Jeez.

I’ve cooked for a fair few millionaires and a handful of billionaires.
Millionaires are generally relaxed, curious, happy to eat and enjoy the moment.
Billionaires tend to be tense, paranoid, joyless and permanently on edge.
Past a certain point, money stops buying comfort and starts buying fear.

That will no doubt depend on one’s bias!

Or alternatively, prioritised discipline and message control over internal pluralism....?

This ⬆️

France 1789/9 ??

Ridiculous question. How do you think he is supposed to reply to that?? Really poor journalism.

You should call in!!

Which is exactly why you should carefully research stuff - particularly in Twitter/X before posting. It appears that this is a family photo of Trump with his daughter, Tiffany. The Epstein crimes are real and horrific. This sort of thing undermines the investigation.

This is as far as I can gather misinformation. It appears that this is not Pam Bondi. She's not head of DOJ. The Epstein crimes are real and horrific. No need for this.

The nefarious people who facilitate and orchestrate the whole shit show we're living through.

🤣

What's her name?

😉

😘

Thank you for debating in good faith with well articulated points. To clarify: I don’t dismiss the horror of Epstein or how power protects abusers - that’s real. My point is that when it turns into a rush of everything-at-once, it becomes easier for those people to shrug it off.

Feel free.

This is going nowhere. You’re arguing with a position I haven’t taken and imputing motives instead of engaging the distinction I’ve made. Bye.

You’re free to infer whatever you like. I’m not interested in continuing.

These are inferences not facts.

🤣

Oh the irony. You’ve answered a question about ignorance with a personal insult, then lectured me on how to talk to people. I’m done with this. Feel free to have the last word.

You’re describing an attitude you infer, not assumptions I’ve made. I’ve asked repeatedly for specifics and got labels instead. That’s not an argument, it’s projection. Let’s leave it there.

No, the original claim wasn’t “influential figure behind the scenes”, it was that Starmer was installed. Those aren’t the same thing. I’m challenging that, not denying Mandelson’s influence or record.

I’m not “waving evidence away”.... I’m saying evidence of influence isn’t evidence of installation. Dressing that up as “violating rhetorical protocol” doesn’t add weight; it just avoids addressing the distinction.

I’ve no love for Mandelson and I’m not defending his tactics. My point is narrower: influence and grubby internal politics aren’t the same as installing a leader. Starmer still had to win a leadership election and a general election.

No, you didn’t. You asserted a “pattern” and then just re-asserted it. If you can’t actually spell out the assumptions you think I’m making then we should leave it.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m pushing back on a particular leap, not waving politics away. Questioning one claim isn’t apathy; it’s just not accepting an argument that hasn’t been made properly.

I was happy to debate substance, not trade status claims. Let’s leave it.

That's isn't an answer.