|
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 |
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides.
Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain
You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff
|
On February 25 2026 10:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 25 2026 09:08 Vivax wrote:On February 25 2026 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 08:42 Vivax wrote:On February 25 2026 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 06:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 25 2026 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 03:27 pmh wrote:
Now i do hope Trump gets a 3rd term because i think its the only way forward. Its going to be a long process. Forward towards... what end? The destruction of our democracy? The discarding of our Constitution? The apocalypse? The supreme court consists of 2 Trump appointees and is dominated by Republicans. The court recently ended the foundation of Republican Donald Trump's bargaining power by a score of 6-3. So, the Constitution remains in force. Electing a president for the third time would be unconstitutional, which is what pmh is hoping will happen. Yeah because it being unconstitutional would prevent another capitol shitshow or similar thing, except they’d be better prepared this time and might succeed. At least when Adolf failed his first coup d‘etat he had to do jail time. In the EU they issued a warning about the banking system possibly being cut off due to the massive uncertainty caused and the very real threat. Don‘t know about you but I‘ll be taking precautions. Yeah I don't know why pmh is rooting for that to happen. I don‘t take it at face value. It‘s probably more meant along the way of ‚who even cares what happens next at this point‘. I took it as exasperation at the lack of a realistic/coherent plan from Democrats/their supporters. The SOTU response being an example of their incoherency. Their response? I thought the SOTU doesn't happen for another hour. How could there already be responses to it? I'm referencing the divisions/conflicting messages between attending (who to bring) or not, which alternative event to attend instead (if any), the "official response" and so on.
It's not like it's a secret that Democrats are rudderless and pretty clueless on what to do besides the incessant mock and gawk until they can get away with spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guys?!". https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/340732-dems-try-new-slogan-have-you-seen-the-other-guys/
|
On February 25 2026 11:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides. Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain The post was on his failure to release documents pertaining to the congressional law, and I said he should be impeached over it. You think censure is better than impeachment? And what revelations?
You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff You seem to have not understood reserving the term for extra heinous crimes, and the resulting confusion over what's new now that more Epstein files are released. I've said repeated times that it doesn't make the actors look any better, but apparently you just read what you want from the posts and ignore the rest.
|
On February 25 2026 15:37 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 11:55 WombaT wrote:On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides. Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain The post was on his failure to release documents pertaining to the congressional law, and I said he should be impeached over it. You think censure is better than impeachment? And what revelations? Show nested quote +You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff You seem to have not understood reserving the term for extra heinous crimes, and the resulting confusion over what's new now that more Epstein files are released. I've said repeated times that it doesn't make the actors look any better, but apparently you just read what you want from the posts and ignore the rest.
You think he should be impeached? Why do you think it should be the next Congress to do it, and not this one?
|
On February 25 2026 22:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 15:37 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 11:55 WombaT wrote:On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides. Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain The post was on his failure to release documents pertaining to the congressional law, and I said he should be impeached over it. You think censure is better than impeachment? And what revelations? You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff You seem to have not understood reserving the term for extra heinous crimes, and the resulting confusion over what's new now that more Epstein files are released. I've said repeated times that it doesn't make the actors look any better, but apparently you just read what you want from the posts and ignore the rest. You think he should be impeached? Why do you think it should be the next Congress to do it, and not this one? I just don't think the members of this Congress will do it, to their discredit. With the expected midterm swing against the incumbent's party, it will create the majority needed. The current incumbents don't have enough pressure against them. I'm trying to deal with the reality with the current congress and their incentives.
|
Welp the US Economy grew by 2.2% in 2025.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rj5lly78xo
Overall the economy grew 2.2% in 2025, performing better than many had anticipated in the face of those pressures.
"The core of the economy is resilient," Michael Pearce, chief US economist at Oxford Economics wrote on Friday, adding that he expected growth to pick up again this year.
~11 months ago, I projected 2% growth. I'm glad to see I was slightly wrong and being overly pessimistic.
