Summary: Author Michael Wolff alleges that Jeffrey Epstein showed him photos of Donald Trump with topless young women at Epstein’s Palm Beach home. Trump’s campaign has denied the claims, calling Wolff a “disgraced” writer. Wolff also expressed skepticism about Epstein’s death, suggesting it was implausible but also questioning the possibility of a cover-up.
But then it becomes a completely different scenario.
Trump has repeatedly admitted to molesting women, he’s bragged about forcing his way into women’s locker rooms, he joked openly and without judgement of epstein’s love of kids, he has scores of sexual assault allegations, he has enough money and clout to cover up his rapes and he’s been convicted of illegally covering up legal but embarrassing sexual encounters.
Trump has definitely molested children, it is a fact. It’s literally beyond a shadow of a doubt.
What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.
No. No it does not.
At the end of the day…
A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.
Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”
Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.
Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.
I’m looking for news that affirms reality. Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.
You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?
With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.
That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”
What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…
Are you trying to prove my point for me?
That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.
That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.