Epstein Suicide

[bushwackerbob]

I am not a conspiracy nut and I cannot state with any certainty what the hell happened this morning in regards to Epstein's death, but I think that anyone who just accepts the facts being released at face value without questioning the facts and circumstances surrounding his death are being very naïve. There are very powerful people on both sides of the political spectrum and other wealthy and famous individuals who benefit greatly from his death. Suicide? Perhaps, but I need more information about the hows and whys of his being taken off of suicide watch. It just seems a bit fishy to me. Also, let's face it, the mainstream media are not above pushing a fictional narrative if it suits their purposes, it's not like they have any credibility left anyway.

[Dogfish]

He probably did kill himself.

Big question is why he was allowed to.

[chase251]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

[Dazzle1]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

[Bert]

Moderators, I am taking a new approach. I will delay my reply to Dazzle1's provocation until tomorrow. If his comment is still there, I will interpret it as a green light to speak my mind.

[bushwackerbob]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

While you do make a good point in regards to the false accusations about Kavanaugh, that was caused by political forces who wanted his nomination nixed. I do not forsee that dynamic in play with Epstein. There seems to be widespread recognition that this was a bad, evil dude who committed horrible, unforgiveable acts. Let the chips fall where they may, I too hope we get a full accounting of the special wealthy friends of Jeffrey Epstein, although I fear that some of those details may have followed him into death with no way to unearth them. Did he commit suicide? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I just feel that his death is very convenient for some very powerful people who would have suffered greatly if certain information was made public, powerful people with the means to make things happen.

[Femina]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Well that's kind of why we needed him to not be dead... so he could point the right people to the ones who were supported him...

It's like Stanley Kubrick all over again.

[chase251]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Well that's kind of why we needed him to not be dead... so he could point the right people to the ones who were supported him...

It's like Stanley Kubrick all over again.

Fair point.

[bushwackerbob]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Well that's kind of why we needed him to not be dead... so he could point the right people to the ones who were supported him...

It's like Stanley Kubrick all over again.

Excuse me for getting off topic but what was the deal with Stanley Kubrick? I did not get the reference.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Crazy things happen in jails and prison. I worked in the legal system, and have heard of defendants killing themselves soon after being released from suicide watch. Jails and prisons also give false information to cover up mistakes. My local jail released an inmate when they weren't suppose to, and lied that she escaped when in fact they released her too early.

[bushwackerbob]

Crazy things happen in jails and prison. I worked in the legal system, and have heard of defendants killing themselves soon after being released from suicide watch. Jails and prisons also give false information to cover up mistakes. My local jail released an inmate when they weren't suppose to, and lied that she escaped when in fact they released her too early.

You may be right but I just think that with this high profile individual, and all the attention and scrutiny that comes along with him, I would think that all of the i's would be dotted and t's crossed, that any publicity regarding a potential screwup would be multiplied tenfold due to the celebrity status of Epstein. I mean, who wants to look like incompetent fools with the whole country watching. One would think that would be incentive enough to follow all rules and regulations to the letter of the law and not let some scumbag commit suicide on their watch.

[Femina]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Well that's kind of why we needed him to not be dead... so he could point the right people to the ones who were supported him...

It's like Stanley Kubrick all over again.

Excuse me for getting off topic but what was the deal with Stanley Kubrick? I did not get the reference.

Old school conspiracy theory. Kubrick died VERY shortly after his last film 'Eyes Wide Shut' released which was a film many people believe to have been a form of 'blowing the whistle on the behavior of certain Hollywood types. Some feel his death was suspicious.

Dunno PERSONALLY what I feel about the matter, but the underlaying concern that fed into that theory is actually a VALID concern here.

[Dazzle1]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

While you do make a good point in regards to the false accusations about Kavanaugh, that was caused by political forces who wanted his nomination nixed. I do not forsee that dynamic in play with Epstein. There seems to be widespread recognition that this was a bad, evil dude who committed horrible, unforgiveable acts. Let the chips fall where they may, I too hope we get a full accounting of the special wealthy friends of Jeffrey Epstein, although I fear that some of those details may have followed him into death with no way to unearth them. Did he commit suicide? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I just feel that his death is very convenient for some very powerful people who would have suffered greatly if certain information was made public, powerful people with the means to make things happen.

My point is there will be many people named. Right now specific to being at his sex events were. The prominent names reported were George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Prince Andrew were accused the day before Epstien's death. We have to go in with the presumption of innocence, something that did not happen during the Kavanaugh hearings or the Me Too witch hunt.

If they did it throw them to the cons

[Abductorenmadrid]

Considering the potential circle of co-conspirators involved in Epstein's case his safety and security should have been enforced to the extreme. He had already proven himself capable of self harm once while in custody and the power and reach of those who might be impacted by his trial could not be considered insignificant. We are talking of an ex-president - wealthy socialites - heck even a British royal (albeit minor). To say Epstein's death is down to complete neglect and abandonment of duty would be the LEAST harsh accusation I could make. This man should have been kept naked in a glass box and the sharpest or most weight bearing material he should have had access should have been toilet paper. If there was anything less than 24/7 video surveillance on this guy there should be questions asked as to why. And yes, while I subscribe to "Innocent till proven guilty" Epstein's amazing, and I mean absolutely-fking-amazing plea-deal back in the mid 2000's should have been reason enough to show just how powerful and influential this man's connections must have been, first to get him said deal, and later, to pose a risk to his health if he became a liability.

