Trump, Apple To Announce New $100 Billion Commitment To Manufacturing in US (cbsnews.com)
- Reference: 0178592512
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/08/06/1448241/trump-apple-to-announce-new-100-billion-commitment-to-manufacturing-in-us
- Source link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-apple-committing-100-billion-manufacturing-us/
> The new investment would [2]increase Apple's commitment to U.S. manufacturing to $600 billion over the next four years, according to a White House official. And it's expected to include a new "American Manufacturing Program" focused on bringing more of Apple's supply chain and advanced manufacturing to the U.S.
>
> [...] In May, the president [3]threatened to impose a 25% tariff on iPhones made outside the U.S., writing on Truth Social that he told Cook that he expects that iPhones that will be sold in the U.S. "will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else."
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-apple-committing-100-billion-manufacturing-us/
[2] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/02/24/1142222/apple-announces-500-billion-us-investment-plan-to-hire-20000-people
[3] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/05/15/0832215/trump-tells-apple-ceo-to-avoid-manufacturing-in-india
The deal (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict Apple will honor the deal exactly the way Trump does.
Re: (Score:2)
> I predict Apple will honor the deal exactly the way Trump does.
Well said.
Re: (Score:3)
Cracks me up that Apple is moving manufacturing to India to circumvent the Chinese tariffs but Trump just put a 50% tariff on India for buying Russian oil.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't move anything. The factories in India and China were already there and making phones. They changed where they were delivered. It does sound like Trump's threats to India about buying Russian oil (which I agree with) will likely force Apple to use Chinese iPhones in the USA again.
Re: (Score:2)
> Cracks me up that Apple is moving manufacturing to India to circumvent the Chinese tariffs but Trump just put a 50% tariff on India for buying Russian oil.
Likely this $100M means Trump will extend those "smart phone tariff exceptions" to India as well.
Though, one needs to remember that Apple said they were investing $70M a few months ago, so chances are the real thing is $30M more. Maybe, though they probably will demand a tax holiday to onshore money tax free for it to happen as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's $100 BILLION ... with 'B', not Million.
Re: (Score:2)
> they probably will demand a tax holiday to onshore money tax free for it to happen as well.
I'm all for that...let's get that cash back IN the US....have it flowing in our economy ......
And as far as iPhones made in the US...I wouldn't mind paying a premium for an US made iPhone....
Hell, right now, with most any purchase I DO see if there is a US company making things here and will save and pay extra to get US made goods...especially anything that is hand made these days,, like boots.
I'm liking the offer
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost as if Trump's word means nothing, and adults should stop pandering to him. Why spend the energy trying to reason with (bribe) the guy, if in a few weeks he does a 180 and reneges on your deal or does something else that screws you over?
Sure he's the president, but a president (or a self-styled king) can't get anything done if the people under him don't play ball. I don't even know how the government will enforce all the random rules he's trying to create (or keep track of the "special agreemen
Re: (Score:3)
> We employ a lot of people in car manufacturing and the country is proud of it. I'm not really sure why the liberal side says that similar manufacturing just can't be done in the US
Um. The U.S. is 2nd in the world in manufacturing already, and with a much smaller population than China (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/manufacturing-output). Per capita, we manufacture more in the U.S. than any other country in the world. Manufacturing output is UP in the U.S. in recent years, with 2020 as the exception.
The problem is that while manufacturing is UP, jobs in manufacturing are DOWN, because robots and machines make pretty much everything now. Even i
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are basically correct. Have a look at the numbers they threw out. $500 billion investment, 20000 jobs. Something is fishy about their promise. If I got my 0s correctly, that's about $25 million per job created. If they do as promised, nearly all of that will go to capital investments with a few caretakers to do the work (and where they plan on spending the $500 billion... is it going to be in foreign-sourced items or local?)
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers look pretty good to me! $25 million per job seems a bit steep!
Strategically I wonder if this isn't more about nationalism than about jobs, that is to say, about ensuring the country can produce the things it needs during a time of conflict, and not relying on imports for essential technology. That seems to be a more likely reason for this specific push, but they always try to hide these things behind "jobs"...ah...politics...sigh...
