> Imagine getting bombed during negotiations - not once, but twice in a single year!
All other problems with the Iran war aside, there's absolutely nothing unusual about this, this is standard. Countries that go to war with each other are almost always mid-negotiations. Usually negotiations of some level go on throughout a war as well.
They bombed the negotiators who were in a third country who were hosting negotiations.
That's totally different from war continuing while negotiations take place. That's more like something the bad guys would do in a Game of Thrones plotline.
I agree with this, but we don't have a good understanding of the mechanisms of how most drugs work, and what else they do. That's why, generally speaking, we require actual observational safety data, and not just a thorough description of the mechanism(s) of a drug. And sometimes we find out years or even decades later we were badly wrong. "Safe" is a very qualified term when it comes to drugs. What actually distinguishes $randompeptide from $approveddrug is the safety data - there are papers all about the proposed mechanisms for most of them.
Indeed it did not. But Trump and the members of his administration have announced, repeatedly and explicitly, that they hate me and wish me harm. So I can't accept being governed by them or by a system that tolerates them. If they decide they'd like to apologize, and offer some explanation for how I can be sure they won't return to their misdeeds, perhaps we can hear them out.
> If they decide they'd like to apologize, and offer some explanation for how I can be sure they won't return to their misdeeds, perhaps we can hear them out.
Nothing short of life in prison for the ones that plead guilty will accomplish that.
There is no credible evidence that either of the Presidents you alluded to visited "the island". It's amazing to see conspiracy theories promulgated on HN.
There is lots of evidence that these two presidents were on the pedophile island many times, and one of their wives. That is well established.
There is no evidence released to the public directly linking those two men to specific sex acts by name. There is unnamed evidence released by the US DOJ specifically describing the assault I described in the prior comment. Again, none of this is theoretical, conspiracy, or conjecture. It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
No doubt you are aware that the claims about Clinton originated with the founder of the Epstein Mythos, Virginia Giuffre, who we know for a fact was a serial confabulator. While she was inarguably one of Epstein's victims, she also made several claims that were demonstrably untrue, she could not keep her own stories straight, the FBI concluded internally that she was totally unreliable and that she was even lying about what the FBI told her, other victims contradicted her, and she was herself forced to recant on several subjects, including admitting that her "autobiography" book was a work of fiction. If you doubt me, feel free to read the FBI memo about her.
In the case of both Clinton and Trump, there is no evidence that either of them visited Little St. James, and plenty of evidence otherwise - for example, Epstein even says so about Clinton in an email.
> It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
The documents are "authentic" in that yes, a real schizo did really tell the government he heard it secondhand 30 years ago that this happened and also that he discovered Hilary Clinton was behind the WTC bombing. (For some reason, people like you always leave that part of the bombshell revelations out.) I am for total transparency generally, but this whole saga has been a major disappointment for me in that the level of public discourse is so lazy and low that its clear that in a purely utilitarian way, it would have been better to not release it. Hopefully long-term the sacrifice of many people whose reputations are being destroyed over little or nothing is worth it. Every crank call about celebrities is being treated as gospel.
Remarkable that Epstein confined his pedophile activities to a single location.
No, wait:
In 2008, Epstein reached a plea deal with prosecutors after the parents of a 14-year-old girl told Florida police that Epstein had molested their daughter at his Palm Beach home.
Hmm ... would that be the same Palm Beach home that Trump visited a good many times back when he was best of chums with Jeffrey and sending him the nude outline sketches?
> Remarkable that Epstein confined his pedophile activities to a single location
Correct, the vast majority of his criminal activity appeared to be in his Palm Beach home and in New York, where he recruited high dozens to hundreds of high school girls for his personal sexualized massages. It actually appears only a very small amount of his illicit activity ever took place on the island, which makes it all the more ironic that's what the conspiracy theorists focus on.
I was willing to be more than openmminded about the conspiracists' mass trafficking ring (ie, beyond the two people charged) angle, but the ironic thing is about the Epstein files is they revealed it was almost all smoke. Of course, in the conspirational mindset, all contradicting evidence is actually, secretly, when you apply the correct hermeutics, even more damning, or else evidence of a coverup.
> the ironic thing is about the Epstein files is they revealed it was almost all smoke.
and a few massive conspiracy shaped holes - eg: the references to missing content regarding Trump and a few other. Oh, and the shortfall between what has been released Vs what has been indexed, the black paging, and the hints from those that have seen but are sworn to not tell about that which they have seen but cannot recount.
Still, at least we seem to agree that PedoIsland is a misdirect when it comes to determining who did what to whom and where.
I can't see Pam Bondi coming clean here anytime soon.
