Epstein: Had 21 Phone #'s For Bill Clinton

[Pavlov]

Oh it's one of Chris's but..but posts.

ONLY TRUMP SUPPORTERS CAN DECLARE GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

[Pavlov]

LOL your first grade reading comprehension. I specifically said none of us can ascertain truth from lies, because these days any digital piece of "evidence" can be doctored to support whatever agenda the editor desires.

So you created a conspiracy theory because you have no actual evidence.

I specifically said the flight logs weren't validated as truth.

They're flight logs filed with the FAA. There was no reason to fake them.

But go ahead and pat yourself on the back. Twist my words... spin 'em.

They didn't say what you wanted them to say, so you have to start a conspiracy theory that they are fake.

'twas but months ago that you were raving about how Mueller's team had 'evidence' that would force Trump out of the White House.

Oh, so it's OK for you to flat out lie about what I said.

You're a hypocrite.

And a liar.

All the proof is right there in your post.

[Chris]

Oh it's one of Chris's but..but posts.

Show me the flight logs and witnesses that put Trump on the island. Chop-chop.

Media gave you a picture from 1992 and you ran with it because you have been programmed well.

Congratulations.

[Pavlov]

Show me the flight logs and witnesses that put Trump on the island.

Show me the flight logs that put Clinton on the island.

[Winehole23]

It's alleged Epstein ed kids in Florida, Manhattan and his ranch in NM as well, what's the obsession with pedo island?

There's an allegation reported in the last day or two that Epstein molested minors on while on work release in Palm Beach County, with local deputies posted at the door -- too bad Palm Beach County no longer has the logs.

Who went or didn't go to "pedo island" proves/disproves nothing.

[Spurtacular]

So guilt by association.

Glad you cleared that up.

lol derp

Troglodyte Chump.

[Pavlov]

Troglodyte Chump.

Your description was absolutely guilt by association.

Feel free to try to say it was something else.

[Spurtacular]

Your description was absolutely guilt by association.

Feel free to try to say it was something else.

Sure, it's guilt by association on troglodyte terms. Nuance is for people on a higher level. Been explained, son.

[Pavlov]

Sure, it's guilt by association on troglodyte terms. Nuance is for people on a higher level. Been explained, son.

What's the nuance? All you did was use different words to describe guilt by association.


lol derp

[ElNono]

For example, take the accusations that were launched against Judge Roy Moore in Alabama...

Your side never admitted that all of it was a targeted character assassination ploy. The timing of it. The salaciousness of the accusations themselves.

After his Senatorial bid defeat all of Justice Moore's accusers went away. None of the alleged victims ever formally charged Judge Moore with any crime.

YET every leftist here truly believed that Moore was guilty. Without evidence. Without any formal trial. Simply because it was convenient and allowed you all to justify the condemnation of what he stood for. Those on your side of the aisle clearly "refused to accept the reality" that we all knew that the allegations were nothing but a political hit. But hey it worked. And the tactic almost worked again during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. People are tired of that crap.

Not really. One of them actually sued him.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...for-defamation

[ElNono]

YOU claimed that only "Trumpers" "refused to accept reality" if it didn't suit their narratives.

I countered and asserted that EVERYONE here chooses to view the world with the partisan optics they have developed over the course of their respective lives. EVERYONE, including the folks on your side of the aisle.

Your statement is laced with denial that this behavior is intrinsic to us all. The fact that you choose not to see it, while lecturing conservatives about perspective and objectivity is laughable though.

This is a typical case of something I can never understand about Americans: conflating political leaning with partisanship. What we develop over the course of our lives are political leanings. ie: we like social conservatism, or social liberalism, etc. Sometimes those leanings clearly align with the politics of certain party, and sometimes they do not.

Partisanship (or what you like to call 'partisan optics') is actually embracing the party over your leanings. Clear example: evangelicals voting for Trump. Or bernie bros voting for Shillary. It's actually abdicating some of your leanings and ideals for the good of the 'team'.

I don't want to single you out, this is apparently very common in the US for some reason. Sure, there's partisanship in other countries too, but somewhat to a lesser degree in my experience.

[TheGreatYacht]

This is a typical case of something I can never understand about Americans: conflating political leaning with partisanship. What we develop over the course of our lives are political leanings. ie: we like social conservatism, or social liberalism, etc. Sometimes those leanings clearly align with the politics of certain party, and sometimes they do not.

Partisanship (or what you like to call 'partisan optics') is actually embracing the party over your leanings. Clear example: evangelicals voting for Trump. Or bernie bros voting for Shillary. It's actually abdicating some of your leanings and ideals for the good of the 'team'.

I don't want to single you out, this is apparently very common in the US for some reason. Sure, there's partisanship in other countries too, but somewhat to a lesser degree in my experience.

