Instances where Trump got blamed unfairly

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2020, 02:50 PM)hollodero Wrote:  That they were actual buddies is kind of a speculation that is not very well founded on facts.

Actually there are plenty of facts to show that they were buddies.

A 15 year relationship.

Trump claiming he knew Epstein was a fun guy to be around.

Epsteins multiple phone listings for not just the Donald, but all of his family.

Multiple photographs of them partying together.

Trumps name on the flight log of Epsteins plane and Epsteins brother saying that Trump was on the plane many times.

Epstein claimed he was the one who introduced Trump to Melania.

Epstein got the sweetheart deal-of-the -century on his prior criminal sexual abuse charges for contact with underage girls from Trumps buddy Alexander Acosta who was then the US prosecutor in Miami.  Trump and Acosta were so tight that Donald appointed him Labor Secretary in his cabinet.

The guest list for a party at Mar-a-lago in 1992....Donald Trump, Jeff Epstein, 28 "calender girl", competition contestants..........Florida businessman George Houraney said he was the one who fulfilled Trump’s request in 1992 for the beautiful women to attend a VIP party at the Trump property. “I arranged to have some contestants fly in,” Houraney told the Times in an interview this week. “At the very first party, I said, ‘Who’s coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming.’ It was him and Epstein.” That the party wasn’t really a party at all surprised Houraney. “I said, ‘Donald, this is supposed to be a party with V.I.P.s. You’re telling me it’s you and Epstein?’ ” Houraney recalled. “I said, ‘Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can’t have him going after younger girls.’ ” Houraney told Trump that he had “pretty much had to ban Jeff from my events” but said “Trump didn’t care about that.”


So basically the claim that Trump and Epstein were NOT close is the one that has no facts to back it up.

Seriously, what "facts" do you have to show that Trump and Epstein were not close?

[hollodero]

(07-10-2020, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seriously, what "facts" do you have to show that Trump and Epstein were not close?

Yeah, none. But such a fact is hard to come by.

I also don't see that Trump necessarily knew Epstein that well that Epstein necessarily shared his dirtiest secrets with him. By all indication, Prince Andrew was more deeply involved in that whole saga. And if Trump were, wouldn't there be a more precise link then some interviews and photographs and anecdotes of a party night?

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 03:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wouldn't go as far as to not see any issue at all, but I see way more issue with the Billy Bush tape. And the actual accusations against him, and the misogyony he displays, and the creepy things he says about his daughter, and that he bragged about walking into girls locker rooms, and then some. All of these things are way more convincing to me of who Trump is, as a connection to Epstein that very well could have been quite shallow.

Fair enough, but it could have been quite shallow had he not done all those other things.  That's all I'm trying to say.  I can buy someone being an acquaintance of a sex offender, but someone who has a history of sexual offenses and/or a need to share or brag about it being an acquaintance with a sex offender looks less coincidental and looks more sinister.

That's even before we get into the notion that chronic child-abuse in this sense often has a club mentality where abusers form alliances and networks.  Circumstantial as hell...but this isn't the sort of thing people like to take chances with when it comes to the benefit of the doubt and all.

[hollodero]

(07-10-2020, 03:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Fair enough, but it could have been quite shallow had he not done all those other things.  That's all I'm trying to say.  I can buy someone being an acquaintance of a sex offender, but someone who has a history of sexual offenses and/or a need to share or brag about it being an acquaintance with a sex offender looks less coincidental and looks more sinister.

That's even before we get into the notion that chronic child-abuse in this sense often has a club mentality where abusers form alliances and networks.  Circumstantial as hell...but this isn't the sort of thing people like to take chances with when it comes to the benefit of the doubt and all.

Yeah I get where you're coming from, it is not an unreasonable way to see that.

It's just that I also find it reasonable to point out that it is no way clear and obvious that Trump knew about Epstein's dirty secrets. It's not that fred makes a bad case for it with his examples of their closeness. It just doesn't amount to "he HAD to know", imho.

No doubt, the whole Epstein connection would still probably make me shy away from voting for Trump if there was ever any consideration in the first place, which of course does not apply to me.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 03:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I get where you're coming from, it is not an unreasonable way to see that.

It's just that I also find it reasonable to point out that it is no way clear and obvious that Trump knew about Epstein's dirty secrets. It's not that fred makes a bad case for it with his examples of their closeness. It just doesn't amount to "he HAD to know", imho.

No doubt, the whole Epstein connection would still probably make me shy away from voting for Trump if there was ever any consideration in the first place, which of course does not apply to me.

