Skip to content
Options

The odds tumble on my 100/1 tip – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    The Mossad theory makes the most sense, especially given his proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell, whose dad Robert was an alleged Mossad asset

    It's such a simple and clever idea. Find a charming handsome Jewish New Yorker, eager and hungry, willing to do anything to make it big

    Give him loads of money, set him up with an island, a ranch, lots of isolated places where shady things might happen, unseen by coppers etc

    Acquire rich friends who bring even richer and more powerful friends. Offer them girls (or boys) for sexual pleasure, perhaps underage to make it even more explosive. Chuck in some kink. Film it all in secret. Do it to everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, lawyers, actors, businessmen, moguls, British princes, make yourself invulnerable because you have video and audio kompromat on the rich and powerful from across the Anglophone world and they cannot risk you going to prison and blabbing

    Even if this DIDN'T happen, it should have done, because it's such an elegantly intelligent plot

  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    My whole flat is adorned with them, so it's also a decorative leitmotif

    What Farrow and Ball might call "Malignant Narcissism"
    Yes, that's fair

    The flat is basically a shrine to ME. But that's fine. It's my flat. And I like ME
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,189
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    We are sorting out twin As kitchen

    Which means - new kitchen is in back room, kitchen utensils mainly upstairs but some are in front room. Front room has rest of utensils and (because of last nights wind, the old cooker).

    Emptying out one room has large knock on effects even if you do have space
    Ah god. Redoing a kitchen is a fecking mare! Thankfully mine was done a few years back and looks fine. Likewise the bathroom. It's everything ELSE that needs doing

    I've come back to a beautifully repainted hall and entrance, but it means all the halllway furniture is stacked in the living room, and all the framed photos likewise, plus lots more trivial chaos - tins of paint for retouching, a new intercom that's not quite fixed - blah blah. I have to reorder photos for the frames, get a handyman in to rehang them...

    Very boring, and requires lots of grunt work. I'm having a cup of tea and a PB natter before I set to, again



    Get a handyman to rehang them are you insane.

    Plus photos on the wall? Didn't see you as one of those smiling peasants on the wall of an agreeable north west London apartment types. Or perhaps you are.

    Or are the photos of family groups or Guilin or the wheatfields of Arizona.

    You want to get yourself some proper art.
    After 37 years of constant travel I have some bloody amazing photos - if I say so myself - as good as any art, and far more meaningful to me. Seeing them pleases me, and reminds me of a life richly lived (and more to come, one hopes)

    My whole flat is adorned with them, so it's also a decorative leitmotif
    Grayson Perry in his Reith Lectures was masterful on photography as art. A few rules of thumb:

    Large = more likely to be art
    Black & White = more likely to be art
    People in them smiling = definitely not art

    etc.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Highly questionable

    Evidence from flight logs shows that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" private jet at least 26 times. Trump flew 7 times
    Bill Clinton was - I'm sure - more involved with Epstein than Trump, not least because his association lasted a lot longer.

    But here's the thing: Clinton became President 33 years ago. He ceased being President a quarter century ago.

    Trump by contrast is President, and faces the voters (via the midterms) next year.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,439
    rcs1000 said:

    Trump by contrast is President, and faces the voters (via the midterms) next year.

    There are two questionable assumptions underlying that statement

    1. The midterms aren't cancelled for an 'emergency'

    2. He hasn't dropped dead, or been ousted by JD
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,482
    edited August 5

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    47% of Republicans is less than 30% of voters in the US overall, so that is still Democratic landslide territory
    Also I am not surprised by the 47% figure. I don't quite get why the Epstein thing is so much of an issue for him. Anyone else yes, but Trump has been given a free ride on so much else, why is Epstein an issue compared to Stormy Daniels, rape, pussy grabbing, etc)
    It's the underage aspect, I think.
    That didn't stop the hardcore Trump supporters saying Matt Gaetz was a good choice for Attorney General. They weren't worried about the stories of Trump going backstage at the teenage beauty contest he bought. No, it's more than that. It's that Epstein fit the QAnon/pizzagate conspiracy.
    Yes. But I meant amongst less crazy Republicans. I'd imagine many of them would be more bothered by 'pedo' crimes than about the creepy exploitative sleaziness with women that Trump and men like him seem to regard as a badge of honour.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    The plot of his next book is on 17349 Post It notes stuck to the wall, and he can't see the comforting deep blue of the boudoir.
    Ooh, me too - I also equate Islam with Christianity, astrology, phrenology and a belief in fairies or that men can become women simply by declaring themselves so. The only difference being the adherents ofmost of these beliefs don't tend to carry out murders in support of their chosen belief
    I don't really mock these beliefs. Cos that would be rude. But I don't see them as any different in terms of unlikeliness.
    You're out of date on phrenology: there's an increasing amount of evidence that brain shape affects cognition.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,189
    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Highly questionable

    Evidence from flight logs shows that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" private jet at least 26 times. Trump flew 7 times
    Bill Clinton was - I'm sure - more involved with Epstein than Trump, not least because his association lasted a lot longer.

    But here's the thing: Clinton became President 33 years ago. He ceased being President a quarter century ago.

    Trump by contrast is President, and faces the voters (via the midterms) next year.
    Yes. I’m pretty sure they are both in it, nut deep. As it were. But it’s more of a live issue for Trump (and Trump is acting quite panicked - is he going to pardon Ghislaine maxwell?!)

    And of course if you’re Epstein back in the day it makes total sense to choose your “close friends” from both sides of US politics, so there is a bipartisan desire to protect you
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5
    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    Can you get to a billionaire status being the money manager for basically just one rich bloke? I presume if you are the world best trader I guess, but is there evidence he was any good at being a money manager?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    Can you get to a billionaire being the money manager for just one rich bloke? I presume if you are the world best trader I guess.
    If you get a good deal, sure.