Also, it is nice to see Blue Collar wage growth. This shows "regular people" are benefiting from the slowly growing economy. Also, median real wages are up slightly. Another indicator "regular people" are making slightly more money.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/14/blue-collar-workers-wages-rising-inequality-shrinking-economy-column/1955329001/
White Collar people are not experiencing big pay increases as they have for decades. White collar people spend more time on social media so we're hearing lots of whining every time 50 people get laid off. This makes things seem worse than they are.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2023.2199418
Conclusion: the economy is limping along in pretty much the same state its been in since pulling out of the 2009 nose dive. meh. If you want to be an "upwardly mobile"//Yuppy you gotta move where the good jobs are. Its kinda been like that for ... ever.
|
On February 25 2026 23:29 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 22:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 25 2026 15:37 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 11:55 WombaT wrote:On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides. Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain The post was on his failure to release documents pertaining to the congressional law, and I said he should be impeached over it. You think censure is better than impeachment? And what revelations? You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff You seem to have not understood reserving the term for extra heinous crimes, and the resulting confusion over what's new now that more Epstein files are released. I've said repeated times that it doesn't make the actors look any better, but apparently you just read what you want from the posts and ignore the rest. You think he should be impeached? Why do you think it should be the next Congress to do it, and not this one? I just don't think the members of this Congress will do it, to their discredit. With the expected midterm swing against the incumbent's party, it will create the majority needed. The current incumbents don't have enough pressure against them. I'm trying to deal with the reality with the current congress and their incentives.
Trump has been impeached before. Impeachment doesn't change anything... it's the next stage - removal from office - that would actually change something. Sadly, even with a slight Democratic majority, removal is generally impossible without sufficient Republican support (which won't ever happen, even after the midterms).
|
Oh , and when discussing the economy I should add one additional note.
There is an additional signal indicating the massive size and massive success of the USA's upper middle class and middle class. The USA is now the #1 world power in the very expensive sport that Canadians just love to call "Ice Hockey". And this is happening with only a small fraction of the population interested in playing hockey.
|
On February 25 2026 03:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 03:17 oBlade wrote:On February 25 2026 00:05 Manit0u wrote:
Starting from riches and remaining rich is not really successful though. Trump managed to bankrupt casinos multiple times and had to be bailed out by his father and others. Being able to put his name on buildings like hotels was also something out of his reach until Russians made it happen as a gift to him to coerce him.
Pretty much every business this guy touches goes to shit. All the great "deals" he makes are mostly just shady stuff on how people can bribe him to do stuff for them.
Dude is not smart, he's not business savvy, he has no class. He got rich on being bribed by various parties to do their bidding and all kinds of scams. You also think Musk failed upwards. Who is a good, nice, virtuous successful billionaire businessman? Examples. I have a hard time believing if Trump had as high a net worth as Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, rather than his measly failed single digit billions, that he'd have your respect for his business acumen. Just a hollow-ringing criticism. “I can’t respond to the argument you made about Trump doing worse than passive investing but what I can do is come up with another argument that you didn’t make and then respond to that.” It’s really not that hard to say “yeah, Trump’s many business ventures generally underperformed over the years, but business acumen isn’t why I simp for him”.
The parts before a question mark must print in invisible ink on your screen. You want to respond, you name a good nice virtuous successful billionaire businessman you respect, especially who outperformed S&P500 over some period.
It's not an argument. There is no argument. "Paper trading outperforms Trump." Who all-ined the S&P500 in 1980 or whatever and didn't take a single cent out until today? For $100 or $200 or $400 million or however much people exactly think Trump inherited? Nobody. Paper trading. What is the point? The S&P1 outperformed the S&P500. The S&P600 underperformed the S&P500. Elon Musk outperformed everything. So did Bitcoin. The goal of investing could very well be to wait 40 years to have a fund of questionable liquidity which is a tax liability if you want to do something else with it. That is not strictly the same goal of business. Nor of life. In the real world you do actually have to sell sometimes. Whereas in a stock, knowing the past, you can say the "index" performed such and such even though in an economic downturn when people (of whom Trump is one) need liquidity they will definitely be selling at points and not being a psychopathic 40 year HODL whose trades would be the indistinguishable from someone in a 40 year coma.
If you put $1000 into the S&P500 and next year your net worth goes from $30k to $100k because you banked income from a cushy new job you didn't massively outperform the S&P500. When your savings is cut in half for medical bills you didn't underperform the S&P500. Someone's total net worth is different than the part of their net worth of the funds they invest into public stock.
Comparing an entire business to investing is apples to oranges.
If someone wanted to compare Trump's public stock action vs the S&P 500, that might be apples to apples. I mean the S&P500 outperforms mutual funds that doesn't mean everyone who puts a dollar in a mutual fund is a fucking orange idiot failure. Anyone whose net worth increases more than inflation is afloat.
My argument is unless you can name an unridiculed businessman, the source can be ignored. My prediction is it's a triple Morton's fork.
Trump net worth < S&P index -> "He can't even outperform the S&P500"
Trump net worth = S&P index -> "All that work he did just to equal the S&P500? Casinos going under and selling airlines? What an idiot he should have..."
Trump's net worth > S&P index -> "Trump is a corrupt crony exploitative agent of capitalism who won't pay his fair share in taxes and spread the wealth"
That is a prediction. It's not meant to be a strawman since Trump didn't equal or outperform the S&P500. It's a "What-if" question. But we don't have that experiment. We can't go to those alternate universes. By all means explain to me that prediction is wrong. The only lateral question to answer is name someone else whose net worth outperformed the index calculations of the S&P500 who you don't think is a steaming pile of exploitative capitalist shit, and if there's no answer that tells me just how seriously to take the first "argument."
|
On February 25 2026 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Oh , and when discussing the economy I should add one additional note.
There is an additional signal indicating the massive size and massive success of the USA's upper middle class and middle class. The USA is now the #1 world power in the very expensive sport that Canadians just love to call "Ice Hockey". And this is happening with only a small fraction of the population interested in playing hockey.
But it sucks at skiing, motorracing and various other even more expensive sports, so we can assume that americans richer than the average hockey mom are actually doing horrible.
You are such a clown.
|
I'm like the least nationalistic person imaginable.
This guy is cheering on his "new country" against his own country of origin, while his new country is actively trying to crater his old country's economy and openly threatening annexation, and trying to incite separatist movements is really something.
The Fox News "analysis" of the GDP numbers is as laughable as always, I believe this is the 3rd time Jimmy here came to the thread as they keep revising the numbers down, and yet he keeps getting fed silver linings by his media diet, pretty sad.
|
On February 25 2026 23:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Oh , and when discussing the economy I should add one additional note.
There is an additional signal indicating the massive size and massive success of the USA's upper middle class and middle class. The USA is now the #1 world power in the very expensive sport that Canadians just love to call "Ice Hockey". And this is happening with only a small fraction of the population interested in playing hockey.
I find it hilarious how you can conclude that the middle class in Canada is toast compared to the US based off the fact that the US beat Canada in a best of 1 hockey game where the US got heavily outshot and was single handedly saved by a goalie playing out of his mind in a 2-1 result lmao. This is almost as retarded as your conclusion that Tim Hortons donut sales are down, therefore Canadian middle class = annihilated.
|
United States43987 Posts
On February 26 2026 00:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 03:44 KwarK wrote:On February 25 2026 03:17 oBlade wrote:On February 25 2026 00:05 Manit0u wrote:
Starting from riches and remaining rich is not really successful though. Trump managed to bankrupt casinos multiple times and had to be bailed out by his father and others. Being able to put his name on buildings like hotels was also something out of his reach until Russians made it happen as a gift to him to coerce him.
Pretty much every business this guy touches goes to shit. All the great "deals" he makes are mostly just shady stuff on how people can bribe him to do stuff for them.
