• 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

Andy_Ross said:
Unilateral trade deals.

BARTIROMO: How many more deals on trade would you expect in the coming month?

NAVARRO: We've got a bunch of deals right now, but a lot of them are unilateral because we had to send letters to people ... trust in Trump

https://twitter.com/x/status/1945839657398452418
Click to expand...
As much as I love your contributions to this forum, I must announce a unilateral trade deal. That will be one million dollars for each post you make from this point forward.
 
I Am The Scum said:
As much as I love your contributions to this forum, I must announce a unilateral trade deal. That will be one million dollars for each post you make from this point forward.
Click to expand...

Surely it would only be if we quote one of your.... ◊◊◊◊!

Can I have a 90 day extension?

ETA: I'll nominate you for a Peace Prize.
 
Segnosaur said:
Boy if he did that the folks at Fox news would go nuts.

Remember how they reacted when Obama wore a tan suit. Unless they are complete and total hypocrites they will complain about any president wearing anything that isn't a dark suit.
Click to expand...

Fox News? Hypocrites? Why the very idea! Jeeves, fetch my fainting couch and be jolly quick about it.
 
It may be time to let the Epstein thingy simmer ... for reasons too in-the-weeds to explain, but idle thought:

When Bondi was interviewed by Fox in February, the presenter who brought up the term "client list" said, "Any chance we're going to see it?" And she says, roughly, yes, it's on my desk. She now says by "it" she meant the "file," not the client list. OK, that's vaguely plausible, given the circuitous way reporters and anchors often ask questions. But I'm surprised this wasn't rehearsed ahead of time - Fox is super-friendly to Trump's minions, they could have shown her the questions, and she could have composed her answer, or Fox could have seen the danger coming:
"Pam, I'm going to refer to the "client list" in my question - it's what our viewers want - but when you answer, be careful that you're not confirming the existence of a list."

I also thought about how all the hours of footage are child porn that Epstein "downloaded." Downloaded from where? One of his own devices? "Downloaded" makes it sound like it came from that vast sea of filth, the Internet. But what if it was video from his own phone that he transferred to a laptop? Would "downloading" apply? Or if one of his friends put footage on the cloud (which would be dumb), then Epstein accessed it from there? Maybe another angle? I would think in making porn you would want to have several cameras running.

Bondi shut down inquiry by saying it would never be released, it's child porn. Fair enough. But wouldn't an investigator have to WATCH it for identifiable faces? Or at least run it through some kind of filter that shows only faces? Saying it's not going to be released to the public is fine, but if it was porn was created by Epstein or an associate it should be looked at by *someone*.

Anyone with half a brain - and I'll give most of MAGA credit for 0.50 of a brain - would know that OF COURSE it was child porn. In which case the question is not "When can we see it" but "Have investigators seen it to identify perpetrators and victims?"
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
It may be time to let the Epstein thingy simmer ... for reasons too in-the-weeds to explain, but idle thought:

When Bondi was interviewed by Fox in February, the presenter who brought up the term "client list" said, "Any chance we're going to see it?" And she says, roughly, yes, it's on my desk. She now says by "it" she meant the "file," not the client list. OK, that's vaguely plausible, given the circuitous way reporters and anchors often ask questions. But I'm surprised this wasn't rehearsed ahead of time - Fox is super-friendly to Trump's minions, they could have shown her the questions, and she could have composed her answer, or Fox could have seen the danger coming:
"Pam, I'm going to refer to the "client list" in my question - it's what our viewers want - but when you answer, be careful that you're not confirming the existence of a list."

I also thought about how all the hours of footage are child porn that Epstein "downloaded." Downloaded from where? One of his own devices? "Downloaded" makes it sound like it came from that vast sea of filth, the Internet. But what if it was video from his own phone that he transferred to a laptop? Would "downloading" apply? Or if one of his friends put footage on the cloud (which would be dumb), then Epstein accessed it from there? Maybe another angle? I would think in making porn you would want to have several cameras running.

Bondi shut down inquiry by saying it would never be released, it's child porn. Fair enough. But wouldn't an investigator have to WATCH it for identifiable faces? Or at least run it through some kind of filter that shows only faces? Saying it's not going to be released to the public is fine, but if it was porn was created by Epstein or an associate it should be looked at by *someone*.

Anyone with half a brain - and I'll give most of MAGA credit for 0.50 of a brain - would know that OF COURSE it was child porn. In which case the question is not "When can we see it" but "Have investigators seen it to identify perpetrators and victims?"
Click to expand...

Generally, if it came from his own phone we'd normally say, uploaded rather than down.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Hmmm, Cohen has been strangely silent about the current Epstein goings on. Maybe he has to be?
Click to expand...
Cohen is an odd bird. He makes his living attacking Trump one his channel, but every now and then he throws out an olive branch, almost like he has some strange Stockholm syndrome relationship to his old boss. After the election for example, he quickly said something a long the lines of 'Trump might surprise me and do some really good things as President". Of course that did not last long.
And on his podcast he was clear to cast doubt on the Katie Johnson case, saying that it was very odd her attorneys did not speak with her personally. So he was implying the case was perhaps concocted. But surely he must hav an opinion as to whether Trump engaged in illicit activity with Epstein, and he has really been silent about that.
 
Elon chatting with Grok last night on whether the government has covered up the Epstein files is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen go down in politics. I definitely did not have "An AI and world's richest man attempt to overthrow a wannabe American dictator" on my 2025 bingo card.
 
stanfr said:
Elon chatting with Grok last night on whether the government has covered up the Epstein files is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen go down in politics. I definitely did not have "An AI and world's richest man attempt to overthrow a wannabe American dictator" on my 2025 bingo card.
Click to expand...
The evil friendless villain having deep conversations with the robot he created is straight out of some classic sci-fi story.

ETA: btw, link? Can't seem to find anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom