Gino

Yes I've read it. But this isn't a simplistic approach, human nature is static and predictable.

Sex offender recruiting teenage girls = sexual exploitation. That's not oversimplification. That's pattern recognition. Are you seeing it?

You checked two LLMs. Both confirmed the general claim is accurate (Grok: true, ChatGPT: largely true). Data question settled. Right-wing extremism is the dominant threat.

Now let's sit back and wait for Trump to release the Epstein FIles, regardless of politics, this is going to be interesting.

You're arguing definitions to avoid the point.

Sex offender recruiting at Trump's property. You still can't explain what else "recruiting" means in that context. Occam's Razor applies perfectly here. You can't or won't admit it.

Stop deflecting. Why won't Trump release the files he promised?

Why Grok? What does Grok offer that Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, or Meta AI don't?

Asking because you just questioned ADL's potential bias. Source selection matters, right?

Trump: What's the Deal? (Full 1991 BANNED Documentary) The film was commissioned in 1988 by Leonard Stern. Donald threatened to sue any broadcaster or distributor that took on the film. It was screen only twice & subsequently suppressed.

Since we both can't explain why he won't release files despite promising, this 1990 doc might offer more context on his pattern of promises vs delivery:

open.substack.com/pub/theoffic...

Pre-politics, purely factual. Curious what you think. Also explains why people bow to him or feel cowed.

"Fudged"? By whom? Provide your source please.
ADL methodology is transparent. Got data contradicting 70%? Share it (source please).
Otherwise you're rejecting facts you don't like. Show your evidence (source please) or concede the point.

Link to what? The deleted post that doesn't exist anymore? Or the verified Epstein emails? Be specific. Or use your favourite search engine and find the link yourself.

'No evidence' found yet of ties between Charlie Kirk's shooting and left-wing groups, officials say Three people familiar with the federal probe into Kirk’s assassination told NBC News that investigators have yet to find a link between the alleged shooter and left-wing groups.

Since 2002, right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terrorism in the United States. Far-right attacks continue to outpace all other types. The data in this article is sourced from the Anti-Defamation League.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...

Screenshot of Encyclopedia Britannica with relevant content about Occam's Razor.

Encyclopedia Britannica confirms Occam's Razor is a valid principle of parsimony.
Applied here: Sex offender recruiting = sexual exploitation. Simplest explanation.
If you're suggesting Epstein recruited for legitimate purposes, say so explicitly. Otherwise, stop playing dumb. #ReleaseEpsteinFiles

This isn't about "high road" vs "fighting dirty."

It's about effective vs ineffective. False claims that get debunked HELP Trump ("see, they lie!").

Verified facts are weapons. Use them.

Will you?

Giuffre's testimony is important, I don't dispute that (no victims have accused Trump of involvement).
But this strengthens the case for releasing ALL files. Why keep it hidden if there's nothing to see?
Trump campaigned on release, two terms later, still not delivered. Why? #ReleaseEpsteinFiles

Context should be obvious: convicted sex offender recruiting at Trump's property (Occam's Razor). Stop playing dumb.
You're also forgetting Trump's first term, Epstein died August 2019, on Trump's watch. Power protects power, especially when that power is scared.
#ReleaseEpsteinFiles #TrumpKnew

You’re not stupid, stop weaponising “recruiting”, context is clear.
Why haven’t the files been released? Trump promised, still hasn’t delivered. Power protects power. We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly (multiple admins). If Trump's innocent, why not release the files and prove it? #EpsteinFiles

The "knew about the girls" email ≠ Thanksgiving 2017 claim. In that email Epstein wrote Trump was aware of recruiting at Mar-a-Lago and told them to stop. That's damning, and doesn't exonerate Trump.
Two different things. One supported by evidence, one not. Both deserve answers.
#ReleaseEpsteinFiles

True. Once misinformation spreads, corrections rarely catch up.

That's why: verify before sharing, call out errors when you see them (like this thread did), and don't let partisan loyalty override fact-checking.

Yes, Dems screwed up, but corrected it. Now let’s apply that standard everywhere.

When does it stop being explainable? But we’re not the audience. This is episode 5 in a 10 episode series. All ‘emergencies’ are part of 10 episode cycles to keep their followers engaged. Governing is the subplot. Engagement is the plot. This isn’t politics. This is content creation.

Try Linux Mint (cinnamon) it’s even leaner.

Yes, Dems posting then deleting was embarrassing and damaged cred.

The difference: they deleted it when shown to be wrong.

Now apply that same standard to Trump's "Epstein hoax" claims, the verified emails show Epstein writing that Trump "knew about the girls."

Willingly dishonest cuts both ways.

You’re intellectually honest, an outstanding citizen with impeccable moral standing, you believe truth can be found, and are working towards a true understanding of what goes on around you. Unless I mistook you for someone else entirely.

Nobel Peace Prize goes to Venezuelan opposition leader.

Suddenly there's a secret memo authorizing boat strikes in the Caribbean based on Trump's cartel claims.

I'm sure the timing and location are pure coincidence. 🙃

Declarations of war are the domain of Congress. Not secret memos.

"Comments available to people I follow" = curated audience
"Some are liberal" = token dissent
"You proved why I restrict" = admitting you fear scrutiny

You just gave a masterclass in echo chamber construction. Couldn't have scripted it better if I’d tried. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@tuta.com when your emails fail your own security and domain checks.

We’re now in episode 6/7 (of 10) territory. A few more days before another manufactured crisis and the narrative changes again.

You just demonstrated exactly what I described: closed comments to protect followers from “stupidity” (aka contrary evidence), but monitoring closely enough to respond when criticized.

The protective echo chamber in action. Thanks for proving my point.

When does it stop being explainable? But we’re not their audience. This is episode 5 in a 10 episode series. All ‘emergencies’ are part of 10 episode cycles to keep their followers engaged. Governing is the subplot. Engagement is the plot. This isn’t politics. This is content creation.

New York Times breaking news alert: Secret DOJ memo approves Trump boat strikes based solely on Trump's claims about drug cartels.

In linguistic studies this is called a tautology.

Translation: "Trump's actions are justified because Trump claims they're justified." That's circular reasoning, not legal authority.

And why was this “a secret memo”?

@redamerican.bsky.social closes comments on Epstein posts.

Why? Claims can't withstand scrutiny. Not seeking truth, creating propaganda. Protecting ego from contrary evidence.

Classic echo chamber behaviour. Intellectual cowardice.

Closed comments is significant. It means:
• They know their claims can’t withstand scrutiny
• They’re not interested in dialogue or truth
• They’re creating propaganda, not starting conversations
• They’re protecting their followers (and ego) from contrary evidence

He used his infamous “National Security” wording in the post; guess we know what card he’s going to try and play. 🤔🤨 but this wouldn’t have been an issue if consequences had been thought of BEFORE imploding your country.