Re: (Score:2)
> that is to say, about ensuring the country can produce the things it needs during a time of conflict, and not relying on imports for essential technology. That seems to be a more likely reason for this specific push, but they always try to hide these things behind
> "jobs"...ah...politics...sigh...,
You almost seem to be saying this like it is NOT a good primary reason for bringing manufacturing back to the US?
Per my other post, did you forget covid days?
It is a national security risk big time...especially
Re: (Score:2)
> Manufacturing jobs are gone. And good riddance
Nope...we need as much of the critical manufacturing as we can do in the US.
Did you forget the pandemic so quickly? We got a good glimpse at what a national security threat looks like when we depend on external nations (some openly hostile like china) for our products and raw materials ......
If you don't do it here...other nations have you by the balls....
.....and not in the good way.
Re:This is a gamble (Score:5, Informative)
> We employ a lot of people in car manufacturing and the country is proud of it. I'm not really sure why the liberal side says that similar manufacturing just can't be done in the US.
No, you've just been told by a diet of conservative media that liberals say that.
Liberals absolutely believe manufacturing can be done in America and in fact the Biden admin added about 600k manufacturing jobs during their term with more that were on the way due to incentives in bills like the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, the IRA and the CHIPS Act. The liberals also believe in the importance of unions in making sure those union jobs pay well and have worker protections. Conservatives have spent my entire life dismantling unions and labor power and now they are surprised manufacturing has fled and nobody wants to do it anymore?
Liberals just don't believe that broad tariffs, fiat executive orders and using the government as a weapon of violence against US corporations is the best way to get it.
600k jobs in the next 39 months to beat Biden, clocks ticking.
Re: (Score:2)
> The liberals also believe in the importance of unions in making sure those union jobs pay well and have worker protections.
I think it's important here to not conflate "Liberals" with "Democrats in elected office". The way so many high-profile Dems-in-office have been bending over and greasing up for Trump tells me that most of them are a spineless lot of opportunists who would sell out their own mothers for a PAC cheque.
In short, most high-ranking Dems don't give a crap about the viability of unions - they just take the easiest and laziest path toward holding down their jobs and keeping the money rolling in.
From where I stand,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe but Joe Biden and his admin were easily the most pro-union Presidential admin in my lifetime, easily the strongest support since Reagan and union support is the position of the party itself. That still matters.
Re: (Score:2)
> We employ a lot of people in car manufacturing and the country is proud of it. I'm not really sure why the liberal side says that similar manufacturing just can't be done in the US.
See, even if your supply chains for car parts are all overseas, it still kind of makes sense to assemble the parts into completed cars here. Cars aren't exactly the most space-efficient things to ship (the passenger compartment is mostly air, and you can't really pack cars too tightly together or they'll get damaged).
i-Things on the other hand? You can cram a whole bunch of them into a shipping container. I'd venture a guess it's actually less efficient to ship over a bunch of iPhone parts for final asse
Re:This is a gamble (Score:5, Insightful)
> If there are not some noticable outcomes before elections, his party is toast. I believe there is a year before midterms and 3 until the next presidential election.
It's kinda cute how y'all blithely assume that there will even be midterms and another presidential election, never mind any future elections being at all fair and representative of the will of the people.
Go ahead - take an honest look at recent events involving the courts, the military, the national guard, masked ICE agents, etc. Then tell me with a straight face that America's electoral process will continue to be a business-as-usual process.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any problems......said with a perfectly straight face.
I have no problem with ICE acting within the laws on the books and kicking people who are here illegally the fuck out of the US.
In fact, I voted for it.
Re: (Score:2)
some redistricting will shape the vote their way
20% is very likely way too low at least initially (Score:3)
Though that might be on target, when the new onshore Apple factory is a completely automated [1] "dark factory" [scio-automation.com] where most of the jobs are for the factory builders and then delivery drivers who bring raw materials. At least, until the autonomous robots can do that also as well as reconfigure the factory for newer products.
