atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#6744: Well, see, that's one reason they tried to get rid of Trump.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested for allegedly sex trafficking "dozens of minors". Jeffrey Epstein of the "Lolita Express", that Jeffrey Epstein, the one that Bill Clinton evaded his Secret Service detail to board for a weekend trip to Epstein's island.
[Allegedly] Epstein sexually exploited dozens of underage girls in a now-familiar scheme: paying them cash for "massages" and then molesting or sexually abusing them in his Upper East Side mansion or his palatial residence in Palm Beach.
I suppose when you're a billionaire you don't need to use the old one about trying to find a lost dog, eh?

The left's take on all this is to dredge up the time Trump said that Epstein was a great guy, in hopes of linking Trump to it. But are there any reports of Trump riding the "Lolita Express"? Do they have anything actually linking Trump to Epstein's social circle? Somehow I doubt it. I'd be surprised if there were anything other than a tenuous connection--and I note that the lefties bring up what Trump said but don't describe the occasion on which he said it.

Look: they're both businessmen who operate in New York City. Their trajectories have probably intersected from time to time. If asked about someone you're acquainted with, and you don't know about his pedophilia, what are you going to say? Somehow I doubt Trump knew about "Lolita Express" and the rest of it when he said what he said about Epstein.

One commentor says, "NSA Child Crimes Twitter feed says Ray Chandler is singing like a bird. I think it was Q that said Chandler is Allison Mack x100." How sad it is that she's now a standard for sex crimes? *sigh*

* * *

They really can't take seeing the MAGA hat, can they? Here's the thing: if you accost someone and start calling them names in a public place, you're the one with the problem. Referring to that person as a "racist piece of shit" and calling him a nazi doesn't excuse it, not even if you bring the First Amendment into it.

For example, if I see some asshat kid wearing a Ernesto "Che" Guevara t-shirt in a public place, I don't feel I have the right to go over to him and start yelling at him about how his shirt contains the image of a murderous monster who hated gays and blacks. I am offended by it, because old Ernesto was a communist thug and does not deserve to be commemorated, but unless we are in a forum where we are discussing clothing my unelicited commentary is inappropriate. If he were to ask me, "Hey, how do you like my shirt?" I could then reply, in reasoned tones, that I think Ernesto "Che" Guevara was one of the worst human beings ever to exist and that the shirt offends me.

What I could not do is to go over to the guy, and say--apropros nothing--"You, there, wearing that shirt, you're a communist and a racist and a bigot!" And continue to harangue him about it.

It's not just that it's rude--though it most certainly is, and to a great extent!--but depending on the vehemence of my denouncement could actually be considered verbal assault. Some communities, that gets you taken to jail, depending on how vehement you are about it.

So, dickspittle sees a MAGA hat, then gets up and goes over to the people and starts yodeling at them about how evil they are, probably thinking he could get them tossed out of the restaurant. Except he's one douchebag and there are two tables of proud Americans sitting there. If you own the place, what do you do?

Well, if I own the place, I eject the troublemaker, the one who started it. And guess what: the people wearing the hats didn't start it, no matter what pussyface thinks.

(For the record, if I own a casual restaurant, I don't care what the customers wear as long as they're decently dressed and buy lots of food.)

* * *

Kind of related, the left wants to avoid actual debate because they will lose, and they know it. And so they say that debating people on the right will cause the right-wingers to try to recruit left-wingers. "Debate," says one communist, "isn't a fair and reasoned discussion, it's an extremely effective recruitment tool. You don't have to debate them. Nobody does."

Right there--right there--you see the tacit admission that they have no reasoned arguments to support their side. They can't have a fair and reasoned discussion about their political stance because it's damned near impossible to support it.

(It's not "fair and reasoned" because they can't win, because the facts don't support them. There is a reason leftists always lie.)

Suppressing debate is an essential component of leftism. Every time socialism has been tried, one of the first things that happens is that any discussion about it is disallowed. You may not speak out against the state, nor may you even question what the state is doing. Certainly you are not allowed to protest it; that's mercilessly quashed, at gunpoint if need be.

Example: Tianenmen Square.

There are three links in that post, all worth reading.

This one contains the following:
I see increasing numbers of so-called liberals cheering censorship and defending violence as a response to speech. I see seemingly reasonable people wishing death on others and laughing at escalating suicide and addiction rates of the white working class. I see liberal think pieces written in opposition to expressing empathy or civility in interactions with those with whom we disagree. I see 63 million Trump voters written off as "nazis" who are okay to target with physical violence. I see concepts like equality and justice being used as a mask for resentful, murderous rage.
What you are seeing there, friend, is in fact the true face of leftism. It has always been like that. The next sentence after that paragraph is, "The most pernicious aspect of this evolution of the left, is how it seems to be changing people, and how rapidly since the election," but it is not an evolution at all. It is simply the mask itself coming off; the left's irrational hatred (and fear) of Trump has led them to it.

"I don’t yet know what to call this part of the left," begins the next paragraph. Let me help you: simply call it the left.

The fact that this person is questioning the ideology at all means that, sooner or later, he is likely to discover that for himself.

...which is why the left says that debate is not necessary, why they say it's "recruitment".

* * *

The weather abruptly cooled off. Saturday a line of thunderstorms went through in the early afternoon; when I went outside to try fiddling with the motorcycle, it had gotten significantly cooler. After laying in one of the gravity chairs on the back patio for a while I went inside for something and declared, "We're opening the house up. It is cooler outside than inside."

Today it is warmer than last night, obviously, but it's still pleasant. In a bit I will head outside to do my chores for the day (cutting grass, car maintenance) and then see if I can't get a motorcycle to start after sitting on the charger all night. FFS, this is getting old.

Well, now it's nearly 3 and I haven't cut so much as a single blade of grass. I guess I'd better get going.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.