No-one is mentioning Trump's stroke

[CharlotteCChapel]

It's like tumbleweed out there. During the live televised 9/11 remembrance service Trump's face drooped on one side.

No-one in the mainstream media seems to be mentioning it.

Ive only seen it mentioned on IHIP and the Meidas Touch.

It must be uncomfortable for Maga to realise that the killer is more likely to be like one of their family than a trans lefty.

After all in Kirk's own words, Democrats are maggots, vermin, swine.

Who is this aimed at?

I don’t think anyone can show young adults always follow their parent’s beliefs. We have violent crimes here that show that.

I know people are relying on the information about the parents to further their argument, they’re leaning on it where they wouldn’t for other crimes.

Just a general observation.

But being the most left leaning in a right leaning family doesn't automatically mean that you are a lefty.

And that comment was corrected by the Guardian

I'm more sanguine about the private life of Trump. I've endured lecherous colleagues been pinned down by two and assaulted back in the 80s, been pursued in the 90s by a billionaire who told my boss that he would have me. Luckily colleagues shielded me for the rest of his visit.

Those three would have hopped on a plane to Epstein island in a heartbeat. But they were brilliant within the company. The Arab owner, a director from London and one from Wales.

My first job I was sacked from because I wouldn't put out for my boss. Kept my mouth shut after that. In case anyone was wondering.

So you don't have to like the individual it's their leadership qualities that count.

Im highly suspicious when people tell other people it's wrong to have their own natural reactions to people who are dangerous threat.

Why is it so important to you to censor societies reaction to threatening people?

These are highly corrupt and narcissistic people that damaged and eroded our societies enough by their own behaviour and not calling them out for that and reacting to their infallibility is also dangerous to our society.
And actually I think it's our duty as well intentioned citizens to not be quiet about these things. Taking the high road and all that BS is just colluding with it all in a small way.

I am sorry you ensured lecherous colleagues. But that's not the same thing as being raped as a child. I can understand the danger in demanding purity from politicians. I can accept that sometimes not very nice people.can be good at their job. But I think it's absolutely fine to "purity spiral" where raping children is concerned. And that is at the heart of the Epstein scandal. Child rape and people seeing it and doing nothing. Not just "boys will be boys" men behaving a bit scandalously or ribald sexist humour. It's absolutely fine to feel disgust at this.

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about his skills as a politician. More trying to show the difference between how I feel about people I completely disagree with politically versus some of the outrage over Trump. Like I could probably be civil with someone who argued that the age of.consent should be lowered to 14 even though I disagreed completely. I wouldn't want to interact with an adult who was dating a 14 year old or "persuade them they were wrong". I would punch them.

@justasking111

Those three would have hopped on a plane to Epstein island in a heartbeat. But they were brilliant within the company. The Arab owner, a director from London and one from Wales.

I am afraid this really troubles me. Because if (hypothetically) people.at the companies had been flying out to Epstein's island etc, then the company isn't morally neutral by knowing and continuing to employ them. They would have been actively facilitating the abuse because the whole reason those men were able to do what they did was because of the money and power they got from high status jobs. Saying "we would tolerate it so long as it benefitted the company" or "so long as they are good at their job" and you being fine with that is super dark. If it's true then where you worked was evil sorry.

Back then Epstein was a financial genius to all. People took his advice. Were flattered even. No-one knew. Just as Savile got away with it. Children raped in a children's home near me. But back then we just didn't know.

You didn't know. I think some of the people on the Island did know. I think the Birthday book makes it plain that they knew and thought it funny. But let's agree to disagree.

Plenty of people knew, the victims knew but they weren't listened to.

Even now people know but many still don't care. Just look at Mandleson apologising (and believe me I used that word loosely) it has all the sincerity of a shallow puddle.

Just like the excuses made for Trump, he is a convicted felon

So he may have had radical dentistry while he was out of comms recently, and had several teeth removed?

It must be recent, because this is not something that has been apparent at any time before the last month or so. There are gazillions of previous pictures of Trump's face in which that downward droop is not present. And let's face it, if it had previously been as obvious as it was at the 9/11 event, people would have commented on it.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=donald%20trump&ia=images&iax=images
and
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/trumps-face-drooping-latest-photos-35891640

In the case of Savile, plenty of people did know (me for one, and most of the teenage girls I knew in London: we knew to leave any party he arrived at, for sure) and more alarmingly, plenty of people tried to inform the authorities about him, like the nurses at Stoke Mandeville who, having discovered their bosses did nothing about him, spent time protecting their vulnerable patients from him.

Mandelson the press exposed some stuff years ago. Starmer was mad to appoint him. Savile, Rolf Harris, not a whisper in the press. Savile was a friend of the royal family as was Epstein. Still nothing was said . The police didn't deal with complaints, the media were silent.

I loathe Mandleson. It's got nothing to do with his politics.
I also hope Saville is burning in hell. Again. Not politics.
The point is, Trump is so vile as a PERSON not a politician that people sadly decrying the "tone" of discourse when people discuss his possible health issues are... Missing the point. Charlie Kirk had some pretty horrendous beliefs in my opinion, but I still feel sad he died. His beliefs/opinions don't subtract from that. If he was also a nonce/violent rapist I would feel less sad.

Narcissists can’t bear to show any sign of weakness so it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s trying to keep it out of the news. It reminds me of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” story or the film “Don’t Look Up” where the emperor/president think they can gaslight an entire country into ignoring what’s right in front of them! Also think about how he laid into Biden about his age-related health issues making him an unfit president, and he doesn’t want people doing the same to him.

He probably hasn't had a stroke, our powers of remote diagnosis are amazing.

@Namitynamename
"But if it's hateful to say a person who supports refugees deserves to get killed by refugees then it's equally hateful to say someone like Charlie's Kirk who advocates for the 2nd amendment deserves to get shot."
No one has said that anyone "deserves to be killed by refugees " or that "the occasional killing of citizens by refugees is a price they are prepared to pay for accepting refugees in their communities".
Charlie Kirk, however, is on record as saying that a certain number of deaths by gun violence every year is the price to pay for the 2nd amendment. He agreed with the principle of random shooting deaths by crazies with guns. He has fallen victim to his misguided beliefs.
Personally, I think all those who vote in favour of the 2nd amendment should be made to sign a waiver saying they are OK with themselves and their loved ones being the victims of shooting incidents. It might just bring it home to them what they are supporting.

Personally, I think all those who vote in favour of the 2nd amendment should be made to sign a waiver saying they are OK with themselves and their loved ones being the victims of shooting incidents. It might just bring it home to them what they are supporting.

I agree with you but I suspect they'd still think "it won't happen to me". Or even worse consider it a risk worth taking.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta
I suspect they'd still think "it won't happen to me". Or even worse consider it a risk worth taking.

Especially if they are the sort of man who has stated publicly he would be in favour of making a ten-year-old who had been raped carry the resulting baby to term.

This is how I see it...
Ck advocated for gun rights, said the side effect of that would be losing some lives, but worth it to protect the second amendment and other rights. ( Im pretty sure he didn't think that sacrifice would be him) . So here we are and who is up in arms ?(no pun intended)... the pro gun republican brigade! Wth??!! Has anyone said anything about the 3 children shot in the same day as CK? ...barely a word...why ??? Because 3 kids being shot isnt feeding.into trumps epstein deflection or his need to start civil unrest to stop the midterms next year. He is desperately grappling for a democratic connection with TR, despite him being brought up in a maga gunloving republican household....and its Bidens/dems/ obamas fault! What a crock.

Tinytimmy123
Has anyone said anything about the 3 children shot in the same day as CK? ...barely a word...why ??? Because 3 kids being shot isnt feeding.into trumps epstein deflection or his need to start civil unrest to stop the midterms next year.

I think it is more simply that kids being shot at school is so commonplace in the USA that it isn't news at all.

This. Funnily enough I was having a discussion with someone recently about American school shootings and I realised that the only ones I can name off the top of my head are Columbine and Sandy Hook. I know there have been many others but there just isn't the headspace to remember them all.

Not really surprising, since they are the two most "notable".

Columbine was an early one, 1999, when people still got shocked about these things and which seems to have inspired copycat killings; it also had thirteen students and one teacher as victims, still a high number for a single event. And there was a film made about it by Michael Moore.

Sandy Hook was in 2012, with twenty-eight deaths including the shooter's mother whom he killed with her own gun before starting his main spree, and the shooter himself. It was particularly horrible because the children involved were aged six and seven. And also because Alex Jones, the sweetie, decided it was all lies and there had been no deaths, which meant it stayed in the mind and the parents were persecuted.

Parkland in 2018 was seventeen deaths, Santa Fe the same year was ten, but mostly the fatalities on these occasions are in single figures, which makes them less immediately memorable as individual incidents – unless you are the parents of the victim(s).