AI Version:
The new onshore Apple factory may not create a surge in manufacturing jobs as anticipated due to its planned "dark factory" automation. Initial employment will focus on factory co
[1] https://www.scio-automation.com/update/4am/dark-factory-the-completely-automated-factory-of-the-future
Re: (Score:2)
And "consultants" will be flown in from China, live in company dorms, and then fly back once they've paid off their debt to the company store and the cost of their transportation. You know, slavery. Democrats wouldn't allow that but they have no power to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to fly them in. ICE is out "recruiting" thousands of free "employees" every day.
It's the Mac Pro all over again... (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll make them here until Trump leaves office and they quietly shutter the facility.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the factory is unlikely to be built and operating and making anything before Trump leaves office.
Re: (Score:2)
100% agree.
The supply chains are so big that the only thing the US could do now is assemble some simple items.
There are not the people, the resources, the infrastructure etc freely available in the US for this to be viable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's cute that you think this won't be another Wisconsin Foxconn 2-step.
They'll make a big announcement with big numbers with a lot of zeroes after them. And then they'll probably buy some property they were looking to acquire anyway. And they'll drag their feet until Trump is out of office, and then all of this will stop without even $100m being spent in total.
$100m amortized over 3 years is a small price to pay to have the President fuck off and leave you alone for 3 years when you are a $3T enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
> They'll make them here until Trump leaves office and they quietly shutter the facility.
The thing is, both Apple and Trump would probably be ok with that outcome.
It's the ultimate consequence of the "perception is reality" mindset that started in corporate management, and has now become deeply embedded in government.
The facts don't matter. Accusations of hypocricy are missing the point. "Vibe" is everything. If Apple say they'll obey Trump, then Trump gets the perceived tribute he wants. His followers perceive this as a win. Trump doesn't care what actually happens.
Until society has some sort
knowhow (Score:2)
Manufacturing requires knowhow. Once the old guard who knew how dies off, as it has in the US, you can't just flip a switch.
Re: (Score:2)
Building out manufacturing requires tools built in other countries that are current very expensive due to tariffs... the Art of the D'oh!
Remember Foxconn? (Score:2)
Remember when Trump announced Foxconn was going to spend billions on building out new manufacturing in the US? How did that one work out? They must be employing thousands of people in Wisconsin now... right?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Foxconn conned Trump. They were never really going to "try".
Re: (Score:2)
And more than that, Foxconn taught any business executive paying attention how to use some cheap press releases and real estate purchasing to score some tax breaks while not actually doing anything, all the while getting problematic politicians to fuck off and bother someone else.
Amazing (Score:1)
Virtually NONE of the posts before mine have ANYTHING to do with the story, and are just all about Trump.
I mean, fucking Christ people!
Why does fucking EVERYTHING have to be about Trump? Every god damned story on Slashdot, some fuckheads have to start shit either attacking Trump or defending/praising Trump. Every fucking one!!
Shut the fuck up already!! Can we just discuss the stories?
God damn!!!! Enough already!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The very first word in the headline for this article is "Trump".
Re: (Score:1)
Yes it is.
It's not insurrection.
It's not pedophilia.
It's not Epstein.
It's not about that shit stain Trump and his various escapades.
It's about opening a fucking manufacturing facility.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Trump is the one who insists on getting credit for anything that is perceived to be a positive for the economy. The press simply reports on it every time he photobombs a company's press release for an already-planned investment on U.S. soil.
2. If you don't like Slashdot reporting on this, don't encourage them by commenting on the article. At the time I'm writing this, I count three comments from you so far.
Both Sides Played the Game (Score:4, Insightful)
If I understand the situation correctly, most of this investment is regarding the creation of a server farm for AI that is expected to be completed by next year. Given that timeline, this was likely something that was already planned by Apple long ago. Also, of course they're building an AI server farm in the U.S. - every U.S. company builds their AI server farms here. This is just a way for Apple to give Trump credit for something he had nothing to do with so that he won't target them with additional tariffs on Apple's consumer goods, most of which are and will continue to be made overseas.
