Topic: Anonymous reveals Trump’s depravity
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #101,776
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #1,149,537
It would be funny if the Democrats became the party of Epstein conspiracy theories ?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 22 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,542
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
It would at least make them interesting again. Even conspiracy theories have become incredibly partisan and that makes me sad.
It would at least make them interesting again. Even conspiracy theories have become incredibly partisan and that makes me sad.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,543
@OP
> https://daily.shared.com/trump-killed-epstein-cover-tracks-child-trafficking-rape-anonymous?utm_source=wallpost&fbclid=IwAR1TwSXt-tZ1lfpzKEKtoG24tv3xZrVqBLNy0Dy2SeSTmBARj0AkWIUHygw
wow, that's really dispicable of hime
> https://daily.shared.com/trump-killed-epstein-cover-tracks-child-trafficking-rape-anonymous?utm_source=wallpost&fbclid=IwAR1TwSXt-tZ1lfpzKEKtoG24tv3xZrVqBLNy0Dy2SeSTmBARj0AkWIUHygw
wow, that's really dispicable of hime
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,556
I like the conspiracy theory that race riots and looting don't spread covid19
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 39 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,581
I like the one about how Trump is making the country bad by sending extra law enforcement to help deal with lawlessness.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,584
Not clicking that affiliate link
dw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,585
@1,149,537 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Well that would be quite hypocritical since clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children!
Well that would be quite hypocritical since clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children!
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,587
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,621
@1,149,585 (dw)
> since clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children
This is quite a strong accusation. Do you have any proof whatsoever that either raped children, or are you just running your cock holster again?
> since clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children
This is quite a strong accusation. Do you have any proof whatsoever that either raped children, or are you just running your cock holster again?
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,626
@previous (I)
they were both friends with a convicted pedophile, and spent time on this convicts' island. They are at best pedo enablers. If you honestly think Epstein had friends that didn't know of his unsavoury behaviour, that's a pretty positive mindset I guess
Also that prince
they were both friends with a convicted pedophile, and spent time on this convicts' island. They are at best pedo enablers. If you honestly think Epstein had friends that didn't know of his unsavoury behaviour, that's a pretty positive mindset I guess
Also that prince
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,627
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 31 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,628
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,629
@1,149,626 (dw)
> they were both friends with a convicted pedophile, and spent time on this convicts' island. They are at best pedo enablers. If you honestly think Epstein had friends that didn't know of his unsavoury behaviour, that's a pretty positive mindset I guess
>
> Also that prince
You could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
> they were both friends with a convicted pedophile, and spent time on this convicts' island. They are at best pedo enablers. If you honestly think Epstein had friends that didn't know of his unsavoury behaviour, that's a pretty positive mindset I guess
>
> Also that prince
You could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 33 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,631
@1,149,626 (dw)
You avoided my question. I didn't ask if Clinton or Trump KNEW that Epstein was a child molester, I asked if you had any proof that Clinton or Trump raped quite a lot of children.
You avoided my question. I didn't ask if Clinton or Trump KNEW that Epstein was a child molester, I asked if you had any proof that Clinton or Trump raped quite a lot of children.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,632
@1,149,629 (K)
sure, they technically could have been completely unaware about epsteins sex trafficking, in the same manner that eva braun could have been unaware of all the jew murdering.
you just think giuffre is lying, or what?
sure, they technically could have been completely unaware about epsteins sex trafficking, in the same manner that eva braun could have been unaware of all the jew murdering.
you just think giuffre is lying, or what?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,634
@previous (dw)
> sure, they technically could have been completely unaware about epsteins sex trafficking, in the same manner that eva braun could have been unaware of all the jew murdering.
> you just think giuffre is lying, or what?
Once again, you could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
> sure, they technically could have been completely unaware about epsteins sex trafficking, in the same manner that eva braun could have been unaware of all the jew murdering.
> you just think giuffre is lying, or what?
Once again, you could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,638
@1,149,631 (I)
i would recommend just reading the news a bit. there's plenty of testimony. you could read up on giuffre's website, if you want to hear from victims.
if you absolutely require proof beyond even the faintest shadow of doubt to believe thesevictimsALLEGED VICTIMS, you'll have to wait until the court has had time to do their job.
i would recommend just reading the news a bit. there's plenty of testimony. you could read up on giuffre's website, if you want to hear from victims.
if you absolutely require proof beyond even the faintest shadow of doubt to believe these
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,640
@previous (dw)
> i would recommend just reading the news a bit. there's plenty of testimony. you could read up on giuffre's website, if you want to hear from victims.
> if you absolutely require proof beyond even the faintest shadow of doubt to believe these victims ALLEGED VICTIMS, you'll have to wait until the court has had time to do their job.
You're saying if someone "reads the news a bit" they will find proof that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump "raped quite a lot of children"?
> i would recommend just reading the news a bit. there's plenty of testimony. you could read up on giuffre's website, if you want to hear from victims.
> if you absolutely require proof beyond even the faintest shadow of doubt to believe these victims ALLEGED VICTIMS, you'll have to wait until the court has had time to do their job.
You're saying if someone "reads the news a bit" they will find proof that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump "raped quite a lot of children"?
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,643
Dave from Russia is in this thread
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,644
@1,149,640 (K)
that is not what i am saying. they'll find testimonies though.
@previous (blom)
its neat, he always thinks he is actually anonymous if you don't specify that it's tgcomix.
that is not what i am saying. they'll find testimonies though.
@previous (blom)
its neat, he always thinks he is actually anonymous if you don't specify that it's tgcomix.
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 40 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,649
Wait till the Brits find out why Harry really distantced himself from the Royal family! It will make the Andrew thing look like it was nothing.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,655
@1,149,638 (dw)
Once again, you could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
Once again, you could have just written "No, I have no proof Clinton and Trump raped children" and saved yourself some time.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,656
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,657
@1,149,655 (I)
you dont seem to really comprehend the idea that different people require different standards of proof to belief something. ex. you think religious teachings proof that there is a god (or pretended to for years), i don't think it does.
for me, there's been enough evidence that they had non-consensual sex with underage girls. doesn't mean i think they should be convicted of a crime, just that they should be criminally investigated, along with most of epsteins visitors.
you dont seem to really comprehend the idea that different people require different standards of proof to belief something. ex. you think religious teachings proof that there is a god (or pretended to for years), i don't think it does.
for me, there's been enough evidence that they had non-consensual sex with underage girls. doesn't mean i think they should be convicted of a crime, just that they should be criminally investigated, along with most of epsteins visitors.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 36 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,662
@previous (dw)
But yet, you have still failed to provide any proof to your "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children" comment.
Being accused of, and having facts, are two different things. You seem to have a hard time grappling with this concept.
Here's an example...
You were just "accused" of robbing a bank. You claimed your innocence.
Bank camera provided a "fact" that it was, indeed, you, who robbed the bank.
See how that works? So you can accuse all you want, but until you have actual facts, you should keep your mouth shut to avoid looking even more foolish than you already do.
But yet, you have still failed to provide any proof to your "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children" comment.
Being accused of, and having facts, are two different things. You seem to have a hard time grappling with this concept.
Here's an example...
You were just "accused" of robbing a bank. You claimed your innocence.
Bank camera provided a "fact" that it was, indeed, you, who robbed the bank.
See how that works? So you can accuse all you want, but until you have actual facts, you should keep your mouth shut to avoid looking even more foolish than you already do.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,663
@1,149,657 (dw)
> you dont seem to really comprehend the idea that different people require different standards of proof to belief something.
And you don't seem to comprehend that proof is proof and doesn't care about your "different standards", especially when you're saying 2 living American presidents "raped a lot of children".
> you dont seem to really comprehend the idea that different people require different standards of proof to belief something.
And you don't seem to comprehend that proof is proof and doesn't care about your "different standards", especially when you're saying 2 living American presidents "raped a lot of children".
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 34 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,664
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,683
@1,149,662 (I)I actually told you where you could find all the publicly available evidence you want. Maybe try court documents if you don't trust the media. If you won't believe a sexual assault really happened before the assaulter is convicted, that's your prerogative. It is my prerogative to believe the testimonies were made in good faith.
Of course an accusation is not the same as physical evidence. Not sure how you got the idea that I think that from my post, I do not. These aren't just simply accusations though, they are testimonies. There's also quite a bit of documentary evidence to back up the testimonies. 2 out of 3 of these people have admitted to visiting the crime scene and socializing with him, for example. Like I said, on it's own not enough for a conviction, but definitely enough for me to accept the events of the testimonies as more likely true than not.
In your hypothetical about the least competent criminal ever it would of course be trivial to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. What about crime without available physical evidence?
Let's say you're a judge would you just not convict anyone that managed to destroy physical evidence on time, or committed a crime that just doesn't create any? How would you proof something like emotional abuse or wire fraud?
> you should keep your mouth shut to avoid looking even more foolish than you already do.
No. You do not have a say in deciding what anyone believes as truth. Do you consider believing Wade Robson and James Safechuck foolish as well?
@1,149,663 (K)
Status is not a valid rebuttal of a criminal accusation. Legal standards are not something I made up for this topic lol. You've heard of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond reasonable doubt before, I assume.
Your posts have always been quite critical of Trump. Did you mainly switch to defending him because someone called him a pedo or is this just beause of your strange fascination with me?
pic unrelated
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,686
Not going to lie, I am rooting for dreamworks in this one. I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying, but he has that underdog appeal right now. It's very entertaining seeing him fight his corner.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,687
@1,149,683 (dw)
Again, you're going by accusations(aka: hearsay), and not facts.
Let's try this again.
You have been "accused" of sexually assaulting Matt.
You claim it was not you because you were at home masturbating with your boyfriend.
Matt, however, failed to tell you that there were hidden cameras in his run down one room efficiency apt.
Now, again, the camera has proven the "fact", that you did, indeed, sexually assault him, and that you were not home masturbating with your boyfriend as you "claimed".
So I'll say it once more: Accusations and facts are two different things.
Again, you're going by accusations(aka: hearsay), and not facts.
Let's try this again.
You have been "accused" of sexually assaulting Matt.
You claim it was not you because you were at home masturbating with your boyfriend.
Matt, however, failed to tell you that there were hidden cameras in his run down one room efficiency apt.
Now, again, the camera has proven the "fact", that you did, indeed, sexually assault him, and that you were not home masturbating with your boyfriend as you "claimed".
So I'll say it once more: Accusations and facts are two different things.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,708
@1,149,686 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
To be clear I don't support a conviction based on only the current knowledge or anything like that. I just haven't seen any compelling reason why these detailed accusations are dishonest or inaccurate. Mr. Dadrock here seems to think that I'm not allowed to believe any kind of testimony even if the prosecution considers it accurate. In the past he's defended church pedos even after they are convicted. I'm thinking he may be less than sincere.
@previous (I)
If you want to have a conversation about this you'll have to do more a little more than just repeat an old point I've already addressed.
The only difference in this new hypothetical is that you've decided to up the hypothetical crime. There's still a recording of the crime.
What evidence would you consider valid if there was no video recording?
To be clear I don't support a conviction based on only the current knowledge or anything like that. I just haven't seen any compelling reason why these detailed accusations are dishonest or inaccurate. Mr. Dadrock here seems to think that I'm not allowed to believe any kind of testimony even if the prosecution considers it accurate. In the past he's defended church pedos even after they are convicted. I'm thinking he may be less than sincere.
@previous (I)
If you want to have a conversation about this you'll have to do more a little more than just repeat an old point I've already addressed.
The only difference in this new hypothetical is that you've decided to up the hypothetical crime. There's still a recording of the crime.
What evidence would you consider valid if there was no video recording?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,710
@1,149,683 (dw)
> Status is not a valid rebuttal of a criminal accusation.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have never been 'criminally accused' of "raping quite a lot of children". There is a material difference between a criminal accusation and QAnon internet rumours propagated by credulous dullards.
> Your posts have always been quite critical of Trump.
Hating somebody and thinking they're literally the dumbest fucking retard on the face of the planet (as I think about Trump) doesn't mean I'm ready to start throwing reckless accusations around about him raping lots of kids. When you're as awful as he is, making shit up is both unnecessary and potentially harmful (since when it's proven wrong he can start his usual "witch hunt!" bullshit which plays well to his base).
> Did you mainly switch to defending him because someone called him a pedo or is this just beause of your strange fascination with me?
Two flaws here: firstly, you're also accusing Bill Clinton of raping lots of kids, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on Trump. And secondly, I haven't "switched". I have only one guiding principle: stupid bullshit is stupid bullshit no matter the target. Like I said, disliking someone isn't a free ride to just make shit up about them. It's counter-productive.
Finally, I'm not fascinated by you. You amuse me.
> Status is not a valid rebuttal of a criminal accusation.
Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have never been 'criminally accused' of "raping quite a lot of children". There is a material difference between a criminal accusation and QAnon internet rumours propagated by credulous dullards.
> Your posts have always been quite critical of Trump.
Hating somebody and thinking they're literally the dumbest fucking retard on the face of the planet (as I think about Trump) doesn't mean I'm ready to start throwing reckless accusations around about him raping lots of kids. When you're as awful as he is, making shit up is both unnecessary and potentially harmful (since when it's proven wrong he can start his usual "witch hunt!" bullshit which plays well to his base).
> Did you mainly switch to defending him because someone called him a pedo or is this just beause of your strange fascination with me?
Two flaws here: firstly, you're also accusing Bill Clinton of raping lots of kids, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on Trump. And secondly, I haven't "switched". I have only one guiding principle: stupid bullshit is stupid bullshit no matter the target. Like I said, disliking someone isn't a free ride to just make shit up about them. It's counter-productive.
Finally, I'm not fascinated by you. You amuse me.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 14 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,711
@1,149,687 (I)
Also, have you actually looked at the accusations? It's hundreds of pages of interview with a huge amount of already verified details. It's hardly the type of accusation you attempted to describe in your examples.
https://www.scribd.com/document/470961991/Jeffrey-Epstein-Documents-Unsealed-Thursday-July-30
Also, have you actually looked at the accusations? It's hundreds of pages of interview with a huge amount of already verified details. It's hardly the type of accusation you attempted to describe in your examples.
https://www.scribd.com/document/470961991/Jeffrey-Epstein-Documents-Unsealed-Thursday-July-30
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,712
@previous (dw)
> Also, have you actually looked at the accusations? It's hundreds of pages of interview with a huge amount of already verified details.
You haven't read those "hundreds of pages of interview".
> Also, have you actually looked at the accusations? It's hundreds of pages of interview with a huge amount of already verified details.
You haven't read those "hundreds of pages of interview".
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,714
@1,149,686 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
Still 9 more years, and about 5 months of the Joran decade to go.
Still 9 more years, and about 5 months of the Joran decade to go.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,716
@1,149,710 (K)
Are you saying status is a valid rebuttal of any kind of accusation? I have not read any conspiracy theories, just articles about the court documents the prosecution considers truth.
I mentioned Trump because you have never defended him until he was said to be a pedo. Not saying that you're defending him because of political affiliation.
> Finally, I'm not fascinated by you. You amuse me.
Hmm. Why the periods of following me around and spamming every topic I post in during these past 5 years with pracitcally no reaction from me? Is that what you do when you are amused by someone?
Are you saying status is a valid rebuttal of any kind of accusation? I have not read any conspiracy theories, just articles about the court documents the prosecution considers truth.
I mentioned Trump because you have never defended him until he was said to be a pedo. Not saying that you're defending him because of political affiliation.
> Finally, I'm not fascinated by you. You amuse me.
Hmm. Why the periods of following me around and spamming every topic I post in during these past 5 years with pracitcally no reaction from me? Is that what you do when you are amused by someone?
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,718
@1,149,710 (K)
It's quite fun seeing you go up against someone who is both stubborn and smart enough to continue arguing, and is immune to the classic "So you're an idiot. That will be all." manoeuvre. It makes me a bit nostalgic for the days of the Doctor feud, where he was just completely unphased by the all of the (quite numerous) insults you threw at him.
It's quite fun seeing you go up against someone who is both stubborn and smart enough to continue arguing, and is immune to the classic "So you're an idiot. That will be all." manoeuvre. It makes me a bit nostalgic for the days of the Doctor feud, where he was just completely unphased by the all of the (quite numerous) insults you threw at him.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 33 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,719
@1,149,714 (N)
That was their fatal mistake, I think. They're picking a fight with Joran in his own decade.
That was their fatal mistake, I think. They're picking a fight with Joran in his own decade.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,720
@1,149,716 (dw)
> Are you saying status is a valid rebuttal of any kind of accusation?
I'm saying you need to find a different way of phrasing whatever the fuck it is you keep trying to say here.
> I have not read any conspiracy theories, just articles about the court documents the prosecution considers truth.
You should probably familiarise yourself with how prosecution lawyers make their money. What they consider "truth" has no relevance to what is actually proven to be true.
> I mentioned Trump because you have never defended him until he was said to be a pedo.
Because this is the first claim about his loathsome character I have seen on here that is patently stupid. Hence, since I care about sensible information sharing in this post-truth world of ours, I defend 'him'. If you had said Trump cannibalised quite a lot of Mexican people, I would also defend 'him' from that dumb accusation. I am not defending Donald Trump, I am defending against retarded bullshit.
> Are you saying status is a valid rebuttal of any kind of accusation?
I'm saying you need to find a different way of phrasing whatever the fuck it is you keep trying to say here.
> I have not read any conspiracy theories, just articles about the court documents the prosecution considers truth.
You should probably familiarise yourself with how prosecution lawyers make their money. What they consider "truth" has no relevance to what is actually proven to be true.
> I mentioned Trump because you have never defended him until he was said to be a pedo.
Because this is the first claim about his loathsome character I have seen on here that is patently stupid. Hence, since I care about sensible information sharing in this post-truth world of ours, I defend 'him'. If you had said Trump cannibalised quite a lot of Mexican people, I would also defend 'him' from that dumb accusation. I am not defending Donald Trump, I am defending against retarded bullshit.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,721
@1,149,718 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> It's quite fun seeing you go up against someone who is both stubborn and smart enough to continue arguing, and is immune to the classic "So you're an idiot. That will be all." manoeuvre. It makes me a bit nostalgic for the days of the Doctor feud, where he was just completely unphased by the all of the (quite numerous) insults you threw at him.
You're taking this way more seriously than I am.
> It's quite fun seeing you go up against someone who is both stubborn and smart enough to continue arguing, and is immune to the classic "So you're an idiot. That will be all." manoeuvre. It makes me a bit nostalgic for the days of the Doctor feud, where he was just completely unphased by the all of the (quite numerous) insults you threw at him.
You're taking this way more seriously than I am.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,722
@previous (K)
I'm not taking it seriously. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm entertained by this clash of two persistent and fairly erudite personalities.
I'm not taking it seriously. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm entertained by this clash of two persistent and fairly erudite personalities.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 53 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,723
@1,149,712 (K)
No, just the highlights. I also have not been to Epsteins house, so reading a hundred page about the colour of the walls is not particularly productive. The prosecutor has read it all. I think the prosecution is correct in this case.
You haven't adressed any points of mine or explained how your legal system would work if only physical and video evidence and was considered valid.
Imagine having to send someone to prison in the 60s!
@1,149,718 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I'm kind of getting the vibe you don't believe giuffre either honestly
No, just the highlights. I also have not been to Epsteins house, so reading a hundred page about the colour of the walls is not particularly productive. The prosecutor has read it all. I think the prosecution is correct in this case.
You haven't adressed any points of mine or explained how your legal system would work if only physical and video evidence and was considered valid.
Imagine having to send someone to prison in the 60s!
@1,149,718 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I'm kind of getting the vibe you don't believe giuffre either honestly
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,724
@1,149,718 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
And incidentally it speaks volumes that you think he's saying "smart" things here. Trump was caught on tape saying he could grab women by the pussy and it was international news for an entire month, but to learn more about his serial raping of children I have to read a Scribd link. Bill Clinton got blown in the Oval Office and it was the biggest political 'scandal' of the 90s but to learn about his raping scores of kids I have to take to Twitter and trust what prosecution lawyers believe. It's mind-numbingly stupid.
And incidentally it speaks volumes that you think he's saying "smart" things here. Trump was caught on tape saying he could grab women by the pussy and it was international news for an entire month, but to learn more about his serial raping of children I have to read a Scribd link. Bill Clinton got blown in the Oval Office and it was the biggest political 'scandal' of the 90s but to learn about his raping scores of kids I have to take to Twitter and trust what prosecution lawyers believe. It's mind-numbingly stupid.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 years ago, 31 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,725
@1,149,722 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> I'm not taking it seriously. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm entertained by this clash of two persistent and fairly erudite personalities.
On what planet is this guy erudite?
> I'm not taking it seriously. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm entertained by this clash of two persistent and fairly erudite personalities.
On what planet is this guy erudite?
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 53 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,726
@1,149,723 (dw)
I'm not participating in the argument, dw. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to draw much of a conclusion anyway. I'm a neutral party, I promise.
I'm not participating in the argument, dw. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to draw much of a conclusion anyway. I'm a neutral party, I promise.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,727
@1,149,723 (dw)
> No, just the highlights. I also have not been to Epsteins house, so reading a hundred page about the colour of the walls is not particularly productive. The prosecutor has read it all. I think the prosecution is correct in this case.
So you haven't read what the lawyers have read (for the made-up reason it contains hundreds of pages about the colours of walls) but you think "the prosecution is correct in this case". Why not the defence? Have you read their opinions on the information too? Because if you haven't read it for yourself then I don't get how you've decided to trust one over the other.
> No, just the highlights. I also have not been to Epsteins house, so reading a hundred page about the colour of the walls is not particularly productive. The prosecutor has read it all. I think the prosecution is correct in this case.
So you haven't read what the lawyers have read (for the made-up reason it contains hundreds of pages about the colours of walls) but you think "the prosecution is correct in this case". Why not the defence? Have you read their opinions on the information too? Because if you haven't read it for yourself then I don't get how you've decided to trust one over the other.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,728
Chuckling that I have made them both hostile towards me with my comments. Very enjoyable topic.
@1,149,724 (K)
@1,149,725 (K)
Okay, maybe not erudite, exactly. More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments. It's not like your usual political match-ups against the likes of Bert or Svet, where they're usually outwitted and end up going quiet or resorting to non-sequiturs.
@1,149,724 (K)
@1,149,725 (K)
Okay, maybe not erudite, exactly. More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments. It's not like your usual political match-ups against the likes of Bert or Svet, where they're usually outwitted and end up going quiet or resorting to non-sequiturs.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,731
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> Chuckling that I have made them both hostile towards me with my comments. Very enjoyable topic.
I have no hostile feelings towards you, I don't know you.
> Okay, maybe not erudite, exactly. More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments.
On what planet is he putting forward a substantial and coherent argument here? If tomorrow Donald Trump says he'd bang a 17 year old it will be instant front page news around the world. CNN and MSNBC would devote the next 3 months' coverage to it. Yet they're neglecting to cover the times he "raped quite a lot of children"? Have their investigative journalists just not seen the Scribd link yet, is that it?
It's actually pretty fucking depressing that this bullshit is what people like you consider smart, erudite, substantial, coherent, whatever. This is WHY we have that retard in the Oval Office now, basic critical thinking is rarer than rocking horse shit these days.
> Chuckling that I have made them both hostile towards me with my comments. Very enjoyable topic.
I have no hostile feelings towards you, I don't know you.
> Okay, maybe not erudite, exactly. More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments.
On what planet is he putting forward a substantial and coherent argument here? If tomorrow Donald Trump says he'd bang a 17 year old it will be instant front page news around the world. CNN and MSNBC would devote the next 3 months' coverage to it. Yet they're neglecting to cover the times he "raped quite a lot of children"? Have their investigative journalists just not seen the Scribd link yet, is that it?
It's actually pretty fucking depressing that this bullshit is what people like you consider smart, erudite, substantial, coherent, whatever. This is WHY we have that retard in the Oval Office now, basic critical thinking is rarer than rocking horse shit these days.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,732
With that, I'm done with the thread, I've said what was needed.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,735
@1,149,731 (K)
No, lad, you misunderstood. I'm not praising his arguments, I'm just enjoying the clash of personalities ITT.
> It's actually pretty fucking depressing that this bullshit is what people like you consider smart, erudite, substantial, coherent, whatever. This is WHY we have that retard in the Oval Office now, basic critical thinking is rarer than rocking horse shit these days.
Hahaha, jeez. Calm down, mate.
No, lad, you misunderstood. I'm not praising his arguments, I'm just enjoying the clash of personalities ITT.
> It's actually pretty fucking depressing that this bullshit is what people like you consider smart, erudite, substantial, coherent, whatever. This is WHY we have that retard in the Oval Office now, basic critical thinking is rarer than rocking horse shit these days.
Hahaha, jeez. Calm down, mate.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 58 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,736
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,739
@1,149,720 (K)
You mentioned they were presidents. That's not relevant, and certainly not a reason to believe they are innocent.
Federal prosecutors are salaried employees of the state. They're fees aren't based on outcome of the case. You think the defence wouldn't have mentioned if there's a false detail about a location or something?
