Crime Jeffrey Epstein Dead

[trac209]

I wouldn't say alt-right, but I do think he's playing around a bit with his leftist moniker. Most, if not all of his videos are criticizing the left, or giving Trump props on something. I honestly find it hard to believe he's a Bernie supporter, when half of schtick is making fun of progressives and laughing at their failures.

I’m not sure when he goes back and forth in his videos, he will call out bs on both sides.

 

[JonesBones]

Alt right? He’s a fucking Bernie supporter. Do you even listen to Tim ...lmao at Tim being alt right. If he’s alt right then fuck no wonder you left idiots moved the goal posts to suit your bs stances.

Also, you can be a right wing loon and still support Bernie. Look at Viva.

 

[HereticBD]

I’m not sure when he goes back and forth in his videos, he will call out bs on both sides.

Sure, but he always seems way more critical of the left, while the right gets a "oh' these guys aren't that great either" dismissive kind of criticism to appear neutral. On top of that, just look at the clickbait titles he uses. For the most part, they appeal to the right. I'd be hard pressed to find a video of his that didn't have a right leaning header.

 

[44nutman]

What I am hearing happened, is Epstein, told Trump to pardon him or the dirt is released to the press. Trump freaked out, and put the wheels in motion for Epstein to commit "Suicide".
Remember Trump has mob ties. You cant do all the building he did in New York City, without some sort of Mob Ties. Trump puts out a call to Joey Bag o Donuts. Bingo Bango Bongo, Guards forget to check on Epstein, and then Epstein "kills" himself.

#TrumpBodyCount

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Alt right? He’s a fucking Bernie supporter. Do you even listen to Tim ...lmao at Tim being alt right. If he’s alt right then fuck no wonder you left idiots moved the goal posts to suit your bs stances.

Tim is an unhinged loser who makes click bait porn for alt righters. He can say he supports Bernie until he's blue in the face (he doesn't even btw, he's all in on Tulsi) it doesn't mean anything when all he does is make videos attacking AOC's grammar and other b.s.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

What I am hearing happened, is Epstein, told Trump to pardon him or the dirt is released to the press. Trump freaked out, and put the wheels in motion for Epstein to commit "Suicide".
Remember Trump has mob ties. You cant do all the building he did in New York City, without some sort of Mob Ties. Trump puts out a call to Joey Bag o Donuts. Bingo Bango Bongo, Guards forget to check on Epstein, and then Epstein "kills" himself.

#TrumpBodyCount

I’m hearing that didn’t happen though.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That is hardly a good source and it actually makes the whole of your previous post moot. If he wasn't in the suicide unit, why are you arguing about what he did in there?

Being in the suicidal unit and those kind of things actually makes people more suicidal. In protective custody and shit. I posted an article about it in earlier in this thread. You do the work to find because I am not. It went over exactly what happened. THe whole timeline of events and when and where he was moved. Also, read the Atlantic article I just posted a few posts up. I know it is full of scary words like "scholars" --the natural enemy of the conspiracy theorist -- but it won't hurt you. Actually it might, but you need it.

Lets be clear here as I am not arguing he committed suicide or not. I am not arguing he was 'suicided or not'.

I am reply to the repeated assertion, as if ridiculous that 'regardless of how they are held in custody, it is theoretically possible that someone could commit suicide, and therefore its not suspicious if they pull it off'.

That is the crux of the argument that the person I replied to keeps repeating.

It is fact that in high profile cases where a witness is seen as a suicide risk the prisons have special procedures to make it very difficult to carry it out. IT is fact many high profile witnesses who were suicide risks make it to court.

The issue here IMO that needs to be answered is :

- WHY WAS EPSTEIN TAKING OUT OF THE SUICIDE RISK BUCKET AND PLACED INTO ONE THAT MADE FOR MUCH LESS SECURE HANDLING OF HIM?