    Bill Gates money manager has, I believe, comfortably made billionaire status. (As well as attracting quite his own share of sexual harassment law suits.)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,048
    On electric cars, it doesn't look like the death of the ICE is happening all that quickly:

    https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

    Type: year to July, change on same time last year
    Battery only: 254,666 +60,235
    Anything with an ICE: 927,707 -32,142
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,443
    I just went into a Gail's. It did not do ordinary tea nor diet coke. I walked out and went to KFC.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,157
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Highly questionable

    Evidence from flight logs shows that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" private jet at least 26 times. Trump flew 7 times
    Bill Clinton was - I'm sure - more involved with Epstein than Trump, not least because his association lasted a lot longer.

    But here's the thing: Clinton became President 33 years ago. He ceased being President a quarter century ago.

    Trump by contrast is President, and faces the voters (via the midterms) next year.
    Yes. I’m pretty sure they are both in it, nut deep. As it were. But it’s more of a live issue for Trump (and Trump is acting quite panicked - is he going to pardon Ghislaine maxwell?!)

    And of course if you’re Epstein back in the day it makes total sense to choose your “close friends” from both sides of US politics, so there is a bipartisan desire to protect you
    Pardoning Ghislaine does not seem to be an obvious way of making the rumors stop.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
    Yes, that bit is curious, unless Trump was simply brazenly lying all along, and never intended to open the files. Given that this is Trump, that is certainly plausible
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,443
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    The plot of his next book is on 17349 Post It notes stuck to the wall, and he can't see the comforting deep blue of the boudoir.
    Ooh, me too - I also equate Islam with Christianity, astrology, phrenology and a belief in fairies or that men can become women simply by declaring themselves so. The only difference being the adherents ofmost of these beliefs don't tend to carry out murders in support of their chosen belief
    I don't really mock these beliefs. Cos that would be rude. But I don't see them as any different in terms of unlikeliness.
    You're out of date on phrenology: there's an increasing amount of evidence that brain shape affects cognition.
    Brain-shaped - Good
    Cube-shaped - Usually bad
    Flat - Bad
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    Because they don't want to be just another client of Soros or Marshall or whoever. They want their own money manager, who reports directly to them
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Highly questionable

    Evidence from flight logs shows that Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" private jet at least 26 times. Trump flew 7 times
    Bill Clinton was - I'm sure - more involved with Epstein than Trump, not least because his association lasted a lot longer.

    But here's the thing: Clinton became President 33 years ago. He ceased being President a quarter century ago.

    Trump by contrast is President, and faces the voters (via the midterms) next year.
    Yes. I’m pretty sure they are both in it, nut deep. As it were. But it’s more of a live issue for Trump (and Trump is acting quite panicked - is he going to pardon Ghislaine maxwell?!)

    And of course if you’re Epstein back in the day it makes total sense to choose your “close friends” from both sides of US politics, so there is a bipartisan desire to protect you
    Pardoning Ghislaine does not seem to be an obvious way of making the rumors stop.
    There is no way Trump can make the rumours stop. Even if he is entirely innocent, it is fiendishly hard to prove a negative, of course

    But if he is in some way guilty, pardoning Ghislaine M would staunch one source of bleeding, even if it causes howls of anger and cries of shame
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    Because they don't want to be just another client of Soros or Marshall or whoever. They want their own money manager, who reports directly to them
    They must surely still have plenty of options and be able to drive on price. Why would you hire this total nobody at over the going rate?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,249

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    An example of the indulgent politics where people don't think choices have consequences:

    A recent YouGov poll found 45% support for admitting no new migrants and requiring large numbers to leave - but a deeper look suggests that most of this group don't actually want to remove those who make up the bulk of migrants to the UK ...

    When presented economy vs immigration trade-offs, Britons typically opt for economic benefit over lower migration

    Those who support requiring large nos of migrants to leave would pick fully staffing NHS over reducing immigration, but economic arguments hold less sway


    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lvnbca3glc2f

    It is why I am always slightly wary of putting too much emphasis on how well an individual policy polls. I am not convinced people really think that deeply about them as they are going through 27,000 questions to get their £50 gift card in 3 months.
    I think there's an genuine policy disconnect here and not just superficial polling issues. Politicians with a good prospect of power are promoting immigration freezes (Farage) or repatriation (Jenrick) based on wilful denial of the consequences. People would not accept those consequences per the polling, but the important point is they also don't reckon those consequences exist.
    That, and more than that, these politicians are happy with leaving the public misinformed. As the polling shows, a large proportion of the population wrongly believe that illegal immigration/asylum seekers are a large proportion of all immigration. They probably also believe that most illegal immigration is asylum seekers.
    Thing is, the consequences are real. So Farage if he gets to be PM will either implement his promised policies with bad outcomes manifested, or he will just be business as usual - the same policies as Labour and Tories with additional performative nastiness.

    I think the probability of the first is underpriced
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,725

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    It’s probably more along the lines of having your Private Familly Office. The banks, investment houses etc know the Family Office are representing you and so they want to attract your money so you get the discounts and access to special opportunities but there are many of these houses.

    If you are a billionaire you most likely don’t want to be spending all of your time managing these relationships and investment decisions so you hire someone you trust to run the familly office and staff it who you believe knows what they are doing, and they run your finances from investment to trusts to company set ups and farm it all out and watch and report to you so you can relax.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121
    Leon said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    The Mossad theory makes the most sense, especially given his proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell, whose dad Robert was an alleged Mossad asset

    It's such a simple and clever idea. Find a charming handsome Jewish New Yorker, eager and hungry, willing to do anything to make it big

    Give him loads of money, set him up with an island, a ranch, lots of isolated places where shady things might happen, unseen by coppers etc

    Acquire rich friends who bring even richer and more powerful friends. Offer them girls (or boys) for sexual pleasure, perhaps underage to make it even more explosive. Chuck in some kink. Film it all in secret. Do it to everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, lawyers, actors, businessmen, moguls, British princes, make yourself invulnerable because you have video and audio kompromat on the rich and powerful from across the Anglophone world and they cannot risk you going to prison and blabbing

    Even if this DIDN'T happen, it should have done, because it's such an elegantly intelligent plot

    Have you read the Lownie book on Prince Andrew that is being serialised in the Mail iirc?

