Epstein bar syndrome (you have to be drunk in one to believe what Democrats are saying)

[Freddy Figbottom]

I do not expect anything.

I am just explaining why the blame for this is on Trump and his admin ...

you're trying to do that,

and failing at it spectacularly.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Yeah...and it takes all sorts of things to get legislation passed and signed.

YOU assholes just cannot do it.

YOU assholes do not know how to govern...how to negotiate.

YOU assholes should stick to being the loyal opposition...keeping the extreme left (like me) in check. THAT you are good at. But you have no ability at all to govern.

reality proves other-wise, marxist fuckup.

 

[Diogenes]

Yeah...and it takes all sorts of things to get legislation passed and signed.

YOU assholes just cannot do it.

YOU assholes do not know how to govern...how to negotiate.

YOU assholes should stick to being the loyal opposition...keeping the extreme left (like me) in check. THAT you are good at. But you have no ability at all to govern.

Republicans didn't make the Senate rules, Yank.

Senate Rule XXII, which includes the cloture rule requiring a three-fifths majority (typically 60 votes) to end debate, was originally adopted in 1917. It was primarily authored by a group of senators led by Senator Thomas S. Martin (Democrat from Virginia), who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time.

Under Senate Rule XXII, a cloture motion to end debate requires a three-fifths majority of the Senate, or 60 votes (assuming all 100 senators are present and voting). This threshold exists to prevent filibusters, where senators could indefinitely delay a vote by holding the floor with extended debate.

 

[Diogenes]

you're trying to do that,

and failing at it spectacularly.

It's what he excels at, apparently.

 

[QP!]

Hadn't you better ask those concerned? At any rate, what you failed to present was any evidence of "a blatantly illegal deal to cover up for Epstein, and try to ensure no one who was associated with him could ever be charged".

Acosta was found to have ILLEGALLY try to cover up things in the Epstein trial.

I give you PROOF of that.

You fail to connect then how that shows that your OP claiming that somehow Acosta, the guy trying to bury details of the Epstein case, saying 'there is nothing to see here' with regards to Trump or anyone, is just stupid.

You fail to see that as you are stupid.

Acosta should have been charged as it is clear his sole goal was to bury this case while protecting all those who were involved with Epstein with the deal that tried to ensure NONE of them would ever be investigated as he had already given them immunity.

 

[QP!]

Trump doesn't control the Democrats in the Senate. No king, remember?

Cave, bend the knee, and the shutdown will end.

Exactly.

So if he needs HELP from Dems, and he is asking for their vote, then you offer them something for it as has been the history of 'deals' throughout the Senate and House history if you need the other sides votes.

If you tell them to go fuck themselves as they will get nothing you cannot expect their vote and its not their fault then.

It would be like you needing your neighbors help with something and when they say 'yes but i need your help after' and you say 'fuck you, you will get nothing from me' and when they refuse to then help you, you blame them.

Even you would agree you would have to be stupid to use that approach and then blame them right? Because if you do not, that just highlights how stupid you are.

 

[Diogenes]

Acosta was found to have ILLEGALLY try to cover up things in the Epstein trial.

Was he charged with any crime?

 

[Diogenes]

Exactly.

So if he needs HELP from Dems, and he is asking for their vote, then you offer them something for it as has been the history of 'deals' throughout the Senate and House history if you need the other sides votes.

If you tell them to go fuck themselves as they will get nothing you cannot expect their vote and its not their fault then.

It would be like you needing your neighbors help with something and when they say 'yes but i need your help after' and you say 'fuck you, you will get nothing from me' and when they refuse to then help you, you blame them.

Even you would agree you would have to be stupid to use that approach and then blame them right? Because if you do not, that just highlights how stupid you are.

Schumer is the Senate Minority Leader, for now, at least.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are preventing a majority of their caucus from voting in favor of the clean CR by maintaining a unified filibuster. Schumer has instructed Democrats to block the bill.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Republicans didn't make the Senate rules, Yank.

Senate Rule XXII, which includes the cloture rule requiring a three-fifths majority (typically 60 votes) to end debate, was originally adopted in 1917. It was primarily authored by a group of senators led by Senator Thomas S. Martin (Democrat from Virginia), who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time.

Under Senate Rule XXII, a cloture motion to end debate requires a three-fifths majority of the Senate, or 60 votes (assuming all 100 senators are present and voting). This threshold exists to prevent filibusters, where senators could indefinitely delay a vote by holding the floor with extended debate.

The Democrats would already have worked out a deal...as they have done when they did not have the needed cloture votes.

YOUR ASSHOLE REPUBLICANS simply do not know how to govern.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Exactly.

So if he needs HELP from Dems, and he is asking for their vote, then you offer them something for it as has been the history of 'deals' throughout the Senate and House history if you need the other sides votes.

If you tell them to go fuck themselves as they will get nothing you cannot expect their vote and its not their fault then.

It would be like you needing your neighbors help with something and when they say 'yes but i need your help after' and you say 'fuck you, you will get nothing from me' and when they refuse to then help you, you blame them.

Even you would agree you would have to be stupid to use that approach and then blame them right? Because if you do not, that just highlights how stupid you are.

EXACTLY!

But the Republicans (under Trump) simply do not know how to govern.

 

[Diogenes]

EXACTLY!

But the Republicans (under Trump) simply do not know how to govern.

The House of Representatives (Republican-controlled) passed a "clean" CR (H.R. 5371) on September 19, 2025, on a largely party-line vote. This 24-page bill makes no changes to existing spending levels or policies, mirroring bipartisan CRs passed 13 times under President Biden (with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voting yes each time).

In the Republican-controlled Senate (53-47 majority), the bill requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster under Senate rules.

All 53 Republicans support the clean CR, but it has failed repeatedly—10 times as of October 16, 2025—due to insufficient Democratic votes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The House of Representatives (Republican-controlled) passed a "clean" CR (H.R. 5371) on September 19, 2025, on a largely party-line vote. This 24-page bill makes no changes to existing spending levels or policies, mirroring bipartisan CRs passed 13 times under President Biden (with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voting yes each time).

In the Republican-controlled Senate (53-47 majority), the bill requires 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster under Senate rules.

All 53 Republicans support the clean CR, but it has failed repeatedly—10 times as of October 16, 2025—due to insufficient Democratic votes.

Oh, poor, poor Republicans. They couldn't get the Democrats to just roll over.

10 time!

And due to the minority refusing to allow the majority to beat the shit out of them.

You jerkoffs are a fucking joke.

 

[Diogenes]

Oh, poor, poor Republicans. They couldn't get the Democrats to just roll over.

10 time!

And due to the minority refusing to allow the majority to beat the shit out of them.

You jerkoffs are a fucking joke.

I'm not complaining. I like having the government shut down.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm not complaining.

Didn't suppose you were.

I like having the government shut down.

I suspect most of you MAGA morons do.

Fine. That is one of your freedoms.

For the moment.

 

[Diogenes]

The Democrats would already have worked out a deal...as they have done when they did not have the needed cloture votes.

So you say. You cannot state with any certainty what might have happened in an alternate reality.

 

[Diogenes]

Didn't suppose you were. I suspect most of you MAGA morons do. Fine. That is one of your freedoms. For the moment.

The USSC is set to rule on Louisiana v. Callais (consolidated with Robinson v. Callais) soon; hopefully they will wrap things up before the midterms.

 

[QP!]

Was he charged with any crime?

Was Epstein charged with the proper crimes?

You seem to not think corruption exists and everyone not charged with crimes is innocent. That is stupid. You are stupid.

Read the Judges clear findings above stating he committed a crime. THen read the statute of the crime which DOES NOT allow him legally to make deals without informing the defendants, which is exactly what he did.

So yes he did commit a crime that is clear and undenyable. Not getting charged with it does not change that.

 

[QP!]

Schumer is the Senate Minority Leader, for now, at least.

Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are preventing a majority of their caucus from voting in favor of the clean CR by maintaining a unified filibuster. Schumer has instructed Democrats to block the bill.

As he should.

You need something from me... you need my help or my vote... then you do what EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT DOES that needs help from the other side. Negotiate some bipartisan concessions in exchange for their vote.

You have to be stupid (which you are) to ssy 'go fuck yourself but oh i really need your vote, so please vote with me'.

 

[Diogenes]

Was Epstein charged with the proper crimes?

You seem to not think corruption exists and everyone not charged with crimes is innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

The saying "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" stems from a legal principle known as the presumption of innocence. Its origins can be traced to several historical and legal developments:

1. Roman Law: The concept has roots in Roman legal traditions, notably expressed in the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof lies with the one who accuses, not the one who denies"). This idea was part of the Roman legal system, emphasizing that the accuser must provide evidence of guilt.
2. English Common Law: The principle became formalized in English common law, particularly through the writings of jurists like Sir William Blackstone in the 18th century. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) articulated the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
3. Codification in Legal Systems: The phrase itself gained prominence in the context of modern legal systems, particularly in Anglo-American law. It was explicitly referenced in the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States, where the court affirmed that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Cultural Spread: The saying became a popular shorthand for the presumption of innocence through its use in legal proceedings, media, and public discourse, especially in the United States and other common law jurisdictions. It reflects the idea that an individual is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law through due process.

While the exact phrasing of the saying may vary, its essence is a cornerstone of many modern legal systems, particularly those influenced by English common law, and it is enshrined in documents like the U.S. Constitution (through the Fifth and Sixth Amendments) and international human rights frameworks, such as Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

That is stupid. You are stupid.

So you say.

Read the Judges clear findings above stating he committed a crime. THen read the statute of the crime which DOES NOT allow him legally to make deals without informing the defendants, which is exactly what he did.

Yet no charges were filed. Are you going to cry about it?

So yes he did commit a crime that is clear and undenyable. Not getting charged with it does not change that.

He's not in jail, is he?

 

[Diogenes]

As he should. You need something from me... you need my help or my vote... then you do what EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT DOES that needs help from the other side. Negotiate some bipartisan concessions in exchange for their vote. You have to be stupid (which you are) to ssy 'go fuck yourself but oh i really need your vote, so please vote with me'.

Sounds weak. In my experience, bullies respect strength. Three Democrats (Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and independent Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats) have crossed over to vote yes already.

Enough holdouts will cave before long, I suspect.