OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[strider]

He's known as the mailman in Pennsylvania.

He puts cards in people's letterboxes telling em to get their shit from the post office?

 

[Happy MEel]

He's known as the mailman in Pennsylvania.

There’s only one mailman...

 

[Bazal]

There’s only one mailman...

Ah, wrong...

 

[Gary Gutful]

There’s only one mailman...

John Stockton. What a legend!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Ah, wrong...

Also wrong.

 

[Gary Gutful]

He puts cards in people's letterboxes telling em to get their shit from the post office?

Close. He shits in their letter boxes and then tells them to pick up their cards from the post office.

 

[Bandwagon]

Can you elaborate?

It's a what-about-ism,

Statement x = bad,

Response yeah but y = bad,

Therefore x not so bad because Y

 

[Bandwagon]

I'd say it's not because he needed the money. Does it even matter why he did it?

In terms of laying claim to actions distinguishing ones self from others, then the motivation is everything.

Two scenarios,

1 He did it because he came to the realisation as to what was going on, and sought to stop it.

2 He did it because he was involved and saw that burning Epstein was the best chance he had at disassociating himself from it all

Now either or neither of these might be the case, but I'd suggest the latter would hardly be described as distinguishing himself.

 

[Gary Gutful]

It's a what-about-ism,

Statement x = bad,

Response yeah but y = bad,

Therefore x not so bad because Y

Cool. Thanks.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

[[/QUOTE]

In terms of laying claim to actions distinguishing ones self from others, then the motivation is everything.

Two scenarios,

1 He did it because he came to the realisation as to what was going on, and sought to stop it.

2 He did it because he was involved and saw that burning Epstein was the best chance he had at disassociating himself from it all

Now either or neither of these might be the case, but I'd suggest the latter would hardly be described as distinguishing himself.

Throwing merkins under the bus isn't the way to dissociate oneself from anything. Especially when you're a public figure with over half the world out to bring you down.

 

[Bandwagon]

Throwing merkins under the bus isn't the way to dissociate oneself from anything. Especially when you're a public figure with over half the world out to bring you down.

That wasn't the case at the time, nor is it the point.

But it's good we've gotten past the idea that why is not important.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well it isn't. You can second guess anyone's motives. What matters is their actions. You and the haters are happy to insinuate that Trump is a sex-trafficking pedophile yet the facts only show that he helped bring down Epstein. As for the why, we'll never know. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Yeah I saw ^^^^^^^^ that this morning. Rich merkins looking after each other. This crosses borders and right and left of politics. It seems that Epstein was the purveyor of teenage girls available for anyone in the club.

The names in his black book ... the names in the logs of his private plane ..

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/jeffrey-epsteins-black-book-trump-clintons-prince-andrew.html

Now merkins like Trump "oh I knew him once, didn't like him much" and Prince Andrew "Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.” Clinton “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York". Hmmmm

So, I'll say a few things quickly:

1) Rammy is mostly right about Trump - yes, he had a social relationship with Epstein (they were billionairres, after all) but, in terms of this stuff, he did not. Banned him from Mar-a-Logo and (this is where Rammy is incorrect in a detail) gave support to the attorney from the 2009 case (not the FBI). The attorney is on film saying the only person who voluntarily called him back and offered everything he had was Trump. There are rumours, however, that Trump met Melania through such circles. Unconfirmed, but the rumours are there.

2) Epstein wasn't running a kiddy-fiddling operation so much as he was running a blackmail operation - setting people up to be video taped so they could be owned. Most likely for Mossad but Epstein does have strong CIA ties going all the way back to Iran-Contra and Adnan Khashoggi - and how much of a difference is there between Mossad and the CIA anyways, right? Check out the series by Whitney Webb on mintpressnews.com - it's a great series on the history of this stuff and Epstein.

3) Epstein is a peek through the door into what is coming. You think this is bad? Buckle up, kiddo.

 

[Gronk]

Well it isn't. You can second guess anyone's motives. What matters is their actions. You and the haters are happy to insinuate that Trump is a sex-trafficking pedophile yet the facts only show that he helped bring down Epstein. As for the why, we'll never know. It really doesn't matter.

