politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Edited just in case it wasn't clear enough:
The plane was liquidated, bought by some random charter plane company, and then Trump hired a charter plane. It's as much news as if I hired a taxi, and the physical car that came over was previously owned by Epstein (bought by that taxi company in a liquidation).
That's what this particular plane issue is. It's nothing. Attack Trump's actual connection to Epstein. Hiring a charter plane that was previously owned by someone else is not that.
No idea why you're in the negatives. Not only that, but it was just one of J.E.'s private planes, of which there are a finite supply of in the country. It's a nothingburger other than the fact that it maybe illustrates just how big of a guy Epstein was
It also proves that Trump's team just doesn't look into anything that the media might consider an issue and use to attack him. Given his drama-laden reactions to some things, I don't think that's a conscious choice but rather incompetence. They just don't consider what might be used to attack him which is also why they always react liktheyve been caught with their pants down, because they are. All the time.
It isn't a real issue, but a lot of media doesn't give a shit about real issues, they make whatever they can an issue because that brings in viewers which in turn means advertising revenue. It used to be that the staff and campaigns would vet suppliers for this type of thing, no matter how tangential, because it could be used against them.
If there's anything the Republicans have mastered over the last 50+ years, it's how to make something that literally isn't an issue to anyone, an issue to their base. One would think with that mastery they would try to limit that exposure themselves.
If that was the only issue... sure. But Trump was literally friends with the sex trafficker, and there's photos of them together to prove it!
That. Is. Not. This. Plane. Issue.
Yeah but
If you think that's a coincidence, I have beachfront property on Mars you may be interested in.
Knowing the former history of the plane, why wouldn't Trump tell them to literally give him any other fucking plane? if it were anyone else I'd write it off as a coincidence, but that man getting that plane isn't just random chance. But you're telling me not one person who was responsible for that transaction at any step of the way didn't look at the renter, look at what plane he was renting, and say "Hey, given the history between these two, we may wanna give the guy another plane.....", even if only to avoid bad optics.
Trump being on that plane right now means he either knew and didn't care, or directly requested it.
Your rental car doesn't have its VIN painted on the tail in large lettering and publically searchable.
It's called vetting your suppliers. To make sure someone you're using isn't a potential liability.
That is a completely different argument than "Trump purposefully choose to be on a former Epstein plane because... reasons" that the other guy is making. Yes, we all know the Trump team is inept, hence why they hang around the guy. The fact that they didn't vet their supplier isn't proof of some conspiracy.
Whether I charter planes has nothing to do with vetting suppliers. I do vet my suppliers as a regular citizen. You do the same thing all the time. I check the reviews of various car rental agencies in the area I'm going to see which are better or worse. That is a form of vetting.
A Presidential campaign and former Presdient would 100% have access to more information than basic reviews. Given the public spectacle of Epstein, they should have information about where assets that Trump may come into contact with in the future are located to prevent this exact scenario.
I can only assume you replied to the wrong comment. I never said it was intentional. I never even implied it was intentional. I said the Trump political team is incompetent for letting the company use that specific aircraft with the history it has. His team being filled with incompetent people isn't exactly a hot take.
Him using the plane isn't really an issue, you're right, it's just a charter plane (that I hope they deep cleaned given its history). But the fact his staff didn't prevent the usage of that specific aircraft, given the context, just shows they aren't capable of seeing potential issues ahead of time that they easily could avoid.
Political staff normally try to vet suppliers and partners to minimize surprises like this. They normally keep track of issues from a politician's past that could cause more issues in the future. Given Trump's personal history with Epstein, and specifically the issue of Epstein's plane being a primary piece of his pedophilic empire known to the general public, one would have thought they would keep tabs on that.
What are you talking about? What do you think I an making up?
I'm not making any claims. Well, other than Trump's staff being filled with idiots, but I'm pretty sure that's just a well-known fact at this point.
If I were to recognize the car as one being owned by a murderer or pedo or something? Absolutely. Trump was on that plane enough to know it was Epstein's. It would be like Michael Cohen saying he doesn't recognize Trump's jet.
No you wouldn't and we're not talking about swapping our a Corolla for a Honda Civic. The amount of private jets for charter that can support someone like Trump and his company on such a short notice are in very limited supply. Beggers can't be choosers, and all.
You have nothing to support this. It wasn't the Lolita Express, it was just one plane of many that an LLC of Epstein's owned.
There is plenty of actually supportable claims to make about Trump, this isn't one of them and you are grasping at straws here
ETA: Let's just let this train of thought run, though. What exactly do you think happened here? Trump intentionally grounded his plane because he knew a fleet jet from his old friend Epstein was available for charter and he really wanted to ride in it instead of his personal jet?
It's obvious that admitting they were wrong is out of the question.
Dude the plane was liquidated, bought by some random charter company, and Trump hired a charter plane. It's as much news as if I hired a taxi, and the taxi car that came over was previously owned by Epstein (bought by that taxi company in a liquidation). That's what this particular plane issue is.
Never bring logic to a circlejerk.