~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

A good sentiment, though I suspect you shouldn’t hold your breath on the prison thing - he’s already been released from custody.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c70kjr9wjw0t

Evidently the troll accusation isn’t entirely baseless either…

This is possibly the most excruciating second-hand embarrassment I have ever felt at someone’s wildly tasteless self promotion. Seriously, Lemmy is not the place to gain haters or fans - take this routine to reddit.

It’s a recent revelation - likely at most he’s been suspended while the accusations are investigated.

Here’s hoping him and Mitch McConnell share a cramped room in hell…

He didn’t.

The email at the center of the viral post was not written by Bill Gates. It was written by Jeffrey Epstein — to himself.

Both the “From” and “To” fields list Epstein’s personal Gmail address. The message appears to be a draft, written during a period when Epstein’s relationship with Gates had deteriorated. In it, Epstein alleges that Gates asked him to delete messages related to an STD. But the document does not show Gates making that request, nor does it provide independent confirmation that any of the claims are true.

Yeah it’s just an ad for a truecrime book, wtf.

And in at least one canadian one, who if anyone appears to be the party with the true “flaw” in their security (but it’s really just a systemic weakness, and sadly one I expect will be ended because of this dickhead’s meddling). It’s actually a fascinating story - he was given the ability to set up credentials as part of his job (or was able to re-submit himself for a second set somehow, I’m reading conflicting accounts of exactly how it was done), then just set up an alternative identity for himself that persisted after he left. As far as I understand it the identity was legitimate, it was just never removed from the system so he simply continued to use it. Probably the most interesting thing is that it’s so common for pilots and flight attendants to fly inter-carrier, I would not have expected it to be as abusable as it turns out to be.

… christ, I have no idea if this is legit or not. Maybe… No? Just because he’d have to admit defeat?

I hate to point this out, but it’s 2026.

Everything else is great though.

She’s pretty pro-trump, but to my eye the distinction between if she’s courting trump because she just wants the influence he’ll bring or if she genuinely believes in his insanity it seems like the same result to me - she’s willing to treat with a murdering pedophile wannabe tyrant for power, that’s pretty damning on it’s own.

She’s pretty pro-trump, she probably will give it to him; it seems like an incredibly obvious bribe.

Why is trump doing something I’ve advocated that the US should be doing (removing embassy staff from Israel) suddenly so ominous? Goddamnit I hate this fucker.

Or it’s fearmongering clickbait!

Or it’s just clickbait.

The phone contained confidential contact details of staff involved in nuclear security work at the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA).

I mean… It’s real stupid to have brought that with him to a different country, but keeping contact info in a phone seems like a reasonable place to keep it idk.

I think you’re giving the US way too much credit here. They helped south korea establish itself with a massive investment, but they didn’t “invent” the country, and its pretty insulting to south koreans that you’re so willing to take away their agency in the matter.

They escalated, yes - absolutely not denying that. But the point was that they didn’t just nuke the city. Winning was important, but there was a point that the consequences of winning were deemed to outweigh the victory itself.

That’s an oversimplification to the point that it really doesn’t represent my argument at all, though. But to treat with what you said, I’m not sure how

The US didn’t “feel” like winning the war was so important it justified nuking north vietnam

is a bad representation of the situation? The US didn’t drop sarin on the ho chi minh trail, nor did they nuke Hanoi, mobilize full wartime production, draft the “desirables” etc. Politics are a massive part of any war. “An army marches on it’s stomach” isn’t simply a literal adage about the importance of supplies.

Well… yeah, we could have.

If war was literally as simple as “kill the other person and damn the consequences” the US could have casually wiped out the viet cong at pretty much any point during the war. The political consequences for doing so were the limiting factor - an extreme example, but we could have just nuked north vietnam to glass and been done with it (and obviously that wasn’t a realistic option (despite the number of times some psycho general or the other tried to advocate for it)).