The Democratic Party in Trump's Fascist 2nd Term. Commentary, Ideas & Strategy (+ non Woketicism)

Elissa Slotkin. Seriously.

I grew up in her district. It had been represented by Republicans for nearly 20 years. Then she goes and flips it and holds said seat in the next election. And barely, I mean barely won Senate while Trump won it.

 

Remember Gary Webb!


And yes over a decade ago when I started tuning into the Epstein list while I was more in the right wing picture the name most connected to the Epstein list was Bill Clinton. .

 

Man, this does not make sense. You are basically implying that the democrats did not release the Epstein files because they wanted to protect "someone" connected to their party.
Ok. Which democrats are you talking about?
The Democrats in the House who just voted for release? One year ago they wanted to protect someone at any cost and now they don't? Because they are roughly the same.
Or maybe Biden and Garland got together and said "poor Bill, we can't do that to him, let us bury the files"? Seriously?

If you are pushing a conspiracy theory, fill the dots.
Which democrats plotted to bury the files?
Who was so important for them that even defeating Donald Trump was not worth it?
What made them change their minds within just 12 months?

I mean, think about it: in 2024, releasing the files to sink Trump's candidacy was not worth it to the Democrats, because it would have hurt "someone", but now apparently it is, even though, at best, it can only cause some damage to Trump's presidency.
How that in 2024 there was someone who was worth protecting at the cost of seeing Trump win the elections, but now that someone is not worth protecting anymore even though the gains to be had from releasing the files are much less?
Even in the most optimistic scenario, if Trump gets impeached and convicted, we get president Vance. Last year, if the Epstein files are that bad, we could have gotten president Biden or Harris. So, you are saying the Democrats gave up president Biden/Harris for the peace of mind of some politician or donor?

Sorry, but no. The most plausible scenario is Democrats' inability to use the legal system to win a political fight. They have shown that to be the case plenty of times in the past.

 

Incompetence is the main culprit, but we’ve seen that Epstein was able to wiggle out of the grasp of the law like a greased up pig on more than one occasion. So likely, the right “select”few people of consequence were pressured or bought out, and the rest were sold a story that it would either be too difficult to prosecute or that there really wasn’t anything there.

I think the reason it has become such a big deal is because Bongino and others in the Trump admin had made such a big deal about it in the lead up, and they are getting called out on their hypocrisy.

 

Epstein was dead at that point, though.

It is possible that Epstein, while alive, could have blackmailed a few select compromised people "to wiggle out of the grasp of the law".
However, those people who had been compromised in this affair had no one to blackmail in turn in order to bury the story.
Besides, that would have worked while Epstein was still flying under the radar, so to speak. By 2024, this story was so radioactive, though, that no blackmail would have been enough. And the final decision would have rested with Merrick Garland, anyway.

 

Yeah, communism would never create monsters like Stalin and Pol Pot!

 

When a person, in their mind, has decided that the way forward in our politics is to destroy the Democratic Party, because that’s the only way we’ll get Chinese style freedom here, their posts are gonna be nutty.

 

The classic Crazification factor blog post has a rarely mentioned nugget, namely, the aside about investing in the Easter Bunny’s upgrades. Sufjan’s long posts always have something as nutty early on in the post. I read until that part and then quote it and point at the crazy.

He can make as many good points in an 8 paragraph posts as he wants to, but as soon as he suggests investing in the Easter Bunny, that invalidates the whole thing.

 

Basically every communist leader. Heh.

 

At least he hasn’t praised North Korea.

Yet.

 

Has Robert Borden done that yet?

 

I don’t know; he’s on my ignore list.

A while back I realized I was getting worked up about posters who never, ever post anything surprising, or insightful, or informative…just rote regurgitations of their ideology. So I added a handful of people to my ignore list, not for being “wrong,” but for being boringly predictable.

I don’t get worked up as much anymore.

 

I just like how you were like how you guys were free lunches for the kids! Right to work go fcuk yourself! Strengthen the social safety net; but who will pay for it, and you said people don't mind paying if the government is caring about them.

It was just real backbone not making excuses taking care of the public stuff I wish we had out here and New York State

 

40 years without a Dem trifecta and when you get a chance you make the most of it.

Granted, there are some state level Dems that I have a problem with. Dylan Wegala because he’s one of those annoying Dem socialist types. Killed a transit bill because corporations bad. Not to mention he’s annoying as most DSA types tend to be. Karen Whitsett, who is a DINO (she’s a psycho, believes some crazy stuff) and wouldn’t win her seat in Detroit if she had an R next to her name. And then Mike Duggan, the former Detroit mayor who is too cowardly to run in a Dem primary for governor.

That said, Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel have all been excellent for Michigan.

 

It was 2 presidents and a Prince to start with. That was enough for him <snicker> hang himself.

 

The Daily Show the other night had Pat Ryan and Chris something or other of the veterans committee and they were both Democrats. Ryan made a point that although he doesn't like Republicans the one thing they get that his fellow Democrats don't get is when you're in control it's important that you use that control to achieve your goals.

 

You have, in this post, (as the phrase has it over here), 'Gone off on one'

I think that's possible, but I think the more likely scenario is that they weren't too sure who would be swept up in the fallout and thought it wasn't worth the risk.

Er... WHAT?

How TF would I know???

Jesus, dude. Get a grip will yer.

Apart from anything I've already said, it could be a donor connected to them. The problem with that is ANYONE he helped fund would be tarred with the same brush, even if they're completely innocent.

No. You do it as you seem to good at making shit up.

What in god's name are you blathering on about?

They defeated Trump to get IN to power. That's kinda how elections work.

They defeated Trump and THEN they gained access to the Epstein file with any information it had after they left power in 2016... not the other way around.

You're missing that they are making a big song and dance about it NOW... information they had access to up until about a year ago and chose to do nothing with for FOUR years.

Unless, of course, it damaged both sides... like I say, a 'nuclear option'. The idea it would guarantee a president Biden or Harris is then total BS.

As I've already made clear that's a possibility I suppose.

But then, WHY are they making such a song and dance about it now? By doing so it's THEM that's implying there's something 'there'... something that they think is worth keeping hidden.

By pressuring for a release of the Epstein files they're implying something is damaging to Trump, but they had those files themselves up until about a year ago. So if they're that damaging, why didn't they release them then?

It's not for ME to answer that question. It's for THEM?

 

It doesn't have to be... it might be. ATM it's all just speculation.

Politicians didn't notice something that might damage them, their donors or their opposition? Well, again... it's possible, I suppose.

But isn't it more likely that, as they'd already won the WH in 2020, they didn't see the benefit in opening a can of worms that might sweep in other people, (who may be entirely innocent), and lose control of the situation.

As they got nearer to 2024 and they hadn't released the information before, they might have thought they'd left it too late and, again, they were afraid of who else might get caught up in it, including dem donors and thus dem politicians.

 

Well, yeah... I mean, I wasn't signing up to the guy's newsletter or anything

 

That's obviously why it's become a such a big deal and, as you say, they're hypocrisy is being pointed out.

But it's not like it wasn't a story before then.

Epstein was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution and for sex trafficking and yet he served only about 3.5 months before being more or less let out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

Just check out the 'Video, photo and email archives' section of that.

As I said, Epstein entire MO was to use his contacts to benefit himself and those around him, so when he got a 'sweetheart deal', nobody was particularly surprised.

Don't forget, Ghislaine Maxwell was specifically excluded from any charges in that deal but was then imprisoned for a lengthy period for her crimes.