Trumpster Logic
Bill Clinton: Guilty until proven innocent.
Donald Trump: Innocent until proven guilty.
The double standard

[Spurtacular]

Trumpster Logic
Bill Clinton: Guilty until proven innocent.
Donald Trump: Innocent until proven guilty.
The double standard

Nobody's gonna be proven guilty of any thing anytime soon if not ever.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is a typical case of something I can never understand about Americans: conflating political leaning with partisanship. What we develop over the course of our lives are political leanings. ie: we like social conservatism, or social liberalism, etc. Sometimes those leanings clearly align with the politics of certain party, and sometimes they do not.

Partisanship (or what you like to call 'partisan optics') is actually embracing the party over your leanings. Clear example: evangelicals voting for Trump. Or bernie bros voting for Shillary. It's actually abdicating some of your leanings and ideals for the good of the 'team'.

I don't want to single you out, this is apparently very common in the US for some reason. Sure, there's partisanship in other countries too, but somewhat to a lesser degree in my experience.

True...since the US developed as only a 2 party system it naturally forces some compromise of political leaning...

[Phenomanul]

This is a typical case of something I can never understand about Americans: conflating political leaning with partisanship. What we develop over the course of our lives are political leanings. ie: we like social conservatism, or social liberalism, etc. Sometimes those leanings clearly align with the politics of certain party, and sometimes they do not.

Partisanship (or what you like to call 'partisan optics') is actually embracing the party over your leanings. Clear example: evangelicals voting for Trump. Or bernie bros voting for Shillary. It's actually abdicating some of your leanings and ideals for the good of the 'team'.

I don't want to single you out, this is apparently very common in the US for some reason. Sure, there's partisanship in other countries too, but somewhat to a lesser degree in my experience.

Not really. One of them actually sued him.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...for-defamation

Yeah, defamation is not tantamount with having committed a SEXUAL crime; it won't land anyone in prison. The suit will be thrown out as frivolous and or Democrats will up the ante and 10 more women will "come out of no where" and try to sway public opinion as soon as the 2020 Senate election picks up more steam. I know you weren't trying to be disingenuous about it, the point is all leftist leaning folks (since you feel bothered by the use of the party label) condemned him as a sexual predator when no evidence was ever presented to back any of those claims, 30 years after-the-fact, no less. Folks like boutons even chimed in on this page to assert the claim, again with no evidence.

WE ALL KNEW it was a political hit, but those with leftist leanings were content to let it all play out because it meant someone with Judge Moore's conservative leanings would not be occupying a Senate seat. They were fine that Moore's political opponents employed Machiavellian tactics in ousting him from a surefire victory. The grander connecting point was how Spurminator claimed that only "Trumpistas" would "reject reality" to suit their needs. My counter example clearly showed that leftists are very capable of employing the same tactic. I'm perfectly fine being honest about the dynamic, but many folks here are in abject denial.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah, defamation is not tantamount with having committed a SEXUAL crime; it won't land anyone in prison. The suit will be thrown out as frivolous and or Democrats will up the ante and 10 more women will "come out of no where" and try to sway public opinion as soon as the 2020 Senate election picks up more steam. I know you weren't trying to be disingenuous about it, the point is all leftist leaning folks (since you feel bothered by the use of the party label) condemned him as a sexual predator when no evidence was ever presented to back any of those claims, 30 years after-the-fact, no less. Folks like boutons even chimed in on this page to assert the claim, again with no evidence.

WE ALL KNEW it was a political hit, but those with leftist leanings were content to let it all play out because it meant someone with Judge Moore's conservative leanings would not be occupying a Senate seat. They were fine that Moore's political opponents employed Machiavellian tactics in ousting him from a surefire victory. The grander connecting point was how Spurminator claimed that only "Trumpistas" would "reject reality" to suit their needs. My counter example clearly showed that leftists are very capable of employing the same tactic. I'm perfectly fine being honest about the dynamic, but many folks here are in abject denial.

Moore was semi-dating teenagers on a regular basis. I can't say I feel sorry for him on the hit job. Dems may not be raising the bar on character; but Moore needed to go.

[Phenomanul]

So you created a conspiracy theory because you have no actual evidence.

They're flight logs filed with the FAA. There was no reason to fake them.

They didn't say what you wanted them to say, so you have to start a conspiracy theory that they are fake.

Oh, so it's OK for you to flat out lie about what I said.

You're a hypocrite.

And a liar.

All the proof is right there in your post.

You keep telling yourself that.

[Spurtacular]

You keep telling yourself that.

Chump will ignore all non-official, not totally sanctioned evidence that goes against his side. Par.

[boutons_deux]

Today, Jeffrey Epstein will appear in court, for his first hearing and

the country will find out if he is cooperating with prosecutors.

Eventually, we might find out the source of his mysterious wealth,

because almost nobody has dealt with his hedge fund,

which significantly failed to match stock market gains, indicating his hedge fund sucked.

[Phenomanul]

Moore was semi-dating teenagers on a regular basis. I can't say I feel sorry for him on the hit job. Dems may not be raising the bar on character; but Moore needed to go.

The problem with this generation is that people now assume that "dating" someone means actively engaging in sexual activity.

For example, I never dated anyone who was younger than me by more than 2 years. It wasn't a stipulation or a check box, I just found that I had more in common with women in my age group. So that's how the cookie crumbled. But if someone is 27 and dating an 18 year old, who are we to condemn what they mutually agree upon..? And for the umpteenth time, no one was engaging in openly sexual activity. In fact, some of the women he dated, came out in support of Moore during that campaign; saying that he was the utmost gentleman when they had dated. Still not my cup of tea, but he didn't commit any crimes.

The whole ordeal was a political hit. That was the emphasis. We all knew it. But leftists refused to give up the valuable seat in the Senate and so they were fine that "dirty tactics" were being employed.

[boutons_deux]

"dating" someone means actively engaging in sexual activity."

As in Trash would have "dated" Ivanka, a fine piece of ass?

In Trash's mouth, date means , which is why he "dates"

Even teens from Bible humping cultures early.

In any case, whether Moore succeeded in dating/ ing teens many years his junior or not, his well-known, highly suspect obsession with teen girls is hardly an indication of healthy man "fit for office".

Reasonable to assume that he would have ed if they agreed (or not).

[Spurtacular]

The problem with this generation is that people now assume that "dating" someone means actively engaging in sexual activity.

For example, I never dated anyone who was younger than me by more than 2 years. It wasn't a stipulation or a check box, I just found that I had more in common with women in my age group. So that's how the cookie crumbled. But if someone is 27 and dating an 18 year old, who are we to condemn what they mutually agree upon..? And for the umpteenth time, no one was engaging in openly sexual activity. In fact, some of the women he dated, came out in support of Moore during that campaign; saying that he was the utmost gentleman when they had dated. Still not my cup of tea, but he didn't commit any crimes.

The whole ordeal was a political hit. That was the emphasis. We all knew it. But leftists refused to give up the valuable seat in the Senate and so they were fine that "dirty tactics" were being employed.

It wasn't 27 and 18; it was more like 39 and 17 when he was already in a position of power. He could've been more prudent; he should have. But he didn't feel those kind of standards applied to him. And like I said, it wasn't just a one off thing; it was a habitual occurrence. Now don't get me wrong, the same leftists clutching their pearls are the same ones not condemning frauds like Omar and any other immoral leftist (cough: chump). But this guy is creepy all the same. And he's selfish; he should've stepped down when the jig was up; but he instead let Republicans take the hit as he added to his embarrassment.

[Spurminator]

YOU claimed that only "Trumpers" "refused to accept reality" if it didn't suit their narratives.

I countered and asserted that EVERYONE here chooses to view the world with the partisan optics they have developed over the course of their respective lives. EVERYONE, including the folks on your side of the aisle.

Your statement is laced with denial that this behavior is intrinsic to us all. The fact that you choose not to see it, while lecturing conservatives about perspective and objectivity is laughable though.

The grander connecting point was how Spurminator claimed that only "Trumpistas" would "reject reality" to suit their needs.

But that's not what I said.

Just because Trump sycophants refuse accept reality when it makes their leader look bad, that doesn't mean everyone is like that.

Nowhere did I say there aren't liberals who repress facts that make their people look bad.

We were talking specifically about criminal sexual allegations against Bill Clinton. I gave you several examples of prominent Democrats who were implicated in scandal and were abandoned by Democrats, and I've made the case that Clinton would face similar treatment. You haven't really denied that, so it seems that we agree on this point.

That Trump fans will fall on the sword for him against any credible allegations is not really debatable, and I can see you're not even attempting to make that case, so I'm glad we agree there as well.

Faced with these two facts on which you apparently agree, you've chosen to shift the debate into a broader discussion that people on both sides exhibit bias, and tried to claim that I somehow disagree on this. I don't. So we agree there too.

Good talk.

[Pavlov]

You keep telling yourself that.

I'm telling you that.

I never said what you claimed.

I'm calling you out. Find a quote where I said Mueller will put Trump in prison.

You won't. Because I never said it. You lied.

[Spurminator]

The problem with this generation is that people now assume that "dating" someone means actively engaging in sexual activity.

For example, I never dated anyone who was younger than me by more than 2 years. It wasn't a stipulation or a check box, I just found that I had more in common with women in my age group. So that's how the cookie crumbled. But if someone is 27 and dating an 18 year old, who are we to condemn what they mutually agree upon..? And for the umpteenth time, no one was engaging in openly sexual activity. In fact, some of the women he dated, came out in support of Moore during that campaign; saying that he was the utmost gentleman when they had dated. Still not my cup of tea, but he didn't commit any crimes.

The whole ordeal was a political hit. That was the emphasis. We all knew it. But leftists refused to give up the valuable seat in the Senate and so they were fine that "dirty tactics" were being employed.

"Dating" underage girls doesn't have to be illegal to be creepy as and absolutely worth knowing about a candidate for UNITED STATES SENATE, dude, Jesus Christ.