    According to mentor Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein would boast that Andrew was his ‘Super Bowl trophy’ and he planned to sell Andrew’s secrets to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad.

    ‘Andrew had a weakness for the girls and fast life, Epstein provided that fantasy. Andrew would then give intelligence that Epstein would give to Israel. Andrew didn’t understand that he was being used.’

    In a documentary, many in Andrew’s circle confirmed to journalist Ian Halperin that Epstein ‘sold Andrew’s most intimate secrets to notorious foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel’s Mossad, to Saudi Arabia and to the Mukhabarat el-Jamahiriya, the national intelligence service of Libya under Colonel Gaddafi’.

    Other sources allege Epstein had Kremlin connections and may have been an ‘agent of influence’ for Vladimir Putin.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14965185/prince-Andrew-Royal-Family-book-Epstein-Putin.html (£££)

    So there you have it. Mossad. Or the KGB. Or the Saudis or Libyans. One of them, all of them?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,154
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
    Yes, that bit is curious, unless Trump was simply brazenly lying all along, and never intended to open the files. Given that this is Trump, that is certainly plausible
    He’s politically aware enough to know that sending Kash Patel on Joe Rogan’s show, and getting Pam Bondi to do a press conference to say there’s nothing to see here, clearly isn’t going to be enough for a fair number of his own supporters.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,157

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    Leverage (aka soft blackmail) and/or payment for services.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,482

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,991
    edited August 5
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    aiui the super-rich like to spread it around to minimise risk. Some to Epstein, some to Bernie Madoff, you get the picture.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5
    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    Repeat what I said below,

    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them. And he he has lent into the wildest of the conspiracy theories and perhaps it isn't quite as juicy as you could start to imagine, so he is also going to let down his cult supporters (or they will say he is still covering it all up) i.e. conman made money squeezing rich people after putting them in awkward situations, but there wasn't a global paedo network run by Mossad.

    And in true Trump style, when in a hole, lash out, lie, threaten to sue everybody, make a rash decision that will come back to bite him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    Not a good look for the police

    A copper calls the asylum hotel protestors "fascists"

    https://x.com/WesleyWinterYT/status/1952725444635095294
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121
    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno
  • eekeek Posts: 30,859
    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    Is it insider dealing if you aren't actually on the inside - just being giving tips...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,911

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    aiui the super-rich like to spread it around to minimise risk. Some to Epstein, some to Bernie Madoff, you get the picture.
    An interesting counterpoint to that is Musk, his wealth is almost entirely equity within his own companies.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    aiui the super-rich like to spread it around to minimise risk. Some to Epstein, some to Bernie Madoff, you get the picture.
    Doing some googling, it appears that Epstein was solely responsible for managing Les Wexner fortune.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
    If you were smarter, with an IQ over, say, 102, you'd know by now that I like to provoke you, for almost any reason. Because you reliably reply in this satisfyingly pompous style

    This makes me a bit juvenile, but we've all gotta get our kicks
  • glwglw Posts: 10,473
    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    The Epstein estate has paid compensation to about 150 victims of his trafficking or sexual abuse, and numerous victims have alleged there were other well known people involved. Whether they will face justice or not would seem to require a complete change in the political scene in the US.

    For people who say “why didn’t the Democrats get Trump?” Think back to the expense scandal which affected a huge number of MPs from all parties, and that was about relatively trivial criminality. My view is that following all the leads around Epstein would dump a bucket of shit over the entire US political establishment, so there’s been little appetite to now for doing so.


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,911
    edited August 5
    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121

    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    Repeat what I said below,

    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them. And he he has lent into the wildest of the conspiracy theories and perhaps it isn't quite as juicy as you could start to imagine, so he is also going to let down his cult supporters (or they will say he is still covering it all up) i.e. conman made money squeezing rich people after putting them in awkward situations, but there wasn't a global paedo network run by Mossad.

    And in true Trump style, when in a hole, lash out, lie, threaten to sue everybody, make a rash decision that will come back to bite him.
    A variant of that theory I can perhaps believe, which is that Trump belatedly realised that what used to be acceptable is now very much frowned upon. Like Gregg Wallace or page 3 of the Sun, so with pussy-grabbing and massages from borderline 17-year-olds (or whatever is the age of consent over there).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5

    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    Repeat what I said below,

    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them. And he he has lent into the wildest of the conspiracy theories and perhaps it isn't quite as juicy as you could start to imagine, so he is also going to let down his cult supporters (or they will say he is still covering it all up) i.e. conman made money squeezing rich people after putting them in awkward situations, but there wasn't a global paedo network run by Mossad.

    And in true Trump style, when in a hole, lash out, lie, threaten to sue everybody, make a rash decision that will come back to bite him.
    A variant of that theory I can perhaps believe, which is that Trump belatedly realised that what used to be acceptable is now very much frowned upon. Like Gregg Wallace or page 3 of the Sun, so with pussy-grabbing and massages from borderline 17-year-olds (or whatever is the age of consent over there).
    I can certainly see that. See the bondegezou quote below and how a rich bloke dating a much younger woman was a "good on you" rather than that's a icky. It was totally normal for rich middle aged men to have the "mid life crisis" and starting showing off their star power / wealth to shag 20 somethings. Even Leonardo DiCaprio appears to have upped the age of his girlfriends a bit recently.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793

    Leon said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    The Mossad theory makes the most sense, especially given his proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell, whose dad Robert was an alleged Mossad asset

    It's such a simple and clever idea. Find a charming handsome Jewish New Yorker, eager and hungry, willing to do anything to make it big

    Give him loads of money, set him up with an island, a ranch, lots of isolated places where shady things might happen, unseen by coppers etc

    Acquire rich friends who bring even richer and more powerful friends. Offer them girls (or boys) for sexual pleasure, perhaps underage to make it even more explosive. Chuck in some kink. Film it all in secret. Do it to everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, lawyers, actors, businessmen, moguls, British princes, make yourself invulnerable because you have video and audio kompromat on the rich and powerful from across the Anglophone world and they cannot risk you going to prison and blabbing

    Even if this DIDN'T happen, it should have done, because it's such an elegantly intelligent plot

    Have you read the Lownie book on Prince Andrew that is being serialised in the Mail iirc?

    According to mentor Steven Hoffenberg, Epstein would boast that Andrew was his ‘Super Bowl trophy’ and he planned to sell Andrew’s secrets to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad.

    ‘Andrew had a weakness for the girls and fast life, Epstein provided that fantasy. Andrew would then give intelligence that Epstein would give to Israel. Andrew didn’t understand that he was being used.’

    In a documentary, many in Andrew’s circle confirmed to journalist Ian Halperin that Epstein ‘sold Andrew’s most intimate secrets to notorious foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel’s Mossad, to Saudi Arabia and to the Mukhabarat el-Jamahiriya, the national intelligence service of Libya under Colonel Gaddafi’.

    Other sources allege Epstein had Kremlin connections and may have been an ‘agent of influence’ for Vladimir Putin.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14965185/prince-Andrew-Royal-Family-book-Epstein-Putin.html (£££)

    So there you have it. Mossad. Or the KGB. Or the Saudis or Libyans. One of them, all of them?
    Definitely one of them, maybe all of them

    I don't buy the idea Epstein was just "a conman". He got British princes and US presidents on to that island, plus many of the world's richest men, consorting with hundreds of underage girls

    And he managed to get the US legal system to ignore it, or impose laughably pathetic sanctions, for decades. PLUS we have the incredibly dubous manner of his death

    The involvement of some clever, well-equipped national intelligence agency seems near-certain, to me

    OK back to the INTENSE TURMOIL of my flat
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,048
    Pulpstar said:

    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.

    Got to think it'll go to judicial review. :wink:
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,439
    Pulpstar said:

    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.

    It is not inconceivable that the announcement was made cos Trump watched an episode of Space 1999
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,429

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,991
    edited August 5

    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    Repeat what I said below,

    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them. And he he has lent into the wildest of the conspiracy theories and perhaps it isn't quite as juicy as you could start to imagine, so he is also going to let down his cult supporters (or they will say he is still covering it all up) i.e. conman made money squeezing rich people after putting them in awkward situations, but there wasn't a global paedo network run by Mossad.

    And in true Trump style, when in a hole, lash out, lie, threaten to sue everybody, make a rash decision that will come back to bite him.
    That sounds very plausible as does @kinabalu referencing 'saying things in the moment'.

    The latter seems likely re his statement about sending the two nuclear subs to Russia. That makes no sense. If they are nuclear missile launching subs they don't need to go. They are ready and waiting to launch where they are now (where ever that may be). If they are nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, it makes a bit more sense, but only in the sense that they can sink Russian ships. I assume several are monitoring Russian ships/fleets anyway around the world so I doubt they need to go off to Russia. I bet he doesn't even know the difference between nuclear powered subs and subs having a nuclear deterrent.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    Maybe in his old age he misread it as the Islington Tribune.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,679
    tlg86 said:

    On electric cars, it doesn't look like the death of the ICE is happening all that quickly:

    https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

    Type: year to July, change on same time last year
    Battery only: 254,666 +60,235
    Anything with an ICE: 927,707 -32,142

    It is accelerating and will continue to do so as the number of pure ICE vehicles on sale decreases.

    Incidentally, as various anti-Tesla people on Twix Fap themselves into a stupor over Tesla vs BYD sales in those UK numbers. The SMMT figures don't break down sales by brand and by type. And the best-selling BYD model in the UK isn't an EV, its a PHEV...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,991
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
    If you were smarter, with an IQ over, say, 102, you'd know by now that I like to provoke you, for almost any reason. Because you reliably reply in this satisfyingly pompous style

    This makes me a bit juvenile, but we've all gotta get our kicks
    If you were smarter, with an IQ over, say, 102, you'd know by now that I like to provoke you, for almost any reason.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,182
    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,157
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
    In addition, a Big Brain, like your average builder, will tell you the cheap, quick option is to

    1) pack all your stuff and send it to storage.
    2) move out to a rental (AirBnB?) for a week
    3) get the workmen in with free reign to make a mess, smash stuff up. This will half the time taken or better.
    4) get your stuff back.

    For added relaxation, at 1) hire a company that does packing for you. You can even get a service where they photograph your stuff and put it back exactly.

    And before 4) hire professional cleaners to clean before you move back.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5

    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    The inflation in food prices in the US is mind boggling*, especially fast food. Putting aside some strange outliers e.g. always found milk expensive (and had to be purchased in mega sizes), US used to be a byword for cheap food, not great quality, but vast abundance with giant portion sizes. Now its super shitty and expensive.

    *bad term, I understand why, it is just crazy.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,991
    Scott_xP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.

    It is not inconceivable that the announcement was made cos Trump watched an episode of Space 1999
    That made me laugh out loud.

    I don't think the announcement made clear at what velocity and acceleration they were going to stick it on the moon
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,157
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    Is it insider dealing if you aren't actually on the inside - just being giving tips...
    Yes
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,482
    Leon said:

    Not a good look for the police

    A copper calls the asylum hotel protestors "fascists"

    https://x.com/WesleyWinterYT/status/1952725444635095294

    I thought we wanted straight talking in public life.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,439
    @alaynatreene

    NEW: DOJ has an audio recording & transcript of the interview it conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell last month that the administration is considering releasing publicly, three senior administration officials told
    @cnn
  • An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    Don't worry - concerns over dismal food inflation statistics will be a thing of the past when Trump has established personal control over the production of the statistics.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121

    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    The inflation in food prices in the US is mind boggling*, especially fast food. Putting aside some strange outliers e.g. always found milk expensive (and had to be purchased in mega sizes), US used to be a byword for cheap food, not great quality, but vast abundance with giant portion sizes. Now its super shitty and expensive.