I see only two potential answers to that question:

- GROSS negligence at multiple levels
- willful negligence at multiple levels


Either is a possibility but understand these things ARE DONE under threat analysis. A question would be asked 'is there risk in moving him to a lower status and what is that risk?' That RISK is full and catastrophic loss. He commits the act and there is no going back. No capable manager would accept that risk when keeping him under suicide watch holds no risk for them and has no such correlation to a catastrophic mistake. The only criticism one could level would be 'they spent more money and I don't think he would have done anything anyway.'


What is shocking in this thread is not the nuty CTers, as they are expected. But what we see on the other side arising which I would almost call the mirror of the CTer's and that is that anyone who does not simply accept this is all normal course and merely states there are still key questions that need to be answered is being attacked by the anti-Cters force.

I have no position on this, just questions. But to some, seemingly you, that is enough to trigger an anti Ct attack.

 

[all caps]

What I am hearing happened, is Epstein, told Trump to pardon him or the dirt is released to the press. Trump freaked out, and put the wheels in motion for Epstein to commit "Suicide".
Remember Trump has mob ties. You cant do all the building he did in New York City, without some sort of Mob Ties. Trump puts out a call to Joey Bag o Donuts. Bingo Bango Bongo, Guards forget to check on Epstein, and then Epstein "kills" himself.

#TrumpBodyCount

You gonna come clean this up @Ruprecht ? Looks like your crazy conspiracy kooks are running roughshod over this thread. Where you at? Where are the threats?

 

[Fawlty]

You gonna come clean this up @Ruprecht ? Looks like your crazy conspiracy kooks are running roughshod over this thread. Where you at? Where are the threats?

Are you upset because you feel mocked? That was a delicious post. Although to be honest, even if you don't take it as a joke it's not 10% as crazy as the bulk of the personal theories being spouted itt. For one thing, it ties the people *who are actually in power* to the event.

 

[Ruprecht]

What I am hearing happened, is Epstein, told Trump to pardon him or the dirt is released to the press. Trump freaked out, and put the wheels in motion for Epstein to commit "Suicide".
Remember Trump has mob ties. You cant do all the building he did in New York City, without some sort of Mob Ties. Trump puts out a call to Joey Bag o Donuts. Bingo Bango Bongo, Guards forget to check on Epstein, and then Epstein "kills" himself.

#TrumpBodyCount

Don't post sourceless rumours in this thread, it'll get you a reply ban. Where is your source?
There's enough shit to clean up in this thread without empty satire.

 

[trac209]

You gonna come clean this up @Ruprecht ? Looks like your crazy conspiracy kooks are running roughshod over this thread. Where you at? Where are the threats?

I’ll throw you a like on this one if for nothing else a call for sanity.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Prison Guards Failed To Conduct Mandatory Inmate Checks On Night Of Epstein’s Death

Facts/rumors have begun to circulate in the wake of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide on Saturday morning. It’s being widely reported that guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), where he had been held in solitary confinement, failed to perform mandatory inmate checks on the night of Epstein’s death.

According to Reuters, “At the MCC, two jail guards are required to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes, but that procedure was not followed overnight, according to the source. In addition, every 15 minutes guards are required to make another check on prisoners who are on suicide watch.”

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...mandatory-inmate-checks-night-epsteins-death/

It only takes 3-7 minutes to kill yourself, this policy, if true, is garbage.
They let him die either by his own hands or somebody else's.

 

[JonesBones]

Lets be clear here as I am not arguing he committed suicide or not. I am not arguing he was 'suicided or not'.

I am reply to the repeated assertion, as if ridiculous that 'regardless of how they are held in custody, it is theoretically possible that someone could commit suicide, and therefore its not suspicious if they pull it off'.

That is the crux of the argument that the person I replied to keeps repeating.

It is fact that in high profile cases where a witness is seen as a suicide risk the prisons have special procedures to make it very difficult to carry it out. IT is fact many high profile witnesses who were suicide risks make it to court.

The issue here IMO that needs to be answered is :

- WHY WAS EPSTEIN TAKING OUT OF THE SUICIDE RISK BUCKET AND PLACED INTO ONE THAT MADE FOR MUCH LESS SECURE HANDLING OF HIM?

I see only two potential answers to that question:

- GROSS negligence at multiple levels
- willful negligence at multiple levels


Either is a possibility but understand these things ARE DONE under threat analysis. A question would be asked 'is there risk in moving him to a lower status and what is that risk?' That RISK is full and catastrophic loss. He commits the act and there is no going back. No capable manager would accept that risk when keeping him under suicide watch holds no risk for them and has no such correlation to a catastrophic mistake. The only criticism one could level would be 'they spent more money and I don't think he would have done anything anyway.'


What is shocking in this thread is not the nuty CTers, as they are expected. But what we see on the other side arising which I would almost call the mirror of the CTer's and that is that anyone who does not simply accept this is all normal course and merely states there are still key questions that need to be answered is being attacked by the anti-Cters force.

I have no position on this, just questions. But to some, seemingly you, that is enough to trigger an anti Ct attack.

Your last paragraph says it all. Just asking questions. You think I don't know this tactic?

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.


The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.[1]

In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). By not having to propose their own hypothesis, they can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forwa


Betteridge's law of headlines[edit]
A law that covers much Internet "journalism". The Daily Fail is a serial offender.[2][3]

Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

JAQing off[edit]
The JREF forums call it "JAQing off." "Marquis de Carabas" coined the acronymous term[4] after they had dealt with one too many 9/11 truthers,[5] with this later description by "VespaGuy":[6]

JAQing off - 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of "just asking questions." 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers. "He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off."

 

[all caps]

Are you upset because you feel mocked? That was a delicious post. Although to be honest, even if you don't take it as a joke it's not 10% as crazy as the bulk of the personal theories being spouted itt. For one thing, it ties the people *who are actually in power* to the event.

Show the crazy conspiracy bs I've posted in here that rivals anything like what he posted?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

People realize its MUCH more likely he was Merc'd by Clintons, Brits, Brett Ranter and Chris Tucker than Trump right?

Reading through this, there are really delusional people in here

Jokes aside, I do find it odd that Chris Tucker was on multiple manisfests for Epsteins plane and then not long after had a religious awakening and left Hollywood.....

 

[Toothy]

You see this you tards? This is who you have become. 911 truthers. These are your people now. This is you. Enjoy.

What have I become?.. a person who knows that basically EVERY government continually lies to it's people, that there are many sinister forces at work pulling strings behind the scenes for centuries. A person with an innate sense of when I'm being intentionally misled? You are a gullible ass if you believe everything the MSM tells you... sheep like you are the biggest "tards" of them all.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

Don't post sourceless rumours in this thread, it'll get you a reply ban. Where is your source?
There's enough shit to clean up in this thread without empty satire.

I'm curious- which thread required more post deletions per page, this one or the WalMart shooting?

 

[HereticBD]

I'm curious- which thread required more post deletions per page, this one or the WalMart shooting?

Neither. I think The Vegas shooting one takes the cake.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Your last paragraph says it all. Just asking questions. You think I don't know this tactic?

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.


The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.[1]

In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). By not having to propose their own hypothesis, they can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.

You are a troll and idiot. You really are.

I have not made one single assertion in this thread. You cannot quote a single one.

my entire post history is

- this was either gross either gross negligence OR

- purposeful negligence

I cannot see a third option.

And you are railing against me saying 'there is only one acceptable option and that is that it was just mistake and any other is makes you a CTer'.

Go troll someplace else. You lost your shit and admitted you acted emotionally and stupid in your stock thread towards me and now are trying to drag that nonsense here by creating an issue that is not one.

Quote me making one assertion that is objectionable or GTFO.

 

[dissectingaorticaneurysm]

Neither. I think The Vegas shooting one takes the cake.

Half the participants in that are probably banned today.