The only facts that are known about Trump us that he is a known philanderer, adulterer, grabs ‘em by the pussy condoner of misogyny, owner of the perve fest Miss Universe, the recipient of scores of sexual assault claims and *former* pal of Epstein. Apart from accommodating Ghislaine Maxwell at his properties to recruit young vulnerable girls for Epstein, there is no evidence that he indulged in sex with under age girls. I think it’s fair to say however, that most people are justifiably cautious to accept his claims of innocence.

 

[hindy111]

What is wrong with miss universe?

 

[Gronk]

What is wrong with miss universe?

 

[84 Baby]

So, I'll say a few things quickly:

1) Rammy is mostly right about Trump - yes, he had a social relationship with Epstein (they were billionairres, after all) but, in terms of this stuff, he did not. Banned him from Mar-a-Logo and (this is where Rammy is incorrect in a detail) gave support to the attorney from the 2009 case (not the FBI). The attorney is on film saying the only person who voluntarily called him back and offered everything he had was Trump. There are rumours, however, that Trump met Melania through such circles. Unconfirmed, but the rumours are there.

2) Epstein wasn't running a kiddy-fiddling operation so much as he was running a blackmail operation - setting people up to be video taped so they could be owned. Most likely for Mossad but Epstein does have strong CIA ties going all the way back to Iran-Contra and Adnan Khashoggi - and how much of a difference is there between Mossad and the CIA anyways, right? Check out the series by Whitney Webb on mintpressnews.com - it's a great series on the history of this stuff and Epstein.

3) Epstein is a peek through the door into what is coming. You think this is bad? Buckle up, kiddo.

Can you say it even quicker?

 

[Bandwagon]

Well it isn't. You can second guess anyone's motives. What matters is their actions.

Yet we have a legal system where the difference in motives and intent for ones actions can account for significantly different outcomes in terms of charges laid, judgements made, and penalties given......

So go figure,

You and the haters are happy to insinuate that Trump is a sex-trafficking pedophile.....

Oh dear, let's ramp up the emotion here and name the "haters", oh and let's add "sex trafficking pedo" for maximum effect. Lolz.

For the record I have insinuated no such thing. There is no insinuation from myself that Trump is a "sex trafficking paedophile" that's you creating a strawman.

I've shown he is on the public record as saying he had known Epstein for 15 years, and that he knew his taste in women was on the younger side. This goes to the fact the he and Epstein were more than casual acquaintances. I've also posted an statement from a lawyer representing some of Epstein's victims, that in a telephone conversation he "provided information that was very helpful", this goes to the fact that he had some knowledge of Epstein's activities. ( as an aside it would appear that conversation is that which is incorrectly being claimed as being a statement to the FBI, I'll stand corrected on that if and when you provide a source ).

Now what I've "insinuated" from that is that Trump would have known a fair bit about Epstein, and only chose to do anything with that knowledge after many years, and after their relationship had soured. And even then only after he had been issued a subpoena to testify in court, a statement which precluded him from having to appear.

So my position is that Trump knew enough about Epstein to at the least have an idea about what he was in to, and either ignored it or remained wilfully ignorant of it , and only chose to do anything about it for reasons other than that he sought to do anything of benefit for Epstein's victims, which is in refutation to your claim that "Trump distinguished himself from others"

......yet the facts only show that he helped bring down Epstein.

As we can well see your claim that the "facts only show.." is patently false. Earlier I posed the question "did he?" to you in relation to the FBI claims, and it seems only @Hollywood Jesus has gone near the provision of an answer to that. You've seemingly assumed Rammy's claim of that to be true, as per above, I have my doubts, perhaps you could provide a source to show this "fact"?

As for the why, we'll never know. It really doesn't matter.

We probably will never know, on that I'd somewhat agree, however beginning and ending your post with the statement "that is does not matter", without anything in between those statements to support that assertion is not a particularly convincing argument. ( it's really not an argument at all ) .

 

[hindy111]

View attachment 34019

I've walked in on people naked also. By accident. Yes it seems unlikely but dont let the truth stop a good story.

That's the media for you

 

[Gronk]

I've walked in on people naked also. By accident. Yes it seems unlikely but dont let the truth stop a good story.

That's the media for you

Yeah makes sense, thanks so much.