|
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 June 03 2026 00:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 22:46 oBlade wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. Pop civics lesson: Do House discharge petitions or Senate cloture votes pass legislation? Your decision to willfully ignore Congressmen changing their votes for opportunistic reasons is fortunately not infectious. If I thought a president was a rapist, and Congress had a bill to expose files that I thought proved that, and only a single person in the entire Congress voted against it, I would be ecstatic and overjoyed and busy constantly thanking everyone except that one guy for making it happen (instead of going "yeah they voted against rape but I don't like the WAY they did it"). But then I'd have to also thank the alleged rapist himself for signing the bill into law LOL. So I can see why you're stuck. He signed it into law because he knew it would look even more incriminating if he vetoed it. He was literally begging Boebert and Mace to withdraw their names from the discharge petition so it wouldn't have come to that. It turns out he had nothing to worry about because being a child rapist appears to make him more endearing to you and other hardcore MAGAts. Birds of a feather flock together I suppose.
How and why would vetoing your alleged proof of rape be more incriminating than opening the proof of rape for everyone to see?
|
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up).
|
On June 03 2026 00:15 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I almost admire your ability to write words without saying anything. I'm correcting either a misperception or the facts in the case, which don't actually say much once you're done citing them. Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 23:47 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote. The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals. What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like? Because to me it looks like his only issue is standing up to Trump specifically on Epstein. He was lock step with everything else. He's a pretty looney libertarian, antisemite, and conspiracy idiot. Lone vote against a milquetoast condemnation of antisemitism. AIPAC controls all Republicans. Keeps talking about all these Epstein names he'll read into the record, and doesn't (the new one is he'll do it before his term ends, but one wonders why he didn't do it before he lost his primary). Compared COVID-19 vaccine to the holocaust. He only looks normal next to the more extreme loons like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Rest of his "only guy voting no" record is mostly libertarian opposition to Republican party agenda, but you can just google all that stuff. I'm more interested in why everybody should dislike him, rather than just Republicans.
This was a primary. And most of the stuff you said is needed bonafides to be be a MAGA. He got primaried because he went against dear leader, the only sin they care about. The creepy part is it was about releasing Epstein info, which used to be one of the big reasons to vote for Trump.
|
On June 03 2026 00:21 LightSpectra wrote:
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up).
The only way vetoing proof of rape can be more incriminating than exposing proof of rape is if the exposed thing isn't proof. What kind of logic is it to hide proof of rape in plain sight by releasing it? He could have begged the sun god Ra to burn the files to dust. The begging is not the issue. It's irrelevant. Whatever he said, they didn't listen. His own loyal party member cultists that all apparently went against what he wanted, they didn't listen. They didn't stop it from happening. They caused it to happen. And they apparently get scant credit for it from conspiracy theorists. You contort the act of voting to release what you think is incriminating proof of rape to be a negative. That's a new one.
|
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality.
|
@oBlade @Introvert @dyhb
Any thoughts on the California primary today? Any of you have a preference for who wins?
|
On June 03 2026 00:25 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:15 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I almost admire your ability to write words without saying anything. I'm correcting either a misperception or the facts in the case, which don't actually say much once you're done citing them. On June 02 2026 23:47 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote. The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals. What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like? Because to me it looks like his only issue is standing up to Trump specifically on Epstein. He was lock step with everything else. He's a pretty looney libertarian, antisemite, and conspiracy idiot. Lone vote against a milquetoast condemnation of antisemitism. AIPAC controls all Republicans. Keeps talking about all these Epstein names he'll read into the record, and doesn't (the new one is he'll do it before his term ends, but one wonders why he didn't do it before he lost his primary). Compared COVID-19 vaccine to the holocaust. He only looks normal next to the more extreme loons like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Rest of his "only guy voting no" record is mostly libertarian opposition to Republican party agenda, but you can just google all that stuff. I'm more interested in why everybody should dislike him, rather than just Republicans. This was a primary. And most of the stuff you said is needed bonafides to be be a MAGA. He got primaried because he went against dear leader, the only sin they care about. The creepy part is it was about releasing Epstein info, which used to be one of the big reasons to vote for Trump. I think I answered What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like?
That's an entirely different question than the biggest reason why he lost a primary, of which opposition to the same-party president is a major one.
|
On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality.