Your whole argument relies on the idea that testimonial evidence is inherently untrustworthy. I realise for someone like you the idea of honesty is far-fetched, but most people are capable of it! You've also not been able to explain why she would have all these details if she was just bullshitting for 600 pages. I don't think even you could keep a character going for that long without inconsistencies.
@1,149,721 (K)
lol you've spent more time repeating the same phrase on this forum than you've spent on your 'art'.
You mentioned they were presidents. That's not relevant, and certainly not a reason to believe they are innocent.
Federal prosecutors are salaried employees of the state. They're fees aren't based on outcome of the case. You think the defence wouldn't have mentioned if there's a false detail about a location or something?
Your whole argument relies on the idea that testimonial evidence is inherently untrustworthy. I realise for someone like you the idea of honesty is far-fetched, but most people are capable of it! You've also not been able to explain why she would have all these details if she was just bullshitting for 600 pages. I don't think even you could keep a character going for that long without inconsistencies.
@1,149,721 (K)
lol you've spent more time repeating the same phrase on this forum than you've spent on your 'art'.
dw double-posted this 5 years ago, 28 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,741
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,745
@1,149,739 (dw)
> lol you've spent more time repeating the same phrase on this forum than you've spent on your 'art'.
What phrase? And what's his art?
> lol you've spent more time repeating the same phrase on this forum than you've spent on your 'art'.
What phrase? And what's his art?
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 38 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,764
@1,149,728 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments.
I wouldn't say that, to be honest. I'm not really following his overall logic in defending his original statement at all.
> More like, he's putting forward substantial and coherent arguments.
I wouldn't say that, to be honest. I'm not really following his overall logic in defending his original statement at all.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,765
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
That doesn't mean I agree with him or think he's being logical. What I'm trying to express here is that he's putting forward a substantial argument that he's put thought into, which I find entertaining in the context of his opponent.
That doesn't mean I agree with him or think he's being logical. What I'm trying to express here is that he's putting forward a substantial argument that he's put thought into, which I find entertaining in the context of his opponent.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,770
@1,149,745 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
have you ever seen that deviantart screenshot that gets spammed on tc every so often? it's pencil line drawings of half naked children colourized with the bucket tool. he's gotten banned from most websites besides this one for posting them.
he would go through periods were he would spam idiot under each of my posts without reading them. it must have been conservatively a hundred identical posts lol. it made the notifications pretty annoying to use!
have you ever seen that deviantart screenshot that gets spammed on tc every so often? it's pencil line drawings of half naked children colourized with the bucket tool. he's gotten banned from most websites besides this one for posting them.
he would go through periods were he would spam idiot under each of my posts without reading them. it must have been conservatively a hundred identical posts lol. it made the notifications pretty annoying to use!
dw double-posted this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,772
@1,149,764 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
@1,149,765 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I thought his point was that you should assume testimonial evidence to be lies if not backed up by video evidence
@1,149,765 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I thought his point was that you should assume testimonial evidence to be lies if not backed up by video evidence
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 22 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,774
@1,149,770 (dw)
This...
> have you ever seen that deviantart screenshot that gets spammed on tc every so often? it's pencil line drawings of half naked children colourized with the bucket tool. he's gotten banned from most websites besides this one for posting them.
...is a consummate example of why this...
> he would go through periods were he would spam idiot under each of my posts without reading them. it must have been conservatively a hundred identical posts lol. it made the notifications pretty annoying to use!
... happened.
I'm not TG you gullible dingbat.
This...
> have you ever seen that deviantart screenshot that gets spammed on tc every so often? it's pencil line drawings of half naked children colourized with the bucket tool. he's gotten banned from most websites besides this one for posting them.
...is a consummate example of why this...
> he would go through periods were he would spam idiot under each of my posts without reading them. it must have been conservatively a hundred identical posts lol. it made the notifications pretty annoying to use!
... happened.
I'm not TG you gullible dingbat.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,775
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,776
I should perhaps clarify that I don't agree with dw either. I think that while Trump and Clinton associated with Epstein, that doesn't automatically make them paedos. I think it's quite plausible that Epstein simply concealed his paedo stuff from a lot of his powerful friends.
As far as I know, substantial evidence against either man hasn't surfaced, not like with what's happened to Prince Andrew.
@1,149,770 (dw)
He's not TG. He's even denied it himself, recently.
As far as I know, substantial evidence against either man hasn't surfaced, not like with what's happened to Prince Andrew.
@1,149,770 (dw)
He's not TG. He's even denied it himself, recently.
(Edited 8 hours later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,777
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,778
@1,149,774 (K)
Right because that's a rational thing to do after being misidentified on the internet.
Right because that's a rational thing to do after being misidentified on the internet.
dw double-posted this 5 years ago, 40 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,779
dw triple-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,783
I did think you meant you didn't #believewomen by that post though
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,784
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,785
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,788
@1,149,778 (dw)
> Right because that's a rational thing to do after being misidentified on the internet.
You again misunderstood. I'm saying it's a general pattern with you to say idiotic things, irrespective of the subject. Whether it's continuing to think I'm TG long after everyone else figured it out, or this latest "The internet told me the world's most powerful man has raped quite a lot of children but all the world class investigative journalists still think his tax returns are the best bet for taking him down", you have a habit of voicing opinions and thoughts and theories that are, as we say up north, thick as pig shit.
> Right because that's a rational thing to do after being misidentified on the internet.
You again misunderstood. I'm saying it's a general pattern with you to say idiotic things, irrespective of the subject. Whether it's continuing to think I'm TG long after everyone else figured it out, or this latest "The internet told me the world's most powerful man has raped quite a lot of children but all the world class investigative journalists still think his tax returns are the best bet for taking him down", you have a habit of voicing opinions and thoughts and theories that are, as we say up north, thick as pig shit.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,798
@previous (K)
right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,799
@previous (dw)
> right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
Christ, you're still running with it.
> right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
Christ, you're still running with it.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 44 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,811
@previous (K)
still believing credible testimony yeah. didn't you say you were done with this thread 3 hours ago?
still believing credible testimony yeah. didn't you say you were done with this thread 3 hours ago?
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,837
@1,149,798 (dw)
> right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
@1,149,776 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> I think it's quite plausible that Epstein simply concealed his paedo stuff from a lot of his powerful friends.
KL just nailed it here, but you just won't accept it. I'm surprised you haven't made Epstein the victim yet.
> right. these people all had completely legitimate reasons to befriend epstein and frequent his island and had nothing to do with his access to underage sex slaves
@1,149,776 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> I think it's quite plausible that Epstein simply concealed his paedo stuff from a lot of his powerful friends.
KL just nailed it here, but you just won't accept it. I'm surprised you haven't made Epstein the victim yet.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,840
@1,149,811 (dw)
> didn't you say you were done with this thread 3 hours ago?
By which I meant I was done addressing your theory that every investigative journalist in the world is declining to read the Scribd link that would take down the most universally reviled American President of the last hundred years. I didn't rule out returning now and again to laugh at your commitment to being an idiot.
> didn't you say you were done with this thread 3 hours ago?
By which I meant I was done addressing your theory that every investigative journalist in the world is declining to read the Scribd link that would take down the most universally reviled American President of the last hundred years. I didn't rule out returning now and again to laugh at your commitment to being an idiot.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,843
@1,149,811 (dw)
Do you think the allegations represent sufficient evidence to say, without qualification, that "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children"?
Nobody benefits when we lower discourse to this level. There has to be a higher standard than this.
Do you think the allegations represent sufficient evidence to say, without qualification, that "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children"?
Nobody benefits when we lower discourse to this level. There has to be a higher standard than this.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,844
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> Do you think the allegations represent sufficient evidence to say, without qualification, that "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children"?
>
> Nobody benefits when we lower discourse to this level. There has to be a higher standard than this.
Exactly. When someone is as objectively and provably abhorrent as Trump is, making up dumb conspiracy theories just offers him a chance to scream "Fake News!" and drown out all the legitimate reasons to criticise him.
> Do you think the allegations represent sufficient evidence to say, without qualification, that "clinton and trump both raped quite a lot of children"?
>
> Nobody benefits when we lower discourse to this level. There has to be a higher standard than this.
Exactly. When someone is as objectively and provably abhorrent as Trump is, making up dumb conspiracy theories just offers him a chance to scream "Fake News!" and drown out all the legitimate reasons to criticise him.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,848
@1,149,776 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
Oh I missed this reply. if Andrew used epsteins underage sex slaves (as Giuffre alleges) the other two would have at least known about it. Like I said earlier they could have been mere pedo enablers. My reply to meta was obviously a bit hyperbolic. Well, trump and Clinton. Andrew is full on pedophile. It kind of seems like you haven't followed the news and what's being alleged by giuffre much. The rich and famous are the main clientele.
https://www.courthousenews.com/clinton-trump-emerge-in-unsealed-epstein-evidence/amp/
How would you know if he is tg or not lol
@1,149,840 (K)
sounds great bud.
Oh I missed this reply. if Andrew used epsteins underage sex slaves (as Giuffre alleges) the other two would have at least known about it. Like I said earlier they could have been mere pedo enablers. My reply to meta was obviously a bit hyperbolic. Well, trump and Clinton. Andrew is full on pedophile. It kind of seems like you haven't followed the news and what's being alleged by giuffre much. The rich and famous are the main clientele.
https://www.courthousenews.com/clinton-trump-emerge-in-unsealed-epstein-evidence/amp/
How would you know if he is tg or not lol
@1,149,840 (K)
sounds great bud.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,849
@1,149,811 (dw)
And by the way dw, don't take any of this personally. I'm not saying you're stupid (the "idiot" thing is a joke), I'm saying that what you're saying is stupid. In something like 10 years on these boards there is literally only 1 person I have actively disliked. All the rest is just banter. But this stuff you're writing here is 9/11 Trutherism level bullshit, and it contributes to the "fuck critical thinking" culture that led to President Donald fucking Trump.
And by the way dw, don't take any of this personally. I'm not saying you're stupid (the "idiot" thing is a joke), I'm saying that what you're saying is stupid. In something like 10 years on these boards there is literally only 1 person I have actively disliked. All the rest is just banter. But this stuff you're writing here is 9/11 Trutherism level bullshit, and it contributes to the "fuck critical thinking" culture that led to President Donald fucking Trump.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 16 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,851
@1,149,848 (dw)
> How would you know if he is tg or not
KL is a mod, it's not hard for him to track a user's ISP address.
> How would you know if he is tg or not
KL is a mod, it's not hard for him to track a user's ISP address.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,854
@1,149,843 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
In the context of a minichan reply where I was memeing along with meta, yes. I wasn't intending a serious discussion of the allegations, if I did I wouldn't have used the hyperbole, and I wouldn't have held it with tg.
Visiting pedo island as frequently as they did, plus their already rich history of sexual abuse allegations is enough evidence to convince me they used the underage enslaved prostitutes. They were just too close to Epstein and Maxwell to not be aware of their practices. I really should have only called Prince Andrew a rapist,but my reply was not intended to start a serious discourse. Plus they both have a fair amount of rape allegations against them already.
In the context of a minichan reply where I was memeing along with meta, yes. I wasn't intending a serious discussion of the allegations, if I did I wouldn't have used the hyperbole, and I wouldn't have held it with tg.
Visiting pedo island as frequently as they did, plus their already rich history of sexual abuse allegations is enough evidence to convince me they used the underage enslaved prostitutes. They were just too close to Epstein and Maxwell to not be aware of their practices. I really should have only called Prince Andrew a rapist,but my reply was not intended to start a serious discourse. Plus they both have a fair amount of rape allegations against them already.
dw double-posted this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,857
@1,149,849 (K)
lol go actually look into the allegations and see how far fetched it is. I'm getting the idea that you hadn't even read about epstein before this topic.
lol go actually look into the allegations and see how far fetched it is. I'm getting the idea that you hadn't even read about epstein before this topic.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,860
@previous (dw)
> lol go actually look into the allegations and see how far fetched it is. I'm getting the idea that you hadn't even read about epstein before this topic.
I am very familiar with the details of the Epstein case, which is why I've been confused by your using it to corroborate your claim that 2 of the 5 living American presidents "raped quite a lot of children".
> lol go actually look into the allegations and see how far fetched it is. I'm getting the idea that you hadn't even read about epstein before this topic.
I am very familiar with the details of the Epstein case, which is why I've been confused by your using it to corroborate your claim that 2 of the 5 living American presidents "raped quite a lot of children".
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 38 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,861
Anonymous F replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,862
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,864
@1,149,860 (K)
oh look at the link I posted. Like I said that was me being hyperbole. There's only a maybe 60% chance they used Epsteins prostitutes.
I don't see why you would associate with someone like him if you don't want to fuck teens on his island
oh look at the link I posted. Like I said that was me being hyperbole. There's only a maybe 60% chance they used Epsteins prostitutes.
I don't see why you would associate with someone like him if you don't want to fuck teens on his island
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,866
@previous (dw)
> oh look at the link I posted.
I did. It's why I've been laughing at you.
> Like I said that was me being hyperbole. There's only a maybe 60% chance they used Epsteins prostitutes.
Date I ask how you're calculating these odds?
> I don't see why you would associate with someone like him if you don't want to fuck teens on his island
Which says more about you than you probably realise.
> oh look at the link I posted.
I did. It's why I've been laughing at you.
> Like I said that was me being hyperbole. There's only a maybe 60% chance they used Epsteins prostitutes.
Date I ask how you're calculating these odds?
> I don't see why you would associate with someone like him if you don't want to fuck teens on his island
Which says more about you than you probably realise.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,873
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,876
@previous (dw)
> we'll see if Clinton and Trump are innocent after all soon enough i guess.
"We" actually won't, since the same batshit insane conspiracy theory that contends American presidents have been "raping quite a lot of children" is necessarily founded upon the idea that there's an international network of shadowy grey cardinals that are keeping it all a secret.
Do you see the double-edged sword of bullshit like this? The world's most powerful people are committing the most heinous crimes imaginable, but they are so protected that we can only read about them on Twitter.
> we'll see if Clinton and Trump are innocent after all soon enough i guess.
"We" actually won't, since the same batshit insane conspiracy theory that contends American presidents have been "raping quite a lot of children" is necessarily founded upon the idea that there's an international network of shadowy grey cardinals that are keeping it all a secret.
Do you see the double-edged sword of bullshit like this? The world's most powerful people are committing the most heinous crimes imaginable, but they are so protected that we can only read about them on Twitter.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,878
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,879
@previous (dw)
> .. you said you're very familiar with the details of the epstein case?
Did he say that he's very familiar with the details of the Epstein case?
> .. you said you're very familiar with the details of the epstein case?
Did he say that he's very familiar with the details of the Epstein case?
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,880
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,883
@previous (dw)
> i cant imagine he is if he thinks the guiffre andrew allegations are from Twitter!
This is some world class goalpost-shifting here.
I have not written one single word about 'Prince' Andrew in this thread. I think he is a filthy piece of shit, yes. And he also has precisely fuck-all to do with your ridiculous claim that Presidents Clinton and Trump "raped quite a lot of children".
> i cant imagine he is if he thinks the guiffre andrew allegations are from Twitter!
This is some world class goalpost-shifting here.
I have not written one single word about 'Prince' Andrew in this thread. I think he is a filthy piece of shit, yes. And he also has precisely fuck-all to do with your ridiculous claim that Presidents Clinton and Trump "raped quite a lot of children".
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,885
@previous (K)
wait, so why did you bring up twitter?
you believe andrew fucked a kid, but the idea that trump and clinton could have is ridiculous to you?
wait, so why did you bring up twitter?
you believe andrew fucked a kid, but the idea that trump and clinton could have is ridiculous to you?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,886
@previous (dw)
> you believe andrew fucked a kid
Point out where I said that.
> but the idea that trump and clinton could have is ridiculous to you?
You're not claiming they "fucked a kid" (singular). Baseless though that in itself is. You're claiming they "raped quite a lot of children". And you have still to provide a single shred of evidence for this patently preposterous accusation.
> you believe andrew fucked a kid
Point out where I said that.
> but the idea that trump and clinton could have is ridiculous to you?
You're not claiming they "fucked a kid" (singular). Baseless though that in itself is. You're claiming they "raped quite a lot of children". And you have still to provide a single shred of evidence for this patently preposterous accusation.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,887
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,890
@previous (dw)
> giuffre alleges andrew had sex with her when she was 17..
I know, and I'm eagerly awaiting a proper trial to judge whether the parasitic remnant of an inbred feudal aristocracy actually did that. I'm inclined to think he did.
But again, none of this is relevant to your claim that 2 of the 5 living American presidents "raped quite a lot of children".
> giuffre alleges andrew had sex with her when she was 17..
I know, and I'm eagerly awaiting a proper trial to judge whether the parasitic remnant of an inbred feudal aristocracy actually did that. I'm inclined to think he did.
But again, none of this is relevant to your claim that 2 of the 5 living American presidents "raped quite a lot of children".
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,891
@previous (K)
if andrew fucked at least 1 kid it's not much of a leap that clinton or trump did as well. ive already explained the concept of hyperbole to you. how many children would they need to have non consensual sex with to count as a lot, would you say?
if andrew fucked at least 1 kid it's not much of a leap that clinton or trump did as well. ive already explained the concept of hyperbole to you. how many children would they need to have non consensual sex with to count as a lot, would you say?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,892
@previous (dw)
> if andrew fucked at least 1 kid it's not much of a leap that clinton or trump did as well.
A: Behold how much bullshit can be predicated on an "if".
B: It is, despite what you wrote, a fucking gargantuan leap.
> if andrew fucked at least 1 kid it's not much of a leap that clinton or trump did as well.
A: Behold how much bullshit can be predicated on an "if".
B: It is, despite what you wrote, a fucking gargantuan leap.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,909
This thread is still absolute gold. A true clash of titans.
@1,149,861 (dw)
I'm not basing it off of IP addresses. What I do know is that he's been here for a long time, during which his personality and posting habits haven't matched TG's. Also, it is simply not very plausible that a paedophile went from not referencing his urges on here and TC, to suddenly referencing them excessively, and then went back to not referencing them at all. They're different people, m8.
I've been highly entertained by your posts in here, dw, but I promise you that this isn't a good hill to die on.
@1,149,861 (dw)
I'm not basing it off of IP addresses. What I do know is that he's been here for a long time, during which his personality and posting habits haven't matched TG's. Also, it is simply not very plausible that a paedophile went from not referencing his urges on here and TC, to suddenly referencing them excessively, and then went back to not referencing them at all. They're different people, m8.
I've been highly entertained by your posts in here, dw, but I promise you that this isn't a good hill to die on.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 42 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,910
100get
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 56 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,911
100!Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 25 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,912
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,913
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,949
@1,149,848 (dw)
I don't think that's necessarily true.
Child sex rings are something that the vast majority of the world is strongly against, right? I think we can agree on that. So it also follows that if someone were successfully running one for an extended period, they would have to carefully conceal its existence. Still agreed?
Therefore, it makes sense to me that Epstein was able to hide that stuff from most people he associated with, and would have only brought someone into it once he'd felt them out and was reasonably sure that they wouldn't take offense. Therefore, I do not think that merely associating with him makes someone a child rapist.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
Child sex rings are something that the vast majority of the world is strongly against, right? I think we can agree on that. So it also follows that if someone were successfully running one for an extended period, they would have to carefully conceal its existence. Still agreed?
Therefore, it makes sense to me that Epstein was able to hide that stuff from most people he associated with, and would have only brought someone into it once he'd felt them out and was reasonably sure that they wouldn't take offense. Therefore, I do not think that merely associating with him makes someone a child rapist.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,969
@1,149,909 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I never said he hasn't been here a long time. This guy's arguing reads exactly as tgs arguing to me. You're saying this person is different from the guy who got triggered by the DA profile screenshots on tc ?
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
If there's a bunch of prostitues that saw me inside a brothel would it be unreasonable for someone to conclude i may have had sex with a prostitute?
if a bunch of underage prostitutes saw these people on epsteins island, like they claim, would it be unreasonable to think maybe they knew about underage prostitutes?
I never said he hasn't been here a long time. This guy's arguing reads exactly as tgs arguing to me. You're saying this person is different from the guy who got triggered by the DA profile screenshots on tc ?
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
If there's a bunch of prostitues that saw me inside a brothel would it be unreasonable for someone to conclude i may have had sex with a prostitute?
if a bunch of underage prostitutes saw these people on epsteins island, like they claim, would it be unreasonable to think maybe they knew about underage prostitutes?
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,971
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,972
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,973
@previous (dw)
I don't need to. You are basing guilt on "Clinton and Trump raped quite a bit of children", when it's all "allegations".
Why did you rape quite a few children in the past 5 years?
I don't need to. You are basing guilt on "Clinton and Trump raped quite a bit of children", when it's all "allegations".
Why did you rape quite a few children in the past 5 years?
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,975
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,976
Anonymous I double-posted this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,978
DW? DW? Where did you go little man?
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,979
@1,149,969 (dw)
It's definitely a different guy. I've seen other profile notes around that refer to TG, distinct to those that refer to Dave.
Also, Dave has said recently that he pretended to be TG for a while to rile people up.
> if a bunch of underage prostitutes saw these people on epsteins island, like they claim, would it be unreasonable to think maybe they knew about underage prostitutes?
What's the context here? Did the Presidents see the children or were they far away? Were the children just dressed normally and not really suspicious? If it was just a case of them seeing some children in passing, they might not necessarily be at all suspicious.
Again, I don't think it's plausible that Epstein was very open about his child sex ring. And without a similar amount of evidence that's arisen against Prince Andrew being present against the two Presidents, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they are paedophiles.
It's definitely a different guy. I've seen other profile notes around that refer to TG, distinct to those that refer to Dave.
Also, Dave has said recently that he pretended to be TG for a while to rile people up.
> if a bunch of underage prostitutes saw these people on epsteins island, like they claim, would it be unreasonable to think maybe they knew about underage prostitutes?
What's the context here? Did the Presidents see the children or were they far away? Were the children just dressed normally and not really suspicious? If it was just a case of them seeing some children in passing, they might not necessarily be at all suspicious.
Again, I don't think it's plausible that Epstein was very open about his child sex ring. And without a similar amount of evidence that's arisen against Prince Andrew being present against the two Presidents, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they are paedophiles.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,980
@1,149,969 (dw)
Also, are you now saying that they merely knew about the children, rather than raped several of them?
Also, are you now saying that they merely knew about the children, rather than raped several of them?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,984
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
> Also, are you now saying that they merely knew about the children, rather than raped several of them?
And since former American presidents continue to receive lifetime Secret Service protection who shadow them everywhere, what were they doing while Bill Clinton was joining in the underaged Roman orgies? Are they also in on the ruse to keep it all covered up? Not one of these members of the most elite protection unit in the world, who undergo ridiculous amounts of integrity testing, had any problem with it?
For almost 4 years, the liberal media has been in obsessive pursuit of a mythical tape that purports to show Trump getting pissed on by a Russian prostitute, yet the mountains of "proof" that he's "raped quite a lot of children" are hiding in plain sight all over the internet and they're choosing to ignore the story?
> Also, are you now saying that they merely knew about the children, rather than raped several of them?
And since former American presidents continue to receive lifetime Secret Service protection who shadow them everywhere, what were they doing while Bill Clinton was joining in the underaged Roman orgies? Are they also in on the ruse to keep it all covered up? Not one of these members of the most elite protection unit in the world, who undergo ridiculous amounts of integrity testing, had any problem with it?
For almost 4 years, the liberal media has been in obsessive pursuit of a mythical tape that purports to show Trump getting pissed on by a Russian prostitute, yet the mountains of "proof" that he's "raped quite a lot of children" are hiding in plain sight all over the internet and they're choosing to ignore the story?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,149,986
@1,149,979 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
why are you asking me to explain my second-hand understanding of the context instead of just watching the interviews?
i agree that he wouldn't have been open about his sex trafficking ring. trump, clinton and andrew seem to have all been part of his inner circle for years though.
i don't understand why you'd consider it irrational for someone to think if epstein forced girls to have sex with andrew, as guiffre alleged, he could have done the same for other people.
i'm saying that, assuming the survivors are being truthful, they knew about epsteins relationships with underage girls. they currently have plausible deniability on their side, i never believed they didn't. doesn't mean i have to believe them though.
like i explained a few times now, my initial reply to meta was (i thought pretty obviously, considering it's a post on minichan) not intended as an objective assertion of facts, just my opinion on the case. is there some kind of semantics issue here i'm not seeing?
@1,149,978 (I)
see
@1,149,708 (dw)
why are you asking me to explain my second-hand understanding of the context instead of just watching the interviews?
i agree that he wouldn't have been open about his sex trafficking ring. trump, clinton and andrew seem to have all been part of his inner circle for years though.
i don't understand why you'd consider it irrational for someone to think if epstein forced girls to have sex with andrew, as guiffre alleged, he could have done the same for other people.
i'm saying that, assuming the survivors are being truthful, they knew about epsteins relationships with underage girls. they currently have plausible deniability on their side, i never believed they didn't. doesn't mean i have to believe them though.
like i explained a few times now, my initial reply to meta was (i thought pretty obviously, considering it's a post on minichan) not intended as an objective assertion of facts, just my opinion on the case. is there some kind of semantics issue here i'm not seeing?
@1,149,978 (I)
see
@1,149,708 (dw)