Good deal for Apple (Score:2)
Apple says they're gonna spend $100 billion and the market rewards them with a $150 billion increase in market cap. Pretty good return on a promise.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files during his presidency? You keep cunting out about them, but even in your extremely unhinged mental state, you should be asking some questions.. The DNC would have done almost ANYTHING to prevent Trump from winning, so why not release/leak something so incriminating and salacious?
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files during his presidency?
Because when those finally get released, its going prove to American's that both parties are beyond the highest levels of corruption. It will unite Americans rather than dividing them. Releasing the Epstein files is a win for the people, and will be devastating to both parties. That's why neither party has released them when they had the chance.
Re: (Score:2)
when
I remember what it was like to be naïve and hopeful.
Reality: They get the JFK assassination treatment, and Maxwell kills herself by multiple stab wounds, hanging, and then jumping out of a 10 story building.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:5, Informative)
Mike Johnson ended the house session early just so republicans wouldn't have to vote on releasing the files. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0... [nytimes.com]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote.html
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:5, Insightful)
> It will unite Americans rather than dividing them.
It will unite Americans in a collective shrug.
The electorate sent the guy who orchestrated an insurrection back to The White House. Do you honestly think "may have hooked up with a 14-year-old" is even going to register with these folks? Hell, a few stories back there's that one about a family using an AI avatar of their dead kid to raise awareness about school shootings, because for some truly fucked up reason, just having your kid die in a school shooting wasn't awareness-raising enough .
Mark my words, the American public only cares about the Epstein files because they're a cliffhanger. After we know how the story ends, we'll move right on to the next thing to be outraged about for as long as the news cycle is willing to milk it.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:5, Informative)
[1]Trump fake electors plot [wikipedia.org]
[2]Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Election [justsecurity.org]
I know you all hate to read and would all love to memory wipe this shit but it happened. Not even just insurrection, easily top 5 most treasonous thing done against the nation. That sounds hyperbolic but this shit is actually fucking crazy that it's real.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-electors/
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck off with your bad faith semantics bullshit.
If you want to address the plot i brought up which has thousands of pages of evidence, testimony and a criminal case (before Trump killed it) of which Jan 6 is a part of go for it.
Otherwise as said, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics?
It's fundamental to the activity.
If I were to break into the Capitol, and shoot and kill 50 lawmakers, that is not an "insurrection", that's merely me being a murderous shithead.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, semantics and it's bad faith.
You want to focus on the definition of "insurrection" as a word and maybe the legal concept and also take the event as just a separate isolated incident rather than an event that was brought upon by weeks of previous events. It's a deliberate diversion from the most damning aspects of what Trump was trying to do.
Or you don't really know about this then it's just a case of "so you have no frame of reference here Donny, you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a mov
Re: (Score:2)
When a disorganized mob is actively trying to hamper or prevent government business from being conducted, that's called insurrection.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, no it isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
"insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government."
Trump removed habeas corpus from the Constitution (Score:2)
So I think we can probably mind wipe his attempts to install himself as El presidente.
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, people believe whatever they want to believe.
It's the only way to explain most of what goes on in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
> I used to believe people in tech were smarter than that, but apparently not.
Years worth of posts like yours on Slashdot have long since dissuaded me of any kind of superior intelligence being present in tech. Willful ignorance abounds on this site so much so that the US president can try to swap out electors to change the results of an election he didn't win or rile up a mob and not do anything about said mob storming congress to halt confirmation of the same election for hours after they had gone out of control and we get posts like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still amazed that, even to this day, you and so many others are denying the reality that is staring you in the face.
How many findings of facts in courts of law do you need to see?
How much testimony from Republicans in front of the J6 committee do you need to see?
The people on the ground on January 6 were only one part of the scheme. Open your eyes - there are still legal proceedings against the co-conspirators for state charges, and legal disbarments happening against the co-conspirators for their invo
Re: (Score:2)
> The electorate sent the guy who orchestrated an insurrection back to The White House.
