Well then you are one for a conspiracy theory believe it or not.
NonceUponATimeInEpsteinAndAndyLand
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Well then you are one for a conspiracy theory believe it or not.
It's also extremely plausible, even more so in my opinion given he previously got through a conviction for sex crimes, that powerful people had him killed to protect themselves.
What's it like believing exactly what people want you to believe at all times?
I find the JFK nutters the most enjoyable actually, it’s good fun. More tolerable than the Area 51 guys, and way better than the fake Moon landing or secret Rothschild Templari ones.
Doesn't even need to be a conspiracy. Could be one person, making the decision to take him off suicide watch and not have him monitored regularly, because they know it would be better for people they don't want implicated if he was dead.
I think there’s a few options and any of them could’ve happened. They all seem quite likely, all things considered.
a) he realised his life as he knows it is over and killed himself.
Possibility that staff were told not to keep an eye on him so he could?
b) he realised he’s going to be killed, so killed himself.
c) someone had him silenced.
I feel like some of you don't quite grasp yet how much of a rabbit hole the Epstein case is. This is not 'there were explosives in the twin towers!!' shit, this is the real horror stuff.
Too many powerful people were probably involved in some disgusting stuff whether paedophilia or close to the cuff. No way was Epstein having his day in court exposing all these sick fecks.
Loose lips sink ships.
The party moves on and the wheels keep on moving.
Tbf I think I'm too biased against conspiracy theories generally to ever go much beyond saying it's relatively plausible as conspiracy theories go. It would certainly be less difficult to pull off than most and carries less contradictory logic too.
This has possibly saved the butt of a lot of rich and powerful people. People who have learned long ago how to remove obstacles in their path.
It's just that he had so much information on so many powerful people in different countries that it would be almost beyond belief if they DIDN'T silence him. 100% of the incentives are to have him killed. And then when they do the useful idiots who think they are above it all come in and act dismissive of the possibility. You can see some of them in this very thread.
I know it should be shocking the president of the USA would retweet that... But meh I think we all expect shit like that from him now... Standard
He also retweeted this
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
Wow. Just wow.
I'm too biased against conspiracy theories as well. Bring hard proof then we'll talk.
What's the proof that he killed himself? You're taking the word of bad actors as a neutral supposition.
What does Russell Peters have to say about this ?
Makes no difference to them so long as he’s dead. Hence giving him chance to kill himself seems the most likely situation, as it’d be easiest and safest option, with hardly anyone involved.
Interesting (terrifying) decision. I doubt many around him wanted him to do this as now the 'mainstream media' are forced to discuss the conspiracy theory and Trump is very much included in that. He's been extremely quiet on it until now.Trump just retweeted this
He's unlikely to back down, having done it now, as he never really does (he does sometimes for a day, before getting back on it once left unsupervised again). So I guess we expect more of this and completely uninvolved people will probably be killed by angry Trump supporters aware they can't get near the Clintons.
Part of my instinctive skepticism is likely a result of the way the story has been immediately (and predictably) politicized.
The fact that so many of those arguing that Epstein was killed immediately fell into pro/anti Trump or pro/anti Clinton accusations (as dictated by their pre-existing political ideologies) makes it harder see their arguments as being made in good faith.
"A powerful person had someone who could hurt them killed" jars less than "the specific powerful person I already dislike had someone who could hurt them killed, whereas there's zero chance that the powerful person I already like could have possibly been involved". The latter is just more churn for the culture war.
Well you should judge the case by the facts and by who had what to gain and what to lose instead of as a reactionary response to people whose worldview you find unsophisticated.
I'd agree that the nutters that believe Oswald was a lone gunman acting entirely on his own aren't all that bad
That's not any better though. How was someone in his sensitive and unprecedented position even allowed the opportunity to take his own life? This can only happen due to intentional neglect or gross incompetence and gross incompetence is implausible to me.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
All I have proof of is his death. I'm not saying it's impossible that he was killed. I'm pretty much sitting on the fence either way until more facts come out.
And so many who have spent years on the internet arguing with flat-earthers immediately fell in to their own camp and it's hard to trust them too.
None of us are clever enough to manage an unbiased view after the man we've all been fearing would be found dead soon was found dead today. Obviously there are a fair few entirely bad faith actors but I think most of us are trying to come to terms with it.
This thread (and the internet in general) is full of words like “nonce” and “paedophile”. Words that have specific meanings. If those words weren’t used, then I wouldn’t have to keep fecking repeating that they don’t apply here. And the distinction is important, whether or not you care about it.
Because unless you’ve led a very sheltered life you would know that it’s far from uncommon for teenage girls to sleep with men a lot older than them. I think it’s disgusting, personally. I also have a problem with much older men sleeping with very young girls who have reached the age of consent. As I don’t believe being just one or two years older changes the fecked up power dynamic.
Whatever, a bunch of rich and powerful men indulging in the same seedy shit that men who aren’t rich and powerful get up to all the time is nowhere near as shocking as it would be if there was even a hint of truth in the conspiracy stuff about the Clintons masterminding child sex rings for aging paedophiles. Anyhoo: You’re determined to believe the most salacious explanation possible “cos Hilary” so this post is really only aimed at people who are less close-minded than you.
Trump in 2015:
Last edited:
Please don’t mention red pills or sheeple.Interestingly, this story has blown up bigger than I thought it would. Maybe, just maybe those in power...exceeded the boundaries of the public's apathy with this one?
Eh, who am I fooling. It'll be forgotten by Monday.
Eh, who am I fooling. It'll be forgotten by Monday.
Can I get a reply, @Pogue Mahone ? Apologies if you're working on one.
You don't have to keep repeating because no one but you cares. Anyway, I haven't mentioned "Hillary" once in this entire thread. Pretty embarrassing for you.
A much smaller leap. Especially if you’re relaxed about your definition of “sex trafficking”.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
bill clinton, who was credibly accused of rape multiple times before this epstein stuff, being involved in child sex rings is a step too far for pogue. lets all applaud how reasonable pogue is.
I figured you'd feel that and I think that your descriptions that compare the events to the creepy guys in nightclubs that we've all encountered aren't near appropriate given that.
except that is not what these people are being accused of.
