Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
24
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Ok, yeah, you have.
    I appreciate that.


    So this answer falls squarely in the "going to piss you off" category, just a forewarning. But we don't know that they aren't in on it. So far they aren't cooperating at all.
    Actually it doesn't piss me off at all...since it goes to further my point. If the guards had to be in on it...than there would be no reason to remove Epstein from Suicide Watch. They could just do their rounds, check in on him, leave, come back in 15 minutes. "Oh darn, he must have known our schedule and timed his suicide perfectly."


    Those are literally the antithesis to reasons why Acosta would get that posting. There is nothing you can point to that says Acosta should get this above someone else, other than the Epstein deal. And that's a major one.
    Again, it's not on me to prove he didn't get the posting because of the Epstein deal. You're the one making the accusation. You have to prove it.

    This is you not trying again. All in good fun though.

    Is there another first-year-of-Residency cabinet post that went to a lesser deserving person? I'm looking at the list now - Acosta had no wealth, no power, and no influence. He was the Dean of a fourth-tier law school. He was a nothing burger.

    I mean - to me this is a big point. I would like to think that if our debating positions were reversed, you might be saying something similar.
    It's not a good point because, once again, you have to prove the connection. IF our positions were reversed...I would not be pushing that angle.

    But they are there. And they are legion. If there were less than 20 I wouldn't even be in this conversation.
    And, again, most of them are weak, have nothing to do with the suicide, and/or can be explained without a conspiracy.

    I mean, usually I have to use trhis on Anti-Vaxxers but it seems to apply here as well:

    Correlation is not Causation.

    Just because you can show two things happened...that isn't the same as proving that one of those things is directly connected to the other.

    Yeah, pretty much. He was a political operator and knew the score. If that's how it went down, he would understand.
    No, that's not how a deal like that would work. Especially since you keep avoiding the fact that Acosta was a replacement nominee. Like it wasn't even "You'll get a job the next time we win" it would have been "You might get a job if the guy we really want withdraws and all you have to do is completely throw this incredibly major, career-making case."

    But it was a political deal, which incorporates both "great" and "shitty" - because that's how the cards are dealt. He might not have ever gotten something, but he was obviously on a list somewhere.
    Yeah, he was on a list somewhere...but you still have to prove that the reason he was on that list was because of Epstein.

    That's your reason? He was friends with someone else who raised money for him?

    I mean, can you at least try here? There is NO solid reason, even a remotely casual one, to put Acosta in that role. There were countless state campaign chairman and business associates.
    It's a more tangible reason than what you have presented.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2020-07-21 at 05:02 AM.

  2. #262
    First of all, he has some experience. He was on Bush's National Labor Relations Board, then was an assistant AG for Civil Rights (which usually, on the federal level, deals with labor rights and interstate commerce), and then a FUCKING U.S. ATTORNEY. He was only a Dean in a law college because Obama was elected and he was a Republican.

    Secondly, I literally gave you the connection. Pam Bondi ran Trump's campaign in Florida. She knows Alex Acosta, and brought him along for the ride. He was recommended by Don McGahn, Trump's White House Counsel, who knew him from being Trump's campaign counsel. McGahn basically knew everyone from the Bush Administration, which Acosta was a part of.

  3. #263
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Actually it doesn't piss me off at all...since it goes to further my point. If the guards had to be in on it...than there would be no reason to remove Epstein from Suicide Watch. They could just do their rounds, check in on him, leave, come back in 15 minutes. "Oh darn, he must have known our schedule and timed his suicide perfectly."
    Good point. I can't disagree. That's how I would do it. Make those arrangements, kill the cameras, and have them lie about their rounds and/or what they saw.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Again, it's not on me to prove he didn't get the posting because of the Epstein deal. You're the one making the accusation. You have to prove it.
    Of course it's not. But you were asked to provide three out of the "hundreds" of reasons for Acosta to get that posting. Your answers so far are way below weak.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    And, again, most of them are weak, have nothing to do with the suicide, and/or can be explained without a conspiracy.

    I mean, usually I have to use trhis on Anti-Vaxxers but it seems to apply here as well:

    Correlation is not Causation.

    Just because you can show two things happened...that isn't the same as proving that one of those things is directly connected to the other.
    All of them individually are weak. When you list them together, and they total 30+, then it gets us to where we are now. That's been my point all along.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    No, that's not how a deal like that would work. Especially since you keep avoiding the fact that Acosta was a replacement nominee. Like it wasn't even "You'll get a job the next time we win" it would have been "You might get a job if the guy we really want withdraws and all you have to do is completely throw this incredibly major, career-making case."
    That is exactly how a political deal would work. I'm sorry if this isn't your field, but political payoffs don't always come right away - and in Acosta's case, they had to wait because the sweetheart deal was so suspect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    It's a more tangible reason than what you have presented.
    It's really not - and you keep pushing this point, and it's VERY weak - and mildly disappointing. You offered "hundreds of reasons" why Acosta should get that posting, but have offered not a single decent one.

    This point is entirely in my favor unless you can see a separate link to Trump appointing Acosta. Epstein deal is mine. Yours was...Harvard?

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    First of all, he has some experience. He was on Bush's National Labor Relations Board, then was an assistant AG for Civil Rights (which usually, on the federal level, deals with labor rights and interstate commerce), and then a FUCKING U.S. ATTORNEY. He was only a Dean in a law college because Obama was elected and he was a Republican.

    Secondly, I literally gave you the connection. Pam Bondi ran Trump's campaign in Florida. She knows Alex Acosta, and brought him along for the ride. He was recommended by Don McGahn, Trump's White House Counsel, who knew him from being Trump's campaign counsel. McGahn basically knew everyone from the Bush Administration, which Acosta was a part of.
    No but really. It's only because Acosta threw the prosecution of Epstein. I mean, he probably only got the job as a prosecutor because they knew one day he'd be prosecuting Epstein and "they" groomed him special for it. And his reward for that service was that, at some point in the future when there was another Republican President, he would be a runner-up candidate for a cabinet position and the patsy that was originally nominated would withdraw himself from consideration so Acosta could get the job and it would look like the Republican President, whoever that might be, had just settled for him.

    I mean, it's the only thing that makes sense...right?

  5. #265
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    First of all, he has some experience. He was on Bush's National Labor Relations Board, then was an assistant AG for Civil Rights (which usually, on the federal level, deals with labor rights and interstate commerce), and then a FUCKING U.S. ATTORNEY. He was only a Dean in a law college because Obama was elected and he was a Republican.

    Secondly, I literally gave you the connection. Pam Bondi ran Trump's campaign in Florida. She knows Alex Acosta, and brought him along for the ride. He was recommended by Don McGahn, Trump's White House Counsel, who knew him from being Trump's campaign counsel. McGahn basically knew everyone from the Bush Administration, which Acosta was a part of.
    And you're comfortable with that link? Because the reasons above are pretty much mine, for why Acosta shouldn't have gotten a CABINET posting. Can you name someone lower on the totem pole who also got a nod? Acosta is a political middle functionary, at best. Political, of course - but on a Board to SecLabor? Not a chance.

    You're literally saying that a Cabinet post was given to some guy someone knew from awhile back. Some guy... With NO political power. NO wealth. NO direct links to Trump.

    The U.S. Attorney posting was the reward from Bush, just in case you were counting.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    No but really. It's only because Acosta threw the prosecution of Epstein. I mean, he probably only got the job as a prosecutor because they knew one day he'd be prosecuting Epstein and "they" groomed him special for it. And his reward for that service was that, at some point in the future when there was another Republican President, he would be a runner-up candidate for a cabinet position and the patsy that was originally nominated would withdraw himself from consideration so Acosta could get the job and it would look like the Republican President, whoever that might be, had just settled for him.

    I mean, it's the only thing that makes sense...right?
    So you've never heard of political favors? Because chits aren't a thing at all...right? (am I doing that right?)