What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found?
|
On June 03 2026 00:44 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:25 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 00:15 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 23:38 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:
The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I almost admire your ability to write words without saying anything. I'm correcting either a misperception or the facts in the case, which don't actually say much once you're done citing them. On June 02 2026 23:47 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 23:12 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On June 02 2026 10:39 dyhb wrote:On June 02 2026 09:51 Billyboy wrote:
I just read this for feel to correct, but Trump supported the opposition of every Republican who votes to release the Epstein files.
Imagine believing this guy was going to release them! 😂 The House vote was 427-1, so the easy check here is to see if Trump endorsed literally the Speaker of the House. Then Steve Scalise (House majority leader, formerly whip). So this is untrue. I checked another couple here. They're not talking about the vote to release the files after the discharge petition passed, they're talking about the discharge petition itself. The only House Republicans who signed it were Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. Massie was primary'd, Greene resigned in disgust because Trump threatened her for signing it. Every other House Republican refused to sign it, meaning they were fine with the Epstein files being buried forever. They only voted to release the files after the discharge petition passed making its release inevitable, so they could say they did something, but history will remember they were against their release. Now that most (?) of the files are released and almost all of the allegations are against Republicans (Trump is named as a rapist numerous times, Howard Lutnick and Steve Bannon were constantly alongside Epstein, Elon Musk begged to go to Epstein's island, etc.), they've decided to just ignore the files. Why should they make a fuss about child rape if their base doesn't care anymore? Massie was the only one who refused to keep quiet and they made his primary the most expensive in United States history because even one Republican against sex trafficking is too much to bear for them. It sounds like the confusion is over bringing a bill out of committee versus the actual House vote. The impact of "every Republican" is meaningful when you're talking 4 compared to 216. I'm very happy about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie being gone, and Boebert and Mace are not too far behind with their share of sex/exposure/meltdown scandals. What is it about Massie and his voting record do Republicans not like? Because to me it looks like his only issue is standing up to Trump specifically on Epstein. He was lock step with everything else. He's a pretty looney libertarian, antisemite, and conspiracy idiot. Lone vote against a milquetoast condemnation of antisemitism. AIPAC controls all Republicans. Keeps talking about all these Epstein names he'll read into the record, and doesn't (the new one is he'll do it before his term ends, but one wonders why he didn't do it before he lost his primary). Compared COVID-19 vaccine to the holocaust. He only looks normal next to the more extreme loons like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Rest of his "only guy voting no" record is mostly libertarian opposition to Republican party agenda, but you can just google all that stuff. I'm more interested in why everybody should dislike him, rather than just Republicans. This was a primary. And most of the stuff you said is needed bonafides to be be a MAGA. He got primaried because he went against dear leader, the only sin they care about. The creepy part is it was about releasing Epstein info, which used to be one of the big reasons to vote for Trump. I think I answered That's an entirely different question than the biggest reason why he lost a primary, of which opposition to the same-party president is a major one.
Yes, he opposed him loudly on the Epstein files and agreed with him on most everything else. Which was my point.
|
On June 03 2026 00:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:21 LightSpectra wrote:
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up). The only way vetoing proof of rape can be more incriminating than exposing proof of rape is if the exposed thing isn't proof. What kind of logic is it to hide proof of rape in plain sight by releasing it? He could have begged the sun god Ra to burn the files to dust. The begging is not the issue. It's irrelevant. Whatever he said, they didn't listen. His own loyal party member cultists that all apparently went against what he wanted, they didn't listen. They didn't stop it from happening. They caused it to happen. And they apparently get scant credit for it from conspiracy theorists. You contort the act of voting to release what you think is incriminating proof of rape to be a negative. That's a new one. Biden and Garland would've released anything incriminating concerning Epstein and Trump during the Biden years if there was anything good left undisclosed. There's just no way. It's like the guy that committed a felony by releasing Trump's taxes. A top Biden DoJ official left the administration just to help Bragg prosecute Trump in New York.
The political element is at the forefront. Every rumor reported to the FBI that involved Trump and Epstein are in there. Democrats would love to speculate and doll them up as the smoking gun for the next two years. Trump would love to squash them for the same political reason.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 02 2026 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2026 09:48 Turbovolver wrote:On June 02 2026 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:25 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 01:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2026 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 02 2026 01:10 Billyboy wrote:On June 02 2026 00:09 Razyda wrote:On June 01 2026 23:40 Billyboy wrote:
How do MAGAs and other Republicans deal with the constant double talk and straight up fabrications when it comes to Iran.
Trump has said repeatedly that he destroyed Irans military (and heard it parroted here), but now he says “their military, we’ve sort of left it alone, because we think that their military is somewhat, somewhat moderate… we’ve actually left their military alone. People would be surprised to hear that.”