    *bad term, I understand why, it is just crazy.
    American food has long been more expensive than ours, despite intensive farming of steroid-fuelled vegetables, and without the same variety. People often credit British supermarkets for this but then came Aldi and Lidl.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,121
    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    Repeat what I said below,

    A theory...there is embarrassing but not illegal stuff on file. Trump thought he could just instruct people to delete all mention of him from the files. People have said no to him. But he can't fire them as they might then say why he fired them. And he he has lent into the wildest of the conspiracy theories and perhaps it isn't quite as juicy as you could start to imagine, so he is also going to let down his cult supporters (or they will say he is still covering it all up) i.e. conman made money squeezing rich people after putting them in awkward situations, but there wasn't a global paedo network run by Mossad.

    And in true Trump style, when in a hole, lash out, lie, threaten to sue everybody, make a rash decision that will come back to bite him.
    That sounds very plausible as does @kinabalu referencing 'saying things in the moment'.

    The latter seems likely re his statement about sending the two nuclear subs to Russia. That makes no sense. If they are nuclear missile launching subs they don't need to go. They are ready and waiting to launch where they are now (where ever that may be). If they are nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, it makes a bit more sense, but only in the sense that they can sink Russian ships. I assume several are monitoring Russian ships/fleets anyway around the world so I doubt they need to go off to Russia. I bet he doesn't even know the difference between nuclear powered subs and subs having a nuclear deterrent.
    All US Navy submarines are nuclear-powered.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,243
    Corbyn going after allotment sell offs is very on brand, smart move.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 63,793
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
    If you were smarter, with an IQ over, say, 102, you'd know by now that I like to provoke you, for almost any reason. Because you reliably reply in this satisfyingly pompous style

    This makes me a bit juvenile, but we've all gotta get our kicks
    If you were smarter, with an IQ over, say, 102, you'd know by now that I like to provoke you, for almost any reason.
    Then we are both happy, and all is right with the world
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,243
    Scott_xP said:
    Giving the benefit of the doubt maybe he....nah.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,182
    Scott_xP said:

    @alaynatreene

    NEW: DOJ has an audio recording & transcript of the interview it conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell last month that the administration is considering releasing publicly, three senior administration officials told
    @cnn

    LOL. Totally not going to be edited all over the place.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 966
    What happens if Tulip Siddiq MP is predictably convicted in Bangladesh, will she be allowed to continue as an MP? Her Hampstead Highgate seat could be in play for Labour, Greens, Lib Dems or Reform.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,243

    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    Don't worry - concerns over dismal food inflation statistics will be a thing of the past when Trump has established personal control over the production of the statistics.
    Surprised he still allows polls. I'm sure Clarence Thomas would declare them unconstitutional if another billionaire 'friend' provides him some more gifts this experienced and intelligent jurist 'forgets' to declare.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    kle4 said:

    Corbyn going after allotment sell offs is very on brand, smart move.

    There is loads to criticise Corbyn over, but it is undoubted he has a unbending view of the way he sees the world and what he sees as important. He is not a politician that if you don't like his policies he will try to sell you other ones.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,439

    Scott_xP said:

    @alaynatreene

    NEW: DOJ has an audio recording & transcript of the interview it conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell last month that the administration is considering releasing publicly, three senior administration officials told
    @cnn

    LOL. Totally not going to be edited all over the place.
    @alaynatreene

    The administration has been transcribing and digitizing the recording. Portions of the transcript that could reveal sensitive details like victim names would also be redacted, one of the officials said
  • ConcanvasserConcanvasser Posts: 201

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,154

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It is notable how atheist/secular lefties will brutally mock the “ridiculous” beliefs of anyone - catholics to Mormons to UFOlogists - but then suddenly go all quiet and respectful when it comes to the “ridiculous” beliefs of Islam

    Almost a kind of “two tier sneering”

    As an atheist/secular rightie I'm equally happy to mock all ridiculous beliefs.

    However we don't have many people spouting Islamic bullshit on this site to ridicule. If we did, there'd be more mockery.

    Mocking people behind their back when they're not being ridiculous to you just isn't fun.
    As I’ve said before, you are an honourable exception to this rule. You are indeed happy to mock any and every belief

    However I don’t really class you as a lefty
    I'd be quite shocked if you did.
    Well you are quite Woke, but we all have our faults

    And now I must crack on with the day. My flat is in turmoil as stage 2 of the Great Refurb unfolds

    Later!
    You have a one bedroom flat for crying out loud. How can you be in turmoil?
    If you had a larger brain then you'd understand that refurbing a smaller flat (lke a one bed flat) is actually harder, in significant ways, than a bigger place

    If a bedroom is out of action, you have no nowhere to sleep. If the living room is being done up, where do you put the shifted furniture? You have to block the kitchen...

    And so on

    I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113. Oh well, we can always talk about cycling in France
    OK let's dismantle this nonsense bit by bit:

    a) Do you think that I have always lived in a large house? To use your own quote 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    b) Do you think maybe a bit of decorating is trivial compared to some stuff some of us have done. I have lived with out a staircase for weeks. I have sledge hammered down walls and entirely removed the only bathroom and still lived in a house. But to use your own quote again 'I estimate, with some expertise, that the IQ required to grasp this is 113'.

    c) Regarding IQ. You do have a fixation on IQ. I assume some inferiority complex. Generally it is a lot of nonsense you type on it, but if you do want to go down that line in about 1980 I was swapping jobs to move to a large computer company (one of the American giants of the time). For this role you needed to take an IQ test. I don't know my actual score, but to get an interview you had to get or exceed 130. Now I might have gone down hill a lot since then, but if we are going to willy wave I think I am in with a good start, particularly considering some of the irrational stuff you post.
    In addition, a Big Brain, like your average builder, will tell you the cheap, quick option is to

    1) pack all your stuff and send it to storage.
    2) move out to a rental (AirBnB?) for a week
    3) get the workmen in with free reign to make a mess, smash stuff up. This will half the time taken or better.
    4) get your stuff back.