    If you want, you can just ask me how I thought it would go. You don't have to...what...be so petty in an otherwise intellectually interesting discussion.

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    And you're comfortable with that link? Because the reasons above are pretty much mine, for why Acosta shouldn't have gotten a CABINET posting. Can you name someone lower on the totem pole who also got a nod? Acosta is a political middle functionary, at best. Political, of course - but on a Board to SecLabor? Not a chance.

    You're literally saying that a Cabinet post was given to some guy someone knew from awhile back. Some guy... With NO political power. NO wealth. NO direct links to Trump.

    The U.S. Attorney posting was the reward from Bush, just in case you were counting.
    In a normal Administration, sure, that'd be unusual....

    ...but this is an Administration that made Betsy DeVos SecEd for being a prominent campaign donor, made Ben Carson HUD Secretary because he's black (and not, say, Surgeon General, since, yanno, he's a fucking neurosurgeon), made Elaine Chao SecTransportation because she's McConnell's wife, and so on, and so forth. I imagine Don McGahn was literally like, "Hmmm, we need a SecLabor, our first guy didn't work out.....how about a Bush NLRB appointee?" Game over. KISS principle applies here.

    Meanwhile, since McGahn recommended him, why isn't he dead? Surely he knows of this political favor and thus needs to be eliminated.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Edit: I should also add, made Pompeo director of the CIA and then SecState because.....he was a nobody Rep in the House?

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Good point. I can't disagree. That's how I would do it. Make those arrangements, kill the cameras, and have them lie about their rounds and/or what they saw.
    More points for me. Score Card is looking pretty good for me right now. Not so good for you.

    Of course it's not. But you were asked to provide three out of the "hundreds" of reasons for Acosta to get that posting. Your answers so far are way below weak.
    As I said, I can't give you the exact reason Trump picked him. He was qualified for the position though. More qualified than many of Trump's other candidates have been. And again, you still aren't showing any proof that the Epstein deal is the reason he got the job.

    All of them individually are weak. When you list them together, and they total 30+, then it gets us to where we are now. That's been my point all along.
    There's probably a list of 30 coincidences that you and I have as well. That doesn't mean you know where I buried my ex-girlfriend.
    That is exactly how a political deal would work. I'm sorry if this isn't your field, but political payoffs don't always come right away - and in Acosta's case, they had to wait because the sweetheart deal was so suspect.
    No it really isn't how a political deal would work. It assumes that the President has no say in his nominations...that it was all pre-written 8 years before Trump even took office. Also, you keep evading the fact that Acosta wasn't even the first choice for the position. Acosta only got the job because the first choice withdrew his name.

    It's really not - and you keep pushing this point, and it's VERY weak - and mildly disappointing. You offered "hundreds of reasons" why Acosta should get that posting, but have offered not a single decent one.
    What's weak is you continuing to push this theory without any evidence.

    This point is entirely in my favor unless you can see a separate link to Trump appointing Acosta. Epstein deal is mine. Yours was...Harvard?
    It isn't in your favour at all...because, once again, I have nothing to prove here. You have to prove that the Epstein deal is what Acosta the job that he wasn't even the first candidate for. The more you try to push it back on me...the more it shows how weak your position is. It's time to put up or shut up.

    Besides Eschatological gave you another reason...and since I have "commiserated" with them... by your logic, that means I have as well?
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2020-07-21 at 05:30 AM.

  8. #268
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    In a normal Administration, sure, that'd be unusual....

    ...but this is an Administration that made Betsy DeVos SecEd for being a prominent campaign donor, made Ben Carson HUD Secretary because he's black (and not, say, Surgeon General, since, yanno, he's a fucking neurosurgeon), made Elaine Chao SecTransportation because she's McConnell's wife, and so on, and so forth. I imagine Don McGahn was literally like, "Hmmm, we need a SecLabor, our first guy didn't work out.....how about a Bush NLRB appointee?" Game over. KISS principle applies here.