Right, so that's why I don't think it's particularly unfair to blame Trump in this case.  Had the guy not established and bragged about a list of sexual red flags on his own then connecting him to a guy like Epstein seems like more of a reach.

[hollodero]

(07-10-2020, 03:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, so that's why I don't think it's particularly unfair to blame Trump in this case.  Had the guy not established and bragged about a list of sexual red flags on his own then connecting him to a guy like Epstein seems like more of a reach.

That's perfectly fair.
My stance on that one indeed turns out to be a bit shaky.

[fredtoast]

Switching points a bit.

I agree that Trump was not the reason for all the division in the country right now. His actions have made it worse, but he is not the cause.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-10-2020, 03:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's perfectly fair.
My stance on that one indeed turns out to be a bit shaky.

All I've seen are public questions about the associating / positive comments by Trump regarding Epstein. So, I'm not sure there's any portrayal about actual misconduct attributed to Trump in the context of Epstein. Maybe there's been questions about his judgment/values given the Epstein praise, but I'm not aware of any criticism attributing criminal actions by Trump in his association with Epstein. So, I would say your stance is a bit contrived (and yes shaky). 

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 03:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's perfectly fair.
My stance on that one indeed turns out to be a bit shaky.

Well you're trying to defend Trump, so it's shaky ground and an admirable quest if nothing else.

[hollodero]

(07-10-2020, 03:54 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: All I've seen are public questions about the associating / positive comments by Trump regarding Epstein. So, I'm not sure there's any portrayal about actual misconduct attributed to Trump in the context of Epstein. Maybe there's been questions about his judgment/values given the Epstein praise, but I'm not aware of any criticism attributing criminal actions by Trump in his association with Epstein. So, I would say your stance is a bit contrived (and yes shaky). 

Whaaaat, now even contrived as well? Hm, well, ok, I had that verdict coming probably. I take it like a gentleman.

I would say though that when it is alleged, like in this thread, that Trump probably knew about Epstein's dirty deeds, then this imho is alleging criminal conduct (knowing that someome abuses underage girls and maybe even participating in it, but at the very least not reporting it).

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 03:54 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: All I've seen are public questions about the associating / positive comments by Trump regarding Epstein. So, I'm not sure there's any portrayal about actual misconduct attributed to Trump in the context of Epstein. Maybe there's been questions about his judgment/values given the Epstein praise, but I'm not aware of any criticism attributing criminal actions by Trump in his association with Epstein. So, I would say your stance is a bit contrived (and yes shaky). 

I'm sure someone as rich and powerful as Epstein had a zillion associates and "friends" but when they have a laundry list of sexual red flags of their own ala Trump and Bill Clinton it's pretty natural to side-eye the hell out of that "totally no big deal, barely know the guy did you say his first name was Ned?" association.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-10-2020, 04:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Whaaaat, not even contrived as well? Hm, well, ok, I had that verdict coming probably. I take it like a gentleman.

I would say though that when it is alleged, like in this thread, that Trump probably knew about Epstein's dirty deeds, then this imho is alleging criminal conduct (knowing that someome abuses underage girls and maybe even participating in it, but at the very least not reporting it).

It's open for imagination when someone like Trump claims how "great" Epstein was etc, and definitely shows at the very least questionable judgement, which itself is very terrible for someone who is POTUS. However, in this thread we were talking about unfair criticisms and since you're associating those with "knowledge" of criminal conduct, I will have to say, that criticism doesn't exist (at least I'm unaware of such). Therefore "contrived" by you  .

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-10-2020, 04:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm sure someone as rich and powerful as Epstein had a zillion associates and "friends" but when they have a laundry list of sexual red flags of their own ala Trump and Bill Clinton it's pretty natural to side-eye the hell out of that "totally no big deal, barely know the guy did you say his first name was Ned?" association.

Especially for Trump who can call someone a "great guy", be seen in pictures and or meetings with said individual, then in a few days or less claim "I barely knew the guy" or "never heard of him." 

Side eyeing is natural, I dare say fair, when Trump himself has made such comments.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2020, 02:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was a rambling speech, but when Trump was talkin g about "equal treatment under the law" he was talking about protestors being "dominated in the streets" but the National Guard.  He was not talkin g about George Floyd getting justice he was talking about rioters getting arrested.

Here is the full quote in context.