    For added relaxation, at 1) hire a company that does packing for you. You can even get a service where they photograph your stuff and put it back exactly.

    And before 4) hire professional cleaners to clean before you move back.
    For a small apartment and a major renovation that makes absolute sense. Move out for a week or two, as if you were moving house. The cost of removals, storage, and somewhere to stay, is countered by the amount of money saved by the fact the place is empty. Especially if you can find someone to pay you to be out of the country for a week or two.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5
    theakes said:

    What happens if Tulip Siddiq MP is predictably convicted in Bangladesh, will she be allowed to continue as an MP? Her Hampstead Highgate seat could be in play for Labour, Greens, Lib Dems or Reform.

    In theory, it is only crimes where you are convicted in the UK that will result in action, so could try to tough it out. But realistically can you do so? I don't think you can. The Labour party won't be able to have anything to do with her so all support will be withdrawn. It is why punchy mcpunchy had to go despite his sentence being short enough that he in theory could tough it out.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,755
    Leon said:

    Not a good look for the police

    A copper calls the asylum hotel protestors "fascists"

    https://x.com/WesleyWinterYT/status/1952725444635095294

    Well, if the cap fits...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    Is it insider dealing if you aren't actually on the inside - just being giving tips...
    Yes.

    It is very definitely insider trading if you suspect the tips contain non-public information.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,216
    Pulpstar said:

    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.

    So the moon achieves Net Zero power generation by 2030. Well done to them.

    Not content with leaving assorted shite on the moon, humankind now wants to turn it into a nuclear waste repository.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,523
    edited August 5

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
    He is an odd man. Particularly as Matt is far from a loyalist propagandist in their targets. You would struggle to guess who they vote over the years.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,216

    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    The inflation in food prices in the US is mind boggling*, especially fast food. Putting aside some strange outliers e.g. always found milk expensive (and had to be purchased in mega sizes), US used to be a byword for cheap food, not great quality, but vast abundance with giant portion sizes. Now its super shitty and expensive.

    *bad term, I understand why, it is just crazy.
    Milk in plastic bags. What's all that about?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,243

    Pulpstar said:

    NASA's plans to stick a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 seems quick to me.

    So the moon achieves Net Zero power generation by 2030. Well done to them.

    Not content with leaving assorted shite on the moon, humankind now wants to turn it into a nuclear waste repository.
    Not my first choice but as a barren rock at least it won't piss off any locals.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,755

    An Associated Press/ NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released today shows that 86% of American adults report that the cost of groceries is a source of stress, with 53% saying it causes “major” stress. Only 14% of adults say the cost of groceries is not a source of stress for them.

    Letters from an American.


    No wonder Trump is already trying to rig the midterms.

    The inflation in food prices in the US is mind boggling*, especially fast food. Putting aside some strange outliers e.g. always found milk expensive (and had to be purchased in mega sizes), US used to be a byword for cheap food, not great quality, but vast abundance with giant portion sizes. Now its super shitty and expensive.

    *bad term, I understand why, it is just crazy.
    Milk in plastic bags. What's all that about?
    Eggs in the fridge, I ask you...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
    Yes, that bit is curious, unless Trump was simply brazenly lying all along, and never intended to open the files. Given that this is Trump, that is certainly plausible
    I think it is simpler than that: Trump is always thinking of his immediate advantage. The Epstein files - when he was running - were to his immediate advantage, because they painted a picture of the Democrats as paedophiles, and him on the side of righteousness and truth.

    That he might have to open them someday (and that it might come back to bite him) was of little relevance compared to the benefit talking about them prior to the election brought.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,173
    kle4 said:

    Corbyn going after allotment sell offs is very on brand, smart move.

    Its one they can and should all jump on tbh, Galloway/Workers also going hard on it.
    Nothing says 'FU' to the voters more than stuff like this. Even your small rights and benefits will be sold off because they inconvenience the misfiring government . 'Party of the people but totally out of touch.'
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,216
    theakes said:

    What happens if Tulip Siddiq MP is predictably convicted in Bangladesh, will she be allowed to continue as an MP? Her Hampstead Highgate seat could be in play for Labour, Greens, Lib Dems or Reform.

    And Sultanarama.

    A first test of their support.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,243

    kle4 said:

    Corbyn going after allotment sell offs is very on brand, smart move.

    There is loads to criticise Corbyn over, but it is undoubted he has a unbending view of the way he sees the world and what he sees as important. He is not a politician that if you don't like his policies he will try to sell you other ones.
    I think he brought up buses ar PMQS once which, unless there was something of particular importance that week, also showed a care for small things people care about.

    I think he'd be a terrible leader and has more personal arrogance than his humble image suggests, but i do think he's sincere.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,358
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    Prevailing with whom ?
    People who voted for Trump.

    The opposition spent a decade throwing anything they could at him, and never mentioned Epstein until five minutes ago.

    That said, there’s plenty of Republicans who are upset at the lack of disclosure regarding Epstein, and think there’s a cover-up of some sort going on.
    No indeed - it was Trump who went on about releasing all the files, along with his team at the DOJ and the FBI.
    And then suddenly pulled a 180.
    Oh indeed, which is why so many of his supporters are upset with him at the moment.

    Dems don’t care about the issue except as a lever to divide Republicans. Bill Clinton was almost certainly a lot more involved with Epstein.
    Bill Clinton was almost certainly not a lot more involved with Epstein. Clinton did know Epstein, but Trump and Epstein were best buds for years.
    Who knows ?