    Meanwhile, since McGahn recommended him, why isn't he dead? Surely he knows of this political favor and thus needs to be eliminated.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Edit: I should also add, made Pompeo director of the CIA and then SecState because.....he was a nobody Rep in the House?
    But why take that recommendation? Why an almost literal nobody? I agree that Trump's postings have been...haphazard at best. But this one makes no sense, given the reasons you're offering.

    You're saying that the best someone could come up with is some guy someone else knew? Carson is payback for endorsement. Chao is...I mean, do I have to say it. Payback for McConnell burying the Russia stuff pre-election. (I can elaborate further on those two - nothing to do with this conversation)


    Edit: interesting point re Pompeo - can we side note this in a separate conversation? Outside our delicious Epstein intervention?

  9. #269
    A former U.S. Attorney under a previous Republican President isn't "an almost literal nobody."

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    So you've never heard of political favors? Because chits aren't a thing at all...right? (am I doing that right?)

    If you want, you can just ask me how I thought it would go. You don't have to...what...be so petty in an otherwise intellectually interesting discussion.
    I have asked you several times to show proof that the Epstein deal is what got Acosta the cabinet position (that he only got because the previous candidate withdrew himself). You haven't given any...so I can only assume that means you have none to give.

    But please, tell me your theory.

    And, not be all third grade about it, but you started with the pettiness.

  11. #271
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Rearranging to group for easier response...

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    More points for me. Score Card is looking pretty good for me right now. Not so good for you.
    My score card was never going to look good. Getting on the board at all, which I've done in at least three cases, is a win for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    As I said, I can't give you the exact reason Trump picked him. He was qualified for the position though. More qualified than many of Trump's other candidates have been. And again, you still aren't showing any proof that the Epstein deal is the reason he got the job.

    No it really isn't how a political deal would work. It assumes that the President has no say in his nominations...that it was all pre-written 8 years before Trump even took office. Also, you keep evading the fact that Acosta wasn't even the first choice for the position. Acosta only got the job because the first choice withdrew his name.

    It isn't in your favour at all...because, once again, I have nothing to prove here. You have to prove that the Epstein deal is what Acosta the job that he wasn't even the first candidate for. The more you try to push it back on me...the more it shows how weak your position is. It's time to put up or shut up.

    Besides Eschatological gave you another reason...and since I have "commiserated" with them... by your logic, that means I have as well?
    Acosta didn't have to be the first choice for my point to work - the first choice was a big business acquaintance and campaign contributor - another political favor. He withdrew. Acosta was owed a political favor. He got the nod.

    You keep going to back to this ridiculous notion that everyone knew that Trump would win 8 years later and that's how it was set up. It would go down pretty much like most big political favors go. Huge favor on the front end - the sweetheart deal. They Acosta is owed somewhere down the line, if possible. I know how political deals work - not sure why you don't. But these are arranged all the time. If you still disagree, look up political chit.

    Eschatological's reason is weak, at best - as I've pointed out (although better than "Harvard"). He is saying that Acosta got a Cabinet posting because some guy knew some other guy. Granted, this is the Trump administration, but it was early on, and there was still some logic to the nominees.

    Tell me again, do you recall saying there are "literally hundreds of reasons" why Acosta got that Cabinet post? Because you're doing a great job of dodging it. You have yet to list one.

    You literally offered reasons and now you're saying you don't have to. Put up or shut up, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    What's weak is you continuing to push this theory without any evidence.
    Where is your evidence for how Acosta got it again?


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    There's probably a list of 30 coincidences that you and I have as well. That doesn't mean you know where I buried my ex-girlfriend.
    Lol - very well done.

    Seriously though - that's the whole point here. Any one is easily written off - tons of the most ridiculous coincidences exist - especially if you take two people/events and then start looking for them (see President Kennedy and President Lincoln coincidences).

    But when you have 30+ good/decent/wtf coincidences, it adds up to more than scoffing.

