Conspiracy theories are for crackpots and hoaxers. But if ever there was a time when one might be plausible, it’s now.
Yet she wouldn’t win Michigan.
&
That’s pure and utter BS that you don’t care about it. That’s why you keep polluting this site with your inane repetition of the absolutely basesless nonsensical whackedout nutujob conspiracy theory you’re obviously in love with regarding her.
For the love of all that’s dear in the universe, take a logic course and a journalism course, but pass them this time. Then come back and look at your BS for what it is.
The dude was found a week or 2 ago to have marks on his neck. Is it so unbelievable that he may have been a little ashamed of his deviant sexual practices, and feared that a bunch of humiliating shit was about to hit the fan, and decided to check out? Jaysus. Everybody, yes you, get a grip on yourselves.
According to anonymous or potentially biased sources. The documentary evidence, whether we want it to be or not, is more compelling because it’s harder to ignore.
And, actually, I don’t know that I have seen any anonymous or biased sources even say that Trump and Epstein were friends. Trump said it once, but he has also said the same thing about Xi Jinping and that’s clearly not true.
We know that they went to one party together like 35-40 years ago, that Trump tried to set up a bunch of girls for Epstein once, and that Epstein was jealous of Trump’s modeling company. The first two could be explained as simply “Trump trying to wine and dine a person with a shit-ton of money as a prelude to asking him for said money.” And the latter could simply be that Epstein is a perv who keeps track of what others are doing in the hopes that he can spot a way to blackmail them.
Similarly with Clinton, for all the airplane rides that he had, conceivably, that really was simply a matter that he was trying to get charity money out of Epstein.
I find it horribly questionable that Trump was close to 4-5 people arrested for and/or credibly linked to child sex trafficking. I would be relatively surprised if he hasn’t sampled the underage market at some point during his adult years. But going to a party and chatting all friendly-like, 40 years ago, isn’t evidence of that.
From the evidence, the most that we can say is that Trump may have failed to inform the police of criminal activity on the part of Epstein. I doubt that, but it is the upper limit of what the evidence could be considered to reliably indicate.
Twitler just accused the Clintons of murdering Epstein.
What!? Epstein, Trump, and Tom Barrac (sp?) were regular fixtures in the NY social scene. Plenty of bartenders, wait staff and partygoers have stories, and many give their names. I’m not going to carry on this argument, as I believe Epstein killed himself, but you are ust wrong here.
Eta: @Sage rat.
From previous news reports it sounds like authorities are already in possession of his blackmail material. If so, then who benefits from his death?
I agree with you that conspiracy theories are usually bovine excrement. However, I think the rich swine in both parties decided to take him out because he was going to spill too much.
I’m still liking autoerotic asphyxiation gone wrong, both times.
Proof positive that they didn’t! When have his tweets ever been right?
Well here let’s look at this statement:
“Her response seems fishy and the evidence at hand supports the theory, though there is full-well room for that evidence to be explained in a different manner.”
Now, when you read that single sentence, I take it that you are reading it to say, “That lady boinked her brother. Hoo-BOY! What a doozy!”
But you should ask, “How did I get from sentence A to sentence B? Is that due to intellectual honesty or partisan bias?”
No one on the right believes that Trump is guilty of anything despite genuine, credible evidence of malfeasance, because “Libs is all liars.” Obviously, the leftist media manufactured and falsified evidence.
And this isn’t to say that the leftist media can’t have manufactured evidence, but it’s a silly place to jump to and particularly if you can independently verify what they are saying. (Sometimes you can’t or you track down what they’re talking about and it’s clear that they are misrepresenting what they have seen - though, to be fair, probably usually due to misunderstanding or poor skimming.) Manufacturing evidence is highly liable to end you up in court and out millions or billions of dollars a pop. You simply can’t run a business like that.
Usually, when partisan news lies, they honestly report the statements of a known liar or they quietly fail to mention certain things (like that the former FBI agent they are talking to, who is saying that Obama was committing illegal activities, left the FBI a decade before Obama was in office and never did a single thing to investigate the guy.)
The important thing is that fundamentally this is all a discussions of humans and partisanship. There is nothing left- nor right-wing about intellectual honesty. There’s nothing about being on one side or the other where the economics of libel suits is different.
So, again, you should ask yourself how you got from sentence A to sentence B? Those are different sentences with wildly different meanings. If you see one and hear the other, that ain’t on me. And while I don’t care about Omar - I do care about intellectual honesty and it annoys me just as much to see people trying to avoid it on the left as when those on the right do it.
And again, it is fully conceivable that, for example, Elmi likes to call the daughters of his ex-wife “neices” since they are not his biological children, and it’s reasonable for Omar to have a strict “No talking about personal stuff” policy. It is infinitely possible for this all to be pure and total conspiracy. The evidence - even if we accept all of it - is very far from conclusive.
And again, if you read that previous paragraph to mean, “Yo dawg, they were really boinkin’.” Then that is you. There is no subtext. That is your brain rejecting a non-partisan statement.
I have no dog in this fight expect to say, “Be intellectually honest.” And, “Keep your political eggs in multiple baskets.” And neither of those is something that I feel a need to bring up unless someone else raises the topic. I am not the one who did. If it bothers you that it was raised, blame not I. And if you want it to go away then trust that what I write means exactly what I wrote and move on.
You know, dropping that in here without a link is just rude!!
I saw someone say that, but I didn’t see an article for it. I’ll check back through the thread to see if there was a cite that I missed.
Thanks!
(Maybe I just do Twitter wrong, but that’s Oarngey criticizing Biden.)
For the record:
Well, here’s one: Trump retweets Epstein conspiracy theory, claiming Clinton connection
Apparently it was a re-tweet, not an original from Trump.
And for what it’s worth, bobot, you may be one of the few in this discussion still shaving with Lord Ockham’s razor. And I for one appreciate it.
If he got bumped off while outside, even a hanging might be more suspicious. But I see lots of reasons why could have decided: “You ain’t taking me alive, coppers!”
That just shows you how far the Deep State rabbit hole goes! They control the internet!
:eek:
Shit. Here’s the link to Orangey’s Twitter page where you can see the RT.