    "Almost certainly" just means a partisan judgment; unless you've actually seen all the unreleased files there's no way to be anywhere near "certain".

    There's plenty of circumstantial evidence for both their relationships.
    It's the nature of those relationships that's not entirely clear.
    This might go beyond "circumstantial"

    Here's a verified photo of one of Epstein's girls (she became an accuser) giving Bill Clinton a massage in 2002. No one denies what we are seeing here

    "Fact Check: Real photo shows Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies giving Bill Clinton shoulder massage in 2002"

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-real-photo-shows-130000750.html

    I note that this was part of a private jet jaunt with two other guests, one of them Kevin Spacey

    You don't have to be the World's Grassy Knolliest Conspiracy Theorist to suspect that the highly libidinous Bill Clinton (himself publicly accused of rape, like Trump) "made the best" of his friendship with Epstein
    No doubt Clinton's involvement is partly why Trump wanted the Epstein files to be opened. The question is why at the last minute they were pulled. What was discovered in them just a few days before publication? Unlikely to be Trump's involvement as his would have been the first name they checked (and of course he'd know what he got up to).
    Yes, that bit is curious, unless Trump was simply brazenly lying all along, and never intended to open the files. Given that this is Trump, that is certainly plausible
    I think it is simpler than that: Trump is always thinking of his immediate advantage. The Epstein files - when he was running - were to his immediate advantage, because they painted a picture of the Democrats as paedophiles, and him on the side of righteousness and truth.

    That he might have to open them someday (and that it might come back to bite him) was of little relevance compared to the benefit talking about them prior to the election brought.
    Yep.
    He doesn't seem to do strategy. Only tactics.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The thing with Epstein that nobody seems to piece together is his money. He was a 2 bit con man who taught in school without a degree than worked a lowish level financial scam that he got out of before the authorities swept in. He could be a millionaire out of it, but then he was suddenly a billionaire.

    Initially I presumed he was just a massive conman and we would find out that all these assets weren't actually his, he didn't really have the sort of money he told people and when he did make these donations they were actually other people's money being either siphoned off or using him as a middle man so to keep their name off paperwork.

    But it seems like he actually had somehow acquired this vast wealth in his name.

    He managed the money for the Victoria's Secret Founder, and presumedly had a deal where he got x% of upside he generated. That's where he got his money from.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex with minors" things netted him a lot of inside information too.
    No reason he shouldn't have been on a 2/20 type arrangement which would have seen him okay if it was a decent sum of money under mgt.
    Indeed: and I think Wexner was worth a couple of billion when Epstein started working for him, and c $10bn at the end. Which rather suggests that Epstein will have picked up a billion or two in fees along the way.
    IIRC Epstein was charging over the going rate for money management.
    I wonder why super smart successful business people would pay over the going rate? You would think they would have the choice of every money manager going and be able to drive a big discount due to the shear size of capital they have to deploy.
    Because they don't want to be just another client of Soros or Marshall or whoever. They want their own money manager, who reports directly to them
    They must surely still have plenty of options and be able to drive on price. Why would you hire this total nobody at over the going rate?
    Well: I'm sure he wasn't hired initially at above the going rate. I am sure he was hired at a reasonable, but not crazy rate. But after a couple of years of 20% returns, Epstein says to Wexler "My results are comfortably top quartile, and Tiger and MarshallWace are both calling. If you can't offer me the same deal I'd get with them, I'm off."
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,439
    @LadPolitics
    Here's how we currently bet on Donald Trump:

    To be impeached before 2029 - 10/11
    To be replaced as US President in 2025 - 10/1
    To not complete his term - 6/4
    To win a 3rd term as US President - 16/1
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,154
    edited August 5

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
    He has his views and they haven’t changed in 50 years, and are unlikely to change any time soon.

    As an aside, I find the Matt cartoonist story hilarious. He gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, some of which is spent at the publisher’s country residence, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that losing Matt is a resigning matter for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from the Sun and the Mail, and his cartoons are all over Twitter within five minutes of publication. His cartoons are also, of course, consistently brilliant.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920

    tlg86 said:

    On electric cars, it doesn't look like the death of the ICE is happening all that quickly:

    https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

    Type: year to July, change on same time last year
    Battery only: 254,666 +60,235
    Anything with an ICE: 927,707 -32,142

    It is accelerating and will continue to do so as the number of pure ICE vehicles on sale decreases.

    Incidentally, as various anti-Tesla people on Twix Fap themselves into a stupor over Tesla vs BYD sales in those UK numbers. The SMMT figures don't break down sales by brand and by type. And the best-selling BYD model in the UK isn't an EV, its a PHEV...
    Sure: but it's entirely possible PHEV will be a very decent chunk of the market going forward. And about 80% of PHEV journeys are electric only.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,920

    New Thread, I see

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,107

    NEW THREAD

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,216
    Sandpit said:

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
    He has his views and they haven’t changed in 50 years, and are unlikely to change any time soon.

    As an aside, I find the Matt cartoonist story hilarious. He gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, some of which is spent at the publisher’s country residence, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that losing Matt is a resigning matter for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from the Sun and the Mail, and his cartoons are all over Twitter within five minutes of publication. His cartoons are also, of course, consistently brilliant.
    But surely nobody buys the paper to see the Matt cartoon, when it is freely available to everyone?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,316

    Sandpit said:

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
    He has his views and they haven’t changed in 50 years, and are unlikely to change any time soon.

    As an aside, I find the Matt cartoonist story hilarious. He gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, some of which is spent at the publisher’s country residence, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that losing Matt is a resigning matter for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from the Sun and the Mail, and his cartoons are all over Twitter within five minutes of publication. His cartoons are also, of course, consistently brilliant.
    But surely nobody buys the paper to see the Matt cartoon, when it is freely available to everyone?
    Since they lost the Alex cartoon, hard to think of any other reason to buy the thing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,154
    edited August 5

    Sandpit said:

    Corbyn attacks Rayner for selling off allotments
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dpkvkkjjno

    What on earth is Corbyn doing writing to the Telegraph?
    It was a good article and, as a fellow allotment holder, I found myself in some sympathy.

