Fogbow

To be clear, if you have responded to me, you are a Sick Fuck who remains the ONLY person I have blocked (across multiple iterations) on this board. I made the mistake of unblocking you for a minute, and I regret it. Fuck what you say, I'm not clicking, I don't care, and I'm not going to respond. Cheers!

Wow.

Attributing something to me which I never said and then pretending to be outraged about it is one heck of a deflection from explaining why the Katie Johnson allegations are relevant to anything released this week.

Is this sort of behavior normal here now?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 7:24 pm

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.

If I may, I believe you were confused with someone else whose comments could reasonably be read to insinuate that. That is to say that while it was erroneous, and therefore 'a substitute', it is so only because it appears it was directed at the wrong person.

At least, that's my objective third party take on it. I could be wrong.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 11:45 pm Is this sort of behavior normal here now?

No, this is very unusual. I have read your posts and I agree that you never suggested treating a 13 year old as an adult. Your point was simply that this is a very old accusation, nothing new this week.

It is an odd story that's hard to follow. I don't understand exactly what was released this week (apparently phone logs showing that Trump and Epstein talked), but it clearly isn't the monster story some would like it to be. I suspect Trump had sex with underage girls, facilitated by Epstein, and I suspect we will never have proof of that. But everyone knows it fits his character 100%.

As for the 13 year old, that's an old story that never had any solid credibility whatsoever, unfortunately. I think she's a troubled person.

But Res Ipsa never suggested that sex with a 13 year old is acceptable under any circumstances. He just said it's an old story that almost certainly never happened.

Let's go after Trump instead of each other. If he gets re-elected, will he have me executed for running a website devoted to all you woke liberals? Will there be anyone to stop him?

You can watch it on iview for free



A four part special on the ABC (Auntie)
Called
Retribution

Looking at what Donnie has done and probably will do if elected again

Starts 15 July

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 7:39 am You can watch it on iview for free

https://x. com/abcnews/status/1808042759380451558

A four part special on the ABC (Auntie)
Called
Retribution

Looking at what Donnie has done and probably will do if elected again

Starts 15 July

It took me a minute to realize that ABC os Australian Broadcasting Company, (just curious about what is meant by “auntie “, a local pet name? Akin to ma bell?).
I went to their website and it doesn’t list that program for July. I must be missing something.
Too, also this from their faq:

UPDATE: ABC Australia iview app discontinued from 27 June 2024 for international audiences

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The ABC became informally referred to as "Aunty", originally in imitation of the British Broadcasting Corporation's nickname. The structure and programming was broadly modelled on the British Broadcasting Corporation, and programs not created in Australia were mostly bought in from the BBC.

- sorry about iview - I missed that announcement

That’s ok, thanks. It looks like an interesting program. I just wondered if there was some pressure to pull the program from scheduling.
I also noticed that t rump, and others are starting to distance themselves from project 2025, which seems to be the retribution roadmap. They’re not saying it’s wrong, just that they don’t seem to have any knowledge of it, suddenly.

I know how unlikely this is but throwing it out there: Could it be he's...lying?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 5:13 pm

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

The time stamp on that filing is April 26, 2016,

Raison may have just seen it this last week, but the actual filing is eight years old..

Nothing against anyone here, but I remember many years ago when that lawsuit made the rounds, it seemed sketchy. For sure in the last week, there were attempts out in social media to conflate it with the most recent release release of Epstein materials. Some with large followings were putting it out there when they really shouldn't have.

New Turtle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 9:57 pm Nothing against anyone here, but I remember many years ago when that lawsuit made the rounds, it seemed sketchy. For sure in the last week, there were attempts out in social media to conflate it with the most recent release release of Epstein materials. Some with large followings were putting it out there when they really shouldn't have.

Maybe in response to the Turnip's camp's Biden's first wife bullshit?