Dude is not smart, he's not business savvy, he has no class. He got rich on being bribed by various parties to do their bidding and all kinds of scams. You also think Musk failed upwards. Who is a good, nice, virtuous successful billionaire businessman? Examples. I have a hard time believing if Trump had as high a net worth as Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, rather than his measly failed single digit billions, that he'd have your respect for his business acumen. Just a hollow-ringing criticism. “I can’t respond to the argument you made about Trump doing worse than passive investing but what I can do is come up with another argument that you didn’t make and then respond to that.” It’s really not that hard to say “yeah, Trump’s many business ventures generally underperformed over the years, but business acumen isn’t why I simp for him”. The parts before a question mark must print in invisible ink on your screen. You want to respond, you name a good nice virtuous successful billionaire businessman you respect, especially who outperformed S&P500 over some period. It's not an argument. There is no argument. "Paper trading outperforms Trump." Who all-ined the S&P500 in 1980 or whatever and didn't take a single cent out until today? For $100 or $200 or $400 million or however much people exactly think Trump inherited? Nobody. Paper trading. What is the point? The S&P1 outperformed the S&P500. The S&P600 underperformed the S&P500. Elon Musk outperformed everything. So did Bitcoin. The goal of investing could very well be to wait 40 years to have a fund of questionable liquidity which is a tax liability if you want to do something else with it. That is not strictly the same goal of business. Nor of life. In the real world you do actually have to sell sometimes. Whereas in a stock, knowing the past, you can say the "index" performed such and such even though in an economic downturn when people (of whom Trump is one) need liquidity they will definitely be selling at points and not being a psychopathic 40 year HODL whose trades would be the indistinguishable from someone in a 40 year coma. If you put $1000 into the S&P500 and next year your net worth goes from $30k to $100k because you banked income from a cushy new job you didn't massively outperform the S&P500. When your savings is cut in half for medical bills you didn't underperform the S&P500. Someone's total net worth is different than the part of their net worth of the funds they invest into public stock. Comparing an entire business to investing is apples to oranges. If someone wanted to compare Trump's public stock action vs the S&P 500, that might be apples to apples. I mean the S&P500 outperforms mutual funds that doesn't mean everyone who puts a dollar in a mutual fund is a fucking orange idiot failure. Anyone whose net worth increases more than inflation is afloat. My argument is unless you can name an unridiculed businessman, the source can be ignored. My prediction is it's a triple Morton's fork. Trump net worth < S&P index -> "He can't even outperform the S&P500" Trump net worth = S&P index -> "All that work he did just to equal the S&P500? Casinos going under and selling airlines? What an idiot he should have..." Trump's net worth > S&P index -> "Trump is a corrupt crony exploitative agent of capitalism who won't pay his fair share in taxes and spread the wealth" That is a prediction. It's not meant to be a strawman since Trump didn't equal or outperform the S&P500. It's a "What-if" question. But we don't have that experiment. We can't go to those alternate universes. By all means explain to me that prediction is wrong. The only lateral question to answer is name someone else whose net worth outperformed the index calculations of the S&P500 who you don't think is a steaming pile of exploitative capitalist shit, and if there's no answer that tells me just how seriously to take the first "argument."
So you’re saying you can’t address the argument made? It must be very inconvenient to you that you can address all these other arguments that nobody made but unfortunately nobody is making them.
|
Even aside from Trump the US is pretty fucking weird nowadays. They like to hand out grenades to people to shove up their butts and act like it‘s a big deal when they don‘t pull the pin.
Must be some kind of symbol of virtue to them. That‘s why they re-elected the man.
There‘s also likely to be entire cults dedicated to pretending that they shove grenades up their arses and pull the pins because of it.
I advise to detonate grenades from a safety distance after pulling them out. In case you are into rectally administered explosives.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On February 25 2026 15:37 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2026 11:55 WombaT wrote:On February 25 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On February 25 2026 02:18 decafchicken wrote:On February 24 2026 13:12 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 12:47 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 24 2026 12:07 Manit0u wrote:
I'm truly surprised at the length of mental gymnastics people are willing to go to still try and defend Trump. He's a total scumbag, failure as a president and also failure in life. Dude has absolutely nothing going for him. Didn't achieve anything in his entire life by himself and now just acts as a 12yo boy throwing tantrums left and right in need of attention.