This was a result of the Big Lie 1.0: the election was stolen from Trump and he was the rightful occupant of the White House. His base bought into it because their interests were aligned with Trump's - they both wanted Trump to have a second, consecutive term. This situation, which I refer to as the Big Lie 2.0, is different because Trump and his base are not aligned in the desired outcome. His base actually want the fi
Re: (Score:1)
The opposing political party always tries to blow every thing their opponents do out of proportion. You've fallen prey to the democrat party propaganda. The 3 hour "insurrection" aka protest riot that Trump didn't even encourage was not a big deal and that fact was recognized by voters. You had 1000 times as much damage done in BLM protest riots that were actively encouraged by the democrat party side. People are not all so dumb as to be manipulated to ignore what their eyes saw. That's why he is still pr
Re: (Score:2)
Cool.
Now speak to the multiple state-level plots to swap in fake electors to steal the electoral votes, which were being coordinated by administraton officials like Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark - who are still in legal hot water btw.
Feel free to speak to the phone call to the Georgia governor imploring him to "find" 11,780 more votes - the exact number needed to win Georgia.
None of that had anything to do with the shitbags that vandalized the Capitol, and is widely documented in public record after bipart
Oh God no we don't give a shit (Score:1, Troll)
The left wing's favorite food is our own. Look what we did to Al Franklin just for a stupid picture. We are celebrating at the prospect of ripping into Bill Clinton and any other Democrat that might be in that list.
Bottom line Biden didn't promise to release the docs. Trump did. Trump isn't releasing it because his name's all over it.
Bottom line number two you voted for a pedophile. And you could pretend you didn't when let's face it all along you knew Trump was a pedophile. You knew he raped those
Maga will do whatever TV tells them to do (Score:2)
And TV is already telling them that Ghislain Maxwell is innocent.
Their entire media diet is 120% right wing propaganda on par with anything Vlad Putin puts out.
And they can't go anywhere because they've burned so many bridges with their family to obsess over Trump.
I just saw yet another story about some dumb Boomer type who was going on to her daughter about how Trump is going to make family great again so that she can have grandchildren only for her daughter the rip into her because her daughte
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it matters to people just trying to bothsides everything, but during the Biden administration, the criminal appeals process was (and is) still going for Mrs. Maxwell. Also, the DoJ was still a mostly-independent-of-politics operation still. Now it absolutely is not.
DoJ policy is not to reveal any non-public evidence until all appeals are exhausted and the case's final disposition is known, because you don't know if an appeals court is going to kick it back to a trial court for more hearings or a
Re: (Score:2)
> We are celebrating at the prospect of ripping into Bill Clinton and any other Democrat that might be in that list.
We should celebrate a pedophile rapist getting the justice they deserve, regardless of party. Beyond that, every living president should be sent to the Hague for war crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
Americans are increasingly not voting for parties for president but for whoever seems like he might actually change ANYTHING in Washington. Running on a campaign of change before not changing anything is common to the last how many presidents? Apathy is at an all time high, but somehow Americans don't know how to get angry at their own politicians anymore, not if they're not literally starving.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post reminds me of the Bernie Sanders supporters who threw their weight behind Trump when Sanders didn't win the Democratic nomination. Regardless of the Democratic party's treatment of Sanders during the nomination one clearly doesn't care about policy if one goes from Sanders to Trump given their massive differences. The whole thing was stupid, "change" is not inherently good even if one isn't happy with the status quo.
Re: (Score:3)
Epstein won't take Trump down, no matter how much you or I would like it to.
Why? Because nothing materially new has come to light. Everything we know today was basically already known when a sufficient number of people voted for a senile rapist to be President. We already saw the video of those two shitbags leering at young women and whispering to each other. We already saw the photos of them at multiple social occasions. We already read the quotes about how they were such good buddies back in the day.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The FBI does not and should not release investigation files that do not have indictments "just because". Your name could be in that investigation for totally benign reasons, should we potentially frag it through the mud because people just really want to know?
2. I know conservatives find this one unbelievablke because they've given up on democracy, rule of law, legal procedure and every other principle this nation operated under but the President is not supposed to interfere with judicial system .