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 9179498686

Alan Dershowitz: “The Trump Gag Order Violates Your Freedom of Speech: Mr. Trump isn’t the only victim of this ill-advised gag order. It violates your First Amendment rights and mine as well. The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, provides that no government agency can abridge the freedom of speech. This important freedom has two parts. The first is the right of the speaker to express his views. The second, less obvious but equally important, is the right of the public to hear the speaker’s views and evaluate them. Justice Thurgood Marshall summarized Supreme Court case law on this subject in Stanley v. Georgia (1969): ‘It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas’…Just as no one is above the law, no one is above criticism regarding the legal process. In the marketplace of ideas protected by the First Amendment, all of us—not the New York courts—have a right to judge him on what he says.”….

Edit, there's more:

….“It is important to remember that a gag order is a prior restraint on speech. The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints except in the most extraordinary circumstances, in which important countervailing interests are at stake. In New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971), the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court rejected such claims by the government and allowed the media to publish sensitive classified information…The marketplace of ideas shouldn’t allow one candidate to take unfair advantage of a questionable conviction while the other candidate has one hand tied behind his back by a questionable gag order. Voters who haven’t yet made up their minds, and who might be influenced by what both Messrs. Biden and Trump have to say about the fairness of the conviction, should consider filing friend-of-the-court briefs so that the justices can consider their interests as well as Mr. Trump’s…The politicization of the courts poses a threat to due process and the rule of law.”

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 6356638746

I got the price of Insulin for seniors brought WAY DOWN, not Biden. He just inherited this, and many other things, and then always tries to take credit for it. He’s done nothing but destroy our Country!!!

How is lowering the price of medicaments "destroying America" ?

I get it, the pharma industry may not be too happy and consider themselves "destroyed"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2018268168

If it weren’t for me as President, there probably would be no NATO by now. When I became President, I noticed that there were only 7 of the 28 Countries, that were then Members, who were paid up. Most Members were delinquent, some having paid very little, if anything. I found this unacceptable, and insisted that they pay if they wanted the protection of the U.S. Billions of Dollars came pouring in. No other President did anything about these long term delinquencies. The Secretary General of NATO said it was “incredible” what “President Trump had done.” It made NATO viable again. Now we have a similar problem. The U.S. is paying most of the money to help Ukraine fight Russia. Europe should at least EQUALIZE! They owe more than 100 Billion to do so. Crooked Joe has never even asked them to do so.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 11:41 am 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.

Because that is how their moral system works? The quite part is that they are not concerned about how women are treated, but WHO is treating them. Things like rape are not a crime against women, but instead a crime against their tribe, which means it is only abhorent if it is an outsider doing it. So a PoC, a brown immigrant, just someone outsider their cultural bubble.. that they can get worked up over. But by one of their 'own'? Esp someone in a position of respect and privilege? No harm to their honor.

That is why he is polling well... such behavior is seen as correct and admirable for a great man within their community, it is privilege and a right of his place and reinforces the image of his position.

The "men" he is pulling better with were just looking for permission to be their true chauvinistic selves.

Once again I have to point out that the reason Turnip lost in 2020 was that his vote went down 8% with White men. Everything else stayed relitivly Static, indeed his vote went up 2% with Minorities. But giving Men the credit for that spoils the easy narritives that Social runs with.

Therefore, saying that all his appeal is to Men (and implying that He is appealing to Male evil desires for a male Paradise) is frankly wrong. Men saw what he was leading the Country into and said "fuck no, I'm riden with Biden."

New Turtle wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 9:57 pm Nothing against anyone here, but I remember many years ago when that lawsuit made the rounds, it seemed sketchy. For sure in the last week, there were attempts out in social media to conflate it with the most recent release release of Epstein materials. Some with large followings were putting it out there when they really shouldn't have.

I think some of them know exactly what they are doing. The "Katie Johnson" story, in its various irreconcilable forms from the original video that was shopped around (now on YouTube), to the CA filing, and then the NY filing, is the Texas Air National Guard memo of Trump oppo research.

This is by no means a tactic confined to the right. Many of us remember the way that the fake Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate was skillfully injected into the birther information pool.

The most successful campaign of this type were the various "9/11 Truther" theories that were used to drown out criticism of the Bush administration's dereliction of duty and distraction by agenda-driven priorities.

