It'd be nice if people went to prison for trafficking and raping these young girls but as we've already seen with the Pakistani rape gangs in the UK and the local councils/police/social services etc who often knew about it but covered it up and were in some cases allegedly involved, the law only seems to apply to the little people. It's obvious from the fact that the Democrats under Joe Biden did absolutely nothing at all for four whole years that it is now only expediently being used by them as a political football. I'd be amazed if the files naming names ever get released uncensored and results in actual prosecutions.
A person with whom I have had some association was implicated in the Epstien Files. No pervy stuff as far as I can tell, just trading prestige for money. He's being hounded from public life after a lifetime of service. I am 100% fine with it. The entire class of people who thought they were above the law needs to be be destroyed. I'm of the opinion that every single person who had any contact with Epstien, guilty or not, should be humiliated into shutting the fück up for the rest of their lives. Also, the guilty should be expropriated to pay the victims. But while we are hopefully in the early days and I am wrong, a pattern seems to be developing. If you are lib and implicated, you will face consequences. If you are conservative and implicated, you will laugh it off and carry on with your life. If that turns out to be true in the long run, well, all I can say is that it's going to create a lot of Luigi Mangiones. Hopefully.
And if you think about it, it seems to favor the idea that libs can be shamed while the right believes that shame is a form of weakness. It might be worth considering if literally half of the American public is literally sociopathic.
That's because misinformation is more readily available, easier to access and easier to create than ever before.
That's you need powerful systematic change. The problem with the "you need to touch the stove to know it's hot" stratagem is that new generations need to learn the lesson again to the detriment of everyone.
We're now finding out that the key high-priced lawyer that set the deal up is Ken Starr. Too bad he's dead.
You missed the point. Socialism is based on economics and is meant to create some kind of equality. But racism and sexism and homophobia and and and is not based on economics, but based on behavior. Read up on inherent biases. It is something that cannot be explained away simply by economic status. This is a similar argument to what libertarians say about eliminating racism and sexism, etc. It's an argument that economic equality will reduce (or eliminate) the need to hate other groups (or lift those harmed out of harm). It doesn't address that many of those who are racists or sexists or or or are willing to keep their own lives less if those they hate are even lesser. Bring Blacks, as an example, to a place of equality and that won't remove the bias and racism that people have against Blacks. The idea that economic equality (and opportunity) will solve the bias and hate towards others is what I was talking about being you idea of utopia (lower case "u").
That's misleading. There was overwhelming fear that seeing it was Pakistani rape gang(s?) was looking at that particular situation as being racist. Turned out to be incorrect, and there was enough information out there that this should not have been the case, but it is easy to understand why that fear existed. Mind, there were some in the Pakistani community who also didn't want to see what was there, and also thought that outside groups were trying to destroy their community. So, the accusation that many where trying to cover it up and ending the accusation there is misleading. This does not go back to only Biden, but goes back to the 1990s. The Farmer sisters reported Epstein to the FBI in 1995/96 and the FBI did nothing. And again in the early 2000s when AUSA Marie Villafaña did some investigating that taken away from her to become the Acosta sweetheart deal. It really took the investigative reporting by Julie Brown to get the authorities to look at this, but the information to investigate (and charge) goes back to at least the mid 1990s.
Are you using "prejudice" specifically, or generally? I'm asking as there is a significant amount of research on inherent bias. Mind, what I have focused on is race-based, but I've come across sex and orientation as well. Additionally, there has been a non-minimal amount of research in which western languages (specifically) have inherent biases built in.
I've heard the same on Lawfare and Serious Trouble. I suspect Strict Scrutiny would have the same view, though with a much bitter lens.
Can I just note that in the year of our Lord 2026, the year of America’s 250th birthday, we are having an argument about whether covering up two extrajudicial murders is a bigger scandal or a smaller scandal than covering up hundreds of cases of statutory rape/trafficking. Not saying you are right or wrong, just pointing out how far into the abyss we are. And here’s the thing…if you had to bet a month’s salary on whether we will have a bigger cover up later this year or not, who here would bet that we won’t? Not me. I expect something worse at least around the midterms. I’d bet we will have a bigger coverup even if I have to give odds.
MAGA via the Tea Party, not necessarily "the right" as a whole. And I'm also noting how Bill Clinton hasn't really faced any consequences other than testifying behind closed doors.
Wanna see who else you know is in there? https://www.404media.co/this-tool-searches-the-epstein-files-for-your-linkedin-contacts/
And being more educated allows for more people to think they know the "truth" and be more skeptical of experts when they don't understand what experts are saying.
Probably best if you read the summary or the actual journal article. It looks at prejudice, whether it is racial, based on anti-LGBT+, anti-[insert religion], etc.
For most of American history, the idea of “neutral journalism” was kind of an oxymoron. The owner and/or publisher had a political viewpoint and the whole reason for having the newspaper was to advocate for that viewpoint. For a brief period in the mid 19th century, the tiny town of Spartanburg had 2 newspapers, one for each political faction. It was the norm for cities to have at least 2 papers, one for each party, and sometimes more. I wonder if people in, say, Detroit in 1900, understood that if they subscribed to the Dem newspaper that they were only getting half the story, or if they thought they were getting The Truth (TM) unlike those dopes subscribing to the Republican paper.
There is also at least one extra judicial murder in the Epstein case as well, it’s not just trafficking and rape.
Some people: "Well, I've always voted Republican my whole life. I can't bring myself to vote Dem. After all, my parents are Republicans, my wife is Republican and everyone I know is a member of the party of Honest Abe...so here goes nothing. Besides, I'm not really sure what the Dems are about other than making everything woke." Guess what? They voted for this. They gotta own it. Others? Damn straight they voted for this...sadly, MAGA hillbillies enjoy every last bit of it.
JBs cousin Tom Pritzker steps down as head of Hyatt Billionaire Tom Pritzker announced on Monday he was retiring as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was revealed in the latest release of files by the US Justice Department. Pritzker, who has been executive chairman since 2004, also said he won’t stand for re-election with the company’s board. “Good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell which I deeply regret,” Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt fortune, said in a statement. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/16/business/hyatt-pritzker-retire-epstein