actually happened. Like there are arguments for and against but you just messed up the summary to begin with as usual.
What's your take on why good guy Bannon exchanged thousands of friendly texts with the convicted sex offender he hates?
Like is your media bubble so insulated that you don't know this shit? Or do you just ignore what doesn't fit your perverse narrative?
Now imagine what the Trump government has not released yet. Like seriously man you need to read some actual news.
|
On February 06 2026 04:27 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2026 02:58 oBlade wrote:On February 06 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I was also like 10 years old when Clinton was impeached, but another reason they decided to acquit was because of the Republicans' hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer who had been sleeping with his interns for decades before he led the impeachment.
But that's all quite irrelevant, since as you said, society's changed since then. You would have to put in a serious effort to find even a single Democrat or independent that would say "who cares if Clinton was an Epstein client". If he's guilty, throw the book at him. If Obama or Biden or Newsom or AOC or Mamdani turn out to be sex abusers, throw the book at them. All of them. But Republicans talking about Clinton being an Epstein client while blatantly ignoring Trump, Bannon, Musk, etc. aren't just hypocrites, they're deeply nihilistic assholes. They know they're the pedo party and they're strategically jumping back and forth between "unverified Internet rumors" and "why doesn't somebody arrest Clinton?" How do you get Bannon pedo other than the equation "Epstein Bad + Bannon Altright Bad = Epstein Bannon" exactly? Bannon's interview of him he's literally sitting there calling him a sex offender and criminal and fucked up and the devil. Even in our wildest dreams nobody is stupid to buy child rape from the most notorious such person in society and then invite them for an exhaustive interview. Besides which they met in like 2017? Late in the saga. Well after his worst known crimes and after even all of the alleged ones. On February 06 2026 02:05 LightSpectra wrote:On February 06 2026 02:01 Billyboy wrote:On February 05 2026 22:49 misirlou wrote:On February 05 2026 19:16 oBlade wrote:
It doesn't even matter to the family, which is still together (there's probably not a more functional and well-adjusted family linked to politics).
just to confirm, you're talking about the trumps here? Seriously how bad is oBlades family. Starting to feel sorry for the guy. Who among us hasn't fucked a porn star while their wife was in labor and then used campaign funds to pay for their silence? Let they cast the first stone. He didn't use campaign funds for the Stormy Daniels payment. At all. Your words lack a connection to the case. You have it basically completely flipped. Cohen paid her. Then Trump, or his accountants/people, reimbursed Cohen, calling it "legal expenses" in various ledgers 34 separate times. The people who charged and convicted him said this incorrect accounting was a felony. The elevation to a felony only comes from the fact that the misrepresentation is with the intent to commit or cover up another crime. Without that element, it cannot be more than a misdemeanor. Luckily for the prosecution, they didn't have to prove any specific predicate crime happened. They didn't even have to prove intent to commit a specific one. Instead, they got to give the jury a choose your own adventure of: 1) Tax fraud because of Cohen's wrongly categorized income or deductibility of the payment, 2) campaign finance violation by hiding what amounts to a campaign contribution, or 3) interference by Donald Trump in the election of himself 1: without intent this is a "tax mistake" 2: if you buy a car, and also use it to drive to a debate, it's not automatically a campaign expense - you can have a car for personal reasons 3: laughable If he had actually reported it as campaign expenses, people after the fact would have charged him with the inverse, that he categorized personal expenses as campaign expenses and paid for them with the wrong money, which amazingly is what you wrongly think actually happened. Like there are arguments for and against but you just messed up the summary to begin with as usual. What's your take on why good guy Bannon exchanged thousands of friendly texts with the convicted sex offender he hates?
They're both sycophants.
The latter half of Bannon's life has been devoted to media, probably peaking at Breitbart.
Epstein is content. That's an interview. That's exclusive information and also an opportunity.
Where would Epstein, the staggering narcissist, get what he'd have considered a fair shake? 60 Minutes would go easy on him? Think Leslie Stahl would let him talk freely, try to rehabilitate his image a bit, and so on? Whether you know how the world works or not, that relationship and interview represented an opportunity to Epstein also. Far more than the whatever relatively little money the HALF-BILLIONAIRE could get from sex trafficking or child sex trafficking payments. Nor would Bannon fall into a notoriously alleged blackmail ring AFTER it's already widely known/suspected and Epstein's reputation has been in the toilet for years.
Yeah thousands of texts. If it was just one text or one mention, something of low volume like Stephen Hawking's appearances in the files, then we could clear them and know they're not a pedo. But with thousands of texts, statistically it's unavoidable there must be some texts that obviously implicate Bannon in sex crimes. I just have to wait for you to find them.
On February 06 2026 04:27 Billyboy wrote:
Like is your media bubble so insulated that you don't know this shit? Or do you just ignore what doesn't fit your perverse narrative?
So when I said they met in 2017, you took this to mean me not knowing they had a relationship.
On February 06 2026 04:27 Billyboy wrote:
Now imagine what the Trump government has not released yet. Like seriously man you need to read some actual news.
I will get right on that reading the actual news of imagining things that haven't been released yet and may or may not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