Call in the national guard, call me. We’ll have so many people, more people than you have to dominate the streets. You can’t let what’s happening happen. It’s called dominate the streets. You can’t let that happen in New York where they’re breaking into stores and all of the things. And by the way, hurting many small businesses, you can’t let it happen.  Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement, regardless of race, color, gender or creed, they have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it. We all saw what happened last week. We can’t let that happen. Hopefully George is looking down right now and saying, “This is a great thing that’s happening for our country.” This is a great day for him. It’s a great day for everybody. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great, great day in terms of equality. It’s really what our constitution requires and it’s what our country is all about.

Now that I have looked at the context it is even worse.  he was not using George Floyd to tout the job numbers.  Instead he was using George Floyds name to tout the actions the police an national Guard used against rioters and protestors.

I personally think you're reaching on this one. Plenty of stuff to blame Trump for, but tne narritive spun in this instance was just flat out wrong and back Hollo's point 100%

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2020, 03:54 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: All I've seen are public questions about the associating / positive comments by Trump regarding Epstein. So, I'm not sure there's any portrayal about actual misconduct attributed to Trump in the context of Epstein. Maybe there's been questions about his judgment/values given the Epstein praise, but I'm not aware of any criticism attributing criminal actions by Trump in his association with Epstein. So, I would say your stance is a bit contrived (and yes shaky). 

I think a lot of people are like me.  They are not really sure if Trump ever abused under age girls, but they are pretty sure Trump knew about what was going on.

I am not going to get too preachy about this because there were times that I knew my friends were doing some illegal stuff, but I never turned them in or told anyone.  And even though it is wrong to have consensual sex with under age teenage girls, it is nothing compared to pedophiles abusing little children.  In some states today we allow parents to give consent for their daughters to get married at 14.  So it is kind of hard to claim that having sex with a 14 year old girl is pure evil under the law.

[*Nately120*]

(07-10-2020, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think a lot of people are like me.  They are not really sure if Trump ever abused under age girls, but they are pretty sure Trump knew about what was going on.

No need to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct since he brags about it on his own.  He knows he can do whatever he wants and he wants us to know it.  So really it just comes down to "did Trump want to do _____" and I guess the real answer it "it doesn't matter."

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-10-2020, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think a lot of people are like me.  They are not really sure if Trump ever abused under age girls, but they are pretty sure Trump knew about what was going on.

I can't say that I disagree. As I said to Hollo, just based on Trump's own comments/history it's not unnatural for you, I and any rational person to at least wonder. I'm just saying that the media didn't bring any unwarranted accusations implying criminal conduct by Trump. Which is why I referred to Hollo's stance as "contrived". 

Quote:I am not going to get too preachy about this because there were times that I knew my friends were doing some illegal stuff, but I never turned them in or told anyone.  And even though it is wrong to have consensual sex with under age teenage girls, it is nothing compared to pedophiles abusing little children.  In some states today we allow parents to give consent for their daughters to get married at 14.  So it is kind of hard to claim that having sex with a 14 year old girl is pure evil under the law.

Yes, value judgments are a bit of gray area and better to be made on particulars than in general, in this arena. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-10-2020, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Switching points a bit.

I agree that Trump was not the reason for all the division in the country right now.  His actions have made it worse, but he is not the cause.

If you truly stand by those statements, I'd like to see what you feel is the reason for the division among Americans right now, and if DJT is not the cause, then who is?

As for the premise of the OP, I'd say that Trump has been targeted by forces working against him, with a collection of allegations that were partly and some entirely falsified, mixed with a few half truths, since before he ever took office.  I'm still of the opinion that the entire Mueller investigation should never have happened, and am looking forward to seeing justice handed down on those rogue operatives who conspired to set him up and take him down, before he ever had a chance to lead the American Nation.

[fredtoast]

(07-10-2020, 05:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:  I'm still of the opinion that the entire Mueller investigation should never have happened,

C'mon, man.  Trump's campaign leaders had a secret meeting with Russian spies and then LIED THEIR ASSES OFF about it. And this happened at the same time that our intelligence community had evidence that Russians were actively trying to influence our election to help Trump win.


How can you say that incident should never have even been investigated?

[SunsetBengal]

(07-10-2020, 06:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: C'mon, man.  Trump's campaign leaders had a secret meeting with Russian spies and then LIED THEIR ASSES OFF about it. And this happened at the same time that our intelligence community had evidence that Russians were actively trying to influence our election to help Trump win.


How can you say that incident should never have even been investigated?

How can I??  Because of shit like this, that the same people with the same investigative powers at the time, chose to turn a blind eye to..

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html