    Then I remembered Jezza's refusal, when LOTO, to contribute a few words to mark the cartoonist Matt's 30th anniversary, on the grounds that he had never found him funny. There will always be something small, mean and ignorant about Corbyn IMHO.
    He has his views and they haven’t changed in 50 years, and are unlikely to change any time soon.

    As an aside, I find the Matt cartoonist story hilarious. He gets paid more than the editor, gets 10 weeks’ holiday, some of which is spent at the publisher’s country residence, and the publisher has made it clear to the editor that losing Matt is a resigning matter for the editor. Oh, and by the way he has standing offers from the Sun and the Mail, and his cartoons are all over Twitter within five minutes of publication. His cartoons are also, of course, consistently brilliant.
    But surely nobody buys the paper to see the Matt cartoon, when it is freely available to everyone?
    Indeed, but the editor knows he’s getting fired if he loses Matt, so does everything he can to keep his star employee happy.

    The reasons behind it will be a lot of unearned advertising, from people talking about “The Telegraph’s cartoonist”, and the drop in the stock value of the paper that would come from his departure, especially if it was to a rival publication.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,668
    Leon said:

    Not a good look for the police

    A copper calls the asylum hotel protestors "fascists"

    https://x.com/WesleyWinterYT/status/1952725444635095294

    In what way is violent racism not fascist? Seems like calling a spade a spade to me.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,019
    viewcode said:

    I just went into a Gail's. It did not do ordinary tea nor diet coke. I walked out and went to KFC.

    And you call yourself a Liberal Democrat?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,451
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    An example of the indulgent politics where people don't think choices have consequences:

    A recent YouGov poll found 45% support for admitting no new migrants and requiring large numbers to leave - but a deeper look suggests that most of this group don't actually want to remove those who make up the bulk of migrants to the UK ...

    When presented economy vs immigration trade-offs, Britons typically opt for economic benefit over lower migration

    Those who support requiring large nos of migrants to leave would pick fully staffing NHS over reducing immigration, but economic arguments hold less sway


    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lvnbca3glc2f

    It is why I am always slightly wary of putting too much emphasis on how well an individual policy polls. I am not convinced people really think that deeply about them as they are going through 27,000 questions to get their £50 gift card in 3 months.
    I think there's an genuine policy disconnect here and not just superficial polling issues. Politicians with a good prospect of power are promoting immigration freezes (Farage) or repatriation (Jenrick) based on wilful denial of the consequences. People would not accept those consequences per the polling, but the important point is they also don't reckon those consequences exist.
    That, and more than that, these politicians are happy with leaving the public misinformed. As the polling shows, a large proportion of the population wrongly believe that illegal immigration/asylum seekers are a large proportion of all immigration. They probably also believe that most illegal immigration is asylum seekers.
    Thing is, the consequences are real. So Farage if he gets to be PM will either implement his promised policies with bad outcomes manifested, or he will just be business as usual - the same policies as Labour and Tories with additional performative nastiness.

    I think the probability of the first is underpriced
    Farage will attempt to govern like Trump. That won't work out the same given the different UK constitutional arrangement, but I suspect, yes, bad outcomes will be manifested. He can't deliver what he's promising Reform UK voters as his promises are built on lies and sums that don't add up.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,451
    glw said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm slightly shocked by this.

    47% of Republicans would still support Trump even if he were linked to Epstein's sex activities, according to Leger.
    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1952550402580263100

    The prevailing view appears to be that if there was any actual scandal linking Trump and Epstein, it would have been bought up by the Harris campaign last year.
    They have had 12 years of digging into everything Trump and the most they have got so far on Trump / Epstein is a birthday card (along with 100s of other famous people) when Epstein was still very much accepted among the rich and famous.

    Occum's Razor says if they were willing to go after Trump for things as minor as overstating value to loan for real estate deals if there was anything concrete against him in regards to Epstein it surely would have been deployed by now.
    There is, and long has been, more linking Trump and Epstein than the recent Wall Street Journal story about a birthday card. Indeed, the WSJ story would have been a nothingburger if Trump hadn't denied it and sued them for $10 billion. They were good friends for many years. Trump's famous quotation about Epstein ("It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.") has been there since being published in an interview in 2002.

    Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor) is named after William of Ockham (also spelt Occam).
    But that isn't new news. Epstein had befriended all the rich and famous e.g Peter Mandelson was very friendly with as he called him "Petie". My point was if they had something absolute killer, I believe it would have come out.

    Of course Trump's reaction to everything is to lie and "I'll sue you". That's what he does to every story that is negative.

    My guess is there is probably more embarrassing type stories like the birthday card, but will also highlight just how all these other people were just the same.

    The problem is Trump has really leaned into the worst of the conspiracy theories about Epstein, can't deliver what the cult want and is probably on plenty of bits of paper that says he was at an event where Epstein was.
    I wonder why Trump blocked the release of the files having made such a big deal about how he was the man to do it?

    Or put another way, why make that big deal in the first place if he was never going to follow through?

    Course it could be just the usual with him - says things in the moment for the moment. That would be my bet, I think.
    The Epstein estate has paid compensation to about 150 victims of his trafficking or sexual abuse, and numerous victims have alleged there were other well known people involved. Whether they will face justice or not would seem to require a complete change in the political scene in the US.

    For people who say “why didn’t the Democrats get Trump?” Think back to the expense scandal which affected a huge number of MPs from all parties, and that was about relatively trivial criminality. My view is that following all the leads around Epstein would dump a bucket of shit over the entire US political establishment, so there’s been little appetite to now for doing so.
    Epstein's (second) criminal case, his arrest, incarceration and death all happened during Trump's first presidential term. The only administration who could have used that case for political ends was his own.
Sign In or Register to comment.