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    You're saying that the best someone could come up with is some guy someone else knew? Carson is payback for endorsement. Chao is...I mean, do I have to say it. Payback for McConnell burying the Russia stuff pre-election. (I can elaborate further on those two - nothing to do with this conversation)
    Yes...both of those were rewards given by Trump for services they provided for Trump...for doing things the directly helped Trump become President.

    What you are suggesting is that Acosta was given a promise of a cabinet position 8 years in advance. And that the next Republican President, whoever that might be, would honour that promise. And it completely ignores that Acosta was not even the first nominee.

  13. #273
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I have asked you several times to show proof that the Epstein deal is what got Acosta the cabinet position (that he only got because the previous candidate withdrew himself). You haven't given any...so I can only assume that means you have none to give.

    But please, tell me your theory.

    And, not be all third grade about it, but you started with the pettiness.
    There isn't any more proof for my point than there is for yours or Eschotagical's.

    Tell me again what were those "literally hundreds of reasons" Acosta got the nomination? Is "Harvard" still your best? (I've asked you this, and reminded you of it several times - do I need to link your quote for you? - you offered it up, and I accepted)

    No, you did. j/k

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Yes...both of those were rewards given by Trump for services they provided for Trump...for doing things the directly helped Trump become President.
    Acosta helped Trump how again? Or was it the guy who knew Acosta who helped Trump.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    What you are suggesting is that Acosta was given a promise of a cabinet position 8 years in advance. And that the next Republican President, whoever that might be, would honour that promise. And it completely ignores that Acosta was not even the first nominee.
    /sigh

    No - I am not saying Acosta was promised a Cabinet post 8 years in advance - I've NEVER said that. My point is that he was owed a large political favor, for the Epstein deal, which by the way cost him his U.S. Attorney position (he resigned shortly afterwards), and he had to wait it out until a Republican President showed up again.

    Otherwise, how do you even remotely justify a literal political nobody getting a Cabinet post? Because someone else knew him?

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Rearranging to group for easier response...
    My score card was never going to look good. Getting on the board at all, which I've done in at least three cases, is a win for me.
    Where do you think your scoring points exactly? With Acosta? Nope. Sorry...you actually have to show some evidence that his deal with Epstein is what got him the job.

    Acosta didn't have to be the first choice for my point to work - the first choice was a big business acquaintance and campaign contributor - another political favor. He withdrew. Acosta was owed a political favor. He got the nod.
    He actually does. In fact, he would have had be rewarded a long time before.

    You keep going to back to this ridiculous notion that everyone knew that Trump would win 8 years later and that's how it was set up. It would go down pretty much like most big political favors go. Huge favor on the front end - the sweetheart deal. They Acosta is owed somewhere down the line, if possible. I know how political deals work - not sure why you don't. But these are arranged all the time. If you still disagree, look up political chit.
    Yes, I know how political deal work. And they don't involve making promises regarding cabinet positions at an unspecified time to an unspecified president. Sorry, you aren't scoring any points here.

    Eschatological's reason is weak, at best - as I've pointed out (although better than "Harvard"). He is saying that Acosta got a Cabinet posting because some guy knew some other guy. Granted, this is the Trump administration, but it was early on, and there was still some logic to the nominees.
    You make an argument about political favours...than you disregard an argument about political favours. And no, there was never a lot of logic to the nominees. Many of them were extremely questionable right from the start.

    Where is your evidence for how Acosta got it again?
    One more time..I don't have to provide any evidence. You do. And the fact that you keep pressing me shows that you can't.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    No - I am not saying Acosta was promised a Cabinet post 8 years in advance - I've NEVER said that. My point is that he was owed a large political favor, for the Epstein deal, which by the way cost him his U.S. Attorney position (he resigned shortly afterwards), and he had to wait it out until a Republican President showed up again.

    Otherwise, how do you even remotely justify a literal political nobody getting a Cabinet post? Because someone else knew him?
    So, you're saying the Republican party had no power at all between the years of 2009 and 2016. No way they could have repaid that chit? They had to wait until Trump got to be President and then, what, told him that because THEY owed Acosta a favour, HE would have to pay it. You think Trump signs off on that deal? That's your case?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    Acosta helped Trump how again? Or was it the guy who knew Acosta who helped Trump.
    Carson and McConnell helped Trump. And in return they received their rewards. For helping Trump.


    Acosta didn't help Trump. Even in your theory...he only helped the Republican Party...because they, for some reason you have yet to detail, wanted Acosta to give Epstein that sweetheart deal...and in return he would be rewarded at an unspecified time by an unspecified president an unspecified reward that only a President can give. You think that's the deal they presented McConnell and Carson?
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2020-07-21 at 06:12 AM.

  15. #275
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Where do you think your scoring points exactly? With Acosta? Nope. Sorry...you actually have to show some evidence that his deal with Epstein is what got him the job.
    No, it's just one of three. Here is my summary:

    Here's how this whole conversation went down:
    1. I offer at least a casual link to Acosta through Epstein (Acosta arranged the deal, lost his U.S. Attorney position because of it, was shuffled off to nowhere's-ville, and then gets his favor paid back with the Cabinet post, because a major donor withdrew.
    2. You immediately and enthusiastically dismiss this - saying "that's not how political favors work (which is 100% exactly how they work), and offering "hundreds of reasons" for Acosta to get the nomination, and then fail to deliver even one.
    3. Eschatological offers a separate theory, and he's immediately right, without providing any evidence - yet somehow I still do.

    And you think those are your points on the board. Not a chance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    He actually does. In fact, he would have had be rewarded a long time before.
    How? Where? Please, by all means, explain which President was going to reward him for getting a Pedophile off on a sweetheart deal. Bush gave him the U.S. Attorney position, remember - he'd already been rewarded once.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Yes, I know how political deal work. And they don't involve making promises regarding cabinet positions at an unspecified time to an unspecified president. Sorry, you aren't scoring any points here.
    Are you ok? I've never said it was a promise for a cabinet post, just a big favor to return down the road. Why are you claiming words I've never said. And please, if I'm missing something, please tell me - because I'm at a loss as to why you'd put words in my mouth. I've only maintained that Acosta was initially owed a favor, to be repaid down the road (couldn't have been right away, because too much heat from the Epstein deal).


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    You make an argument about political favours...than you disregard an argument about political favours. And no, there was never a lot of logic to the nominees. Many of them were extremely questionable right from the start.
    It's almost like the details of the arguments matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    One more time..I don't have to provide any evidence. You do. And the fact that you keep pressing me shows that you can't.
    What evidence has anyone provided for any reason Acosta got the Cabinet position? Did Eschatological have to provide any? I must have missed your request for his....

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    There isn't any more proof for my point than there is for yours or Eschotagical's.
    We don't have to provide proof. You do.

  17. #277
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    So, you're saying the Republican party had no power at all between the years of 2009 and 2016. No way they could have repaid that chit? They had to wait until Trump got to be President and then, what, told him that because THEY owed Acosta a favour, HE would have to pay it. You think Trump signs off on that deal? That's your case?
    Not for political favors of that magnitude. I'm open to examples of how they could have paid Acosta back during Obama's presidency (which encompassed the entire "window" Acosta was available for payback, if that makes sense)


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Carson and McConnell helped Trump. And in return they received their rewards. For helping Trump.
    Yep. That's my point. You're saying Acosta didn't, and yet he got the same reward as those two. My point exactly. There has to be a reason Acosta got the same reward as Carson and McConnell - hence the Epstein reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Acosta didn't help Trump. Even in your theory...he only helped the Republican Party...because they, for some reason you have yet to detail, wanted Acosta to give Epstein that sweetheart deal...and in return he would be rewarded at an unspecified time by an unspecified president an unspecified reward that only a President can give. You think that's the deal they presented McConnell and Carson?
    But he helped everyone involved in the Epstein "issue" - including Trump. That's my point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    We don't have to provide proof. You do.
    We can call it a night if you're tired. But good debate overall, thank you. Sincerely appreciated.