From the off there were comments that Epstein was not going to make it to trial, that he would be "suicided", you know, of the self inflicted multiple stab wound kind as just one example and now those sarcasm laden comments have proven true. How in the hell is anyone going to trust that the wealthy elite didn't make this happen? Surely the people in charge would have known how utterly cynical it would appear to be if Epstein died in custody? Are the authorities going to give up the chase on the associated names in the Epstein case? You lot over the other side of the pond should be with torches n pitchforks in hand demanding answers.

[Bert]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

If you are saying that Christine Blasey Ford's accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh was a false accusation, please reveal your evidence. Blasey Ford never came forward with her accusation until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. Even then, she relayed her story to one of her state's senators with a request to remain anonymous. She came forward only out of concern for her country. Her testimony in committee was extremely compelling, a fact admitted by many Republicans.

As for men's lives being ruined by the Me Too movement, what about the women's lives that were ruined? Me Too marked a shift in the culture of silence that had surrounded sexual abuse. The revelations about Harvey Weinstein and others created momentum for other women who had been victims of abuse to speak out. Me Too is a good thing - it is shining a light on abusive behaviour that has previously been hidden. The casual abuse of power by highly placed men, the assumption that their stature makes them immune from being held responsible for their abusive actions towards women, that needs to stop. So, Dazzle1, your statement is offensive. You state an extremely controversial opinion as fact. Your sentence is an attack against any woman who has been abused by a man and had the courage to step up and say so. Your position is to defend the wall of secrecy and intimidation that has prevented women from getting a fair hearing. You are part of the problem.

[bushwackerbob]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

While you do make a good point in regards to the false accusations about Kavanaugh, that was caused by political forces who wanted his nomination nixed. I do not forsee that dynamic in play with Epstein. There seems to be widespread recognition that this was a bad, evil dude who committed horrible, unforgiveable acts. Let the chips fall where they may, I too hope we get a full accounting of the special wealthy friends of Jeffrey Epstein, although I fear that some of those details may have followed him into death with no way to unearth them. Did he commit suicide? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I just feel that his death is very convenient for some very powerful people who would have suffered greatly if certain information was made public, powerful people with the means to make things happen.

My point is there will be many people named. Right now specific to being at his sex events were. The prominent names reported were George Mitchell, Bill Richardson and Prince Andrew were accused the day before Epstien's death. We have to go in with the presumption of innocence, something that did not happen during the Kavanaugh hearings or the Me Too witch hunt.

If they did it throw them to the cons

If you are talking about a court of law, of course you are correct, but the court of public opinion is another matter entirely. Are we supposed to wait for a trial for these people in order to have an opinion? I draw a distinction between the Me too accusations and those accused in the cesspool of politics. There are people in both political parties whose job it is to destroy those whose ideology is different from their own. To them, whether the information they unearth is either true or false is irrelevant as long as it is in support of their cause. The swamp. In regards to the Me Too movement, there is no such evil machinery at work. With Me Too, while I am sure there are a few false accustations here and there, I believe the overwhelming majority of the victims. Particularly when you have multiple victims of some of these douchebags how can you not think these jerks are guilty. One final thought, everybody is entitled to their opinion, we can agree to disagree, and there is no point in getting upset if one has a different opinion from anyone else, life would be boring if we all agreed on everything!

[Femina]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unchecked wealth creates the illusion of absolute power that is strong enough to be near enough to the real thing. If you don't at least suspect this sort of thing is going on by many of these people in the '1%' than you don't understand human nature.

[tallyho]

Whilst its a bit extreme to dismiss all MeToo accusations as lies, there were undoubtedly some made under that banner around the globe. I personally dont think anything said against Kav fitted into this small minority of bogus accusations given the over riding word used to describe her testimony by various parties was 'credible'
Either way as some others have mentioned above lets not villify each other for having different opinions. Disagree by all means but keep responses respectful towards each other

[bushwackerbob]

Whilst its a bit extreme to dismiss all MeToo accusations as lies, there were undoubtedly some made under that banner around the globe. I personally dont think anything said against Kav fitted into this small minority of bogus accusations given the over riding word used to describe her testimony by various parties was 'credible'
Either way as some others have mentioned above lets not villify each other for having different opinions. Disagree by all means but keep responses respectful towards each other

If you look at the substance of Ford's testimony where there are no corroborating witnesses, conflicting timetables as to when this occurred, the gaps in her story, various friends of Ford's accounts of what happened at the time, I would not characterize it as credible. I think that sexual assault is such a heinous, horrible act, that to make that charge against a public figure, that the case should be rock solid with corroborating evidence, witnesses, along with physical evidence of the assault because innocent or guilty, this will stay with him for the rest of his life. I believe the evidence threshold in order to publicly accuse one of rape must be higher than it was in this case. I also hate this idea of not coming out when this traumatic event happened, but coming out 35 years later after the fact when the guy is up for the Supreme Court. In my mind, the timing alone of these accusations should give one pause about the veracity of these accusations.

[Dazzle1]

Either way GOOD RIDDANCE. Now focus on those who supported him.

Good point, but lets learn from the false accusations of the Kavanaugh hearing and the men ruing by lies of the Me Too movement and get it right.

