It struck me yesterday , when hearing about the Bannon interview , that I’ve never actually heard his (Epstein’s) voice before. Probably others haven’t either , so for those who might be interested , here it is in snatches from that interview ;
3 Likes
So future queen, googles him and agrees that it doesn’t look good (2011), and then keeps it going for at least another 3 years (as per those images). A bigger shock would be if she actually does become queen.
2 Likes
Yes, does not look…good. We all agree
2 Likes
I think the email I was most disturbed by was the one from Soon Yi Previn, Woody Allen’s wife/daughter. In it she sympathized with poor Anthony Wiener for understandably succumbing to the evils of a 15 year old girl whose evil womanly ways forced this powerful man to send her dick pics. Women just be harlots who make poor defenseless men stray…and send them dick pics.
4 Likes
This just so out there! Grown ups are, well older people that have a view of the ways of the world, and for her to defend an obvious power play involving a minor is frankly sad and I would question the whole daughter/wife/when question…
4 Likes
Allen, Polanski, Weinstein, all the same cloth. And then you will get the holier than thou actors/actresses/directors/producers, etc, that are absolutely “shocked” after the fact. If I had only known, I would never have worked with them… etc. These statements only come about after the fact though. All very happy to work with these people, get the acclaim and money, and then get a conscience afterwards if it becomes a publicity nightmare. Even that idiotic Norwegian woman knew how to use google.
1 Like
Look at Roman Polanski’s filmography after 1977. Look at the stars who have fallen over backwards to work with him. It’s absolute baffling why they would do it.
4 Likes
Completely warped and out of touch with reality, and are more interested in making embarrassing stances that backfire. Case in point (not sexual abused related, yet tone deaf):
An Indigenous group whose ancestral lands include the Malibu property owned by Billie Eilish says the singer should be more specific when speaking publicly about stolen land following remarks she made during the Grammy Awards.
Meanwhile, back on topic..
It’s extraordinary that Starmer, mentioned 0 times, is in danger of losing his job, while Trump, mentioned 38,000 times, isn’t.
8 Likes
Mentions is probably the worst metric to use.
Mark Carney (Canadian PM) is mentioned approximately 70 times, however it is literal mentions, and maybe 1 direct contact (photo or e-mail).
Randy Andy, etc, had all types of contact, direct, indirect, pre/post 2008 conviction, staying in home, flying with him, visited island.
5 Likes
But if you are mentioned zero times, it’s very likely that you had less contact with Epstein than someone mentioned 38,000 times.
Would you dispute that?
5 Likes
He’s the most divisive person in presidential history, i would expect him to be at least in the top 10.
Without checking, I am going to guess that the ex prince is #2 after Maxwell.
I don’t blame them from banning you dirty Europeans. Winnipeg is the jewel of North America and doesn’t deserve to be sullied by likes of you people.
What on earth are you even trying to prove?
My statement was that it’s remarkable that Starmer, who, by any metric, had nothing to do with Epstein, is in danger of losing his position, while Trump, who is in numerous photos together with him, and who was clearly close for some time, whose closest advisors were in regular contact with him, is secure in his job.
Why is that something you need to dispute?
8 Likes
I’m not disputing innocence or guilt, I’m disputing if being mentioned the most or a lot, is a good metric of wrongdoing. It has everything todo with context. There is an enormous difference between being mentioned, direct contact/correspondence, going to island, staying at his residence, using his plane, business dealings, being seen in the same place, being photographed together. You can be mentioned 1 time and be as guilty as hell, you can be mentioned 1000 times and be totally innocent.
If I was forced to choose, I would rather be mentioned 1000 times vs being shown to visit his island once. The island visit just looks a lot worse as that is where a lot of the abuse happened. It’s also unfortunate that he “cleansed” himself by associating with innocent people, charities, intellectuals. It’s sort of like sportswashing.
I can’t prove anything, not trying to. It’s just my opinion.
1 Like
Ok, I only mentioned the mentions as one of a number of other ways to measure the difference between the two men and their situations. Instead of going down the rabbit hole of dissecting whether mentions are a valid metric, you could have addressed the far more interesting issue of why Trump is in less trouble than Starmer. Is it because he is less guilty? Is it because the US political system is broken? Is it because corruption is more acceptable in the US?
These are some of the points we could have been discussing.
6 Likes
It’s a false syllogism though. Starmer’s position is difficult not because of any association with Epstein (because there wasn’t) but because of his poor judgement concerning Mandelson.
3 Likes
And did Trump show good judgement in being friends with Epstein and employing Bannon, Musk etc who had an equally close relationship with him?
2 Likes