|
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 |
lmao are you seriously trying to say "he can't be a Republican asset because Trump [at least pretended to] hate him"? Are you for real? How many SCOTUS or other federal judges have bailed Trump out despite him wiping his ass with their reputation on a near-weekly basis?
|
United States44245 Posts
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?
For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care.
|
On June 03 2026 01:25 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote: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?
That is because you are talking about just releasing files about Trump, and I’m talking about releasing them all. Some new version of Dems that is populist like Trump might do such a thing, but the previous Dems would not do something so partisan. They kept them shelved because the impacted so many. Hell maybe there is intelligence reasons, or protecting victims or who knows. Which is all why they didn’t campaign on releasing them, Trump and his MAGAts were so “clean” they were doing to release them all. And instead once they got the keys it has been a huge fight to release anything.
You’re what about the Dems game doesn’t work when it wasn’t something they campaigned about at all, let alone their big promise. And it is not working as a distraction when you try to bring it up.
|
On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK 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? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care.
The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence.
Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist."
|
On June 03 2026 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:
lmao are you seriously trying to say "he can't be a Republican asset because Trump [at least pretended to] hate him"? Are you for real? How many SCOTUS or other federal judges have bailed Trump out despite him wiping his ass with their reputation on a near-weekly basis? The standard conspiracist's reply that you can't tell me it couldn't happen! Unfalsifiable, which is helpful when confronting evidence against it.
|
Canada11594 Posts
Look, for all the cries of lawfare by Republicans, we already know that Merrick Garland was extremely reluctant to hold Trump accountable for when he tried to seize power against the will of the people. Yes, they convicted many of the footsoldiers (which Trump pardoned and then tried to create a slushfund to reward their loyalty). But they were extremely slow on taking on Trump for fear of looking partisan. (Thus rewarding Trump's thuggery.) They got hit with Lawfare! Lawfare! anyways, so it didn't matter and Trump should never have been given special treatment. And he should be impeached if they get the numbers post-midterm.
But it was a hallmark of the Biden administration- a desire to return to normalcy and sweep past actions of Trump under the rug. MAGA wouldn't double down would they? Would they? .....
So it follows what we know with Jan 6 and Trump that they would be equally reluctant to push too deep into Epstein if it involved Trump. Lawfare! Lawfare! Russia Russia Russia.
|
United States44245 Posts
On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK 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? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist."
Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you.
And in the event that this feels somehow unfair to you I invite you to reflect upon how you post and why that’s the persona you’ve chosen.
|
On June 03 2026 03:11 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:25 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote: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? That is because you are talking about just releasing files about Trump, and I’m talking about releasing them all. Then I'll go back to my original post:
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. If you don't really care about Trump, and just want more files held by various government agencies that mention Epstein's name partially redacted and released, then I don't have a strong view on it.
Some new version of Dems that is populist like Trump might do such a thing, but the previous Dems would not do something so partisan. You've got some real rose-colored glasses on there. Democrats have leaked politically damaging stuff since time immemorial, which is why I brought up the IRS leak, a felony offense. The FBI itself behaved in a partisan manner, favoring Democrats, throughout Crossfire Hurricane and the Steele Dossier, including lying to judges to obtain wiretaps. And Flynn was unmasked and leaked by Obama from secret surveillance. So I have a hard time believing that there's some really damaging and corroborated junk against Trump in unreleased documents.
Trump can and does worse, but don't let that cloud common sense on the past.
|
On June 03 2026 03:57 Falling wrote:
Look, for all the cries of lawfare by Republicans, we already know that Merrick Garland was extremely reluctant to hold Trump accountable for when he tried to seize power against the will of the people. Yes, they convicted many of the footsoldiers (which Trump pardoned and then tried to create a slushfund to reward their loyalty). But they were extremely slow on taking on Trump for fear of looking partisan. (Thus rewarding Trump's thuggery.) They got hit with Lawfare! Lawfare! anyways, so it didn't matter and Trump should never have been given special treatment. And he should be impeached if they get the numbers post-midterm.
But it was a hallmark of the Biden administration- a desire to return to normalcy and sweep past actions of Trump under the rug. MAGA wouldn't double down would they? Would they? .....
So it follows what we know with Jan 6 and Trump that they would be equally reluctant to push too deep into Epstein if it involved Trump. Lawfare! Lawfare! Russia Russia Russia. He was slow (and so was Jack Smith), but calling that due to reluctance is simply an opinion. He was also slow in the Hunter Biden investigation, which had that farcical plea agreement that collapsed with one question from the judge (and some would claim that as evidence of partisanship, among other acts). He did appoint Jack Smith, who did secure indictments against the former president. He was criticized for his speed in both directions.
|
On June 03 2026 03:40 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:
lmao are you seriously trying to say "he can't be a Republican asset because Trump [at least pretended to] hate him"? Are you for real? How many SCOTUS or other federal judges have bailed Trump out despite him wiping his ass with their reputation on a near-weekly basis? The standard conspiracist's reply that you can't tell me it couldn't happen! Unfalsifiable, which is helpful when confronting evidence against it.
