Port Vale Devil
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,643
- Supports
- Port Vale
Not one for conspiracy theories , but no way did he kill himself.
Well then you are one for a conspiracy theory believe it or not.
Not one for conspiracy theories , but no way did he kill himself.
A good quick rule with conspiracy theories is to ask how many people would have to be involved to make it happen. The more people, the less likely. Which I guess means this is a relatively plausible one?
Maybe I'm naive but I don't find the idea of someone facing jail time for trafficking underage girls deciding to commit suicide that implausible though.
Well then you are one for a conspiracy theory believe it or not.
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.It's not fun arguing in circles with them!
The 9/11 nutters truly take the cake with the JFK nutters close second.
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.A good quick rule with conspiracy theories is to ask how many people would have to be involved to make it happen. The more people, the less likely. Which I guess means this is a relatively plausible one?
Maybe I'm naive but I don't find the idea of someone facing jail time for trafficking underage girls deciding to commit suicide that implausible though.
Who here honestly believes he killed himself?
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.
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.
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.
Trump just retweeted this
Trump just retweeted this
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.
I'm too biased against conspiracy theories as well. Bring hard proof then we'll talk.
Trump just retweeted this
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.
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
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 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.
A good quick rule with conspiracy theories is to ask how many people would have to be involved to make it happen. The more people, the less likely. Which I guess means this is a relatively plausible one?
Maybe I'm naive but I don't find the idea of someone facing jail time for trafficking underage girls deciding to commit suicide that implausible though.
What's the proof that he killed himself? You're taking the word of bad actors as a neutral supposition.
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.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.
No one cares about the difference between paedophile and ephebophile dude. It's obvious what people mean when they talk about this and similar cases and you're writing hundreds of words about a distinction only you and people who memorize age of consent laws care about.
What's it like believing exactly what people want you to believe at all times?
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:
How big a leap do you think it is to say I think a considerable number of rich and powerful men have sexually abused 13-15 year old child sex trafficking victims?
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.A much smaller leap. Especially if you’re relaxed about your definition of “sex trafficking”.
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.