If you are saying that Christine Blasey Ford's accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh was a false accusation, please reveal your evidence. Blasey Ford never came forward with her accusation until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. Even then, she relayed her story to one of her state's senators with a request to remain anonymous. She came forward only out of concern for her country. Her testimony in committee was extremely compelling, a fact admitted by many Republicans.

As for men's lives being ruined by the Me Too movement, what about the women's lives that were ruined? Me Too marked a shift in the culture of silence that had surrounded sexual abuse. The revelations about Harvey Weinstein and others created momentum for other women who had been victims of abuse to speak out. Me Too is a good thing - it is shining a light on abusive behaviour that has previously been hidden. The casual abuse of power by highly placed men, the assumption that their stature makes them immune from being held responsible for their abusive actions towards women, that needs to stop. So, Dazzle1, your statement is offensive. You state an extremely controversial opinion as fact. Your sentence is an attack against any woman who has been abused by a man and had the courage to step up and say so. Your position is to defend the wall of secrecy and intimidation that has prevented women from getting a fair hearing. You are part of the problem.

First read the book that just came out on the hearings and you will see she made up things and changed her story. she lied just like Anita Hill lied.

My sentence is lets make sure they get the right people who did something. not the goldiggers or the ones who out of hate try to ruin a man's life

Duke Lacrosse team ring a bell?

You are the typical intolerant faicst

[tallyho]

Lets not label anybody on this forum shall we guys and girls especially a 'faicst'- no one likes to be called a 'faicst'

[Bert]

First read the book that just came out on the hearings and you will see she made up things and changed her story. she lied just like Anita Hill lied.

My sentence is lets make sure they get the right people who did something. not the goldiggers or the ones who out of hate try to ruin a man's life

Duke Lacrosse team ring a bell?

You are the typical intolerant faicst

You mean the book written by Mollie Hemingway, senior editor for The Federalist - the far right rag that defended Roy Moore for dating school girls while in his thirties? The Mollie Hemingway who is a regular on Fox News?

Again, if you state highly controversial opinions as fact, particularly if those opinions disparage the Me Too movement, you are going to get a lot of pushback from me. As for me being typical and intolerant, well I don't think you know me well enough to say. Sadly, I don't know what a "faicst" is, so maybe I am one.

[CJS]

Kavenaugh lost me when he claimed, with a straight face, that Devil's Triangle, Renate Alumnus, and boofing were drinking games, farting, etc.

[Femina]

I think that sexual assault is such a heinous, horrible act, that to make that charge against a public figure, that the case should be rock solid with corroborating evidence, witnesses, along with physical evidence of the assault because innocent or guilty, this will stay with him for the rest of his life. I believe the evidence threshold in order to publicly accuse one of rape must be higher than it was in this case. I also hate this idea of not coming out when this traumatic event happened, but coming out 35 years later after the fact when the guy is up for the Supreme Court. In my mind, the timing alone of these accusations should give one pause about the veracity of these accusations.

I don't see that being a public figure ought afford anyone any more or less leniency in the requisite evidence for a conviction than the average citizen. Yeah I'll admit that being a public figure puts a person in a more vulnerable spot than most to false accusations by people they may have pissed off for one reason or another over a lifetime, but being a public figure also has a plethora of advantages the average human being also doesn't get to benefit from. In my estimation, this is simply the risk/reward of allowing yourself to be a human being elevated beyond the normal parameters of global awareness.

In other words, you wanna be famous? You have to take the cons with the pros and (IMO) complaining about getting a rough shake from it is about the same as a cheater who bemoans when somebody cheats them. I know that being accused of sexual assault is a more severe than the usual public spectacle... but so be it. If you aren't guilty express it, fight it and wait for the jury to find you innocent, but you don't get to expect any sort of leniency or preferential treatment in a legal sphere simply because you've made yourself an easier target by expanding your influence so wide that more people know of you than is healthy.

LEGALLY there should be NO difference to how anybody is treated, but sociologically when you let yourself become famous you simply have to accept that your actions and the actions of others toward you are going to be more consequential than ordinary. That means you put yourself in the crosshairs for liars and '15 minute' seekers and that negative opinions about your character are going to last longer and strike deeper in people's memory. That also means when you ARE guilty you suffer the same LEGAL repercussions and investigations as everybody else.

Course, it's a big ol' complicated world that doesn't behave how anybody really would like it to.

[GeekyPornCritic]

Whilst its a bit extreme to dismiss all MeToo accusations as lies, there were undoubtedly some made under that banner around the globe. I personally dont think anything said against Kav fitted into this small minority of bogus accusations given the over riding word used to describe her testimony by various parties was 'credible'
Either way as some others have mentioned above lets not villify each other for having different opinions. Disagree by all means but keep responses respectful towards each other

If you look at the substance of Ford's testimony where there are no corroborating witnesses, conflicting timetables as to when this occurred, the gaps in her story, various friends of Ford's accounts of what happened at the time, I would not characterize it as credible. I think that sexual assault is such a heinous, horrible act, that to make that charge against a public figure, that the case should be rock solid with corroborating evidence, witnesses, along with physical evidence of the assault because innocent or guilty, this will stay with him for the rest of his life. I believe the evidence threshold in order to publicly accuse one of rape must be higher than it was in this case. I also hate this idea of not coming out when this traumatic event happened, but coming out 35 years later after the fact when the guy is up for the Supreme Court. In my mind, the timing alone of these accusations should give one pause about the veracity of these accusations.

Look at this situation from a woman's point of review. Saying you were raped or sexual assault is one of the most extreme emotional moments to place on anyone. Victims feel degraded, dehumanized, and ashamed of what happen to them. Men are even less likely than women to report rape due to our culture of men suppose to be tough. It's a very difficult place to be emotionally. Read this article from ABCNews. It goes into detail about why victims do not come forward. https://abcnews.go.com/US/women-report- ... d=57985818

I am surprised at the criticisms from you and other members at this board. We watch this emotional situation in many SHIP movies and read about it in books. The heroines are emotionally broken and do not know who to turn to for help. Sure, heroines do not exist. Rape and its emotional damage are real in our world.

[bushwackerbob]

Whilst its a bit extreme to dismiss all MeToo accusations as lies, there were undoubtedly some made under that banner around the globe. I personally dont think anything said against Kav fitted into this small minority of bogus accusations given the over riding word used to describe her testimony by various parties was 'credible'
Either way as some others have mentioned above lets not villify each other for having different opinions. Disagree by all means but keep responses respectful towards each other

If you look at the substance of Ford's testimony where there are no corroborating witnesses, conflicting timetables as to when this occurred, the gaps in her story, various friends of Ford's accounts of what happened at the time, I would not characterize it as credible. I think that sexual assault is such a heinous, horrible act, that to make that charge against a public figure, that the case should be rock solid with corroborating evidence, witnesses, along with physical evidence of the assault because innocent or guilty, this will stay with him for the rest of his life. I believe the evidence threshold in order to publicly accuse one of rape must be higher than it was in this case. I also hate this idea of not coming out when this traumatic event happened, but coming out 35 years later after the fact when the guy is up for the Supreme Court. In my mind, the timing alone of these accusations should give one pause about the veracity of these accusations.

Look at this situation from a woman's point of review. Saying you were raped or sexual assault is one of the most extreme emotional moments to place on anyone. Victims feel degraded, dehumanized, and ashamed of what happen to them. Men are even less likely than women to report rape due to our culture of men suppose to be tough. It's a very difficult place to be emotionally. Read this article from ABCNews. It goes into detail about why victims do not come forward. https://abcnews.go.com/US/women-report- ... d=57985818

I am surprised at the criticisms from you and other members at this board. We watch this emotional situation in many SHIP movies and read about it in books. The heroines are emotionally broken and do not know who to turn to for help. Sure, heroines do not exist. Rape and its emotional damage are real in our world.

Let me make this clear. When it comes to the Me Too victims, and the countless number of women who claim to have been raped or sexually assaulted, I am predisposed to believe that the overwhelming majority of victims are telling the truth. I only diverge from some on this board in regards to some accusations that are made against politicians. There are corrupt forces all over Washington in both political parties and including the FBI. The truth is often a casualty in Washington if it serves that party's goals. I cannot fathom why people are in denial about this. I find it troubling that because I believe in one man's innocence, all of a sudden I am seen to be insensitive to the terrible trauma that befalls the victims of sexual assault. All because I believe one man over one woman. Is that where we are in this country? If I don't believe in what you believe in, I am a terrible person who doesn't believe in rape victims? It should go without saying that I think that rich or poor, that everybody ought to be treated equally under the law. Yes, when you are in the public eye you make yourself a target for anyone with an axe to grind, that is our reality. If there was more solid evidence, more witnesses, or a pattern of this type of behavior was shown on the part of Kavanaugh I would be right there with you all because I truly do not want a rapist on the Supreme Court. The evidence simply is not there no matter what side of the aisle one happens to sit.

[lionbadger]

Epstein was going down, he didn't want to be in prison (and known as a paedo) it probably doesn't take much for a billionaire to convince a low paid prison guard to get him a suicide kit

Either that or MI6 did him in because we've got enough of a mess on our plate in the UK right now without Prince Andrew being outed

[Dazzle1]

First read the book that just came out on the hearings and you will see she made up things and changed her story. she lied just like Anita Hill lied.

My sentence is lets make sure they get the right people who did something. not the goldiggers or the ones who out of hate try to ruin a man's life

Duke Lacrosse team ring a bell?

You are the typical intolerant faicst

You mean the book written by Mollie Hemingway, senior editor for The Federalist - the far right rag that defended Roy Moore for dating school girls while in his thirties? The Mollie Hemingway who is a regular on Fox News?

Again, if you state highly controversial opinions as fact, particularly if those opinions disparage the Me Too movement, you are going to get a lot of pushback from me. As for me being typical and intolerant, well I don't think you know me well enough to say. Sadly, I don't know what a "faicst" is, so maybe I am one.

The book laid out the facts and the Me Too movement was mostly a witch hunt. For every Wienstein they were many innocent men who were fired without being given a chance to defend themselves.

Not afraid of your pushback because you assume guilt.

And Ford lied about many things including fear off flying. She should be prosecuted for perjury.