I suspect partly cult of personality, and partly because some people were only ever in it to 'own the libs'. Most of the mental effort of keeping a cult going was always done by the cult members rather than the cult leader. It's hard and embarrassing to admit you got suckered into something completely irrational and self serving for the cult leader, even to yourself. It's not uncommon to have people unable to let go and doing incredible mental gymnastics rather than finding their way out of a cult mentality. Some people don't actually give a shit about Trump, I suspect many debatelords fall under this category. They were only ever in it to piss off the 'Libs" (I admit, I kinda understand when it comes to actual Liberals). They don't have an actual position on Trump, it's just funny to them to see people they are debating lose their minds when they take ridiculous positions that seem absurd. I have similar thoughts on the call-someone-a-Nazi weekly quotas. Or the related reaction to crafting some outright lie or half-truth about Trump, confident that anybody pointing it out can be righteously called out as a Trump defender. Like, he’s a bad guy. You don’t get special license to drop all standards when it comes to bad guys. But there’s something effective in-group in performing the lie, calling somebody a Nazi if they notice, and in-group signal on people “defending Trump” if you do the routine often enough. Epstein files were a bust on all but a few fringe figures and some financial/sensitive documents crime, but it’s so much easier to just demagogue through it all. Are the epstein files a bust or is the DOJ is protecting Trump by redacting and illegally withholding files. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/24/nx-s1-5723968/epstein-files-trump-accusation-maxwell Ideally, the next Democratic Congress brings impeachment proceedings for failing to disclose these documents. On February 25 2026 02:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2026 00:59 dyhb wrote:On February 24 2026 11:20 Vivax wrote:
Semantics on the topic are important in the clinical and legal context.
The hard age limit of 18 in the US probably is supposed to serve as some kind of deterrent because of its massive porn industry (just guessing that it is the reason) but tends to be softer in some other countries.
Usually there‘s a tolerance range of two years difference under 16 and under certain circumstances that require consent obviously, there‘s possible tolerance starting from 16. My first relationship was in the sub16 range which might have been dangerous if I lived in the US.
I think the Russian connection regarding Epstein (apparently he hired Russians on the farm and some of them provided services) is another troubling aspect because it exposes some entities in the US keeping their options open to a collaboration which doesn‘t resonate well with the allies it claims to have. I initially thought the Epstein files contained new and worse revelations of perversion based on the way it was talked about, but I understand that was just misunderstanding very colloquial uses of words. I'm trying to follow the story beyond the hype. The most salacious stuff didn't stand up to the light, but that doesn't mean some future disclosures or reporting actually delivers the goods. Your defense of child molesters is duly noted, and your interest in ranking them (e.g., Diddy > Trump yesterday) is bizarre. That being said, if you want to share your tier list of your favorite pedophiles, just do it and then be on your way. As in my previous posts, I’m uninterested in people that either lie or display their ignorance of the facts, confident that anybody who calls them out can be smeared as a defender of Trump or defender of child molesters. It’s an old and lame trick for debatelords and internet trolls that I’ve wasted too much time in my life humoring. If you want to engage substantively on the topic, I’m quite willing to re-engage, but you’ll have to post on substance and stay away from the ad hominem asides. Right so do you think he should face some censure, either formally or via general political blowback based on those revelations contained within? Or any of the numerous rather suspect things he’s either alleged or proven to have done in this domain The post was on his failure to release documents pertaining to the congressional law, and I said he should be impeached over it. You think censure is better than impeachment? And what revelations? Show nested quote +You seem to heavily be focusing on the fact he hasn’t touched up a 5 year old and general pointless indignation about specificity rather than engaging on any of that pesky stuff You seem to have not understood reserving the term for extra heinous crimes, and the resulting confusion over what's new now that more Epstein files are released. I've said repeated times that it doesn't make the actors look any better, but apparently you just read what you want from the posts and ignore the rest.
According to Miriam-Webster the word censure covers procedural methods of rebuke, of which impeachment would be an example of such. I discovered that its use as a more general descriptor for finding fault or casting judgement is a bit archaic apparently, although I do use it in that fashion.
I think the problem here, and indeed more generally for the past while is it’s hard to do the former without a pretty hefty chunk of the latter.
And the latter is oft-lacking for a significant chunk of Americans, seemingly no matter what is revealed and known. Trump very notably and prominently, but it is important to stress not exclusively.
Over this side of the Atlantic, Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson have received censure on these multiple axes. Both have been arrested and had their properties searched, maybe that’s all, maybe prosecutions follow. Andrew’s status as a royalty and most of his perks have been stripped from him, Mandelson’s formal political career is likely over.
Now perhaps that occurs independently anyway, but that last layer, that public clamouring for action and reputational damage in that domain was there as well and probably contributed.
