What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Matt Gaetz Under Investigation for Sex Trafficking (1 Viewer)

If I'm following you...

  • For some reason you think Liz Cheney is relevant to the possible sex trafficking investigation against Gaetz.
  • Liz Cheney's spokesperson said some homophobic things about Matt Gaetz months ago.
  • You actually do understand Liz Cheney is a Republican.
  • But "the DNC" is going to lose votes over this.
Is that it?


WIKIPEDIA: Republican In Name Only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

*******

You are clearly not following, here's a post that clears everything up.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/795779-matt-gaetz-under-investigation-for-sex-trafficking/?tab=comments#comment-23327550

 
His Carlson interview might wind up being rather important.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594
Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.

For instance, I thought part of his defense is that this is an extortion claim, yet, on Carlson he states that the woman in question does not exist.   Who is doing the extorting   :shrug:

Then, its probably nothing, but he suggests that he did not travel with a 17-yo, and that records all "bear that out".  It sounds like he is going with a "her ID said she was 18" defense, to the non-existent woman.  (In this respect, I think its noteworthy that Gaetz' friend - who was the original target in this investigation - was alleged to have been using his government position to create fake IDs for girls.)

 
Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.

For instance, I thought part of his defense is that this is an extortion claim, yet, on Carlson he states that the woman in question does not exist.   Who is doing the extorting   :shrug:

Then, its probably nothing, but he suggests that he did not travel with a 17-yo, and that records all "bear that out".  It sounds like he is going with a "her ID said she was 18" defense, to the non-existent woman.  (In this respect, I think its noteworthy that Gaetz' friend - who was the original target in this investigation - was alleged to have been using his government position to create fake IDs for girls.)
Sigh. 

These guys say it better and are more entertaining than I am. It's not entirely on topic, but it's still on point for Gaetz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o 

 
Democrats will lose part of the LGBT vote because of Matt Gaetz? That is one of the most laughable things I have seen in a long time. 


Matt Gaetz is either heterosexual, gay or bisexual. ( For psychotics cancel culture woked out leftists here who want to start screaming about how I've just discriminated against pansexuals, please loosen the death grip on your Air Soft rifles right now, no one here is filming a western)

If Matt Gaetz comes out to this and says he's gay and he only sleeps with consenting adult males and only wants to sleep with consenting adult males, thus this makes any accusations of sexual criminal acts against a 17 year old girl impossible, then

1) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the Trump zealot

And

2) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the brand name Republican

And

3) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the myopic one trick pony enforcer for the old guard establishment Republican Party

Any continued attack on him by the leftist MSM and by any brand name Democrats will look like an attack on a gay American.

He's rebranded from Matt Gaetz Snow to Matt Stark! Then to Matt Targaryen!  The Breaker of Homophobic Chains! The First King Of The.... I digress

Actually he's rebranded to Matt Gaetz, a gay American being run through the dirt by a gay hating corporate toxic sold out left leaning MSM and corrupt left leaning Big Social Media.

Lots of those on the left have cheered Liz Cheney, a Republican In Name Only ( just as much as Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat In Name Only) on for her anti-Trump stances or seemingly anti-establishment Republican stances. So now there's this ugly narrative of her office saying things that are clearly anti-gay. Her office, she's responsible for all the headlines that come out of it. The DNC can't have it both ways, they can't get the optics of "Liz Cheney is an example of a true populist Republican and a good leader" and simultaneously not take the hit for this kind of repugnant bigoted narrative. Liz Cheney stands with the DNC, there isn't much doubt to this, so what she eats, they eat.

Any brand name Democrat who wants to join in on the public media hunt for Gaetz, after this kind of move, will look like they hate gay people.

Part of "Identity Politics" is dogmatic defense no matter what of your own disenfranchised political sub group. You'll see a subset of black Americans who believe blacks can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of women who believe women can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of Jews who believe Jews can do no wrong no matter what. And you'll see a subset of the LGBT community who will believe a gay man, even Matt Gaetz, can do no wrong no matter what.

Lots of LGBT are hardline LGBT first and foremost, then Democrats second. Attacks on anyone who is gay or claimed to be gay like this is going to get an aggressive response back, including at the voting booth.

If the DNC didn't want this, they shouldn't have pushed for a backdoor "Matt Gaetz is secretly gay and ashamed of it" media narrative, through a RINO no less, to discredit him as a self loathing bigot.