The question you should be asking then is "Why didn't Merrick Garland release the files" and then the question after that you should be asking is "Is it criminal and legal procedure to release investigation files like this and is it done normally" which then should lead you to look into it and when you come to the answer of "no, it's not normal at all for good reasons" then your next question should be "well when has it been done and how should it be done?" which takes us to #3
3. The real people you should be asking as to why they didn't release is Congress as they as the representatives of the people at large can vote to have those files released for public interest or whatever reason they deem fit. They are given the authority to override such procedures.
4. Biden never ran on releasing the files, it was not a campaign issue for him or his voter base. If you think that's bad then it's on you to present evidence that there is actually something in there worthy of overstepping all those legal bounds of which actually there isn't just yet.
Trump and the Republicans got into this mess by shamelessly pandering and conspiracy baiting on this issue, now they can dick their dumb asses out of it. A better world is one where their base realizes the Republican media and politicians have been treating them like they're stupid and decides to eat them alive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. I know conservatives find this one unbelievablke because they've given up on democracy, rule of law, legal procedure and every other principle this nation operated under but the President is not supposed to interfere with judicial system.
Oh i'm laughing. You have the memory of a fucking goldfish.
Re: (Score:1)
Vagueposting the territory of the mentally incapable. .
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I knew precisely what you were getting at, which I don't but I assume can be summarized as "but the Democracts..." (didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?), how would that have anything to do with the fact that the structure of the US federal government was designed to separate the judicial, executive, and legislative branches SPECIFICALLY to put a check on the power of any given branch? Pretty sure the founding fathers wanted to avoid having a dictator. Do they not st
Re: (Score:2)
> The FBI does not and should not release investigation files that do not have indictments "just because". Your name could be in that investigation for totally benign reasons, should we potentially frag it through the mud because people just really want to know?
That's entirely true. It's also true that no reasonable person in this country would be demanding the release of the files if the DoJ through the past six presidential terms could be bothered to even pretend to do their fucking jobs and prosecute the
Re: (Score:2)
Can't disagree with that and that's why I have no issue with Congress voting to release the files, that way we the public have decided the consequences of the release are worth it, as it were, as much as we can judge that.
Also it allows us as society to maintain the needed norm and precedent of keeping investigations under wraps since that is a necessary component of the justice system.
It shouldn't be by single person or party decision either to block or release.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't know this is BS now (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files during his presidency? You keep cunting out about them, but even in your extremely unhinged mental state, you should be asking some questions.. The DNC would have done almost ANYTHING to prevent Trump from winning, so why not release/leak something so incriminating and salacious?
Biden didn't run on the promise to release the Epstein files. Trump did.
Aside from that, I look for the Epstein files to be a house-cleaning of both parties, if they ever get released. There's corruption, and then there's national level politician corruption. Morality is some kinda dirty word for those folks.
He didn't promise to (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually not normal or appropriate to release those kind of documents.
It is certainly not normal for the president to intercede with the justice department and release documents related to a potential criminal investigation.
But over and over and over again Trump promised us that we would get those documents so that powerful men like him could be held accountable by the people.
And here we are it's time to release them and we find out Trump's name is all over them and crickets.
Now that Ma
As long as you morons keep talking about Epstein (Score:2)
Then you can make all the baseless accusations against our side you want. Keep it up this only hurts you. Keep engaging with us. We're not going to let Epstein go away no matter how much control of the news media you have.
I have noticed that the Reddit conservative forms have stopped talking about Epstein entirely. Amazing how good your mods are on your own turf. Funny to watch you self-censoring.
You guys are all Trump's bitches. Which is appropriate because you act like 12-year-olds
Re: (Score:2)
You may as well have just posted "I have no counter-argument to anything he just said" because that's what I read with your idiot one-liner whataboutist bothsides-ist bullshit.
So that's really just a game (Score:2)
The reason for that idiot post is because the poster knows this website has limited mod points and he's trying to absorb some mod points in order to keep my post-modded down.
By extension I replied to him because I knew that my reply would remain visible and therefore that would keep the entire thread visible and eventually the points I made would get modded up.