That seems to be rather lacking, outside of those who were already avowedly not in the Trump camp and whatnot.
I mean most political careers end not in formal censure, but when public attitudes towards you are such that it precludes continuing to pursue such a career as an option.
The Trump juggernaut continues to roll on and on, seemingly impervious to things that would be ruinous to other figures reputationally having any traction, at least with their base.
This doesn’t really seem any different than various prior events, even if the Dems go the impeachment route again, nothing consequential will follow. Indeed I don’t see them bothering for that reason. As well as it being very partisan, divisive and toxic for little real gain.
For all the Democrats have been ineffective, Constitutional mechanisms inadequate, for me the biggest problem as regards reining in Trump’s behaviour has very much been the general unwillingness of his flock to hold him to account on basically anything. And that doesn’t seem to be changing, nor would I expect it to when baselessly claiming electoral fraud, trying to generate votes from thin air and other totally non-insurrectionist behaviour didn’t do the trick.
|
|
|
I guess the lack of clamoring for something to be done about the Epstein class in the USA is a consequence of a few things.
Number one being that Americans in general, over the 10 years of the Trump era became completely apathetic and neutered, so much shit is happening and time and time again there are no consequences so everyone gave up on even trying to hold people accountable.
Some Americans, like our "centrist" friends in this thread, mostly gave up on trying to hold Trump and his movement to any standards because they just really, really want to make lefties and anyone who they deemed was elevated by them suffer.
Some gave up because Biden and Merrick Garland showed them that Democrats believe in nothing and will do anything to keep the status quo, they had a mandate to deal with January 6th and other Trump crimes, they did nothing, so why care.
Some were radicalized before that and were convinced, mostly by Alexandr Dugin style propaganda that the only path forward is Accelerationism , so they spend all their time attacking the Democrats, who Russians correctly made their enemy number #1.
Then there are the cultists who aren't fans of the USA as we know it, they don't give a fuck about the constitution or rule of law, they are fans of Trump and him "owning the libs", just a hateful bunch of people who convinced themselves he'll never come for them. This quarter of US population was primed for this by decades of Fox News, Infowards, Twitter and right-wing Radio, all they needed is to latch on to someone like Trump, and they won't latch off until he's dead and buried.
The first group doesn't want to touch the Epstein class because that might interfere with their avatar of Vengeance, so they play defense and semantics or simply ignore it.
The second group gave up on even paying attention to the news, are too high and mighty and were convinced not to bother with "conspiracies" by tons of liberal and centrist gaslighting or if they do pay attention and care don't give enough of a fuck to risk doing something about it, and any form of protest or dissent is a risk in today's USA of palantir, ICE and AI mass surveillance.
The third only looks at the files through the lens of being "right" and going "see, both sides are bad" because a certain percentage of the Epstein class was liberal, of course, they'll happily ignore any mentions of Chomsky.
The final group is insane, ironically they are the most diverse, some of them have had their brain broken, examples being the 3 or so would be Trump assassins. Some of them are being actively propagandized to by figures like Rogan who are playing defense for Trump. Some are so deep into the Trump cult that they'd let him rape their whole family and still vote for him after.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On February 26 2026 04:22 Jankisa wrote:
I guess the lack of clamoring for something to be done about the Epstein class in the USA is a consequence of a few things.
Number one being that Americans in general, over the 10 years of the Trump era became completely apathetic and neutered, so much shit is happening and time and time again there are no consequences so everyone gave up on even trying to hold people accountable.
Some Americans, like our "centrist" friends in this thread, mostly gave up on trying to hold Trump and his movement to any standards because they just really, really want to make lefties and anyone who they deemed was elevated by them suffer.
Some gave up because Biden and Merrick Garland showed them that Democrats believe in nothing and will do anything to keep the status quo, they had a mandate to deal with January 6th and other Trump crimes, they did nothing, so why care.
Some were radicalized before that and were convinced, mostly by Alexandr Dugin style propaganda that the only path forward is Accelerationism , so they spend all their time attacking the Democrats, who Russians correctly made their enemy number #1.