The unfalsifiable part is the part where you're implying you would believe Trump is implicated in the Epstein files if Biden released them. They implicate Trump released under Trump and you still don't care, but sure, continue acting like a buffoon and see who's convinced.
|
On June 03 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 03:11 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 01:25 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote: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? That is because you are talking about just releasing files about Trump, and I’m talking about releasing them all. Then I'll go back to my original post: 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. If you don't really care about Trump, and just want more files held by various government agencies that mention Epstein's name partially redacted and released, then I don't have a strong view on it. Show nested quote +Some new version of Dems that is populist like Trump might do such a thing, but the previous Dems would not do something so partisan. You've got some real rose-colored glasses on there. Democrats have leaked politically damaging stuff since time immemorial, which is why I brought up the IRS leak, a felony offense. The FBI itself behaved in a partisan manner, favoring Democrats, throughout Crossfire Hurricane and the Steele Dossier, including lying to judges to obtain wiretaps. And Flynn was unmasked and leaked by Obama from secret surveillance. So I have a hard time believing that there's some really damaging and corroborated junk against Trump in unreleased documents. Trump can and does worse, but don't let that cloud common sense on the past.
False equivalence doesn’t help your case.
|
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart!
|
On June 03 2026 05:38 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 03:40 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 02:10 LightSpectra wrote:
lmao are you seriously trying to say "he can't be a Republican asset because Trump [at least pretended to] hate him"? Are you for real? How many SCOTUS or other federal judges have bailed Trump out despite him wiping his ass with their reputation on a near-weekly basis? The standard conspiracist's reply that you can't tell me it couldn't happen! Unfalsifiable, which is helpful when confronting evidence against it. The unfalsifiable part is the part where you're implying you would believe Trump is implicated in the Epstein files if Biden released them. They implicate Trump released under Trump and you still don't care, but sure, continue acting like a buffoon and see who's convinced. Unlike you, I think the facts would speak for themselves! You’re the one whining that the facts would be ignored if discovered.
On June 03 2026 05:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 04:30 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 03:11 Billyboy wrote:On June 03 2026 01:25 dyhb wrote:On June 03 2026 01:16 Billyboy wrote: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? That is because you are talking about just releasing files about Trump, and I’m talking about releasing them all. Then I'll go back to my original post: 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. If you don't really care about Trump, and just want more files held by various government agencies that mention Epstein's name partially redacted and released, then I don't have a strong view on it. Some new version of Dems that is populist like Trump might do such a thing, but the previous Dems would not do something so partisan. You've got some real rose-colored glasses on there. Democrats have leaked politically damaging stuff since time immemorial, which is why I brought up the IRS leak, a felony offense. The FBI itself behaved in a partisan manner, favoring Democrats, throughout Crossfire Hurricane and the Steele Dossier, including lying to judges to obtain wiretaps. And Flynn was unmasked and leaked by Obama from secret surveillance. So I have a hard time believing that there's some really damaging and corroborated junk against Trump in unreleased documents. Trump can and does worse, but don't let that cloud common sense on the past. False equivalence doesn’t help your case. Ignorance of history won’t help beat Trump. It will help you lose against him, but thankfully for my sake he’s termed out. The opposition thus far is too reliant on having Americans forget a world pre-Trump and the interregnum period.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On June 03 2026 01:48 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +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."
Honestly, even without much knowledge (even now) of what's exactly in the Epstein files, and who it incriminates, at least the first two conspiracy theories don't seem to far fetched to me.
Protecting Dem donors (or political donors in general), seem to be, from the point of view of an outsider, pretty much the primary purpose of the US government these days. Protecting the patron of these circuses taking precedence over the actual details of two parties pettily bickering with each other in the said circus sounds supremely believable to me. After all you don't keep getting to clown around on generous taxpayer and donor dime if the patrons are no longer sponsoring the circus.
"worried about MAGA" I find less believable from the Dems, but of Biden personally, also fits his whole MO. Always eager to volunteer giving up progressive goals in compromises with the Republicans. He's been making 'compromises' with the conservatives which are really just him conceding points in a negotiation, and calling it bipartisanship since before he became Vice-President. Always worried about what the conservatives think, even when they were going to hate him no matter what he did.