[Dazzle1]

Whilst its a bit extreme to dismiss all MeToo accusations as lies, there were undoubtedly some made under that banner around the globe. I personally dont think anything said against Kav fitted into this small minority of bogus accusations given the over riding word used to describe her testimony by various parties was 'credible'
Either way as some others have mentioned above lets not villify each other for having different opinions. Disagree by all means but keep responses respectful towards each other

If you look at the substance of Ford's testimony where there are no corroborating witnesses, conflicting timetables as to when this occurred, the gaps in her story, various friends of Ford's accounts of what happened at the time, I would not characterize it as credible. I think that sexual assault is such a heinous, horrible act, that to make that charge against a public figure, that the case should be rock solid with corroborating evidence, witnesses, along with physical evidence of the assault because innocent or guilty, this will stay with him for the rest of his life. I believe the evidence threshold in order to publicly accuse one of rape must be higher than it was in this case. I also hate this idea of not coming out when this traumatic event happened, but coming out 35 years later after the fact when the guy is up for the Supreme Court. In my mind, the timing alone of these accusations should give one pause about the veracity of these accusations.

Look at this situation from a woman's point of review. Saying you were raped or sexual assault is one of the most extreme emotional moments to place on anyone. Victims feel degraded, dehumanized, and ashamed of what happen to them. Men are even less likely than women to report rape due to our culture of men suppose to be tough. It's a very difficult place to be emotionally. Read this article from ABCNews. It goes into detail about why victims do not come forward. https://abcnews.go.com/US/women-report- ... d=57985818

I am surprised at the criticisms from you and other members at this board. We watch this emotional situation in many SHIP movies and read about it in books. The heroines are emotionally broken and do not know who to turn to for help. Sure, heroines do not exist. Rape and its emotional damage are real in our world.

How about looking atfrom the man's point of view, Kavanaugh, Duke LaCrosse team or the two Sacred Heart football players

They are accused and many are predisposed to believe guilty till proven innocent. In Kavanaugh's he had to endure this without being given by many women including most of the Senate committee and the media a chance to defend himself. When the fact were shown to be on his side. Harridans like Mazie Hirino refused to apologize and demeanrf all males for not believing the false accusation. The Duke 88 faced no sanction and felt no remorse

[Bert]

When the fact were shown to be on his side.

Once again, Dazzle1 expresses an extremely controversial opinion as a statement of fact.

Two people testified before committee, Ford and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has been a public figure for decades, worked with the Bush administration, and was a working, high level judge. The other was a woman living in California, just a normal person who was completely unversed in dealing with public scrutiny. Despite the lopsided experience levels, and the fact that Republicans brought in a prosecutor to question Ford on their behalf, Ford offered extremely compelling testimony. That's not just my opinion - many Republicans admitted the same thing after her questioning. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was exactly the opposite. Despite his level of experience and ample opportunity for coaching, he made grossly partisan statements, lied and showed conduct extremely unbecoming for a potential Supreme Court judge.

So, Dazzle1, your quoted statement is bogus. This after I've already showed that you have previously stated dubious opinions as facts. Further, you can't stop parroting Trump's talking point of "This is so unfair to poor men", which utterly disrespects women who have been sexually assaulted, had the courage to step forward and share their stories, only to be re-victimized. Buddy, you are so on the wrong side of this thing.

[Bert]

The book laid out the facts and the Me Too movement was mostly a witch hunt.

The book was written by a far right Donald Trump defender who wouldn't know "impartial" if it moved in with her as a roommate. The Me Too movement was, and is, a long overdue cultural shift that has opened the door for many, many women who have been taken advantage of by men in positions of power to share their painful stories. To call that "mostly a witch hunt" is not only wildly incorrect, it is also cruel and heartless and extremely disrespectful to women. It's the kind of language one would expect to hear from a misogynist incel.

[batgirl1969]

I was one of those 16year old girls whose first time was also at a party with a much older guy and his girlfriend but I would never consider that a "me too" experience, was drinks involved? yes..was force used? well...a little...but not by him but by her...that helped define who I am even though it was both terrifying and breathtaking at the same time...I never saw either of them again aftet that night that left me a wreck, it was the greatest night of my life because it exposed me to so many new things sexually and I guess if you want to say it, I was awoken...lol

[bushwackerbob]

One of the common denominator causes in conflicts such as these are that one side has one set of facts or "truth" and the other side has its set of facts and "truth". There seems to be a dearth of objective reporting these days. Everybody seems to live in their little bubbles with very little insight into how the other side reflects upon the world we live in, and without that insight or knowledge, some of us resort to name-calling and insults. We fear what we do not know. I think one of the solutions to this vast schism in how we see the world is for all of us to seek alternative sources for news and information, for us not to remain in our safe, comfortable ideological safe spaces that we get our news and explore other sources of information. If all one wants to do is find a news source that matches their ideology, fine, enjoy your fairy tales, but if you desire the unfiltered, unvarnished, objective truth, a diversity of ideological news sources I think is the way to go.

[Dazzle1]

When the fact were shown to be on his side.

Once again, Dazzle1 expresses an extremely controversial opinion as a statement of fact.

Two people testified before committee, Ford and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has been a public figure for decades, worked with the Bush administration, and was a working, high level judge. The other was a woman living in California, just a normal person who was completely unversed in dealing with public scrutiny. Despite the lopsided experience levels, and the fact that Republicans brought in a prosecutor to question Ford on their behalf, Ford offered extremely compelling testimony. That's not just my opinion - many Republicans admitted the same thing after her questioning. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was exactly the opposite. Despite his level of experience and ample opportunity for coaching, he made grossly partisan statements, lied and showed conduct extremely unbecoming for a potential Supreme Court judge.

So, Dazzle1, your quoted statement is bogus. This after I've already showed that you have previously stated dubious opinions as facts. Further, you can't stop parroting Trump's talking point of "This is so unfair to poor men", which utterly disrespects women who have been sexually assaulted, had the courage to step forward and share their stories, only to be re-victimized. Buddy, you are so on the wrong side of this thing.

