1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How many Jews would depicted as rats before you would regard it as a problem?

Its unacceptable to depict a whole race of people in a certain way .

Its acceptable depict a certain person in a certain way

12 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The Epstein files do not contain such allegations against Trump. The claim total BS !! Get a life!!

53 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

It’s easy to point to a PDF and claim "it’s in there,"

You can’t say a document never existed and then say it was ‘easy to point to.’
That’s not an argument -- that’s you catching yourself lying mid-sentence.

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Its unacceptable to depict a whole race of people in a certain way .

Its acceptable depict a certain person in a certain way

You just can't do it can you. Just can't bring yourself to admit maybe, just maybe, it was a little bit racist of your leader. You are the most stubborn poster on here: Trump can't do bad things, Israel can't do bad things, but if anyone dares to criticise either of them you come up with ludicrous tangled logic to defend them.

If only this was an Olympic sport.

2 hours ago, MrRWB said:

However, the clueless posts of whining uninformed liberals regarding the fantastic job that President Trump is doing on behalf of America has forced me to make an account and comment on these foolish liberal comments.

You must be joking, right?

It's baffling to see that the clown still has his die hard followers. No wrong steps have been made by this genius president for you MAGAs. None.

For us watching this shiitshow from the outside, this MAGA cult is really a case for shrinks to scratch their heads for decades to come.

Do you really think Trump and his administration actually are working for you little guys, or for most Americans? Everything they do is to make themselves, and the billionaires richer. For instance, Jeff Bezos is now revealed to pay only 3% taxes in 2025. And Trump himself has skyrocketed his wealth in less than a year, with billions, with his openly corruption. And you MAGAs are not lifting one eyebrow.

It's mind boggling.

They already got your vote, so they don't need you anymore. You have been tricked, but you'll never admit it. Never.

18 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Anyway, this video is stupid and I don't know what they're doing or why they're doing it.

you loved in your earlier comment though.

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You just can't do it can you. Just can't bring yourself to admit maybe, just maybe, it was a little bit racist of your leader. You are the most stubborn poster on here: Trump can't do bad things, Israel can't do bad things, but if anyone dares to criticise either of them you come up with ludicrous tangled logic to defend them.

If only this was an Olympic sport.

Why dont you reply to the points I made, rather than a general character assassination ?

3 hours ago, MrRWB said:

you and that embarrassing celebrity fool, Robert DeNiro, have something in common!

Thank you mister, I'll take that as a compliment. Robert De Niro is a stand-up guy, speaking his mind. So do many celebrities, actors and actresses these days. Kudos to them.

You MAGAs on the other hand, don't have half the brain these good people have.

43 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Thank you mister, I'll take that as a compliment. Robert De Niro is a stand-up guy, speaking his mind. So do many celebrities, actors and actresses these days. Kudos to them.

You MAGAs on the other hand, don't have half the brain these good people have.

They are actors with very little real life experience ,

They re not spokesmen for the general popultion

3 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

They are actors with very little real life experience ,

They re not spokesmen for the general popultion

Who claimed they are spokesmen for the general population?

The guy is a master at keeping himself as the center of attention.

Good or bad, it's still the center.

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Listen and (not likely) you might learn something.

Backlash over now-deleted Trump social media platform post | Watch

Yes, I listened but I didn't learn anything I didn't already know watching liberal ABC news.

If you do some research, you will discover that Trump has been depicted as apes and various other animals over the years.

However, if Trump does the same thing as they Democrats, let's play the race card and condemn him as a racist.

45 minutes ago, MrRWB said:

Yes, I listened but I didn't learn anything I didn't already know watching liberal ABC news.

If you do some research, you will discover that Trump has been depicted as apes and various other animals over the years.

However, if Trump does the same thing as they Democrats, let's play the race card and condemn him as a racist.

Somebody else afflicted with the false equivalency that comes as a result of studied ignorance.

Faux outrage from the perpetually offended.

It's fine to depict Trump as a Nazi, fascist, fat pig, orange baby etc. but pearls must be clutched if anyone else is insulted.

If anyone associates a reference to monkeys with black people I would suggest they have the issue with race. Such a connotation wouldn't even cross my mind.

Investigate your own dated racial stereotypes and then grow a pair.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Faux outrage from the perpetually offended.

It's fine to depict Trump as a Nazi, fascist, fat pig, orange baby etc. but pearls must be clutched if anyone else is insulted.