> the hints from those that have seen but are sworn to not tell about that which they have seen but cannot recoun
The people who were victimized by anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell could come forward at any time, just as dozens of Epstein's victims have. They have some of the highest-powered civil lawyers in America, hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement funds available, and vast swaths of the country behind them.
It tells me that they are afraid of their safety and the safety of their families. They would risking backlash from a billionaire who loves intimidation tactics, who currently has the highest amount of power of any individual in the US, and who has nutty followers who would act on his behalf and let him pretend he was not at all happy about what they are doing.
The people who have come forward about Epstein's abuses have little to worry about because that man is dead and he's a perfect scapegoat for all the the other ultra-rich who took part in the abuses.
If you’re talking about Trump, you may remember that E Jean Carroll won a lawsuit against him. She’s walking the earth and continuing to live a public life.
And again, millions of dollars are available from settlement funds if Epstein was involved, there’s already some of the best lawyers in the country begging to represent you, and there’s people volunteering to pay for your security needs.
You’re also ignoring the many victims that came out before Epstein died.
This is just an excuse to perpetuate the conspiracy theories. It doesn’t hold water. And of course if anything was released from super secret “the files” they’re definitely still covering up, they’d become publicly known.
Surely you see how this line of reasoning is identical to that of any other conspiracy or moral panic.
You misunderstand my point. I’m saying that if there are any credible accusations in “the files” beyond those well-documented ones against Epstein and Maxwell, then the accusers would be known publicly anyway when they’re disclosed.
The whole thing falls apart the moment you examine the actual evidence and think about it. It’s really disappointing that smart people on even this forum get wrapped up into this junk.
> You misunderstand my point. I’m saying that if there are any credible accusations in “the files” beyond those well-documented ones against Epstein and Maxwell, then the accusers would be known publicly anyway when they’re disclosed.
The whole thing falls apart the moment you examine the actual evidence and think about it. It’s really disappointing that smart people on even this forum get wrapped up into this junk.
Did you know that Epstein's hard drives were removed by a private investigator, and that the FBI and DOJ never had them to begin with? They were removed before they were searched by law enforcement.
And? What does that have to do with the absence of witnesses of a sex trafficking ring involving anyone else?
This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct. Read the reports and consider the context; this is a nothingburger. But because the conspiracy theory has been started, everything that happens will be read as supporting it. Epstein had very good reasons for destroying evidence of his own deeds without any need for anyone else being involved. (The evidence the DoJ collected was very weak and they weren’t sure it would sustain a prosecution, which is partly why they were glad to go with a plea deal.) You’re coming in primed to believe there’s already a conspiracy about something else altogether.
> And? What does that have to do with the absence of witnesses of a sex trafficking ring involving anyone else?
Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
> This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct.
Then why is it news FROM TODAY/YESTERDAY?
---
In a March 19 deposition with the House Oversight Committee, Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime personal attorney, said he learned after Epstein's 2008 conviction that the hard drives were in the possession of Riley Kiraly, a private investigations firm.
"The Committee requests that you make yourself available for a transcribed interview to provide insight into the contents, removal, storage, and location of materials removed from Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home," the letter to Riley says.
That computer and surveillance equipment was removed from Epstein's home and withheld from law enforcement throughout his Florida case has been public since 2020. That Riley Kiraly possessed the equipment was known to the lead prosecutor as well. [46;176]
You can CTRL-F "computer" and get 92 matches indicating their importance:
It seems that the only "news" is the bit that you mentioned about Indyke/Riley. Indyke apparently was not involved in the Florida case. At least he isn't mentioned in the linked DOJ report among Epstein's
counsel.
I don't know what it would take for it to be deemed necessary to seize the equipment that the prosecution failed to get almost 20 years ago.
> Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
The sibling commenter addressed the timeline, but you still seem to be missing the point: harddrive or no harddrive, there would have been witnesses - at least the victims- of the grand conspiracy theory involving other men. Instead, you're limited to Maria Farmer (26 when she was victimized by Epstein, rarely seen in public because she makes wild accusations about random people including the journalists interviewing her - she is currently convinced that Whitney Webb murdered a chef) and Virginia Giuffre (underage victim and confirmed fabulist, who also, for the record, said Trump did nothing wrong and endorsed his Presidency). There never was any evidence of the organized conspiracy of elites part of the Epstein story. Read the testimony! Again and again the women say there were no other men.
You're concluding that computer equipment Epstein had every reason to hide from law enforcement to cover up more concrete evidence of his solicitation of minors actually contains evidence of a totally different thing that nobody was claiming at the time - a grand sex trafficking conspiracy involving powerful billionaires and politicians. But there's no reason to think that's the case.