Once again I give a reference of a peer reviewed book. Bert is just attacking the author because she does suffer from TDS as Bert does

[Bert]

With all due respect, one side of the American political divide operates on facts, and the other side operates on something else. PBS News, the New York Times, and other legacy media organizations with many decades of integrity and reporting excellence have won many Pulitzer prizes and Peabody awards. These organizations strive to maintain journalistic integrity. Are they perfect? No. Do they try hard to get the story right, verify information and adhere to the standards of journalism? Yes, they do.

Fox News has won precious few journalism awards, and exists mainly as a propaganda outlet for hard right views. The do have an actual news department, but the vast majority of their programming is opinion, not news. Fox does not go out of their way to distinguish between the two, and viewers are inclined to accept the opinion content as fact, when it is nothing of the sort. That leads to people like Dazzle1 posting content here that he presents as fact, when it is actually extremely dubious opinion.

I agree that the two sides struggle to agree on basic facts, but to assert that both sides are equally to blame is simply untrue.

[Dazzle1]

With all due respect, one side of the American political divide operates on facts, and the other side operates on something else. PBS News, the New York Times, and other legacy media organizations with many decades of integrity and reporting excellence have won many Pulitzer prizes and Peabody awards. These organizations strive to maintain journalistic integrity. Are they perfect? No. Do they try hard to get the story right, verify information and adhere to the standards of journalism? Yes, they do.

Fox News has won precious few journalism awards, and exists mainly as a propaganda outlet for hard right views. The do have an actual news department, but the vast majority of their programming is opinion, not news. Fox does not go out of their way to distinguish between the two, and viewers are inclined to accept the opinion content as fact, when it is nothing of the sort. That leads to people like Dazzle1 posting content here that he presents as fact, when it is actually extremely dubious opinion.

I agree that the two sides struggle to agree on basic facts, but to assert that both sides are equally to blame is simply untrue.

With all do respect the so called elite media is corrupt. Who gives out these awards. NYT :Jason Blair, McCain Mistress lie

Fox News reported Obama many infractions, which were not reported by NYT.

The fact is the left wing media is corrupt and dishonest. Does Fox employ the brother of a major state's governor or a former Clinton stooge.

Fox is the most honest news service in the country.

You live a liberal bubble.

[bushwackerbob]

With all due respect, one side of the American political divide operates on facts, and the other side operates on something else. PBS News, the New York Times, and other legacy media organizations with many decades of integrity and reporting excellence have won many Pulitzer prizes and Peabody awards. These organizations strive to maintain journalistic integrity. Are they perfect? No. Do they try hard to get the story right, verify information and adhere to the standards of journalism? Yes, they do.

Fox News has won precious few journalism awards, and exists mainly as a propaganda outlet for hard right views. The do have an actual news department, but the vast majority of their programming is opinion, not news. Fox does not go out of their way to distinguish between the two, and viewers are inclined to accept the opinion content as fact, when it is nothing of the sort. That leads to people like Dazzle1 posting content here that he presents as fact, when it is actually extremely dubious opinion.

I agree that the two sides struggle to agree on basic facts, but to assert that both sides are equally to blame is simply untrue.

Don't make me do it. Do not make me go and research the foibles of the liberal mainstream media. Just off the top of my head there is the Steele dossier where Trump supposedly peed on a bed where Obama had slept in. One problem, he was not even in the damn country at the time! Are you actually serious? There have been books written in regards to mainstream media malfeasance, books, not articles or blurbs, but books. The list is longer than the list of the friends of the Clintons that have mysteriously passed away. Just a joke! No one political party or ideology has all of the answers and no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth and anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly naïve. Next time you see Bernie Sanders, ask him how "objective" CNN is after Donna Brazile supplied Hillary Clinton with some of the questions prior to 2016 Democratic Primary Presidential Debate. If you want me to open up that pandora's box of mainstream media dishonesty there will be a lot of meat to chew off the bone. Are you honestly telling me that at these fancy parties in Washington where dem politicians socialize with journalists and in a lot of cases they are connected socially or romantically, that there is no effect in how journalists do their job professionally. As Judge Judy would say, don't pee on my shoe and tell me it is raining. I don't put too much stock in media awards since it's the media elite essentially giving the media elite a pat on the back.

[Bert]

You guys have fallen victim to the logical fallacy of false equivalence. I don't care what Dazzle1 thinks, but I respect bushwackerbob and I feel like this discussion might be worth continuing. Look, I never said any media outlet was perfect. My point is not to offer any one organization for sainthood. What I'm saying is there is an extremely large difference between an outfit like the NYT, which is respected around the world and seeks to report the news according to journalistic standards, and an outfit like Fox News, which was conceived and has persisted as a purposely biased entity.

It's easy to find examples of large organizations making mistakes. People are fallible. But there is no similarity in the degree of fairness displayed by the NYT and Fox News. In this case, it is grossly incorrect to say "Well, both of them have made mistakes, so really, who can you trust?" For all their imperfection, the Times has spent decades striving for integrity. Fox News exists solely to deliver slant. Bias IS their business. Dazzle1 is obviously past reasoning with on this point, but any fair evaluation of these two outlets cannot result in anything close to an equivalence in bias.

[Dazzle1]

You guys have fallen victim to the logical fallacy of false equivalence. I don't care what Dazzle1 thinks, but I respect bushwackerbob and I feel like this discussion might be worth continuing. Look, I never said any media outlet was perfect. My point is not to offer any one organization for sainthood. What I'm saying is there is an extremely large difference between an outfit like the NYT, which is respected around the world and seeks to report the news according to journalistic standards, and an outfit like Fox News, which was conceived and has persisted as a purposely biased entity.

It's easy to find examples of large organizations making mistakes. People are fallible. But there is no similarity in the degree of fairness displayed by the NYT and Fox News. In this case, it is grossly incorrect to say "Well, both of them have made mistakes, so really, who can you trust?" For all their imperfection, the Times has spent decades striving for integrity. Fox News exists solely to deliver slant. Bias IS their business. Dazzle1 is obviously past reasoning with on this point, but any fair evaluation of these two outlets cannot result in anything close to an equivalence in bias.

Sorry Bert you are a clueless liberal moon-bat.

The fact that you presume guilt show you are like the Me Too witc h burners or the Antifa thugs who believe in demeaning anyone who disagrees with them

My original post is lets not presume guilt

Even Kevin Spacey deserved that and will never get recompense from Netflix for firing him due to the false accusation on nantucket

Many accusors of famous people are looking for a buck and a carreer

Anita Ford is a lair who parleyed her false accusation in getting a cushy college job. She followed Thomas and hitched herselfto his rising star. Ford another liar is getting a Netflix deal

Anyone can see through these people except bigots like you.

[Bert]

Golly, a guy who defends Donald Trump called me a bigot. Shaken to the quick, I am.

[DrDominator9]

DAMMIT!!! CAN THERE BE NO THREAD THAT DOESN'T DEVOLVE INTO NAME CALLING AND VERBAL ABUSE AROUND HERE!

Knock it off!!!!

[tallyho]

Yes lets all just take a breath and as I said earlier, no calling people faicsts or bgiots.

And Doc, take your meds

[Void]

I've heard on good authority that you can actually disagree with another person's ideas respectfully, without commenting on their character at all. Apparently, arguments are also more convincing when they don't contain personal insults or slurs.

I'm sure I also read that defining complex, nebulous things/groups/ideals as being *entirely* X or *always* Y isn't a good idea.

Not that I necessarily believe such fanciful thoughts. I mean, everyone who has ever disagreed with me about anything were all legitimate Nazi pedophiles - but not everyone is as shrewd a judge of character as I am.

I digress. I look forward to more light being shed on the circumstances and lead up to Epstein's death.

[MightyHypnotic]

Cmon guys, I don't want to start laying out bans because of personal insults.

Just an FYI this board has no political leanings whatsoever. The opinions stated by members are solely their own.

I don't want to stifle strong debate. Just keep it civil.

I too am looking forward to hearing more details about Epsteins death as information becomes available...

[Bert]

Don't make me do it. Do not make me go and research the foibles of the liberal mainstream media. Just off the top of my head there is the Steele dossier where Trump supposedly peed on a bed where Obama had slept in. One problem, he was not even in the damn country at the time! Are you actually serious? There have been books written in regards to mainstream media malfeasance, books, not articles or blurbs, but books. The list is longer than the list of the friends of the Clintons that have mysteriously passed away. Just a joke! No one political party or ideology has all of the answers and no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth and anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly naïve. Next time you see Bernie Sanders, ask him how "objective" CNN is after Donna Brazile supplied Hillary Clinton with some of the questions prior to 2016 Democratic Primary Presidential Debate. If you want me to open up that pandora's box of mainstream media dishonesty there will be a lot of meat to chew off the bone. Are you honestly telling me that at these fancy parties in Washington where dem politicians socialize with journalists and in a lot of cases they are connected socially or romantically, that there is no effect in how journalists do their job professionally. As Judge Judy would say, don't pee on my shoe and tell me it is raining. I don't put too much stock in media awards since it's the media elite essentially giving the media elite a pat on the back.

I'd like to address some of what you said here. First, the contents of the Steele dossier have nothing to do with the media, other than that the media reported on the dossier's existence. (The veracity of the dossier's contents is a different discussion, but Trump was pushing forward, secretly, with a huge real estate deal in Russia while he was running for president.) As for political ideologies having all the answers, I fully agree with your position that they do not. My primary concern in this thread has been media honesty, and in that realm I believe I have a very strong case that organizations like PBS News and the NYT have far more integrity than Fox News.

You called out CNN on the Clinton debate questions, but CNN was not responsible for that. Donna Brazile passed a couple of potential questions to the Clinton campaign. When CNN found out, Brazile was immediately fired. As for Washington parties, come on. It wasn't that long ago that members of both parties regularly attended events like that together. The current level of animosity between Democrats and Republicans is a recent thing. Politicians used to disagree at work and then get along afterwards.

You and I may differ in our politics. That's something that reasonable people do all the time and it can make for interesting discussion. Where I chafe a little is in equating the level of fake news on offer from Fox with something like the Times.

[Danorian]

There's a reason why Fox News can't call itself a news network in Canada! It doesn't meet their standards for being a NEWS network!

My 2 cents.