If anyone associates a reference to monkeys with black people I would suggest they have the issue with race. Such a connotation wouldn't even cross my mind.

Investigate your own dated racial stereotypes and then grow a pair.

It was Trump who associated black people with monkeys by posting the disgraceful racist images discussed in this thread.

I doubt very much you are not aware of the long history of racist depictions of black people as apes and monkeys, which leaves the obvious conclusion that you too are afflicted with studied ignorance on the matter.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It was Trump who associated black people with monkeys by posting the disgraceful racist images discussed in this thread.

I doubt very much you are not aware of the long history of racist depictions of black people as apes and monkeys, which leaves the obvious conclusion that you too are afflicted with studied ignorance on the matter.

Nonsense.

You drew that conclusion. You are offended because YOU associate black people with apes and monkeys.

I make no such association and am therefore no more offended than if he posted about a white man with a picture of a monkey, or a black man with a picture of a lion.

You are revealing your own prejudice again.

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're confusing 'debunked', your claim, with 'unproven'.

No, you are the one apparently confused.

The 2026 DOJ report moves beyond the label of "unproven" (lacking evidence) by providing affirmative evidence of falsity, effectively debunking specific allegations. The distinction rests on three pillars:

• Active Contradiction: Investigators didn't just fail to find proof; they found "material impossibilities"—such as verifiable itineraries and cell data—that physically disproved the claims.

• Investigative Closure: While a withdrawn lawsuit is legally "unproven," the DOJ’s internal review categorized these specific claims as "sensationalist" and "unfounded" after they failed basic credibility tests.

• Finality: Calling these claims "unproven" suggests a "maybe" that the investigation has already closed. The report concludes that these were not just "cold leads," but documented fabrications.

QED

18 hours ago, stevenl said:

Mine is 145, so you're boycotting intelligence.

Where does that figure come from?

37 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

the DOJ’s internal review categorized these specific claims as "sensationalist" and "unfounded" after they failed basic credibility tests.

That's the definition of 'unproven' and far from 'debunked'. How credible is anything coming from this DoJ is an even bigger question.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That's the definition of 'unproven' and far from 'debunked'. How credible is anything coming from this DoJ is an even bigger question.

The rebuttal to the claim that "unfounded" is just another word for "unproven" lies in the Federal Department of Justice's own definitions, which were used to categorize the 2026 releases.

In federal investigations, these terms are not interchangeable. They represent different levels of investigative finality:

Term	DOJ/FBI Definition	Investigative Meaning
Substantiated	Evidence confirms the event occurred.	Proven.
Unsubstantiated	Investigation was inconclusive; lacks sufficient evidence to prove or disprove.	Unproven.
Unfounded	Investigation determined the event did not occur or the claim was false.	Debunked.

By specifically labeling the "Jane Doe" claims and the 2020-era tips as "unfounded," the DOJ isn't saying "we couldn't find proof." They are saying "we investigated and found they were not true." Using the word "unproven" for an unfounded claim is a deliberate downgrade of the investigative conclusion.

"Unproven" implies the door is still open. "Unfounded" (Debunked) means the DOJ found the door was never there in the first place.

The argument that the "DOJ isn't credible" is a common pivot, but it ignores the transparency of the 2026 release. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required the DOJ to release the raw data alongside their summaries.

• If it were a cover-up: They would have withheld the tips entirely.

• The Reality: They released the tips (the "sensationalist" claims) but paired them with the investigative receipts (phone records, travel logs, and witness contradictions) that showed why they were fake.

The credibility doesn't rest on "trusting the government"—it rests on the 3.5 million pages of evidence that allow anyone to see how those claims were debunked.

41 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The rebuttal to the claim that "unfounded" is just another word for "unproven" lies in the Federal Department of Justice's own definitions, which were used to categorize the 2026 releases.

In federal investigations, these terms are not interchangeable. They represent different levels of investigative finality:

Term	DOJ/FBI Definition	Investigative Meaning
Substantiated	Evidence confirms the event occurred.	Proven.
Unsubstantiated	Investigation was inconclusive; lacks sufficient evidence to prove or disprove.	Unproven.
Unfounded	Investigation determined the event did not occur or the claim was false.	Debunked.

By specifically labeling the "Jane Doe" claims and the 2020-era tips as "unfounded," the DOJ isn't saying "we couldn't find proof." They are saying "we investigated and found they were not true." Using the word "unproven" for an unfounded claim is a deliberate downgrade of the investigative conclusion.