At the end of the day, if any of this happened, these women could come forward. They're entitled to millions in settlement money already (and you don't even have to go to court to get it - its an administrative process, not a judicial one; and it's big money, Annie Farmer alone got at least 1.5 million), and naming additional names would open the door to even more! They already have some of the best civil attorneys in the country! An unrelated case has already shown that you can win a civil suit against the most powerful man in the country, even with no evidence besides your testimony! That they have not, combined with the total lack of evidence, suggests they don't exist.
But because the mindset behind this is conspiratorial, it will always be "there IS evidence - it's just being covered up!". And no amount of releases will ever be enough - because they can't show it to be true, which just proves there's a coverup! It's never-ending.
> At the end of the day, if any of this happened, these women could come forward. They're entitled to millions in settlement money already (and you don't even have to go to court to get it - its an administrative process, not a judicial one; and it's big money, Annie Farmer alone got at least 1.5 million)
Many of these women did not want to go to court. They did not want to talk to media. They did not want to relieve the trauma of these events. Money is a huge motivator for some people but not all. Imagine decades after the event, you've settled down. Maybe you have a career or a family. Kids. Do you want to drag them through that? Have their spouse get asked questions at work or jokes made to their kids by other kids? Of course not.
When the DOJ leaked many of their names, that was a threat. That was a threat. I could also imagine many individuals involved in this wouldn't know the names of the abused. Why would they? Now they do, for many. That's enough to get pressure on people to shut the fuck up. Not all the names were released!
"Six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and two members of another accuser’s family said they felt "degraded" during Wednesday's contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing"
---
[Bondi] "She was specifically questioned about why released files were heavily redacted and why several survivors' names were not."
---
"At one point, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., asked Epstein survivors in the room to stand up and raise their hands if they hadn’t had the opportunity to meet with the Justice Department. Every single one raised their hand."
---
"Bensky has said she was 17 and a budding ballerina in 2004 when Epstein sexually abused her at his New York City mansion.
“I felt like such a ghost walking through Epstein’s mansion.
I felt like there were so many people who saw me.
There were so many people who should have spoken up," Bensky said."
"Despite the scale of disclosures, experts warned of serious compliance failures and botched redactions that exposed sensitive victim information, with harm often occurring before records were withdrawn. Accountability has been limited, with only one close associate under investigation. Under international human rights law, States are obligated to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women and girls, including acts committed by private actors."
"“The failure to safeguard their privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma. The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatised...”
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.
“Resignations of implicated individuals alone are not an adequate substitute for criminal accountability,” the experts said. They welcomed steps by some governments to probe current and former officials and private individuals named in the files. They called on other states to do the same.
---
Final note:
> there would have been witnesses
Yes, and they don't want to admit to being there because of the liability.
Can you name an Epstein victim that was not already public that was exposed by the DoJ's failure to properly redact? You keep repeating these narratives that are simply nonsense. Who was "leaked" by the DoJ that we didn't already know about?
Also, are you suggesting we should convict people and impeach them based on anonymous accusations? Do you believe in the Sixth Amendment? Surely you don't believe that we should be able to destroy notable figures based on anonymous denouncements? There is no universe where anything happens without people coming forward!
You're caught in a bind though, because the conspiracy relies on all these victims of other men existing, but mysteriously not coming forward, unlike the dozens of the victims who say only Epstein was involved, so you have to come up with fictitious reasons why they aren't materializing. What do you even want? Presumably, it's for these shadowy pedophiles to be taken down...but they can't be taken down without the victims coming forward, files or no files!
This is particularly ironic that, instead of endlessly litigating a conspiracy theory that's fairly well exhausted, there is open child prostitution going on right now (instead of 30 years ago) in LA on "the Blade", and we are doing approximately nothing about it, and not nearly enough people care. Imagine if all the energy of these conspiracy theorists was focused on stopping something actually happening now.
You would be highly advised to learn how to do basic plumbing, electrical, and renovation tasks yourself in the US as well. The cost savings is enormous. Finding a quality contractor, in addition to being expensive, can also be very hard - there's plenty of people doing plumbing or electrical who might be licensed and everything but are grossly incompetent or never finish jobs.
A lot of stuff in the US is absurdly easy, as well. For example, in my area, pretty much all plumbing is PVC or PEX. Anyone on HN can learn very quickly how to work with this stuff and it's very cheap. There are very few repairs, for example, you could ever need to do that would cost more than having a plumber just show up and look at it - even accounting for buying tools.
One added benefit of knowing how to do this stuff is even when you hire it out, you typically get much better work out of contractors for a better price. If for no other reason than you can more effectively communicate requirements and handle potential surprises/changes (which is guaranteed to happen when renovating)
In my area, DC Metro, it's $200 for a plumber to show up. That's before they do any work - just the cost to schedule them.
