Seattle
Valued Senior Member
As are you.
"Ignorant" is the new "Stupid"...
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
I back up my assertions with evidence and citations. You do not. In fact, you often do precisely the opposite, by linking to sites which are well-established as purveyors of misinformation--Grok, a stupid (and overtly racist) Matt Walsh video, etc.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
How about the Fact Checker in the Washington Post? I couldn't post the whole thing due to this forums limit on characters...
Democracy Dies in Darkness
it would have been leaked by now.
Reference to Trump in files
Trump was briefly mentioned in about 1,000 pages of documents released in January in a separate case involving a defamation suit filed against Maxwell by an alleged victim, Virginia Giuffre. (Lieu’s staff sent an article about those documents.)But these were minor references.
In a 2016 deposition of Giuffre that was released, she was asked about Trump. Giuffre said she had been recruited by Maxwell when she was a 17-year-old spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago.
“I don’t think Donald Trump participated in anything,” she said. “That would have to be another assumption. I never saw or witnessed Donald Trump participate in those acts, but was he in the house of Jeffrey Epstein.”
She said that anyone who visited Epstein’s house would have seen his many nude photos of women displayed on the walls. “These are salacious acts of girls, young girls doing things to each other that would be considered child pornography,” Giuffre testified. “If you walked foot into Jeffrey Epstein’s house and you went in there and you continued to be an acquaintance of his then you would have to know what was going on there.”
Meanwhile, Johanna Sjoberg, one of Epstein’s other alleged victims, was quoted as saying Epstein’s plane made an unplanned stop in Atlantic City between 2001 and 2006. There is no indication they saw Trump, and she said she never gave Trump a massage.
The documents also included emails from an accuser who made allegations against Trump but then withdrew them. (Separately, a woman with the pseudonyms Katie Johnson and Jane Doe accused Trump of raping her in Epstein’s home when she was 13; those filings were dismissed or withdrawn years ago.)
The Bottom Line
As we have documented, 17 women have claimed Trump engaged in sexual misconduct. A Manhattan jury found that Trump sexually abused and defamed one woman on our list. But no credible allegation has emerged to connect Trump to any of Epstein’s crimes. If the full file is ever released, we are confident that no connection would be found.Rest assured — if Trump were prominently mentioned, it would have been leaked by now.
I am perfectly comfortable with dispensing with the "lleged" qualifier and saying "in all likelihood". But I am also an American and therefore much more invested in US politics and have likely perused a great deal more documentation on the matter than you (that's not an insult, of course, just saying this naturally concerns and interests me more than a non-American generally).
With the release of the Epstein-Trump files--still quite incomplete and contravening the law, of course--there is an abundance of material supporting the notion that Trump has raped and assaulted children: witness testimony, testimony corroborated by acquaintances at the time of the incidences, persons deemed credible enough to be interviewed by the FBI multi[ple times, evidence of intimidation and pay-offs (for keeping silent), and, of course, Trump's own statements. Frankly, much more than I was honestly expecting. As for what's in the millions of documents which remain unavailable and/or destroyed, along with the extensive (and illegal) redactions, who knows what's really in these files?
Seriously? Are you at all familiar with what's happened with the WP in recent months? Something something about "critical thinking" goes here, yet another one of those things which you like to prattle on about while seemingly knowing not much about what such entails.
Also, your, uh, research methods are uncannily similar to the likes of the PBD crew, Tim Pool, et al: You basically Google, or ask Grok, a loaded question; digest the first paragraph or two of some actual, or probable, AI slop; and then post as though you're well-informed on the matter--whilst in "discussion" with persons who actually are well-informed on the matters, having spent hour upon hour actually researching such over the course of weeks, months, years.
Show me otherwise. For instance, you claim that Trump didn't actually rape E Jean Carroll, because that would involve--in your words--"penetration with a member". Did you actually read anything about Carroll's case? Clearly not, unless you suffer from severe memory impairment or an inability to comprehend what you read. Again, I could provide countless more examples here of such, but... already have, plenty of times, and I'm not doing it yet again.
"If there was any bad stuff about Trump in the files democrats would have leaked it!" is a favorite go-to for Trump surrogates.
And yet when they were partially released, they included this:
==================================
14. I personally witnessed Defendant Trump telling the Plaintiff that she shouldn't ever say anything if she didn't want to disappear like the 12-year-old female XXXX and that he was capable of having her whole family killed.
15. After leaving the employment of Mr. Epstein in the year 2000, I was personally threatened by Mr. Epstein that I would be killed and my family killed as well if I ever disclosed any of the physical and sexual abuse of minor females that I had personally witnessed by Mr. Epstein or any of his guests.
16. I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein, including the Plaintiff, during the time of my employment from the years of 1990-2000 for Mr. Epstein. I swear to these facts under penalty of perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: June 18, 2016
Tiffany Doe
=====================================
XXX reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform for President Trump approximately 35 years ago in NJ. The friend told Alexis that she was approximately 13-14 years old when this occurred and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing oral sex. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein.