 
So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening.  Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?
No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Gaetz is either heterosexual, gay or bisexual. ( For psychotics cancel culture woked out leftists here who want to start screaming about how I've just discriminated against pansexuals, please loosen the death grip on your Air Soft rifles right now, no one here is filming a western)

If Matt Gaetz comes out to this and says he's gay and he only sleeps with consenting adult males and only wants to sleep with consenting adult males, thus this makes any accusations of sexual criminal acts against a 17 year old girl impossible, then

1) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the Trump zealot

And

2) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the brand name Republican

And

3) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the myopic one trick pony enforcer for the old guard establishment Republican Party

Any continued attack on him by the leftist MSM and by any brand name Democrats will look like an attack on a gay American.

He's rebranded from Matt Gaetz Snow to Matt Stark! Then to Matt Targaryen!  The Breaker of Homophobic Chains! The First King Of The.... I digress

Actually he's rebranded to Matt Gaetz, a gay American being run through the dirt by a gay hating corporate toxic sold out left leaning MSM and corrupt left leaning Big Social Media.

Lots of those on the left have cheered Liz Cheney, a Republican In Name Only ( just as much as Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat In Name Only) on for her anti-Trump stances or seemingly anti-establishment Republican stances. So now there's this ugly narrative of her office saying things that are clearly anti-gay. Her office, she's responsible for all the headlines that come out of it. The DNC can't have it both ways, they can't get the optics of "Liz Cheney is an example of a true populist Republican and a good leader" and simultaneously not take the hit for this kind of repugnant bigoted narrative. Liz Cheney stands with the DNC, there isn't much doubt to this, so what she eats, they eat.

Any brand name Democrat who wants to join in on the public media hunt for Gaetz, after this kind of move, will look like they hate gay people.

Part of "Identity Politics" is dogmatic defense no matter what of your own disenfranchised political sub group. You'll see a subset of black Americans who believe blacks can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of women who believe women can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of Jews who believe Jews can do no wrong no matter what. And you'll see a subset of the LGBT community who will believe a gay man, even Matt Gaetz, can do no wrong no matter what.

Lots of LGBT are hardline LGBT first and foremost, then Democrats second. Attacks on anyone who is gay or claimed to be gay like this is going to get an aggressive response back, including at the voting booth.

If the DNC didn't want this, they shouldn't have pushed for a backdoor "Matt Gaetz is secretly gay and ashamed of it" media narrative, through a RINO no less, to discredit him as a self loathing bigot.
Reed Richards can't stretch as much as you are stretching here.  

 
With how aggressively he’s doing ‘damage control’, he must know he’s in trouble. Gotta love even Tucker thinking he’s crazy. How long until Trump says he barely knew him?

 
No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)
Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?

 
Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
This is a really good question. Trump usually has no problem suing people. I'm now questioning why he hasn't sued a bunch of people over this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
You are confused here.

The dossier made that allegation.  Not a newspaper.

Actually the dossier didn't even argue it was true.  It was presented it as a rumor that Steele looked into, but couldn't confirm.

But either way, no one needed a source.  They could read the dossier for themselves.

Saying "there's a dossier written by a former British agent (fact checked) that makes these allegations (because you've read them) and the FBI is looking into the story (fact checked)" isn't arguing the allegations are true.

Maybe you don't think the press should have run with the story.  Fine.  The big papers appear to have sat on it for months before Buzzfeed published their piece -- so they had that debate themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)
So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?

 
So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?
:shrug:  Probably nobody.

I am not aware of any major media company that reported the trump hooker peeing story as fact.  What was widely reported is that the allegation of Trump hooker peeing story was in the Steele Dossier - which was, in fact, true.

 
:shrug:  Probably nobody.

I am not aware of any major media company that reported the trump hooker peeing story as fact.  What was widely reported is that the allegation of Trump hooker peeing story was in the Steele Dossier - which was, in fact, true.
Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..  

 
So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?
Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.

And because newspapers can (and do) get sued all the time they're going to be very careful with you as a source if they don't know you. 

That's what you're missing here.  Newspapers use anonymous sources, but they aren't anonymous to the reporter writing the story.  The reporter knows who it is and has an opinion about whether they can be trusted.  Most of the time the reporter has known the source for many years and the two have come to trust each other.

 
Many people are wondering why Gary’s was the only Representative to vote against the sex trafficking ring legislation in 2017...many people.

 
Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.

And because newspapers can (and do) get sued all the time they're going to be very careful with you as a source if they don't know you. 

That's what you're missing here.  Newspapers use anonymous sources, but they aren't anonymous to the reporter writing the story.  The reporter knows who it is and has an opinion about whether they can be trusted.  Most of the time the reporter has known the source for many years and the two have come to trust each other.
Just stop the gymnastics. Let this play out because you have NO facts at this point. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top