    The coincidences are legion in this matter, but as always, it's just a conversation about them. Will be interesting to see what happens with Maxwell....

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    . I offer at least a casual link to Acosta through Epstein (Acosta arranged the deal, lost his U.S. Attorney position because of it, was shuffled off to nowhere's-ville, and then gets his favor paid back with the Cabinet post, because a major donor withdrew.
    There's no connection between Trump and Acosta there. Not even a Casual one. You can't even show that it's a link to the Republican party. No point.

    2. You immediately and enthusiastically dismiss this - saying "that's not how political favors work (which is 100% exactly how they work), and offering "hundreds of reasons" for Acosta to get the nomination, and then fail to deliver even one.
    Because it isn't how political favours work. You say he wasn't promised a cabinet position...but you suggest that it would take a Republican President to repay that favour. That's not a strong argument.
    3. Eschatological offers a separate theory, and he's immediately right, without providing any evidence - yet somehow I still do.
    Eschatological's theory has more evidence than yours.

    And you think those are your points on the board. Not a chance.
    They aren't anyone's point on the board. They just aren't points.

    How? Where? Please, by all means, explain which President was going to reward him for getting a Pedophile off on a sweetheart deal. Bush gave him the U.S. Attorney position, remember - he'd already been rewarded once.
    Bush "rewarded" him with a US Attorney position in 2005. Epstein got his deal in 2008. So, Did Bush see the future?

    Are you ok? I've never said it was a promise for a cabinet post, just a big favor to return down the road. Why are you claiming words I've never said. And please, if I'm missing something, please tell me - because I'm at a loss as to why you'd put words in my mouth. I've only maintained that Acosta was initially owed a favor, to be repaid down the road (couldn't have been right away, because too much heat from the Epstein deal).
    A big favour down the road...that apparently only a Republican President can grant.

    What evidence has anyone provided for any reason Acosta got the Cabinet position? Did Eschatological have to provide any? I must have missed your request for his....
    You're the one making the claim that he got it through the Epstein deal. You have to prove that.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2020-07-21 at 06:33 AM.

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    No - I am not saying Acosta was promised a Cabinet post 8 years in advance - I've NEVER said that. My point is that he was owed a large political favor, for the Epstein deal, which by the way cost him his U.S. Attorney position (he resigned shortly afterwards), and he had to wait it out until a Republican President showed up again.

    Otherwise, how do you even remotely justify a literal political nobody getting a Cabinet post? Because someone else knew him?
    Again, being a U.S. Attorney is not being a literal nobody. There are 93 of those jobs in the U.S. They're the top prosecutors in the federal system. The Southern District of Florida is also a pretty major one, because it includes Miami, so it's a huge office in terms of federal level drug prosecutions and trafficking cases (both human and drug).

    And the Epstein deal didn't "cost him his job." A Democratic President was elected and as is custom, every USAttorney submits his/her resignation so the new President can appoint their own people.

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Not for political favors of that magnitude. I'm open to examples of how they could have paid Acosta back during Obama's presidency (which encompassed the entire "window" Acosta was available for payback, if that makes sense)
    So really, the only suitable reward for Acosta was something along the lines of a cabinet position. That's essentially what you are saying.

    Yep. That's my point. You're saying Acosta didn't, and yet he got the same reward as those two. My point exactly. There has to be a reason Acosta got the same reward as Carson and McConnell - hence the Epstein reasoning.
    Other people got cabinet positions without giving Epstein a deal though.

    But he helped everyone involved in the Epstein "issue" - including Trump. That's my point.
    Again, you have to prove that.

    We can call it a night if you're tired. But good debate overall, thank you. Sincerely appreciated.
    I wish I could say the same...but you aren't making good arguments. You keep trying to shift the burden of proof off of you.

    You already know how weak your position is. That's apparent from your attacks that everyones else is in a position as weak as yours. But we don't have to prove our cases. You do.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2020-07-21 at 06:32 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •