Trump once hosted party for ‘young women’ where Epstein was only guest, says report
President under pressure to release all files related to his former friend Epstein
You're viewing a single thread.
All of this news coming out now show you just how terrible democrats are at being a real opposition party. All of this was known and it never came to the attention of the media.
To be fair, this was all information that was published before. Just like now, it changes absolutely nothing for his supporters.
Not to say that the dems aren’t terrible at messaging. But this seems to be more of a case of Trump having so many scandals that people forgot the details of this one. Saw someone post the other day that they went to Epsteins wikipedia page and had completely forgotten large swathes of it. Its just too much, too fucked up, for people to hold on to it.
And the worst part is, none of it is hidden. The video from the 90s (maybe early aughts) that had him speaking about his good friend ‘who, you know, likes them a little on the young side,’ was from Inside Edition (iirc). Dude casually admitted his friend was a pedo and it gets published as a puff piece.
None of this is new, none of this is unknown, its just unbearably fucked up.
Not as unique as you might think. This might be an elite class issue. A lot of people knew about Harvey Weinstein before he got metooed.
And it makes those folks just as culpable. Knowing someone is actively committing that sort of crime and doing nothing is nearly as bad as doing it.
What is someone supposed to do exactly? Epstein was one of the most powerful and well connected individuals when he was alive. Let’s say you saw an employee who looked young—you go to the police, you tell them your suspicions…did you get her ID? Do you think Epstein won’t sue you until you’re broke? Do you think there will be justice when he can call up politicians and get things buried?
I’m not suggesting that everyone should keep their mouth shut all the time, it is just that he was a huge dragon that could not be attacked unless you were a particularly qualified hero. Who knows how many people tried to blow the whistle and ended up dead or discredited and in poverty. It is easy enough to say “they should have done something”, but succeeding is a whole different ballgame.
If you were deep enough to actually know things that you could prove, you were very likely the kind of person who was also guilty. That is part of why the plan worked for so long.
Exactly, which the video quote I think proves. He really felt comfortable saying that. He’s high up in all of that, but he is far from the only one in that muck. And it certainly didn’t end when Epstein died.
Just like now, it changes absolutely nothing for his supporters.
I'm sure a sizeable portion of them think it makes him a real stud.
Not to say that the dems aren’t terrible at messaging. But this seems to be more of a case of Trump having so many scandals that people forgot the details of this one.
This isn't an exclusively Trump scandal. Epstein has his hooks in dozens - if not hundreds - of people. Billionaires like Bill Gates and politicians like Bill Clinton and royals like Andrew Edwards, Prince of York This is at least as big as the Jack Abramoff scandal from the Bush Jr era, a scandal that DeLay inadvertently engineered as exclusively Republican through his K-Street project.
It isn't a simple messaging problem. It goes to the foundations of fundraising, candidate selection, and bureaucratic organization. Far too many people are dirty within the upper ranks of both parties.
A lot of it was out. The Republicans refused to believe it until now.
Many will still do mental gymnastics to rationalize it away.
Just like liberals refuse to believe Democrats are involved too, and that's the real reason they've ignored it the whole time.
From top to bottom, from Bill Clinton to Alan Dershowitz, the Democrats are not your friends.
Just like liberals refuse to believe Democrats are involved too
I have not encountered a single person that believes this. Everyone seems to want them to bring justice to all of them, regardless of party affiliation.
I see what you're doing, by the way. Might work on reddit, but people here see through it.
Also, LOL at acting like Alan Dershowitz isn't a Trump creature, and should somehow be lumped in with the Democrats... Sorry bud, but that hasn't been true for nearly 30 years.
All you're concerned with is benefiting repubs.
How do you get that from what I said?
They are both child raping cults, I'm unwilling to defend Democrats on the Epstein client list, that makes me pro republicans?
Think before you speak.
Comrade, I don't need to further explain that your whataboutism has a goal. It's beyond obvious.
It's not whataboutism, I have never defended Republicans. It's good for you to see that both sides are bad.
I know, you shit on Democrats and only Democrats and everyone knows why.
Okay...
Trump is not the only wealthy person involved. The people that own both parties don't want themselves and their friends implicated. Bill Clinton, Bill Gates etc
I think it's more a testament to how much the average american ignores, I don't think anything new has really been released regarding Epstein and Trump. Mostly rehashing similar acqusations that have been floating around for years.
I mean there is sworn testimony of him raping an ex-wife https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-exwife-claim-he-raped-her-resurfaces-in-new-documentary-a6836151.html but that never got any traction.
Yeah this isn't exactly true. I'm pretty sure this was reported on before 2016, and people just didn't care then.
But yes, Democrats are awful at messaging and drop the ball at every opportunity.
people just didn’t care then.
Which "people"? I thought/think it's fucked up and I wish it was a bigger issue. It's literally media/hegemony that chooses which tales to hype or bury.
Enough people to elect him twice.
The billionaire media moguls like the Murdochs, Bezos and Musk don't care for the idea of removing Jerome Powell from chair of the fed and they already got their big bill and Vance. Donald is used up and they can keep this from going away until it gives Donny a stroke from the constant stress.
It shows there are more Democrats on the list than Bill Clinton.
Who cares, reveal them all.
At times, it's like watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters.
"C'mon guys! They're not even playing real basketball anymore! Get back in there and take back our civil rights and public services!"
What? Epstein has been a major story for the last 10 years, at least since he was first arrested in 2006.
The neoliberal wing behind the party while this was all happening and Biden was just president is no longer in charge of the DNC.
It makes no sense to blame the current DNC for anything before February.
It's not just a different guy at the desk, it's the same as blaming a Dem president for what the last Republican did.
Meaning the current DNC won't work against a candidate willing to disclose all of it. However they won't work against any candidate in the general. That's why MSM is desperate to convince people that change never happened. They want to depress primary turnout.
If it was the same group of people in charge, the media would be still saying the DNC is the only other option and we can't criticize anything they do.
It's like how the best time to buy gold is when places advertise for you to sell it, and the worst time is when they advertise for you to buy it.
Just do the opposite of what a billionaire says we should do, and things will probably work out for the rest of us.
Meaning the current DNC won't work against a candidate willing to disclose all of it.
I kinda feel like this is giving 'em a little too much credit. However, I can't argue with your overall argument, nor the logic you present to get there.
That said, the general nature of the problem hasn't changed. The blatant corruption that is directly enabled by the vile (and, in my not so humble opinion, treasonous) Churches United ruling has redefined the playing field. Basically, only the corrupt have any realistic chance of election nationally, which completely undermines the democratic part of our government. (And yes, democracy only plays a part in a republic style government. The US has never been a "democracy".)
My own takeaway is to focus my attention more on local elections. They have always been far more important than most people realize (myself included), now even more so. If there's any chance of reversing the terrible damage being wrought, it starts locally. This is true whether you believe in working with, or against, the current system.
And again, this isn't meant as an attack on your own argument. I knew about the change in DNC leadership, but I've been overlooking both it's potential significance, as well as that of the current media framing - specifically the lack of "only other option" type statements. Thank you for your perspective!
Edit/P.S. The reaction to David Hogg's actions are a good example of why I continue to be skeptical of the DNC. On the other hand, what else could anyone expect, really. That man has definitely piqued my curiosity, though, and I hope we see more from him down the line.
I kinda feel like this is giving 'em a little too much credit.
It's not "them" it's one man, Ken Martin.
And he chaired Minnesota for like a decade, right up until the DNC. He has a proven track record.
But believe me, if he starts to fuck up I'm gonna say he's fucking up.
Basically, only the corrupt have any realistic chance of election nationally, which completely undermines the democratic part of our government.
If that was true then there would be zero way Mamdani would have won his primary. Sure, "it's a mayorship" but it's for NYC, one of the largest concentrations of wealth on the planet, there's a reason they've had shit against mayors for generations.
They failed to buy the primary, that's never really happened.
My own takeaway is to focus my attention more on local elections.
This is the big strategy of the DNC after a decade of the Victory Fund bankrupting state parties, were seeing the largest reinvestment from the DNC back to red/purple states so they can start fighting at lower levels.
The reaction to David Hogg’s actions are a good example of why I continue to be skeptical of the DNC.
Here's what happened:
Biden's pick for chair and the committee that runs primaries fucked up their internal election for vice chair.
Complaints were lodged that the election wasn't by the rules, Martin kicked it to committee who put it up to a DNC wide vote of all ~400 members. The same ones who had just elected Martin and Hogg off the same ballot.
Hogg choose not to run, by every indication he would have won just like last time, this was a formality
Instead Hogg said he's going to start a PAC.
I don't think he ever intended to win, no one would have predicted Martin or Hogg's wins. I wasn't even that optimistic. I think Hogg's original plan was to do the PAC, and that's why he refused to run in the re-election he was assuredly going to win.
Quick edit:
Fo bonus points, Martin just ran two of those committee members who have been fucking up primaries out of the DNC. Even better, one of them was an 08 superdelegate who tried to vote Clinton after Obama already had the votes.
The old guard is gone.
We can't squander this, we literally may never get the chance again if this doesn't work
Ken Martin was the safer pick for the DNC chair, he helped turn around Minnesota politically and financially, and won seats -- and kept them, often by very narrow margins. Ben Wikler was the progressive minded disruption pick that helped flip Wisconsin and was a driving force in turning Wisconsin blue including that historically expensive fight that Elon Musk lost over the Wisconsin Supreme Court pick. You can decide which of these is more noteworthy.
David Hogg must have realized that under the fresh new leadership of the DNC they were still too caught up in rules and formalities to effectively fight and so he chose to walk his own path. He didn't run just to quit and run a PAC. He ran and realized without Ben Wikler signing off on his idea to primary safe seats with his PAC to build a progressive base, he would not have a clear path to his vision... reforming the DNC to reflect progressive politics to win like they won in Wisconsin.
He asked permission from Ken Martin to use his PAC for its intended purpose -- which was subsequently denied -- realized Ken Martin would never sign off on primarying safe DNC candidates and wrote the DNC off in favor of his PAC. When the DNC got caught up in a procedural error, he decided to exit stage left and put his energy elsewhere -- primarying the old guard. To be fair to Ken, he made the argument that the DNC should abstain from interfering with primaries altogether. Who you agree with depends on how you feel about disruption in the DNC in favor of progressives; if you feel that party unity, procedures, and small progress over the status quo is the way forward, then Ken Martin. If you feel that shaking things up, being disruptive, and primarying the old guard out for new blood progressive Democrats is ideal and worth the risk, then David Hogg.
David Hogg found himself with a $20 million PAC he built himself and was told he had to choose not to spend it on primarying progressives against safe establishment Democrats or else the DNC won't let him have a seat at their table. That's why when you hear Democrats talk about the matter they sound whiny and say things like "we think losing Hogg is missing an opportunity to engage with younger voters." Because it is, and they are... and the tone has shifted because he has a $20 million dollar progressive werebear named 'Leaders We Deserve'.
The old guard you mention -- the two committee members -- aren't solely responsible for the issues with primaries. While you're correct that Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, stuck to her superdelegate guns in favor of Hillary over Obama and by the same token Hillary over Sanders, she voted for David Hogg and Ben Witker... the progressive disruption candidates. She may be idealistic in trying to get a woman elected to be President, but she's entitled to that ideal. She's no Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I don't share your enthusiasm for the DNC and many of them are just starting to realize how much their predecessors have messed up -- the immediate exit of David Hogg despite being handed a position in the DNC he already won shouldn't be met by your confusion about his original intent. Instead, it should be a sign of how bad things actually are. Who knows, Ken Martin may turn it around and he shares many of the same ideas as Ben Witker, but mostly by copying his homework and playing it safe yawn. Doubtful the DNC has that much gas left in the tank to turn anything around. They can't even run an internal election without fucking it up. The fuck up not being the procedural error. But losing David Hogg.
Losing in this manner is a signature DNC move. You almost hate to see it for the thousandth time. Even Twilight was less predictable.
It makes no sense to blame the current DNC for anything before February.
You're hilarious.
They did. Just as the media reported on all Trumps lies, the problem is that his voters couldn't give a shit about any of it.
Just as
thesome media reported on all Trumps lies
Democrats are also on the list. Nevar forgat that Trump said he'd run as a Democrat if he evar ran.
these*
I’m not seeing a need for correction. Not this one anyway.