I don't know anything about Christopher Wray, but in the general jist of modern US politics has come to the point of 'currently appointed top clown in circus untrustworthy?' Say it isn't so! (no offense to actual clowns).
I have no judgement on whether or the Dems had anything to begin with, but these conspiracies just don't seem that conspiritorial.
|
On June 03 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK 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? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist." Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you.
"I know you're in favor of child rape because Elon Musk's arm was at a 45 degree angle for half a second years ago and you also didn't adopt my deluded hysteria about that." Good one buddy.
The problem with trying to tell people what they think is you'll be constantly wrong because they know what they think better than you do.
On June 03 2026 06:58 Billyboy wrote:
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart!
So you look this one up and he registered as an AGENT... for the Republic of Srpska in the Balkans in 2025. What effect this has on Russia investigations from 2016-2018 is anyone's guess.
|
On June 03 2026 12:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK 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? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist." Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you. "I know you're in favor of child rape because Elon Musk's arm was at a 45 degree angle for half a second years ago and you also didn't adopt my deluded hysteria about that." Good one buddy. The problem with trying to tell people what they think is you'll be constantly wrong because they know what they think better than you do. Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 06:58 Billyboy wrote:
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart! So you look this one up and he registered as an AGENT... for the Republic of Srpska in the Balkans in 2025. What effect this has on Russia investigations from 2016-2018 is anyone's guess.
Dang, sweet burn mate, I'm sure no one else sees the humor. You got me real good.
|
On June 03 2026 10:30 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 01:48 dyhb wrote: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." Honestly, even without much knowledge (even now) of what's exactly in the Epstein files, and who it incriminates, at least the first two conspiracy theories don't seem to far fetched to me. Protecting Dem donors (or political donors in general), seem to be, from the point of view of an outsider, pretty much the primary purpose of the US government these days. Protecting the patron of these circuses taking precedence over the actual details of two parties pettily bickering with each other in the said circus sounds supremely believable to me. After all you don't keep getting to clown around on generous taxpayer and donor dime if the patrons are no longer sponsoring the circus. Biden's poll numbers had dropped and stayed down after the Afghanistan pullout that left American soldiers dead. The refrain from all corners was that Democracy itself hung in the balance if Trump won election again, and the efforts to convict him of January-7th-related crimes failed. They were stalled and some charges declared unconstitutional prior. Trump would be on the ballot, and Biden's polling numbers were not good.
The civil trial for sexual assault committed around 30 years earlier on an adult was trumpeted. Imagine all that, but with an underage girl and connected to that miserable man Epstein any kind of abuse alleged. That's dynamite. Democratic big-wigs would cut off their left testicle and bury a dozen Dem donors if it meant having a sex scandal with a minor in some grand jury or FBI documents before a weakened Biden. They were busy trying to stage a good debate performance to revitalize a dismal campaign.
So basically, no, the Dem donors wouldn't have led to a coverup of a real and damaging Trump-and-Epstein document that had the goods on Trump. It just isn't believable.
"worried about MAGA" I find less believable from the Dems, but of Biden personally, also fits his whole MO. Always eager to volunteer giving up progressive goals in compromises with the Republicans. He's been making 'compromises' with the conservatives which are really just him conceding points in a negotiation, and calling it bipartisanship since before he became Vice-President. Always worried about what the conservatives think, even when they were going to hate him no matter what he did. I am tentatively rating this one towards the bottom of Trump-Epstein-Biden-coverup-conspiracy-theories, but I'm sure some more looney ones could drive this towards the middle.
I don't know anything about Christopher Wray, but in the general jist of modern US politics has come to the point of 'currently appointed top clown in circus untrustworthy?' Say it isn't so! (no offense to actual clowns). The gist of the FBI is that it would be leaked from the middle and bottom if it wasn't leaked from the top. Compare with the crossfire hurricane/Trump Russia collusion documents.
I have no judgement on whether or the Dems had anything to begin with, but these conspiracies just don't seem that conspiritorial. I see only weak arguments that Biden would look at FBI or grand jury or trial testimony with something verifiable or corroborated on Trump, and damaging, but it wouldn't have been released prior to the 2024 election. There could be some more names in unreleased Epstein documents that Biden wouldn't have disclosed, but not Trump's.
|
In what world do you life?
If Trump voters would care that Trump is a criminal, rapist, conman of any sort, they wouldn't have voted for him the first time, let alone a second and third time.
There is so much proven dirt on Trump, by conventional wisdom he shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be elected to a local council in bumfuckistan.