These things eventually pull their marks deeper into disconnection with reality, because they always require a broadening of the conspiracy to include - as demonstrated here - accusations that anyone doubting them are in fact part of the conspiracy. It isn't covered by "main stream media" because they are all controlled by forces which have an interest in suppressing the truth of whatever the hook happens to be. Eventually, the mark, "doing their own research" comes to believe in a secret cabal which controls the "main stream media" and all significant political actors. The name changes, but the song remains the same whether "they" are "the TPTB", "the BFEE", "PNAC", The World Economic Forum, "Globalists", and some golden oldies like "the Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, Illuminati and the CFR". Whatever the popular name applied to "them" among those falling off the respective left or right side of the critical inquiry wagon, the consistency with which the label turns out to be a proxy for you-can't-directly-say-Jews is pretty remarkable.

But "they" have been kidnapping and corrupting children, drinking their blood (a direct line from the middle ages to the Qanon adrenochrome fixation), etc., for quite a long time.

With some of the stuff that's been embroidered onto the very true and twisted life of Jeffrey Epstein, a remarkable feature is the discounting of what the actual victims have had to say, and to which they have testified most recently in the public trial of Ghislane Maxwell. In order to try Maxwell while avoiding disclosure of the victims having been passed around this cabal of powerful insiders took extraordinary effort by the prosecution, and by the victims own counsel in their impact statements (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... ements.pdf) not to cross that line.

Remarkably, this belief requires the federal prosecutors - in a sex trafficking trial - to confine themselves solely to the generally consistent narrative that Maxwell was engaged in finding and grooming teenagers with troubled backgrounds for the sexual gratification of Jeffrey Epstein. The prosecutors had to deliberately exclude the ever-evolving list of "other powerful people" in order to corruptly protect them - and the victims had to agree with this plan.

Just like the Obama administration's failure to expose "what really happened" on 9/11, the Biden administration along with the entirety of the "mainstream media" is corruptly and deliberately failing to tell us the "real truth" about how Jeffrey Epstein died along with the activities in which he was engaged. Oddly, while Trump (or whoever was behind killing Epstein) could have had Epstein be killed in a seeming random act of violence or a small plane crash (the way "they" got rid of JFK Jr.), they instead chose to catapult Epstein's visibility to greater media prominence and focus by arresting him in the first place, making him front page news, and THEN killing him. Of the dozens of ways to quietly get rid of him, this was the method they chose. Then, they obtained the cooperation of the DeBlasio administration and the coroner appointed by that administration to falsely conclude it was a suicide. Just like the crew who had airplane wreckage in storage and ready to distribute at the Pentagon on 9/11 to make it look like an airplane hit the building, a similar far-reaching plan with a roster of participants was required to pull off what one guy on a NY street with a pistol could have pulled off with a maximum participation and knowledge of less than a handful of people.

In the great Conspiracy Sweepstakes, there must be points for difficulty awarded to these kinds of schemes which always manage to muster 100% success rates in buying off or intimidating all of the people who are in on it.

So, no, I don't think that the folks on social media who deliberately dredged up stuff that was public since 2016 in order to have it conflated with the recently released records showing that, yep, Epstein was associated with various wealthy people including Trump, did so by some kind of cosmic accident. This is a deliberate injection of bullshit into the information environment for the purpose of obtaining new recruits to the "everyone is lying to you except for anonymous people on the internet" battalion.

noblepa wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 8:01 pm
The time stamp on that filing is April 26, 2016,

Raison may have just seen it this last week, but the actual filing is eight years old..

The social media disinfo spreaders are posting excerpts from it and claiming it was in material that was unsealed last week.

They are not doing it by "accident".

There is no good faith explanation that anyone who has been paying minimal attention to this stuff for the last several years would somehow accidentally go off and highlight pdfs from the "Katie Johnson" cases and then re-package it with the claim that it was unsealed last week. There simply isn't.

There is obviously a contingent that wants others to bite on that baited hook.

Kinda weird he's still talking about Chris Christie.