Fogbow

I may be printing some of these to post in my neighborhood, lol!


Large version for printing:

Wow, good thing SCOTUS fixed that.

I love the 343 pounds.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:12 pm I love the 343 pounds.

A lot closer to his real weight than what Dr. -Trump forgets his name - said.

He ain't 6-2 either.

Resume18 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 7:30 pm He ain't 6-2 either.

It's measured by MIT height. His son is, so he gets to add 3" to his height

Angry Staffer 🌻 @Angry_Staffer wrote: Hey so while we are all worried about Biden’s schedule, this was Trump 6 years ago.

Wow, blast from the past.

TrumpFile.org @TrumpFile wrote: Where was Donald Trump today in 1987?

He wasn't celebrating Indepence Day with his family. He wasn’t even in the United States.

He was in Moscow, meeting with Soviet intelligence agents.

This is the story of the KGB’s recruitment of Donald Trump.

We’ve been saving this one for Independence Day for a reason! If you don’t have time to dive in now, then save it for later.

Posting now and updating every minute or so. Here we go!

I've been hearing in the last few days about the incredible strides tfg has recently made with men in polling. How are Republican leaning men ok with this for their daughters?

Make it make sense.

Greg Olear @gregolear wrote: Other than his personality, his criminal history, his long friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, his creepy lust for Ivanka, and the four dozen sexual assault allegations against him, there's no reason to believe that Trump raped the 13-year-old, as alleged.

Disgusting.
https://x.com/charles_gaba/status/1808941531954622545

Charles Gaba ✡️ @charles_gaba wrote: For everyone wondering why the evidence which came out this week that Trump raped children is getting virtually no media attention, most of it is because much of the news media is in the tank for Trump, but the even sicker reason is that Trumpism has normalized rape culture.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:39 pm the evidence which came out this week that Trump raped children

I must have missed something. What evidence came out this week that Trump raped children?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 2:06 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:39 pm the evidence which came out this week that Trump raped children

I must have missed something. What evidence came out this week that Trump raped children?

You did not miss anything. What was shown that Donald mhad calls with Epstein and that he likely got visited by some female. While Epstein liked his female companions "to be on the younger side" this was likely not so for Donald. Epstein would know his preferences and have introduced him to young ladies of his taste. Personally I do not like that teens are called "children". And not all female companions were underage. Also to note that none of the females that complained about Epstein made a complaint against any of Epsteins male aquaintences.

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:35 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 2:06 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 12:39 pm the evidence which came out this week that Trump raped children

I must have missed something. What evidence came out this week that Trump raped children?

You did not miss anything. What was shown that Donald mhad calls with Epstein and that he likely got visited by some female. While Epstein liked his female companions "to be on the younger side" this was likely not so for Donald. Epstein would know his preferences and have introduced him to young ladies of his taste. Personally I do not like that teens are called "children". And not all female companions were underage. Also to note that none of the females that complained about Epstein made a complaint against any of Epsteins male aquaintences.

Beg to differ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 85.1.0.pdf
and that's a load of crap, a 13yo is a child.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 4:39 pm
Beg to differ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 85.1.0.pdf
and that's a load of crap, a 13yo is a child.

My question was about what "evidence" came out this week. The pseudonymous "Katie Johnson" filings - both the California version and the New York version - most certainly did not come out this week, and have nothing to do with the phone message logs and deposition testimony released this week.

Thank you for confirming that I had not missed anything.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... allegation

The lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained

The anonymous plaintiff dropped her lawsuit against Trump, the circumstances around which have been bizarre.

by Emily Crockett
Nov 3, 2016, 2:40 PM EDT

~200 pages of Epstein docs were released this week.

You might find this interesting..... From noted Trump-supporting blog Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-rap ... each-other

Trump Rape Accusers Turn On Each Other

Chaos is erupting among the motley crew who supported a woman’s claims that Trump and billionaire pervert Jeffery Epstein raped her as a 13-year-old.

Brandy Zadrozny
Updated Apr. 13, 2017 3:26PM EDT / Published Jul. 21, 2016 11:38AM EDT

I gather you missed this fiasco the first time around.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:16 pm ~200 pages of Epstein docs were released this week.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

My question was about the claimed evidence that Trump raped a child alleged to have been released this week.

I was not asking about the quite public "Katie Johnson" allegations, in either the CA or NY variations, which have been fully public since 2016.

Although, I gather it is news to you, and that you do not correctly understand that the "Katie Johnson" thing has been public for many years now.

Here's some further discussion of the "lawsuit" - filed from what was then an unoccupied address with no other contact information - to which the link is posted upthread:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... norm-lubow

Rape lawsuits against Donald Trump linked to former TV producer

Norm Lubow, formerly a producer on the Jerry Springer show, apparently coordinated lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of raping a child in the 1990s

There was quite a bit of coverage about it at the time. It started as a stunt that was shopped around to Never-Trumper donors, and then took on a life of its own after it was no longer useful to its Republican-leaning progenitors.

I have seen elsewhere that the "Katie Johnson" thing has been given yet a new lease on life, due to people such as yourself being fooled into conflating it with the material released this week.

This, of course, is followed up with insinuations about how the "media is covering it up" by those who have been taken in by the artful injection of this long-known material into discussions about the newly-released and completely unrelated materials.

The released docs this week prove strong social ties between Epstein and tfg via phone messages, but you are correct in that I don't think they provide any new evidence of sexual abuse. I overspoke. I still think tfg is dirty though and hopefully it is just a matter of time before strong ties come out. I also take extreme umbrage to the characterization the a 13yo teen should be classified as an adult regarding sexual consent.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:31 pm I also take extreme umbrage to the characterization the a 13yo teen should be classified as an adult regarding sexual consent.

You can take all of the umbrage you want, but it is clear that you have been taken in by the notion that the "Katie Johnson" material is new, and it is likewise clear that you are unfamiliar with it and its history.

What is particularly poignant about your post is that you quote an alleged "Daily Mail" interview. You know, the Daily Mail followed up on this story as well:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... story.html
So it is somewhat disingenuous to post a Daily Mail quote on the topic, absent the additional context which the Daily Mail itself provided.

Your quote is fairly selective in that regard. Or is your point "we should believe this part of the Daily Mail coverage and not the other part".

And, again, this was all hashed out years ago, so why did you bring it up as having been made public this week?

I'm not going to argue with some who thinks treating sexually abused 13yo as adults is reasonable. It clearly doesn't matter what I have to say if that is your position.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:23 pm I'm not going to argue with some who thinks treating 13yo as adults is reasonable. It clearly doesn't matter what I have to say if that is your position.

When have I ever made any such suggestion?

Please quote me on that disgusting personal insinuation you have made as a substitute for rational argument.