======================================
XXX reported she has a friend XXXX who was a personal assistant to Epstein in Florida from or 1992. This friend shared names of some of the guests at Epstein's parties, to include Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
======================================
At age 16, while modeling. caller attended 8 parties at Epstein's New York residence. On one occasion, caller reported she was sexually assaulted by Epstein. On another occasion, two twin brothers, Allen and Oren, lured caller and her friend upstairs but they escaped back downstairs. Caller stated Oren raped her best friend and a third brother, Tal, raped a 14 year old named XXXX. Caller named other individuals involved in 'big orgy parties" with her, other young girls. and older Victona's Secret models. including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
========================================
Online complainant reported she was a victim and witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf Course in Rancho Palos Verdes. CA between 1995-1996. Complainant reported Ghislaine Maxwell as the madam and broker for sex parties. clients of whom included Epstein, Robin Leach, and Donald Trump. Complainant reported participating in orgies and that some girls went missing, rumored to have been murdered and buried at the facility. Complainant reported being threatened by Trump's then head of security that, if she ever talked of what went on there or who she saw, he would 'end up as fertilizer for the back nine holes like the other cunts.'
=============================
Complainant reported his ex-girlfriends XXXX XXXX were victims of Epstein's and one was murdered. While working as a limousine driver. complainant recalled picking up Donald Trump in 1995 to take him to Dallas Fort Worth Airport. During that rife. complainant recalled some of the things Trump spoke about on his cell phone were very concerning and described being 'a few seconds from pulling the limousine over on the median and within a few seconds of pulling him out of the car and hurting him due to some of the things he was saying " Complainant noted Trump repeatedly stated the name 'Jeffrey' while on the phone. One of complainant's ex-girlfriends XXX told complainant Trump raped her, as did Epstein.
===========================
Complainant following up after a call with NYPD officer regarding her previous Donald Trump tip, reporting that she was forced to perform sex acts when she was 13 years old and pregnant in 1984. Complainant also reported there were high profile individuals involved in her sex trafficking and the murder and disposal of her newborn daughter. Complainant reported Donald Trump participated regularly in paying money to force her to perform sex acts with him and alleged Trump was present when her uncle murdered her newborn child.
============================
Caller was taken by boat to Epstein's Island. Caller said it was complicated and involved Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Caller became a school counselor and had a meeting with the school principal, Linda Kitts, and a police officer whore the caller was informed there were pictures of herself with Epstein. Caller reported the school was mad at her for not being a Trump person and that the school wanted her to testify and say things against Andrew Cuomo. The FBI and Donald Trump were on the phone during the meeting. Caller believes the FBI has baby pictures of her with Epstein.
=================================
Caller reported that in 1987 a friend (Victim 1) was out drinking and ended up at Trump Plaza. Victim 1 saw Donald Trump and wanted to meet him. A unknown man approached her and offered to introduce her to Trump. The unknown man gave Victim 1 a drink and Victim 1 woke up naked and sore with $300 on the bed. Victim 1 didn't remember how she got to the room. She remembered seeing 'a flash' of Trump's face. Victim 1 called the Caller and told her she thought she had been raped. Victim 1 did not go to a hospital to have a rape kit performed because she didn't think anyone would believe her especially because she was drunk. Victim l's husband's business had problems with suppliers and Victim 1 believed Trump was behind it. Victim 1 also started dating a lawyer, identifier's unknown, who was married. Victim 1 had a fight with her lawyer boyfriend and went to a bar Victim 1 left a bar with a man who no one in the bar recognized but who seemed familiar with Victim 1. Victim 1 was never seen again. A few years ago, remains were discovered that matched the description of what Victim 1 was wearing when she went missing. DNA tests at the time were inconclusive.
==============================
The interviews with the people above have been completely redacted from the files.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
None taken, and I admitted as much myself. While I certainly need educating (as my dear friend Seattle confirmed) on USA politics, particularly concerning the convicted felon Trump and the Epstein files, I have also offered plenty of evidence supporting the facts that he is a egotistical, self appraised, pussy grabbing, habitual lying, misogynistic probable pedophile.
I am also educated enough to understand that Seattle has refused to answer many questions, told many lies, misinterpreted facts, and yet not once admit that Trump is a dictator, (despite the evidence) All we have from him, is excuses, excuses, beating around the bush, and more excuses, although he did admit something along the lines of "he understands Trump isn't perfect"
Then I see a post where he waffles on pretentiously, and tries to tell us he never voted for this dictator. You know, the same dictator that is claiming Greenland, bombing fishing boats, attempting to rename the Gulf of Mexico, threatening and sacking his own staff who dare question any of his own words, thoughts or deeds, and the same dictator that egged on the January 6th attack on your house of democracy, much as Hitler did with the infamous "beer hall putsch"
(as I have mentioned earlier) my Son and his family are visiting the Americas in August, spending time in Canada, Mexico, Panama, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. A shame that he sees the need to exclude the USA from that trip.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
I'm sure Seattle will come up with some excuse or give some other round about way of explaining why Trump is not an evil bastard, as that evidence suggests he obviously is.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
I'm sure Seattle will come up with some excuse or give some other round about way of explaining why Trump is not an evil bastard, as that evidence suggests he obviously is.