Then there are the cultists who aren't fans of the USA as we know it, they don't give a fuck about the constitution or rule of law, they are fans of Trump and him "owning the libs", just a hateful bunch of people who convinced themselves he'll never come for them. This quarter of US population was primed for this by decades of Fox News, Infowards, Twitter and right-wing Radio, all they needed is to latch on to someone like Trump, and they won't latch off until he's dead and buried.
The first group doesn't want to touch the Epstein class because that might interfere with their avatar of Vengeance, so they play defense and semantics or simply ignore it.
The second group gave up on even paying attention to the news, are too high and mighty and were convinced not to bother with "conspiracies" by tons of liberal and centrist gaslighting or if they do pay attention and care don't give enough of a fuck to risk doing something about it, and any form of protest or dissent is a risk in today's USA of palantir, ICE and AI mass surveillance.
The third only looks at the files through the lens of being "right" and going "see, both sides are bad" because a certain percentage of the Epstein class was liberal, of course, they'll happily ignore any mentions of Chomsky.
The final group is insane, ironically they are the most diverse, some of them have had their brain broken, examples being the 3 or so would be Trump assassins. Some of them are being actively propagandized to by figures like Rogan who are playing defense for Trump. Some are so deep into the Trump cult that they'd let him rape their whole family and still vote for him after.
Pretty reasonable breakdown I gots to say!
I think one cohort you neglected, indeed the only sizeable one you really missed is the ‘if I had power’ one. I’m not sure how big it is, who fits specifically this and where other models and motivation overlaps.
Banging attractive trafficked 17 year olds? ’Well hey I’d do that if I could, would be a bit hypocritical of me to be outraged if x famous person died right?’ And extend that to all sorts of other impropriety.
For, understandable reasons it’s pretty rare you actually hear this line of defence actually voiced, but I don’t think it’s a negligibly sized group of people who think like that. And it’s somewhat, or indeed hugely culturally influenced too I imagine. There definitely seems sufficient divergence in other places anyway, albeit that’s a crude anecdotal reflection rather than anything rigorously sourced
|
On February 26 2026 04:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2026 04:22 Jankisa wrote:
I guess the lack of clamoring for something to be done about the Epstein class in the USA is a consequence of a few things.
Number one being that Americans in general, over the 10 years of the Trump era became completely apathetic and neutered, so much shit is happening and time and time again there are no consequences so everyone gave up on even trying to hold people accountable.
Some Americans, like our "centrist" friends in this thread, mostly gave up on trying to hold Trump and his movement to any standards because they just really, really want to make lefties and anyone who they deemed was elevated by them suffer.
Some gave up because Biden and Merrick Garland showed them that Democrats believe in nothing and will do anything to keep the status quo, they had a mandate to deal with January 6th and other Trump crimes, they did nothing, so why care.
Some were radicalized before that and were convinced, mostly by Alexandr Dugin style propaganda that the only path forward is Accelerationism , so they spend all their time attacking the Democrats, who Russians correctly made their enemy number #1.
Then there are the cultists who aren't fans of the USA as we know it, they don't give a fuck about the constitution or rule of law, they are fans of Trump and him "owning the libs", just a hateful bunch of people who convinced themselves he'll never come for them. This quarter of US population was primed for this by decades of Fox News, Infowards, Twitter and right-wing Radio, all they needed is to latch on to someone like Trump, and they won't latch off until he's dead and buried.
The first group doesn't want to touch the Epstein class because that might interfere with their avatar of Vengeance, so they play defense and semantics or simply ignore it.
The second group gave up on even paying attention to the news, are too high and mighty and were convinced not to bother with "conspiracies" by tons of liberal and centrist gaslighting or if they do pay attention and care don't give enough of a fuck to risk doing something about it, and any form of protest or dissent is a risk in today's USA of palantir, ICE and AI mass surveillance.
The third only looks at the files through the lens of being "right" and going "see, both sides are bad" because a certain percentage of the Epstein class was liberal, of course, they'll happily ignore any mentions of Chomsky.