"Unproven" implies the door is still open. "Unfounded" (Debunked) means the DOJ found the door was never there in the first place.

The argument that the "DOJ isn't credible" is a common pivot, but it ignores the transparency of the 2026 release. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required the DOJ to release the raw data alongside their summaries.

• If it were a cover-up: They would have withheld the tips entirely.

• The Reality: They released the tips (the "sensationalist" claims) but paired them with the investigative receipts (phone records, travel logs, and witness contradictions) that showed why they were fake.

The credibility doesn't rest on "trusting the government"—it rests on the 3.5 million pages of evidence that allow anyone to see how those claims were debunked.

Have all files been released? Have the redactions only concerned protecting the victims?

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

By specifically labeling the "Jane Doe" claims and the 2020-era tips as "unfounded," the DOJ isn't saying "we couldn't find proof." They are saying "we investigated and found they were not true." Using the word "unproven" for an unfounded claim is a deliberate downgrade of the investigative conclusion.

"Unproven" implies the door is still open. "Unfounded" (Debunked) means the DOJ found the door was never there in the first place.

Can you point to a specific document where the DOJ states that the 'Jane Doe' case was investigated and deemed unfounded?

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Nonsense.

You drew that conclusion. You are offended because YOU associate black people with apes and monkeys.

I make no such association and am therefore no more offended than if he posted about a white man with a picture of a monkey, or a black man with a picture of a lion.

You are revealing your own prejudice again.

Brilliant, as usual.

15 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Its unacceptable to depict a whole race of people in a certain way .

Its acceptable depict a certain person in a certain way

Brad Marchand is frequently depicted and derided as a Rat (and he is to be honest) does that mean all Canadians are Rats? I think not.

On 2/7/2026 at 10:09 AM, spidermike007 said:

Something that seems to pass people by is that this man has absolutely no class. He is an ignorant (comparing himself to Nelson Mandela is a recent act that reveals his lack of self awareness) loud-mouthed tasteless American, who is interested only in himself and no-one and nothing.

This sums him up perfectly:

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?" Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down. So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:*

Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of bull<deleted>. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

Best thing, just save your breath on this forum. The minority who still defends Don, will not give in, it's in their blood.

Simple as that

While the rest of us, can say Told You So

4 hours ago, MrRWB said:

Yes, I listened but I didn't learn anything I didn't already know watching liberal ABC news.

If you do some research, you will discover that Trump has been depicted as apes and various other animals over the years.

However, if Trump does the same thing as they Democrats, let's play the race card and condemn him as a racist.

Trump depicted as ape? Lol! You are making that up because you have no other argument (and he's not black, anyway)! 😃

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Can you point to a specific document where the DOJ states that these allegations were investigated and deemed unfounded?

In the press release accompanying the release of 3 million pages (Data Sets 9–12), the DOJ explicitly addressed the 2020 FBI case files that documented Jane Doe's claims. The statement reads:

"Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already."

1 hour ago, candide said:

Trump depicted as ape? Lol! You are making that up because you have no other argument (and he's not black, anyway)! 😃

Too lazy to do your own research?

OK....here you go!

8 minutes ago, MrRWB said:

Too lazy to do your own research?

OK....here you go!

My bad! Which President diffused those images?

10 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

They are actors with very little real life experience ,

They re not spokesmen for the general popultion

No, but the polls kind of are. And those clearly show that Trump is the worst and least popular president the US have ever had.

I wonder why. It says a lot about those die hard followers who would go through fire for him.

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, a black person depicted as a lion is not a well established racist trope.

lol..... yet! but never say never, The black and white minstrel show was not racist, until one, anonymous, self harming, white person, somewhere, decided it was, and set the vocal minority off in what must be one of the earliest examples of virtue signalling and race baiting on record

There are unsurprisingly several "problematic" features to lions behaviour particularly in their sexual conduct, once the head lefty has made the tenuous (and incorrect) connection between that and the behaviour of black people, all references to the king of the jungle will be banned,

Just like references to monkeys are effectively banned, despite there being no resemblance in appearance to black people whatsoever, except perhaps in the twisted minds of those doing the banning.

On 2/8/2026 at 1:54 PM, Yellowtail said:

Trump is lacking humor?

Ger a grip Homer

I think the poster explained why he said this very convincingly.

Possibly if petty viciousness is a person's idea of humor they would not be able to understand why this was said.