... whine "But that's not PROOF! Show us the proof! These are just unsubstantiated allegations!"
A common response from at least one of the frequent *ahem* "Trump apologists" participating in threads here on Sci...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Wouldn't a "Trump Apologist" apologize for Trump? These silly comments are what happens in an echo chamber.
What are you talking about Seattle? You act as if that post was about you, or something...
Sigh.
__________________
An apologia (Latin for apology, from Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, lit. 'speaking in defense') is a formal defense of an opinion, position or action.[1][2] The term's current use, often in the context of religion, theology and philosophy, derives from Justin Martyr's First Apology (AD 155–157) and was later employed by John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua (English: A Defense of One's Own Life) of 1864,[3] which presented a formal defense of the history of his Christian life, leading to his acceptance by the Catholic Church in 1845.[4]
In Ancient Greece, an apologia was primarily used as a legal defense: The accuser would present a kategoria, or accusation, and the defendant would present his apologia, or defense. In modern usage, apologia describes a formal defense of an idea or belief, rather than against a legal charge. In both ancient and modern uses it differs from an apology, or expression of regret.[5] The main difference between the two is that the act of apologizing is meant to express regret, and the purpose of an apologia is to clearly communicate the rational grounds for a belief or position.[5]
__________________
Apologia - Wikipedia
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I know what it is pendant.Sigh.
__________________
An apologia (Latin for apology, from Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, lit. 'speaking in defense') is a formal defense of an opinion, position or action.[1][2] The term's current use, often in the context of religion, theology and philosophy, derives from Justin Martyr's First Apology (AD 155–157) and was later employed by John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua (English: A Defense of One's Own Life) of 1864,[3] which presented a formal defense of the history of his Christian life, leading to his acceptance by the Catholic Church in 1845.[4]
In Ancient Greece, an apologia was primarily used as a legal defense: The accuser would present a kategoria, or accusation, and the defendant would present his apologia, or defense. In modern usage, apologia describes a formal defense of an idea or belief, rather than against a legal charge. In both ancient and modern uses it differs from an apology, or expression of regret.[5] The main difference between the two is that the act of apologizing is meant to express regret, and the purpose of an apologia is to clearly communicate the rational grounds for a belief or position.[5]
__________________
(Emphasis added.)Apologia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Indeed, the Christian Apologists often did not defend the whole of Christianity. (Or apologize for anything.) The Evidentialists, for example, would only defend what they believed they had proof of - for example, Christ existed and was resurrected due to contemporary accounts, but may not have performed all the miracles claimed by the Bible.
(Or in this case would not defend everything Trump has done, but would defend him on topics they believed in.)
Some of the weirder literature in the genre of Apologetics is found in Japanese Buddhist apologetics of the early 20th century. Aspects of Japanese nationalism (especially as such relates to Chinese Buddhism) and Japanese Buddhist thought intersecting with Christianity and some Continental, mostly German, thought feature prominently.
For a lot of Westerners, reared on rather romanticized notions about Buddhism and it's history throughout the centuries, this kind of stuff is like a real slap in the face--possibly more alarming than images of heavily armed Buddhist monks in, well, several S and SE Asian nations.
How dare you call me a pendant!
I don't even wear a death's head ring anymore--but only because my last one broke, and it wasn't a Totenkopf.At least he didn't call you an earring.
Requires a thread about a specific policy or issue to coerce focus on it. But even then, the presuppositional biases and almost sports-team-like allegiances of a public segment usually predictably determine conclusions or judgments about _X_, along with our applicable "culture of paranoia" about the ulterior motives of the "rival side". Or if not that, our "independent" choices for media/information/opinion sources and a fashionable movement to latch onto still amount to preconceptions and para-loyalties with rougher parameters.
Trump being involved inherently tends to derail attention from _X_ docket or polemic off into the pasture or wildwood of moral gesticulations (value corruption disqualifying such from the bother of a neutral lab dissection from the very start). Dispassionate pragmatism is extra doomed with the catalyst effect of the Orange Crush or Sunkist can resting on the table.
_
Indeed, the "Trump 2.0" thread was set up almost specifically to give people a thread in which to roll their eyes, laugh, or whatever, at Trump's latest actions, his character, and his administration when taken as a whole. Per the OP of that thread: "If there are major events, as opposed to just the usual daily political schenanigans, please feel free to start separate threads to discuss those. However, if you just want to vent about the outrageous thing that Trump did today, this is the thread for that." I would suggest that specific policies would be included within the intended scope of "major events" in the bolded section.
As to the "end" that our neighbour was enquiring about... catharsis. Venting frustration in a safe space is a good thing. Need there be more to it than that?