And they don't do drywall - they'll hack a nasty, over-sized hole in the wall or ceiling to get the plumbing and leave you with a $600+ bill and needing a drywalled and painter next.
In my experience, it's really hard to get someone good who can do a plumbing job, or electrical job, then patch the drywall & match the texture well. You need to search for a "Handyman" service for this & often you're getting a jack of all trades, expert at none. If they really are amazing, they're booked solid & no one will ever recommend them to you as they're already hard to get an appointment with.
For a lot of specialists like drywall, the really good people seem to never want to deal with small jobs. They get paid better & it's easier to do large jobs.
Yeah, generally if you even have a mild disposition to learning how things work and building stuff for fun (i.e. you tore open things and played with legos as a kid). You can generally crash course most home servicing work in a afternoon and very often end up with a better result than paying someone $500 or even $5000 to do it.
Especially nowadays with AI, you can really quickly consolidate what you need to know for your specific job. Though of course, trust, but verify.
> And for almost all of that 10%, beef was a luxury good
This is simply not true. As soon as we were able, we ate almost all megafauna to extinction. Once we mastered pastoralism, peoples who engaged in it continued eating high-meat diets. Even for more settled peoples, going up to medieval or colonial times, beef or other meat was often present in a daily stew in some form.
> Looking at chimpanzee diets, I don't think our common ancestor was regularly eating burgers. More likely insects and leaves...which do not contain Neu5Gc.
Chimpanzees eat plenty of meat. They particularly enjoy hunting and eating monkeys, for example.
I understand that you're being intentionally difficult, and probably think it's quite clever, but clear to the rest of us that the original point was that Norway is an extreme outlier with their immense (oil) wealth, hydroelectricity generation and tiny population density.
US "parties" are giant coalitions compared to the "parties" in parliamentary democracies. You're solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions.
Love him or hate him, Trump is a great example of this - in 2016, Trump effectively formed a new party focused on anti-immigration and protectionism, which rapidly grew to dominate the "conservative" coalition. But those other parties, ranging from libertarians to the Chamber of Commerce (highly pro immigration and highly pro free trade) parties are still there in the coalition.
> Change the American voting system tomorrow and legislators will belong to different nominal parties that end up forming precisely the same coalitions.
The US is extremely partisan right now and the partisanship is strongly aligned with the two major parties, not the individual coalitions that make them up. And with two parties you get polarization, because then it's all about getting 51% for a single party rather than forming temporary coalitions between various parties none of which can do anything unilaterally.
A different voting system allows you to have more than two viable parties, which changes the dynamic considerably.
Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.
The 51% is for the coalition, not the party. That’s what you’re missing. CoC Republicans for example have temporarily sacrificed their immigration policies to retain legislative influence - and they are a check on the Trumpist wing passing whatever anti-immigrant legislation they want, because they too cannot act without at least tacit support from the CoC wing.
The “major party” is from a systems perspective no different than a European parliamentary governing coalition.
> Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election.
The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an individual legislator or party can prevent any other from introducing a bill and taking a vote on it.
In less partisan periods in US history, bills would often pass with the partial support of both major parties.
Moreover, the US coalitions being tied to the major parties makes them too sticky. For example, the people who want lower taxes aren't necessarily the people who want subsidies for oil companies, or increased military spending, but they've been stuck in the same "coalition" together for decades.
Suppose you want to do a carbon tax. People who don't like taxes are going to be a major opponent, so an obvious compromise would be to pass it as part of a net reduction in total taxes, e.g. reduce the federal payroll tax by more than the amount of the carbon tax. But that doesn't happen because the coalition that wants lower taxes never overlaps with the coalition that wants to do something about climate change. Meanwhile the coalition that wants lower taxes wouldn't propose a carbon tax on their own, and the coalition that wants a carbon tax to increase overall government revenue gets shot down because that would be extremely unpopular, so instead it never happens.
All countries have these problems which vary by the local political environment and history. Multiple European countries are facing particularly absurd varieties of these dilemmas because of their refusal to form coalitions with the second or third largest party in their country.
Again, it seems like the flaw is in trying to form a long-term coalition instead of just passing the bills that have enough support to pass when you put them up for a vote among all the people who were actually elected. Why should anyone have to give a crap what someone else's position is on immigration when the bill in question is on copyright reform or tax incentives for solar panels?
The coalitions do a pretty good job of representing people’s pre-existing positions. People aren’t not voting for copyright reform because their party said so, but because they agree with their party. Party discipline in the US is not nearly as strong as in most parliamentary systems.
All other problems with the Iran war aside, there's absolutely nothing unusual about this, this is standard. Countries that go to war with each other are almost always mid-negotiations. Usually negotiations of some level go on throughout a war as well.
reply