President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#48,528
#48,528
LouderVol said:
man MAGA has pulled the switcheroo real quick on the Epstein "conspiracy".

Until Trump allegedly gave head to another guy, MAGA was convinced the Epstein story was real, no matter how often it was called a conspiracy by the left.

now that Trump looks bad, the right thinks its a conspiracy all of the sudden, and the left is buying it.

fun to watch in real time.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about? I can only imagine this is coming from the same incredibly reputable sources that brought us Russia Gate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and USF grad in TN
#48,534
#48,534
Vol423 said:
What the hell are you talking about? I can only imagine this is coming from the same incredibly reputable sources that brought us Russia Gate.
Click to expand...
same source that has Clinton, et all, effing kids.

funny how the Epstein stuff went from sacrosanct to verboten in one possible plot line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#48,539
#48,539
LouderVol said:
you haven't seen any of the claims of who is possibly on the Epstein list?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anyone saying that the Epstein stuff is verboten.

I also haven't seen any particularly credible source on Epstein's clients. Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and Dershowitz are three that I've often seen named. While both of them had relationships with Epstein, I seriously doubt either Clinton or Trump were clients. If either of them were, then the opposing party would have released that info long ago.
 
#48,540
#48,540
Vol423 said:
I haven't seen anyone saying that the Epstein stuff is verboten.

I also haven't seen any particularly credible source on Epstein's clients. Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and Dershowitz are three that I've often seen named. While both of them had relationships with Epstein, I seriously doubt either Clinton or Trump were clients. If either of them were, then the opposing party would have released that info long ago.
Click to expand...
I keep seeing this assumption that if xyz was true, then *insert party here* would have released them. What if both parties were being financially (or otherwise) incentivized not to bring this up at all by very rich and powerful people. After all, blackmail is tool #1 to people in these circles, and this seems like a giant tangled web of blackmail. It’s like dealing with the mob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#48,541
#48,541
OHvol40 said:
I keep seeing this assumption that if xyz was true, then *insert party here* would have released them. What if both parties were being financially (or otherwise) incentivized not to bring this up at all by very rich and powerful people. After all, blackmail is tool #1 to people in these circles, and this seems like a giant tangled web of blackmail. It’s like dealing with the mob.
Click to expand...
Did you not just see my statement that I doubt that either Clinton or Trump were clients? I do, however, believe that Prince Andrew and Bill Gates were. Release it all and let the chips fall where they may. Pedophiles don't receive any sympathy from me no matter who they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN and OHvol40
#48,542
#48,542
Vol423 said:
Did you not just see my statement that I doubt that either Clinton or Trump were clients? I do, however, believe that Prince Andrew and Bill Gates were. Release it all and let the chips fall where they may. Pedophiles don't receive any sympathy from me no matter who they are.
Click to expand...
Agreed, politics be darned, let em burn in the most public way. Enablers too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and USF grad in TN
#48,543
#48,543
OHvol40 said:
I keep seeing this assumption that if xyz was true, then *insert party here* would have released them. What if both parties were being financially (or otherwise) incentivized not to bring this up at all by very rich and powerful people. After all, blackmail is tool #1 to people in these circles, and this seems like a giant tangled web of blackmail. It’s like dealing with the mob.
Click to expand...

People desperately playing defense for their team certainly have a knack for making conclusions without addressing plausible and likely alternative explanations. The math on that one is so easy and yet I've seen this misstep like 20x by people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and OHvol40
#48,549
#48,549
FLVOL_79 said:
They are 100% correct. You can refuse unlawful orders..
Click to expand...
You better damned know what constitutes unlawful before you decline though.. If you are wrong, it won't turn out very well.

And just because you might disagree with CinC or his underlings, that doesn't make an order issues unlawful. I say go for it. And televise the resulting firing squads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, StarRaider and Orangeburst
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top