This is on top of the constant changing of goals. I find it very frustrating to hear a deal is done for the 13th time only to have bombs dropping the next day. But MAGA and Republicans must have whip lash from trusting each proclamation, only to have to pivot to a new reality sometimes as soon as minutes later. Arent you surprised, hearing it from orange man himself?  . Seems like he was right again. (Sorry couldn't help myself). Which time was he right? When it was obliterated or now when it has not been touched? Keep in mind, like minded people to you in the US love and trust this guy. If Trump makes multiple contradictory statements, and one of them ends up being even partially true, then it's totally fine to ignore everything else and state "Seems like he was right again" /s + Show Spoiler +
Tautologically, either Iran's military has been affected or it hasn't. Genius move, to declare both simultaneously!
You mock it, but it worked to get reelected. Which iirc is more important than saying the right/true thing. Everyone here not in the cult is painfully aware of this. The mocking is out of frustration of those that believe the liar and the equally bad people who think there is no difference between the options. GH knows all this and is just trolling whenever he goes into his "mock and gawk" mode. GH is obsessed with mocking and gawking at others, while hypocritically criticizing others who do the same. In the past hour or so, he's added two new "mock and gawk" posts. He's just desperate for attention, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to engage with him when he's acting this way. As I understand Turbo: We're all just following the inertia of the current system because none of us want to have to fight hard against that very powerful inertia (despite the overwhelming recognition of the necessity of such actions). Meanwhile everyone enjoys complaining about it and belittling others. I think figuring out how to break out of that dynamic would be a good and fun use of our collectively otherwise rather banal posting. Don't all of you agree? I don't think you understood me if you think you can break out of the dynamic by talking about it among 25 people on a forum. + Show Spoiler +Please don't use me as your latest cudgel with which to try to beat the posters here into having the discussions that it always turns out you didn't actually want to have, whenever your whims are actually entertained.
Or you know, keep doing it, maybe we can have another great round of you making excuses about why you can't give any opinions or contributions of your own because "not everybody's done brainstorming yet".
I don't think my name is going to do much for you on that front though. The diamond rings one was pretty weak, and "a guy who hardly posts here said this!" is worse. Well I thought some people might reject the notion that they are helplessly trapped in the dynamic you're describing and/or have a desire to spend some time and effort discussing what getting out of it looks like (among each other, not necessarily with me) instead of the banal bullshit we're all used to. I suppose I was wrong about that.
Apparently so.
Bitching about Democrats incessantly, totally fine. Doing the same about Republicans is ‘mocking and gawking’
Your piousness is like, completely unmatched with any actual tangible activity to merit it, beside your nebulous organising activities.
Wanna figure out how to break out of that dynamic? How about having a wee look around and try a bit maybe?
It’s fucking GH’s way or the bloody highway, and believe me the highway is full of condescending nonsense.
I’m not some elite political organiser, I have noticed that alienating all potential fellow travellers in some pursuit of purity while completely ignoring that big chunks of a polity are totally down with Fascist-aligned politics, but what the fuck would I know I’m not some big shot political organiser?
Fucking hell. If you want to sell socialism you have to be an abnormally good salesman considering that massive amounts of effort have been made to besmirch it via various forms of propoganda.
GH couldn’t fucking sell a horny supermodel to a teenage virgin, and seeks to lecture fucking everyone else.
Apologies if this post is too vitriolic and transgresses mod boundaries, but fuckkkkkkk me. I shall take any mod action but it’s been eking at my soul for too long.
|
On June 03 2026 00:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality. What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found?
Probably no difference in the end, since braindead arguments like the ones you're using would've still worked on his braindead base.
Reminder that you're simultaneously arguing:
1. Trump wouldn't do X to say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that
2. Trump doing X vindicates him
|
On June 03 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:36 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:21 LightSpectra wrote:
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up). The only way vetoing proof of rape can be more incriminating than exposing proof of rape is if the exposed thing isn't proof. What kind of logic is it to hide proof of rape in plain sight by releasing it? He could have begged the sun god Ra to burn the files to dust. The begging is not the issue. It's irrelevant. Whatever he said, they didn't listen. His own loyal party member cultists that all apparently went against what he wanted, they didn't listen. They didn't stop it from happening. They caused it to happen. And they apparently get scant credit for it from conspiracy theorists. You contort the act of voting to release what you think is incriminating proof of rape to be a negative. That's a new one. Biden and Garland would've released anything incriminating concerning Epstein and Trump during the Biden years if there was anything good left undisclosed. There's just no way. It's like the guy that committed a felony by releasing Trump's taxes. A top Biden DoJ official left the administration just to help Bragg prosecute Trump in New York. The political element is at the forefront. Every rumor reported to the FBI that involved Trump and Epstein are in there. Democrats would love to speculate and doll them up as the smoking gun for the next two years. Trump would love to squash them for the same political reason.