[Dazzle1]

Don't make me do it. Do not make me go and research the foibles of the liberal mainstream media. Just off the top of my head there is the Steele dossier where Trump supposedly peed on a bed where Obama had slept in. One problem, he was not even in the damn country at the time! Are you actually serious? There have been books written in regards to mainstream media malfeasance, books, not articles or blurbs, but books. The list is longer than the list of the friends of the Clintons that have mysteriously passed away. Just a joke! No one political party or ideology has all of the answers and no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth and anyone who thinks differently is hopelessly naïve. Next time you see Bernie Sanders, ask him how "objective" CNN is after Donna Brazile supplied Hillary Clinton with some of the questions prior to 2016 Democratic Primary Presidential Debate. If you want me to open up that pandora's box of mainstream media dishonesty there will be a lot of meat to chew off the bone. Are you honestly telling me that at these fancy parties in Washington where dem politicians socialize with journalists and in a lot of cases they are connected socially or romantically, that there is no effect in how journalists do their job professionally. As Judge Judy would say, don't pee on my shoe and tell me it is raining. I don't put too much stock in media awards since it's the media elite essentially giving the media elite a pat on the back.

I'd like to address some of what you said here. First, the contents of the Steele dossier have nothing to do with the media, other than that the media reported on the dossier's existence. (The veracity of the dossier's contents is a different discussion, but Trump was pushing forward, secretly, with a huge real estate deal in Russia while he was running for president.) As for political ideologies having all the answers, I fully agree with your position that they do not. My primary concern in this thread has been media honesty, and in that realm I believe I have a very strong case that organizations like PBS News and the NYT have far more integrity than Fox News.

You called out CNN on the Clinton debate questions, but CNN was not responsible for that. Donna Brazile passed a couple of potential questions to the Clinton campaign. When CNN found out, Brazile was immediately fired. As for Washington parties, come on. It wasn't that long ago that members of both parties regularly attended events like that together. The current level of animosity between Democrats and Republicans is a recent thing. Politicians used to disagree at work and then get along afterwards.

You and I may differ in our politics. That's something that reasonable people do all the time and it can make for interesting discussion. Where I chafe a little is in equating the level of fake news on offer from Fox with something like the Times.

CNN still employs Fredo Cuomo and Don Lemon as News analysts

That is fake news.

[Femina]

The News in America is always biased. CNN is biased as f'k toward the democratic party. This is pretty much undeniable. The mix in propaganda with the news all the time.






Just Fox News isn't even News, its entirely propaganda without anything else of value unless you're a multimillionaire or up.

[bushwackerbob]

For a moderate conservative like me, it is really hard in this world to escape the overwhelming influence of the liberal dominated mainstream media (msm) with ABC news, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, and an overwhelming majority of newspapers in this country. There really is no escaping it's influence. The night before the 2016 Presidential election I was somewhat depressed because all I heard from the msm was that there was no way Trump would win, the poll numbers for Hillary were good, Trump was a terrible human being not fit for office, and was a misogynist pig who treated women poorly. I actually believed that this msm onslaught was so great, their influence so far and wide, and so overwhelming... that was my overall perception of how the world saw a potential Trump presidency. In a sense, I was somewhat conditioned to believe that no one could persevere against the avalanche of vitriol and negativity that was leveled at Trump. The media's message was this was Hillary's time. I was legitimately shocked and stunned (my Mom was pissed) when the election returns came back election night, I thought he had no chance of winning. What happened? It wasn't just deplorables, gun nuts, and a few Charleston morons that voted for Trump. Did you know that in the category of educated women, more voted for Trump than Hillary? My sense after the election is that I had to recalibrate my perceptions of the msm's influence. My sense now is that there is a silent majority out there that does not tweet, does not engage in debates on social media, and most of them do not enjoy talking politics with their friends. But they do pay attention and they do not mindlessly drink the Kool-Aid that the msm routinely offers it's viewers or readers, they take in what is being offered but see it with a skeptical, critical thinking perspective. I believe this silent majority includes people on the left ideological spectrum and on the right. They may not wear their politics on their sleeve, but they vote, and a lot of those people voted for Trump in my opinion. I believe the era of power and influence for the msm is waning and that people see that they all have an agenda and see through all of the lies and misrepresentations. The msm said that a Hillary presidency was inevitable, the American public had other ideas.

[theScribbler]

The News in America is always biased. CNN is biased as f'k toward the democratic party. This is pretty much undeniable. The mix in propaganda with the news all the time.

ust Fox News isn't even News, its entirely propaganda without anything else of value unless you're a multimillionaire or up.

CNN is sanity to Fox News' insanity.

CNN isn't biased toward a party, it's biased toward sanity, reasonableness, fact based reality as in REAL NEWS, unlike the 12,000+ lies aka FAKE NEWS out of Trumpty Dumpty's anus shaped mouth and his N. Korea-like state news equivalent in USA: the aforementioned Fox New.

Trump's Delusion & Derangement Syndrome is well known, and he and his minions use projection in typical Trump FAKE NEWS fashion, to feebly attempt to pin his Derangement on others. Trumpty Dumpty is well known for his deflections, and his minions follow suit.

Looking back on this thread...

Bert is 100% right.

Zzzzzzzzzle1 is 100% wrong as usual. Has never ever posted anything accurate about any real person.

And that right winger joke of a book is hilarious in how only right wingers got advanced copies to put reviews out right away, and left wingers are only now getting around to reading it (I imagine their more accurate reviews refuting its huge chunks of propaganda will be forthcoming).

CJS was brief but dead-on, 100%.

Danorian too.