US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
General Trump Banner.png​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Hassou Tobi, Based Downie, Argh My Cigar and 144 others
Click to expand...
I find that WSJ letter really interesting. I know some people who worked as journalists before moving to tech, and an established paper like the WSJ would have strict protocols before publishing something like that. At a bare minimum, you’d want at least two legitimate sources within one or two degrees of the two men that could vouch for its veracity in court (if it came to that). Most major organizations go farther than that, which is why they’re slower than the “independent” side of news.

My first thought was some young nepo idiot broke protocol for the clicks cuz that letter looks fake as fuck.

My other thought was that an owner of the WSJ would rather damage their brand than let the conversation about Epstein keep going as it has been. Because a paper would not normally risk a multi-million dollar lawsuit like that on something so easily verifiable with the current financial state of journalism.

It’s funny as fuck either way.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • DRINK!
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Birdbonks, Balanced Boomer and 8 others
Dopeypal said:
I find that WSJ letter really interesting. I know some people who worked as journalists before moving to tech, and an established paper like the WSJ would have strict protocols before publishing something like that. At a bare minimum, you’d want at least two legitimate sources within one or two degrees of the two men that could vouch for its veracity in court (if it came to that). Most major organizations go farther than that, which is why they’re slower than the “independent” side of news.

My first thought was some young nepo idiot broke protocol for the clicks cuz that letter looks fake as fuck.

My other thought was that an owner of the WSJ would rather damage their brand than let the conversation about Epstein keep going as it has been. Because a paper would not normally risk a multi-million dollar lawsuit like that on something so easily verifiable with the current financial state of journalism.
Click to expand...
Have you paid attention to Trump news for the last nine years? They don't follow any protocol if it's something bad for him.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Ghostse, argostug and 16 others
gaysexenjoyer said:
Of course they "had something to do" with each other, they all went to the same parties. The issue is that there's zero evidence that their involvement revolved around raping kids or going to the island. It's nothing but empty accusations with no factual basis beyond people vaguely gesturing towards pictures of them together at parties and saying "well he must be guilty SOMEHOW!"

Epstein admittedly "had nothing" on Trump before his death even when rolling over may have saved his life, the investigations turned up absolutely nothing incriminating on Trump, the Little Saint James victims gave direct statements that Trump never assaulted them, the Epstein investigation team consistently stated that Trump was nothing but helpful and cooperative the entire time, Trump was one of the first people to try and report Epstein to the FBI after he banned him from his properties in the 2000s, and the absolute biggest smoking gun people could find throughout that entire series of events was Trump appearing on Epsteins flight log a single time.

Except it wasn't on the Lolita Express and he never went to the island, the flight was to Florida and it was on a random smaller jet that Epstein just owned. So even that meant literally nothing.

Face it. Every single piece of factual evidence has done nothing but exonerate Trump regarding Epstein, and retarded faggots will still mindlessly believe any microscopic piece of smoke to validate their pre-exisiting opinions about him, including fake gay love letters pulled out of the WSJ's asshole. If he were actually as guilty as everyone keeps insisting then horsehit like that wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...
This is all true and there's nothing definitively linking Trump to the trafficking yet but you're still ignoring that so far he's been derailing any attempt to have those linked to Epstein outed in any way and until a few hours ago he's been outright blocking efforts to expose his crimes. This is how he treated it back when Epstein was first arrested too. Child trafficking among elites is the biggest sin committed by our government and there shouldn't be a single day where the president isn't looking into ways to stop it, assuming they're not covering for themselves or aren't cowards afraid of those who are. While it's nice to imagine that the entire system isn't compromised and that your god emperor is going to finally to expose the few pedophiles in charge it seems extremely unlikely that he isn't part of the problem.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Ghostse, Fishmalk Observer, ThisIsGonnaBeGood and 2 others
Dopeypal said:
My other thought was that an owner of the WSJ would rather damage their brand than let the conversation about Epstein keep going as it has been. Because a paper would not normally risk a multi-million dollar lawsuit like that on something so easily verifiable with the current financial state of journalism.
Click to expand...
Naw man, Trump just blew out CBS for blatant lying and manupilation and others. They'll absolute risk doing anything if they think they'll take him down even a notch. And never forget Dan Rather's 'fake but accurate' crap too. If they hate a Republican president they'll do anything. Up to killing him flat out if needed.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Ghostse, Shocked and Horrified and 3 others
Echinacea said:
This thread is a cope gallery
Click to expand...
I didn't vote for Trump so not really. That's the nice thing of not having voted last election is that I can enjoy the parts of the current admin that kick ass without having to cosign all the awful shit like (once again) putting jeets in charge of ANYTHING or covering up a kid-fucker cabal
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: Shocked and Horrified, ThisIsGonnaBeGood, Silver Sasquatch and 2 others
Fapcop said:
Then why the F is Trump reacting to it?!

Lmao, he’s really turning into the Chris-Chan of presidents. I’m halfway expecting him to go on Truth Social and try to finally kill the story through posting 10.000 words of Epstein information overload.

Plus a drawing of him and Epstein with three women, one of whom is half n half!
Click to expand...

A story falsely claiming to have writing, signature, or a drawing of yours does in fact merit a response. If you aren’t proactive you can’t sue them later.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Ghostse, Birdbonks and 4 others
Puff said:
Have you paid attention to Trump news for the last nine years? They don't follow any protocol if it's something bad for him
Click to expand...
I’m sure that political bias is a part of it, but I’d argue there is a difference here with how ridiculously written and verifiable that letter is. It’s sloppy, if it’s fake.

And if the msm really didn’t follow protocol, than Trump would own all the liberal papers by now with all the successful lawsuits he could throw at them.

Major organizations with investor backing don’t normally take these kind of risks. His previous losses in court are because these organizations have receipts. It doesn’t mean what they’re publishing is true, but it means they “believed” it to be true based on the information they had at the time.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Birdbonks, ThisIsGonnaBeGood and 1 other person
cain_destroyer1 said:
God. What is this like 300 pages of Epstein sperging? Look, it's shitty that it wasnt released, but we are still cruising on deportations, so fuck, just admit it was a mistake and move on. Otherwise, you are just feeding into the media narrative
Click to expand...
It's so fucking repetitive, we have an entirely separate thread for this in the happenings board anyways so why not take the sperging there?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, ThisIsGonnaBeGood, LoogerLike and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back