Instead the Maggats ate the "Lawfare" talking point hook, line and sinker.
|
On June 03 2026 12:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2026 03:28 oBlade wrote:On June 03 2026 02:50 KwarK 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? For one, you’d be here telling us that actually it’s precisely because he vetoed them that he’s clearly innocent. After all, a guilty man would try to appear innocent by releasing them. Only an innocent man wouldn’t care. The question was already answered. It would go back to Congress. For me personally, once the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress came back voting to release the files anyway, despite the Republicans getting no credit because it was all part of Biden's master plan, I'd just look at the evidence. Same as now. Look at the evidence. Then seeing there's no smoking guns, and it's impossible to prove a nonspecific negative, I'd move on. Especially I'd make sure even if I believed X or Y in the Epstein files was a child rapist, I wouldn't go around calling anyone who wasn't cheering the immediate lynching of X and Y a rape apologist. I'd grow up connect the dots and come to the realization "Oh, this person isn't against lynching X and Y because they like defending child rapists, it's the exact opposite, it's because they don't think there's any evidence X or Y is a child rapist." Yeah, no, I’m not going to assume good faith from you. I don’t think you do think he’s not a child rapist, just like I do think you know exactly what salute Elon was doing. You can continue to protest that you’re just a well intentioned guy who reached different conclusions than the rest of us from the same evidence but unfortunately for you, we’ve seen your posts. We know you well enough to know that child rape simply isn’t a deal breaker for you. "I know you're in favor of child rape because Elon Musk's arm was at a 45 degree angle for half a second years ago and you also didn't adopt my deluded hysteria about that." Good one buddy. The problem with trying to tell people what they think is you'll be constantly wrong because they know what they think better than you do. Show nested quote +On June 03 2026 06:58 Billyboy wrote:
I guess we can officially end the is or is not Mike Flynn an agent for Russia. He’s now officially registered as a foreign agent, brining down 100k a month.
Silly Dems and their Russian hoax take that!….
Also if you have not read or seen Trump explain that there is a B at the end of dumb and most people don’t know that, take a look. God what an embarrassment that he leads the most powerful country in the world. Even more embarrassing is the people who think he’s smart! So you look this one up and he registered as an AGENT... for the Republic of Srpska in the Balkans in 2025. What effect this has on Russia investigations from 2016-2018 is anyone's guess.
Milorad Dodik is as close as you can get to being a Russian/Serbian puppet and a head of their puppet state as possible, Russians paying Flynn through Republika Srpska makes absolute sense, and Republika Srpska paying $ 100 k a month while having a GDP per capita of around $9 k makes no sense.
Of course, you got your marching orders of "akshualy, it's not Russia" so you had to regurgitate them, but I wanted to point this out to people who might see your post and think you were accidentally honest.
Speaking of insane corruption and dishonesty, Bill Pulte, a moron nepo baby has been named as the new acting DNI chief, one of the most senior positions in government is being filled by a guy who has 0 experience in intelligence, foreign politics or law enforcement, but plenty of experience in grifting meme stocks and paying people to follow him on Twitter.
It's so fun that at the time of a war with a country with terrorist cells all around the world who's last resort is asymetrical warfare the DNI is headed by this creature:
|
Pretty brutal that Trump and his ambassador to Canada are celebrating its economic failures. Aren't Canada and the USA supposed to be allies? Doesn't Trump want to see the USA's allies succeed?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/donald-trump-revives-51st-state-threats-after-canada-slips-into-technical-recession/
Trump took to Truth Social Monday night to post the words “51st State” with a link to a Bloomberg news article titled “Canada Dips Into Technical Recession for First Time Since 2020”.
It is hilarious watching the left wing Canadian media run cover for the ruling Liberal government by labelling Canada's economic performance a "technical" recession. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.. end of story guys.
Some big name DOC in Montreal is leaving for the USA due to "antisemitism".
I don't know about Montreal, but in Toronto the antisemitism is being way over played. I highly suspect the antisemitism in Montreal is being over played as well. Its worse in Montreal, 50% worse for something that's small is not a biggie.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/health/chief-heart-surgeon-jewish-general-hospital-quits-quebec-antisemitism-montreal/
The best DRs that are specialists in Canada often leave for the USA not just for the money, but for the autonomy hospital admins can give them to get even better in their chosen specialization. So its not all "anti semitism". This DR is prolly leaving for a myriad of reasons. However, none of that makes for a shocking headline because its been happening for 90 years. This Doc is prolly getting an entire support system for his work and more autonomy over patient selection. He is prolly getting his own personal hospital wing. LOL.
It is pretty myopic of people to think Canadians just leave for the USA ... "for the money". That just ain't true. My American customers are far more willing to break new ground on new products. My Canadian customers only want to use software that is already fully established with a proven track record. My Canadian customers play it so safe its boring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/mcveRPX.png)