The reason to not release them is MAD. There are plenty of Dem donors in those files as well.
But the rape that keeps getting talked about is the one he committed. oBlade is just stuck on, it’s not rape because it was trumps finger and not his smallish wang. Which if anyone thinks of their daughter, mom, or wife would never care about that distinction.
There is not a big question on why Trump or the Dems didn’t release them. It’s why was it a top two issue in the election for Trump voters and when he doesn’t fall through why don’t they care?
|
On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 00:36 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:21 LightSpectra wrote:
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up). The only way vetoing proof of rape can be more incriminating than exposing proof of rape is if the exposed thing isn't proof. What kind of logic is it to hide proof of rape in plain sight by releasing it? He could have begged the sun god Ra to burn the files to dust. The begging is not the issue. It's irrelevant. Whatever he said, they didn't listen. His own loyal party member cultists that all apparently went against what he wanted, they didn't listen. They didn't stop it from happening. They caused it to happen. And they apparently get scant credit for it from conspiracy theorists. You contort the act of voting to release what you think is incriminating proof of rape to be a negative. That's a new one. Biden and Garland would've released anything incriminating concerning Epstein and Trump during the Biden years if there was anything good left undisclosed. There's just no way. It's like the guy that committed a felony by releasing Trump's taxes. A top Biden DoJ official left the administration just to help Bragg prosecute Trump in New York. The political element is at the forefront. Every rumor reported to the FBI that involved Trump and Epstein are in there. Democrats would love to speculate and doll them up as the smoking gun for the next two years. Trump would love to squash them for the same political reason. The reason to not release them is MAD. There are plenty of Dem donors in those files as well. But the rape that keeps getting talked about is the one he committed. oBlade is just stuck on, it’s not rape because it was trumps finger and not his smallish wang. Which if anyone thinks of their daughter, mom, or wife would never care about that distinction. There is not a big question on why Trump or the Dems didn’t release them. It’s why was it a top two issue in the election for Trump voters and when he doesn’t fall through why don’t they care? I don't for a second believe that unknown Democratic donors are so powerful as to prevent the disclosure of legitimate and incriminating evidence of Trump rape in the context of Epstein during the Biden administration. Are you serious?
|
If Biden released the Epstein files every single MAGAt would say "this is obviously fraudulent bullshit the DoJ made up." That's why he had to rely on Trump-appointee Christopher Wray to handle all the investigation, which ended up backfiring because Republican appointees are inherently untrustworthy.
Of course the actual things Democrats would make up about Trump are tamer than what's actually in the thus-far released Epstein files and they still don't care. I mean, Trump being found a rapist by a court of law during the Biden presidency didn't phase them one bit. Maybe they're not acting in good faith?
|
On June 03 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 00:49 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality. What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found? Probably no difference in the end, since braindead arguments like the ones you're using would've still worked on his braindead base.
I'll answer the question for you with today's second pop civics lesson.
Had he vetoed the bill, it would have been returned to Congress where it would have to pass new votes in both houses with a two-thirds majority in order to override the veto. People whose beliefs aren't merely performative would give credit where it's due.
On June 03 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Reminder that you're simultaneously arguing:
1. Trump wouldn't do X to say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that
2. Trump doing X vindicates him
Not arguing whatever this was supposed to mean.
On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:05 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 00:36 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:21 LightSpectra wrote:
Because dumbfucks can say "so what if he's all over the Epstein files, he signed their release into law so obviously he's not guilty". Omitting the crucial context that he literally begged his own party members to stop that from happening (as you have done every single time this topic comes up). The only way vetoing proof of rape can be more incriminating than exposing proof of rape is if the exposed thing isn't proof. What kind of logic is it to hide proof of rape in plain sight by releasing it? He could have begged the sun god Ra to burn the files to dust. The begging is not the issue. It's irrelevant. Whatever he said, they didn't listen. His own loyal party member cultists that all apparently went against what he wanted, they didn't listen. They didn't stop it from happening. They caused it to happen. And they apparently get scant credit for it from conspiracy theorists. You contort the act of voting to release what you think is incriminating proof of rape to be a negative. That's a new one. Biden and Garland would've released anything incriminating concerning Epstein and Trump during the Biden years if there was anything good left undisclosed. There's just no way. It's like the guy that committed a felony by releasing Trump's taxes. A top Biden DoJ official left the administration just to help Bragg prosecute Trump in New York. The political element is at the forefront. Every rumor reported to the FBI that involved Trump and Epstein are in there. Democrats would love to speculate and doll them up as the smoking gun for the next two years. Trump would love to squash them for the same political reason. But the rape that keeps getting talked about is the one he committed. oBlade is just stuck on, it’s not rape because it was trumps finger and not his smallish wang. Which if anyone thinks of their daughter, mom, or wife would never care about that distinction.
