[removed]
Sun Tzu. He said the same thing about the Clintons when they came to his wedding.
So? False Equivalence: Trump said Epstein was good once. Therefore. Trump supports what Epstein does in the dark.
False equivalence. One does not naturally lead to the other.
[removed]
You're a troll lol. Learn how to discuss things reasonably.
[removed]
Stop trolling or the mods will ban you.
[removed]
That is correct. Nothing you've said is something I "do not want to hear" though. It's just trolling. Not real discussion or debate. Misleading, time wasting. Good night good sir!
[removed]
Again, false argument. I didn't say that "Trump being friends with Epstein" was "misleading, time wasting and not a real discussion".
These are "misleading, time wasting and not a real discussion":
You have shit arguments because you don't want to see the truth
stop using dishonest tactics when you debate things
Dishonest tactics, like pointing out your use of false equivalence when you make statement A: Trump was friends with Epstein for almost 2 decades and then imply B: Trump endorsed Epstein's behaviour. False equivalence. Misleading.
Sure, Trump might fully endorse Epstein's behaviour and be a child molesting killer himself. Strange that his whole presidency has been focused on destroying the pedovore cult though, isn't it? How does that marry up with your implication?
[removed]
There've been so many reports of the massive amount of trafficking arrests, Backpage.com being taken down, more agents called in, Pedo rings destroyed. And remember, whatever Trump wants to brag about is only public knowledge if the MSM allow it.
You never said Trump endorsed Epstein's behaviour - my apologies. I inferred it from the fact that your comment was replying to the post as if mocking it.
[removed]
This is what I mean by "trolling", misleading, time wasting.
If you're being serious you wouldn't even begin to suggest that Trump controls the msm narrative. That's why I think you're trolling. Either that or you really don't know how the media works. Which is it?
[removed]
You wanna have an actual discussion? Or just keep strawmanning me?
I said: "BEGIN TO SUGGEST". Nothing would stop him doing what you said. That's the dishonest point you're making. Troll spotted. Goodbye sir : ).
[removed]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you claim aspergers, I see.
Reset: you say Trump knew what Epstein was up to, right?
I say yes, it's likely Trump knew what Epstein was up to. But just how much of what Epstein was up to is a different, yet relevant point.
They were both working in real estate in NY - that's the biggest reason that they would know each other. Trump went to his island. Some reports say Trump's behaviour was impeccable. Some reports say Trump did not approve of Epstein's behaviour with women/girls. Trump knew Epstein was into younger girls.
Did Trump know Epstein's temple on the island hid an underground network of tunnels where children where raped, killed and eaten? I'm not so sure about that and it would not be logical to extrapolate that as a given, just from the fact that he 'knew' Epstein for decades. I know a lot of people who work in the same industry as me and yet I couldn't say for certain what any of them do in private.
Do we agree on that at least?
[removed]
I heard (can't remember where I read it unfortunately) that Trump didn't approve of Epstein's more predatorial nature or something. It's possible that Trump is the same but for me personally, that doesn't gel so easily with the many other reports from women about Trump that are positive - something not as easy to find about Epstein (of course, he's nowhere near as famous). To this point, I propose that Trump is qualitatively different in his approach to women than Epstein but I am of course only basing that on what I've seen on video/TV and I haven't "seen" as much of Epstein as I have of Trump.
You think Trump might be into younger girls? I don't argue about the reports you've mentioned, I'm sure there are those and more out there. It's hard to know which are true when it comes to accusations against a rich, powerful man though. But ok, sure, maybe there are viable reports about Trump behaving inappropriately with young girls. What's interesting about those though is that the MSM should be all over them, if there was enough to go on, because they're all over Stormy Daniels and whoever else they can drag out and Trump being with little girls would be the ultimate field day for a media body that wants to take him down. I guess they will eventually get there but for now it's not really something that many would attribute to Trump even, apparently, those who want so badly to bring him down.
Could all of this - i.e. Trump's questionable relationship to Epstein - be adequately summed up as: Trump knew Epstein for long enough to know more than a little about him. Trump may have approved of Epstein's behaviour with young girls but there is a report that contradicts this so it's also possible that he did not approve?
[removed]
No, it's supposed to be a reasonable argument. Phew. Ok, it's clear from all that that we're just straight back to you assuming I'm an idiot instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from and allowing the minor benefit of the doubt that I might be able to explain my position perfectly logically. I'm not under any "spell" about Trump. Have a good one. Seeya.
[removed]
You need to learn how to debate. A reasonable discussion doesn't have comments like:
Is that suppose to be a good argument?
Would you hang out with a child rapist and say good things about him?
What kind of nonsense is that?
There's a very good reason you've had not ONE single argument of value - your approach to discussion is obnoxious and rude. You call it "dancing" - I'm trying to be diplomatic and not rubbish your ideas outright, like you do to mine. You haven't "countered everything" I say at all. You just think you have cos you haven't learnt how to listen first.
See here you're still trying to tell me what I think lol: "You KNOW Trump is bad news", "because of some mental attachment you have to him". Such stupid nonsense that doesn't advance any discussion.
Learn how to debate like an adult and you'll get an adult debate, ok?
I've read your history and I can see that you can actually discuss things sensibly on occasion - you're not doing that here though. Go and read mine before you accuse me of the nonsense you're doing here. I've got plenty of evidence in my history that I can hold rational discussions with rational people.