• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

So, can/how the rest of the world disentangle itself from the USA when the US, as is seemingly increasingly likely every day, descends into either civil war or a humanitarian/human rights hellhole?

Or is it more likely that the rest of the western world just stares at its metaphorical shoes, ignores the massive violations of human rights occuring and just pretend it isn't really happening.


I suspect that the constant litany of 'best at everything' has had an impact on vigalance...
 
Gawd! I sure hope this is true:

555587841_1118630573777870_5705184757624674618_n.jpg

It seems unlikely. Did AOC claim she's seen the Epstein files and they prove he's a rapist? If not I don't see why they would become evidence.
 
It seems unlikely. Did AOC claim she's seen the Epstein files and they prove he's a rapist? If not I don't see why they would become evidence.
The story doesn't claim that she would have. Rather the focus is more that the threat of her lawyers getting to see the Epstein Files and that he would have to testify under oath about Epstein scared him enough to stop trying to sue her.
 
What is the source for this?
The picture/claim has been around since shortly after the event cited - AOC's statement. I'm uncertain of the actual source, though. When I saw that the first time, it got filed away in the "plausible, but doesn't really matter and isn't worth using as evidence for anything" category, so I didn't pursue it further. The same applies now, really, I think.
 
Last edited:
The story doesn't claim that she would have. Rather the focus is more that the threat of her lawyers getting to see the Epstein Files and that he would have to testify under oath about Epstein scared him enough to stop trying to sue her.
Yes I see that but why would the Epstein files be evidence? If she hasn't seen them then any claim she might make about what they say would not have the defence of being true because she didn't know if they said what she claimed. So it would be irrelevant whether they said Trump is a rapist or not.
 
The picture/claim has been around since shortly after the event cited - AOC's statement. I'm uncertain of the actual source, though. When I saw that the first time, it got filed away in the "plausible, but doesn't really matter and isn't worth using as evidence for anything" category, so I didn't pursue it further. The same applies now, really, I think.

It might, kinda, maybe true, because it would certainly explain why the fat clown hasn't sued her for it, but that's just my opinion.

You know the rest.
 
Yes I see that but why would the Epstein files be evidence? If she hasn't seen them then any claim she might make about what they say would not have the defence of being true because she didn't know if they said what she claimed. So it would be irrelevant whether they said Trump is a rapist or not.

The thing is she didn't say that, but the fat clown's lawyers are the ones to have allegedly said it to him.
 
It might, kinda, maybe true, because it would certainly explain why the fat clown hasn't sued her for it, but that's just my opinion.

You know the rest.
It would explain that, yes. No argument there. Verification is lacking, though, and the broader point that Trump really doesn't want the public to see the things that he thinks could be part of the Epstein Files is extremely well verified via other points. As Epstein's brother said, Epstein told him that the public would have called off the election if they had known what he knows about Trump.

Yes I see that but why would the Epstein files be evidence? If she hasn't seen them then any claim she might make about what they say would not have the defence of being true because she didn't know if they said what she claimed. So it would be irrelevant whether they said Trump is a rapist or not.
The Epstein Files are an important part of the statement made by AOC. It's not defamation or slander if the statement is true, after all, and verifying the truth of whether there's things that Trump wouldn't want to be public in the Epstein Files would require AOC's lawyers going through them and testifying in court about their findings.
 
Last edited:
So, can/how the rest of the world disentangle itself from the USA when the US, as is seemingly increasingly likely every day, descends into either civil war or a humanitarian/human rights hellhole?

Or is it more likely that the rest of the western world just stares at its metaphorical shoes, ignores the massive violations of human rights occuring and just pretend it isn't really happening.


I suspect that the constant litany of 'best at everything' has had an impact on vigalance...
Well one way is by not procuring US military equipment, a decision which is made easier when you look at catastrophes like the Constellation Class Frigate program. The British and Japanese would like to thank the US Navy for their lack of competence.
 
Last edited:
Goodness knows all the smart lawyers know to avoid Trump because they won't get paid, but for this to be true would need his legal advisers to be pretty stupid.

What makes you think they're not? After all, look who we're talking about here. The dumbest comedian that's ever held the highest office in the land.

And besides, if the fat clown ever did sue her, I hope to God she puts him under oath.

I'd pay good money to see that.
 
Last edited:
If I said Trump is a bank robber and my evidence is that Bondi has a secret document on her desk that will probably prove it, that doesn't mean I can defend my slander by going on a fishing expedition to look at all of Bondi's secret documents. I can't make a defence of truth for what I said when I plainly did not know at the time I said it whether it was true or not.
 
Hot on the heels of YouTube settling a law suit with Trump for $23m or so, Google has caved in.

While you can google “does Biden have dementia” and you get an AI Overview. When you put in “does Trump have dementia” you get no such overview (in Australia for certain and it looks from reports I’ve read, many other countries).

What really needs to happen is for rich and powerful companies stand up to the Bully in Chief. Instead we get cowardice from timid sycophants. Disgusting.

Yes, and You Tube is a subsidiary of Google, so they have paid him twice. Essentially all these businesses are utterly supine and easy to extort. Sadly, many other countries are too. This is partly because Trump has no interest in cultivating good relations with businesses or other countries. He wants what is good for him and his bank account now, and screw everyone else. He behaves like he's Yeltsin or Mugabe, literally amassing gold all around him, and on full display for the world to see.
Progressives: "Businesses should submit to the government!"

Also Progressives: "Damn these weak businesses that can't push the government around whenever they want!"
 
If I said Trump is a bank robber and my evidence is that Bondi has a secret document on her desk that will probably prove it, that doesn't mean I can defend my slander by going on a fishing expedition to look at all of Bondi's secret documents. I can't make a defence of truth for what I said when I plainly did not know at the time I said it whether it was true or not.
As noted, though, this isn't a case like that. The larger points that Trump IS in the Epstein Files and that Trump IS actively interfering with releasing the Epstein Files are both things that have firm evidence to support them. This isn't at all like the evidence-free accusation scenario that you are proposing.
 
If I said Trump is a bank robber and my evidence is that Bondi has a secret document on her desk that will probably prove it, that doesn't mean I can defend my slander by going on a fishing expedition to look at all of Bondi's secret documents. I can't make a defence of truth for what I said when I plainly did not know at the time I said it whether it was true or not.

I won't argue that with you but being sued certainly means that she can deposition the fat clown under oath.
 
Last edited:
I have in my books on Germany, as I was doing history from the early modern era on. I read the 1924-1939 section on the Third Reich. I was thinking that the ideology that Trrump and Project 2025 push is a bit thin. It's just brown people and a few others are undesireable. Autistic people are undesirable. All but white Christians, really.
But then I went to look at Hitler. The ideology was a bit thin there too. Just a personality cult mainly. Hitler was a better socialist than Trump. He would he have given universal healthcare. Only...all the Jewish doctors eventually left.
 

Back
Top Bottom