433
He wouldn't need a distraction from the Epstein files if he just released the Epstein files.
I'm thinking he is being pressured by people with international buying power whose names are also on the list maybe
My money is attacking Mexico without a declaration of war. Brown people are down there, it justifies the ICE budget, and other bullshit.
He’s gonna start a war
Read this morning he wants to give Russia access to Alaska.
A civil one, at this rate. He already hates the people in the country and there’s no one to go to war with since he became but-buddies with all the dictators and, despite everything, attacking Europe would probably trigger a civil war anyway.
Buy Canada 🇨🇦
Ok Donald. If you get Putin to leave Ukraine on Zelensky's terms, then maybe we can talk about something other than Epstein for 5 minutes. Maybe.
However, if you fuck over Ukraine, and then try to claim a victory for authoritarianism as a victory for peace (which you almost assuredly will) we double down on Epstein so fucking fast even JD Vance will start to regret betraying you to Rupert Murdoch before the midterms.
I said war! Huh! Good god y'all.
What is it good for? Doing this probably.
Everything is a distraction from the West giving up on liberty. It's not only the US.
tldr; new UK laws are extremly privacy invading requiering ID and face photos to acces any explicit material including sites like Wikipedia, similiar to some USA state laws and it looks like EU might just follow
These aren’t distractions, they’re just doing multiple awful things around the same time. Sometimes the timing is, sure, but these are all very real things that they’re doing. Calling it a “distraction” makes it sound likenthey wouldn’t have been so evil if they weren’t afraid but they love this shit.
Release the Trump/Epstein files
ZZZIIIIIIPPPPPP
He's going to float the idea of giving Alaska to Russia, distracting people from the Epstein fiasco.
In other words: drumpf is a RAPIST and a PEDOPHILE
I think Trump cares more about the Epstein files than his supporters do. He is actually the one making a big deall out of it.
I just don't get why.
Probably because he's all over them. Fuck, maybe he's a business partner.
that bullet should have gone through his head, not his ear, we were two inches away from a better world
no bullet went anywhere near his head
what are you talking about? he was shot in the ear
He was not shot in the ear. Stop spreading lies.
My understanding is that glass from the screen likely shattered and hit his ear?
In any case, a little better aim and we would have a better world.
i fully agree
show me the scar
i found this in an article after three minutes of research
Seeing the Republican candidate's ear intact had some questioning the source of Trump's wound. "This is so strange, does anyone else think trump didn't actually get shot?" an X user commented. Others were quick to point out that while the flesh damage was not substantial that it was clear Trump had in fact sustained injury. "Disagree, there is evidence of damage at the top," one X user replied. "How grown adults can't understand that a 5.56mm hole in your ear can be sewn up and properly heal is beyond me,"
dude, he would be waving that hole around like a battle scar the rest of his life
there was no hole, the top of his ear was taken off, he was almost killed but gout out with what is effectively a fancy scratch, i don't think any sane person would ever go look mommy i have a booboo also if you actually read the article a shared a link to you would have read that his ear bled a lot, which might not have been super kid friendly when being viewed on public tv
My understanding is that glass from the screen likely shattered and hit his ear?
In any case, a little better aim and we would have a better world.
My understanding is that glass from the screen likely shattered and hit his ear?
In any case, a little better aim and we would have a better world.
It did. In one ear and out the other without hitting anything vital.
Are you sure that would have even been fatal? He's not using anything up there.
honestly thats probably true
Legitimately surprised that he hasn't staged another "assassination attempt", it worked so well for him last time.
"No one is above the law" and other jokes you can tell yourself to feel better.
tl;dr: Trump biographer Michael Wolff said : "[Trump] is going to sacrifice Ukraine for Epstein".
Trump's been trying to loot and scoot Ukraine since his first day in office. Far too late to pin this policy on Epstein.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Let me see ... a big thing ... Oh! How about dropping (can I say it)?
Why don't presidents fight in war
Because they always send the poor.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ha, when you've already pulled so many crazy stories that it's not working anymore. Nice.
Also Epstein did not kill himself.
Release the Epstein files.
What does a big thing even mean to someone enacting the American Nazi agenda? Invade Poland?
I keep joking that we are currently at "well the camps aren't literally in Poland" on the hierarchy of US Nazi denialism.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Bye Bye Alaska.
Consider linking the original source instead:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-is-plotting-this-desperate-move-to-distract-from-epstein-wolff/
And putting the repost in the comment? It’s more direct and includes, among other things, official responses:
House. In response to questions from the Daily Beast Tuesday about Wolff’s reporting that Trump was willing to sacrifice Ukraine to distract from his Epstein crisis, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told the Daily Beast: “Michael Wolff is a lying sack of s--- and has been proven to be a fraud. He routinely fabricates stories originating from his sick and warped imagination, only possible because he has a severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his peanut-sized brain.”
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
433 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25210 readers
2672 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS