If you aren't interested in discussing anything with anyone, all you have do is not post in the thread. You don't need to waste everyone's time by announcing how much you don't care.
i do care, that is the problem. the only thing a lot of people here care about is yelling at the clouds to prove they are on the """right side""" atop their high horse. but i will post when i feel like it. deal with it, peanut. having said that, and knowing the little i know about you after having met in person nearly a decade ago, there are things about you i respect too. if you want me to take actual interest in anything you post i will do that earnestly if you do something for me, let's call it a challenge. i want you to pick a random film that you haven't seen or read other's opinions about. watch it. then, post an initial reaction in the media thread of your first thoughts that can't be swayed because you didn't have any bias going into it. then, still don't read anything about it, but take time to process and write a wall of text review entirely in your own words and opinion. you might get clowned on, but those are the opinions i am interested in and respect. and i promise i will respond in the same manner whether i agree or not. hopefully you see where i am going with this. if not, that is okay too.
EDIT — everyone i disagree with or they disagree with me is getting TRUMP 2028 hats.
EDIT #2 — i have been advised that there will no longer be elections by 2028 so i am going to start with TRUMP 2029 and release a new edition every year. thank you for your attention to this matter.
Again, none of this is relevant. As you've said, you can post what you like, sure, but coming into a thread where a particular subject is being discussed and responding to a particular point I've raised by, uh, complaining about how I review movies is really just a weird thing to do.
Does anyone here truly believe Epstein kept a clean little notebook of his clients?
November 12, 1994: Donald Trump raped Jane Doe (age 9)
November 13, 1994: Hillary and Bill Clinton also raped Jane Doe
November 14, 1994: Ahmed Muhammad raped Jane Doe
November 15, 1994: Joe Biden raped Jane Doe
November 16, 1994: Mike Bloomberg raped Jane Doe
Is this what people would actually want? Even if such 'evidence' were released, would anyone believe it? Or would each side simply ignore the "my glorious rebels" and hyper-focus on "their evil regime"?
Trump used the Epstein list as a talking point, in much the same way he said 'build the wall' and then didn't do that.
Right, there's no way that there's going to be an unambiguous smoking gun that the government just happened to have been sitting on all this time. That's conspiracist thinking from the same people whom Trump catered to by playing up the Epstein files and then disappointed by backing off, which is exactly why the backlash over this is largely coming from the MAGA crowd, contrary to juner's claim that this is all some DNC plot.
As for the story with Muriel Bowser, while it's important to stress that she does not "represent" me or my beliefs and I'm under no obligation to defend her or take responsibility for her, I think it's far more likely that she's trying to conciliate Trump by telling him what he wants to hear so that he'll end the occupation sooner rather than later. She's been dealing with Trump since his first term, remember, and it's plausible that by now she's figured that she'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Is this necessarily the ethical move on her part? Is there more merit in verbally opposing Trump even if it accomplishes nothing than in kissing his ass and possibly lessening the harm of what he's doing? I don't know, but it's a viable strategy, and I believe that's what she's doing. Trump makes his decisions based on vibes and gut instincts rather than actual policy positions or empirical evidence, and he's very susceptible to flattery and appeals to his ego. The people who deal with him are going to take advantage of that.