The final group is insane, ironically they are the most diverse, some of them have had their brain broken, examples being the 3 or so would be Trump assassins. Some of them are being actively propagandized to by figures like Rogan who are playing defense for Trump. Some are so deep into the Trump cult that they'd let him rape their whole family and still vote for him after. Pretty reasonable breakdown I gots to say! I think one cohort you neglected, indeed the only sizeable one you really missed is the ‘if I had power’ one. I’m not sure how big it is, who fits specifically this and where other models and motivation overlaps. Banging attractive trafficked 17 year olds? ’Well hey I’d do that if I could, would be a bit hypocritical of me to be outraged if x famous person died right?’ And extend that to all sorts of other impropriety. For, understandable reasons it’s pretty rare you actually hear this line of defence actually voiced, but I don’t think it’s a negligibly sized group of people who think like that. And it’s somewhat, or indeed hugely culturally influenced too I imagine. There definitely seems sufficient divergence in other places anyway, albeit that’s a crude anecdotal reflection rather than anything rigorously sourced
Is the bad part the trafficking or the age? Because in some states....
Just playing DA here.
|
Northern Ireland26785 Posts
On February 26 2026 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2026 04:34 WombaT wrote:On February 26 2026 04:22 Jankisa wrote:
I guess the lack of clamoring for something to be done about the Epstein class in the USA is a consequence of a few things.
Number one being that Americans in general, over the 10 years of the Trump era became completely apathetic and neutered, so much shit is happening and time and time again there are no consequences so everyone gave up on even trying to hold people accountable.
Some Americans, like our "centrist" friends in this thread, mostly gave up on trying to hold Trump and his movement to any standards because they just really, really want to make lefties and anyone who they deemed was elevated by them suffer.
Some gave up because Biden and Merrick Garland showed them that Democrats believe in nothing and will do anything to keep the status quo, they had a mandate to deal with January 6th and other Trump crimes, they did nothing, so why care.
Some were radicalized before that and were convinced, mostly by Alexandr Dugin style propaganda that the only path forward is Accelerationism , so they spend all their time attacking the Democrats, who Russians correctly made their enemy number #1.
Then there are the cultists who aren't fans of the USA as we know it, they don't give a fuck about the constitution or rule of law, they are fans of Trump and him "owning the libs", just a hateful bunch of people who convinced themselves he'll never come for them. This quarter of US population was primed for this by decades of Fox News, Infowards, Twitter and right-wing Radio, all they needed is to latch on to someone like Trump, and they won't latch off until he's dead and buried.
The first group doesn't want to touch the Epstein class because that might interfere with their avatar of Vengeance, so they play defense and semantics or simply ignore it.
The second group gave up on even paying attention to the news, are too high and mighty and were convinced not to bother with "conspiracies" by tons of liberal and centrist gaslighting or if they do pay attention and care don't give enough of a fuck to risk doing something about it, and any form of protest or dissent is a risk in today's USA of palantir, ICE and AI mass surveillance.
The third only looks at the files through the lens of being "right" and going "see, both sides are bad" because a certain percentage of the Epstein class was liberal, of course, they'll happily ignore any mentions of Chomsky.
The final group is insane, ironically they are the most diverse, some of them have had their brain broken, examples being the 3 or so would be Trump assassins. Some of them are being actively propagandized to by figures like Rogan who are playing defense for Trump. Some are so deep into the Trump cult that they'd let him rape their whole family and still vote for him after. Pretty reasonable breakdown I gots to say! I think one cohort you neglected, indeed the only sizeable one you really missed is the ‘if I had power’ one. I’m not sure how big it is, who fits specifically this and where other models and motivation overlaps. Banging attractive trafficked 17 year olds? ’Well hey I’d do that if I could, would be a bit hypocritical of me to be outraged if x famous person died right?’ And extend that to all sorts of other impropriety. For, understandable reasons it’s pretty rare you actually hear this line of defence actually voiced, but I don’t think it’s a negligibly sized group of people who think like that. And it’s somewhat, or indeed hugely culturally influenced too I imagine. There definitely seems sufficient divergence in other places anyway, albeit that’s a crude anecdotal reflection rather than anything rigorously sourced Is the bad part the trafficking or the age? Because in some states.... Just playing DA here.
We’ve enough advocates of Satan as is haha!
Such things are only bad in this context if people consider them bad, if they don’t, well have at it seems to be the swing of things.
It doesn’t appear a hefty chunk of people remotely care, be it that, be it pretty blatant corruption. And to a level I don’t think you really see in reasonably comparable nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