...
|
On June 03 2026 01:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:On June 03 2026 00:49 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 00:39 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm accused of murdering my wife with a gun. While a warrant is out for my arrest and to collect all my belongings for evidence, I instead decide to turn in my gun, registered to me, with only my fingerprints on it, with one bullet missing from the clip. "I'm innocent, why else would I turn in my gun if it incriminates me?"
The jury acquits me because people agree with your mentality. What do you suppose would have happened had Trump actually vetoed the files containing the smoking gun of rape which you alone found? Probably no difference in the end, since braindead arguments like the ones you're using would've still worked on his braindead base. I'll answer the question for you with today's second pop civics lesson. Had he vetoed the bill, it would have been returned to Congress where it would have to pass new votes in both houses with a two-thirds majority in order to override the veto. People whose beliefs aren't merely performative would give credit where it's due.
House Republicans already changed their votes when it went from discharge petition to floor vote, so why wouldn't they change their votes again and get away with it? There's no shortage of oBlades ready to aggressively gaslight whatever they did as being the correct pick.
Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Reminder that you're simultaneously arguing:
1. Trump wouldn't do X to say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that
2. Trump doing X vindicates him Not arguing whatever this was supposed to mean.
Ah, my bad, given your percentages rant earlier, I shouldn't have assumed even basic variable substitution would be understandable. Let's make this more explicit:
1. Trump wouldn't sign the release of the Epstein files and say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that
2. Trump signing the release of the Epstein files vindicates him
|
On June 03 2026 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
@oBlade @Introvert @dyhb
Any thoughts on the California primary today? Any of you have a preference for who wins?
GOP nom has no shot, the "best" Dem candidate is at like 7%. You know it's bad around here though when they are accusing each other of being for the status quo and talkingabout how they will fix the state (without ever mentioning Newsom's name lol). It will probably be Bacerra and given his record events will lead him, instead of the other way around. The only interesting thing imo is if you are invested in Tom Steyer. Or Spencer Pratt. I don't live in LA but I am very curious if things have finally reached a breaking point. You have the actor, the mayor eveyone hates, and the socialist.
|
On June 03 2026 01:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:
Reminder that you're simultaneously arguing:
1. Trump wouldn't do X to say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that
2. Trump doing X vindicates him Not arguing whatever this was supposed to mean. Ah, my bad, given your percentages rant earlier, I shouldn't have assumed even basic variable substitution would be understandable. Let's make this more explicit: 1. Trump wouldn't sign the release of the Epstein files and say he was vindicated, nobody is dumb enough to believe that 2. Trump signing the release of the Epstein files vindicates him
These are not things I am arguing. The problem is not that you used the letter X, it's that the first sentence is so garbled and with no relation to anything I've said that I can't reconstruct what strawman you were going for or how you got there, other than your goal was a big contradiction.
|
On June 03 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
If Biden released the Epstein files every single MAGAt would say "this is obviously fraudulent bullshit the DoJ made up." That's why he had to rely on Trump-appointee Christopher Wray to handle all the investigation, which ended up backfiring because Republican appointees are inherently untrustworthy.
Of course the actual things Democrats would make up about Trump are tamer than what's actually in the thus-far released Epstein files and they still don't care. I mean, Trump being found a rapist by a court of law during the Biden presidency didn't phase them one bit. Maybe they're not acting in good faith? Biden was worried about what MAGA would say if he released Epstein files with concrete evidence regarding Trump and Epstein? And Christopher Wray, head of FBI during the Mar A Lago raid and insulted and reviled by Trump during the Biden administration, nonetheless dishonestly hid the material?
I'm beginning to assemble a list of conspiracy theories regarding Biden's nondisclosure of incriminating Epstein files documents (that Trump is now hiding), and I'm having trouble sorting "to protect Dem donors" "worried about MAGA" and "The FBI under Christopher Wray was untrustworthy."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
