Appeal to personal increduality.
Begging the question.
Ad hominum.
Did you want some other kind of response for posting a highly speculative article from Slate without offering any commentary of your own?
Tu quoque again.
This is fun.
Here’s another for you:
Did you attend the zecarlo school of reddit discourse?
1 Like
I did bicker with him a lot. I’m still irritated about having to prove I did learn to make pizza in Italy and he never apologized.
2 Likes
He never posted any evidence of lifting weights whatsoever.
2 Likes
Yup. It’s always strange when those people pop up here.
I don’t trust them.
1 Like
My theory is that he was a proto-redditor who created his account on T-Nation over two decades ago for the purposes of subverting a heteronormative masculine power structure, diligently waging a war of words to undermine the common sense of this particular forum.
1 Like
The State of Maine is cracking down on the school districts who voted to reject Maine’s gender identity insanity.
I do not think this statement is true. In fact, I think it is the exact opposite of reality.
Perhaps someone can show me why I’m mistaken.
1 Like
What would your supporting examples of woke right policies or rhetoric in the Republican Party be?
The Party still seems grounded in the ideas of equal protection under the law and US Citizenship as the basis for voting rights (and other rights) with no racial, religious, or sexual preference tests for obtaining it. That’s what getting rid of DEI in the government was all about, ending race-based public policies of Democrats (again).
TDS is a two way street though. Some people who suffer show symptoms of “orange man bad” no matter what. Some people think he’s the second coming of Jesus and will never fault him for wrongs.
Whether or not slate is accurate, Trump was a lifelong “system” guy. He’s not as independent as advertised. Not only was he a massive DNC donor, he was especially close with the Clintons.
He’s in Epstein emails, bumped elbows with some of the more egregious Epstein clientele, had Epstein at his personal club as a member and on and on.
I’ve found the adage “if it walks like a duck” to be pretty accurate.
Now, it’s possible Epstein used many forms of blackmail, not just kids. Maybe Trump likes sucking dick. Not so long ago, that would’ve been enough to end the guy. But he’s not squeaky clean and above the whole power brokering blackmail thing, imo. And there are more Epstein’s out there.
3 Likes
I don’t think he’s the second coming and I fully understand that Trump is a flawed man, just like the rest of us.
The evidence of Trump’s dick sucking has escaped me. Can you share your source for this emerging information? You’re the second person to bring it up.
1 Like
We all know about Lewinsky’s blowjobs.
Can you explain the evidence of Trump’s dick sucking?
Nah, go look it up yourself. I’m making soup.
Okay. I asked Grok and here’s what I got. Similar to our exchange last night, believing this to be true requires us to believe that Epstein and, in this case, his brother, are speaking truthfully in their email communications. It sounds like you’re ready to believe whatever these assholes say, as long as it validates your TDS symptoms.
Why are people saying Donald Trump has given out blowjobs to other men?
Searched for “Donald Trump giving blowjobs to other men”
18 results
Show All (3)
The rumor you’re referring to stems from a recent (mid-November 2025) release of emails from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, which were made public by a U.S. congressional oversight committee investigating Epstein’s network. In one email exchange from March 2018 between Epstein and his brother Mark Epstein, Mark writes: “Ask [Steve Bannon] if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.” “Bubba” is a well-known nickname for former President Bill Clinton (a reference to his Arkansas roots), leading many to interpret this as an allegation that Donald Trump performed oral sex on Clinton, with the implication that compromising photos exist and may have been obtained by Russian President Vladimir Putin as blackmail material (or “kompromat”). The email’s context ties into broader discussions in the released documents about Epstein’s connections to powerful figures, including Trump and Clinton, and hints at withheld DOJ records that could provide more clarity.Key Context and Developments:
-
Initial Speculation and Viral Spread: The email quickly went viral on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, and Threads, sparking memes, jokes, and outrage. For example:
-
Users coined phrases like “Donica Lewinsky” (a mashup of Trump, Clinton, and Monica Lewinsky, tying into Clinton’s 1990s scandal).
-
Posts ranged from humorous takes (e.g., “Trump created one job: Bubba’s personal assistant”) to serious calls for investigation into national security risks if blackmail is involved.
-
Late-night shows like SNL’s Weekend Update riffed on it, with jokes about it being “burned in my brain like The Shining.”
-
-
Denials and Clarifications: Mark Epstein told Newsweek and other outlets that “Bubba” is not Bill Clinton and that the email wasn’t meant literally as a sexual reference—it was more of a cryptic or joking aside without further details provided. The White House has dismissed the entire release as a Democratic “smear” tactic, emphasizing no new evidence of wrongdoing by Trump has emerged. House Democrats, however, are pushing for full DOJ disclosure, citing other emails where Epstein claims Trump “knew about the girls” (referring to underage victims) and offered compromising photos.
-
Broader Epstein-Trump Ties: This isn’t isolated—Trump and Epstein were social acquaintances in the 1990s and 2000s (Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy” who liked “beautiful women… on the younger side”). The emails add to ongoing scrutiny but don’t include direct proof of the “blowjob” claim. More alarmingly, they reinforce questions about Epstein’s influence peddling and potential foreign leverage on U.S. leaders.
It’s chicken wonton soup. Pretty good too.
1 Like
I asked grok for logical fallicies in your post you copied from it. I pretended it was from me.
### Logical Fallacies in the Post
The post by Brant Drake consists of two main parts: (1) a dismissive commentary on a rumored allegation involving Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and related emails, and (2) a quoted response from Grok (an AI) summarizing the rumor’s origins, spread, and context. The commentary is the primary source of fallacies, as it attempts to undermine the rumor’s credibility without engaging its substance. The quoted Grok response is a neutral, factual summary that presents the email as an allegation and includes denials/clarifications, but the poster mischaracterizes it to bolster their dismissal.
Below, I outline the key logical fallacies in the post, focusing on the commentary (“believing this to be true requires us to believe that Epstein and, in this case, his brother, are speaking truthfully… It sounds like you’re ready to believe whatever these assholes say, as long as it validates your TDS symptoms”). Each includes a brief explanation, the relevant quote, and why it qualifies as a fallacy.
| Fallacy | Description | Relevant Quote from Post | Why It’s a Fallacy |
|---------|-------------|--------------------------|--------------------|
| **Ad Hominem** | Attacking the character, motives, or circumstances of the source/person making the claim instead of addressing the claim’s merits. | “It sounds like you’re ready to believe whatever these assholes say, as long as it validates your TDS symptoms.” | The poster labels Epstein and his brother as “assholes” (implying inherent untrustworthiness due to character) and accuses the interlocutor of “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome, a derogatory term implying irrational bias). This shifts focus from the email’s content or verifiability to personal insults, avoiding any evaluation of evidence like the email’s existence or context. |
| **Poisoning the Well** (a subtype of genetic fallacy) | Discrediting a source in advance to preemptively dismiss any information from it, without evidence. | “believing this to be true requires us to believe that Epstein and, in this case, his brother, are speaking truthfully in their email communications.” | By preemptively asserting the Epsteins’ emails are inherently untruthful (based on their reputations), the poster rejects the allegation outright without examining specifics, such as corroborating documents from the congressional release or independent verification. This assumes all output from “bad” sources is invalid, regardless of supporting facts. |
| **Appeal to Motive** | Dismissing an argument by impugning the arguer’s ulterior motives, rather than refuting the argument. | “…as long as it validates your TDS symptoms.” | The poster implies the interlocutor’s interest in the rumor is driven by anti-Trump bias (“TDS”), not genuine concern over the email’s implications (e.g., potential blackmail or Epstein ties). This doesn’t engage the rumor’s details—like the viral spread, denials, or calls for DOJ disclosure mentioned in the Grok quote—but instead psychologizes the opponent’s reasoning as symptomatic of prejudice. |
| **Straw Man (Misrepresentation)** | Distorting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. | The entire setup: Presenting the Grok response (a balanced summary of a “rumor” with denials) as something that “requires us to believe [it] to be true,” then attacking that misrepresentation. | The Grok quote explicitly frames the email as an “allegation” interpreted by “many,” includes Mark Epstein’s denial (“‘Bubba’ is not Bill Clinton” and “wasn’t meant literally”), and notes no “direct proof.” Yet the poster treats it as a factual claim demanding blind faith in the Epsteins, creating a weaker version of the position to knock down. This ignores the quote’s nuance, like broader scrutiny of Epstein-Trump ties or national security angles. |
### Additional Notes
- **Overall Structure**: The post uses the Grok quote as a foil to amplify the commentary’s dismissal, but this creates a false dichotomy: either fully trust disreputable sources or reject the entire rumor. No middle ground (e.g., investigating the email’s authenticity via public records) is considered.
- **No Fallacies in the Grok Quote**: The embedded AI response is even-handed, citing context, viral reactions, denials, and historical ties without endorsing the rumor’s truth. It avoids unsubstantiated claims.
- **Contextual Bias**: The thread title (“Resuming the National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity”) is sarcastic pro-Trump framing, which may encourage echo-chamber reasoning, but that’s more rhetorical than a strict fallacy here.
These fallacies weaken the post’s argumentative integrity, relying on emotional dismissal over evidence-based rebuttal. If the goal was a stronger counter, it could have addressed specifics like the congressional committee’s findings or fact-checks on the email’s release.
2 Likes
Asking AI to be a sophisticated google is one thing, asking me to respond to your AI generated talking points is a violation of the Man Code.