It's a silly little game. Of course we are playing a silly little game to see whether or not a pedophile gets to decide how we all live our l
Re: (Score:2)
> Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files during his presidency?
Imagine the Republican outcry had Biden directed his DOJ to do this - or half the stuff Trump has been doing, or rambling incoherently about, or cheating at golf. Biden's DOJ was much, much more independent (as it should be) than Trump's DOJ, who basically take their marching orders directly from him.
In any case, I'm sure there are valid, legal reasons for an independent DOJ to not release the files, as well as compelling public-interest reasons to release them, regardless of the President/party in char
Re: (Score:2)
> In any case, I'm sure there are valid, legal reasons for an independent DOJ to not release the files, as well as compelling public-interest reasons to release them, regardless of the President/party in charge.
Pick one or more:
- ongoing criminal justice procedures (appeals) and preserving a jury pool in case an appeals court kicks it back to a trial court for retrial
- existing doctrine that criminal investigation files are not publicly released as a matter of course
- (then) independence of the Department of Justice, and not wanting to voluntarily toss a hand grenade into the political arena for no legal reason, just politics
- Biden worrying about other things that are far more productive for a President to be wor
Re: (Score:2)
> - (then) independence of the Department of Justice, and not wanting to voluntarily toss a hand grenade into the political arena for no legal reason, just politics
Unless you're FBI Director James Comey (a Republican) and you've got some dirt on Hillary Clinton just before the election, that you're not suppose to divulge due to it being an on-going investigation, but do because ???, with it ultimately resulting in no charges filed under the winning Republican Administration ...
[1]Hillary Clinton: I Was 'Dumbfounded' When Comey Reopened Email Probe [nbcnews.com]
> Clinton said she was stunned when then-FBI Director James Comey reopened the agency's investigation into her private email server just days before the 2016 election.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-i-was-dumbfounded-when-comey-reopened-email-probe-n800901
Re: (Score:2)
> Why didn't Biden release the Epstein files during his presidency?
Five different administrations (six if you count Obama's consecutive terms as two separate administrations) have completely failed to release the files. The reason people complain about it with Trump is that he is the one candidate who promised to release them if he was elected in 2024. And after citizens pledged their votes for him, he's done everything he can to bury them deeper than any previous administration. If he didn't want to rele
Re: (Score:2)
> they're holding their leader accountable for his actions.
Are they, though?
We haven't seen any accountability other than people not taking the offered bait to change the topic of conversation. And we won't see any accountability until the House is back in session, and the Government Oversight committee starts looking through all the shit they subpoena'd yesterday.
That is, if the DoJ actually responds to the subpoena. Who's going to prosecute them if they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about actual justice for the victims - given the amount of power held by the alleged perpetrators, I don't think there's any hope for that. The best we can hope for regarding accountability is for his base to cause enough friction to stall his limited time to consolidate more power. If my fellow libs don't act like complete jerks, we may even be able to welcome some of these people into the resistance. It's not much, but you have to make the most of every bit you get.
Re: (Score:2)
> I mean foxconn showed us how this works ages ago.
> Was Trump it's even worse, this is just something the companies do to play his ass. He gets a little bit of press and they get him off his back so he doesn't shake them down for bribes like he keeps doing with newspapers.
> Also the fact that the United States president has been shaking down newspapers for bribes is something we don't talk about enough. Although that Epstein stuff is pretty important too. I mean I would like more people to know that the president is also a pedophile.
> And the crazy thing is everything I wrote above is absolutely true and easily verifiable using reliable sources but I sound like a troll because of how crazy we've gotten
So now I feel I have to requote you against the censor trolls with mod points even though I disagree more than I agree? Well, I do agree the YOB is getting played, but the Yuge Orange Buffoon will never figure that out. (And even let the vacuous Subject stand?)
But I'll focus a partial response on the Epstein part because I think it's so funny. First, the Dems are caught in a paradox involving "nonpartisan justice" while the fake Republicans have it much simpler: "If it gives us more power, then JUST DO IT!"