Clinton child sex ring

[Dead Duck]

And yeah, I think we're being played, big time.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask a very specific question......






























What the **** are you talking about?

 

[Leadeye]

I think the question is if Epstein was acting alone or perhaps received payment from others wanting to get a lever on dc leadership that was interested in what he had to offer.

 

[NKBJ]

I never slink away.
Trump is not my champion but he has proven to be the lesser of the 2 evils presented us on election.
He has for the most part stood up to his promises and it is now obvious to many who "THOSE" people are and who is manipulating us.
I would love to see this play out in the open for all to see but it will be manipulated/twisted/made into sound bites and drop terms just as it always does.

I'm afraid you are exactly right, that we get played.
My thoughts are that Epstein has been running a huge political power manipulation op for an as yet unidentified power. And that if the American people actually get the straight skinny on who and how then they will be righteously angry at the who with long lasting international ramifications.

 

[jamil]

They will ask how many body doubles the president has, and if the one in the film has been fired yet.

You seem to have a very cynical view of the people who disagree with you. Jonathan Haidt conducted an experiment where they gave people a questionnaire, which gave several moral scenarios and then gave multiple choice answers for how moral are those scenarios. People were asked if they identify as left, right, or moderate. A random portion of all the respondents were asked to answer the questions how they would react to the scenarios. Another random portion were asked to answer as they thought a person on the left would answer. And another random portion was asked to answer as they thought a conservative would answer.

They found that the moderates and conservatives were able to predict the answers of progressives far better than the progressives were able to predict conservatives’ reaction to the various scenarios. Haidt explained this through his moral foundations theory, without explaining the theory here, of the 6 moral foundations he’s identified, progressives prioritize care/harm far above the others.

I’m not sure that’s the whole story. Progressives have a deluded view of conservatives. For example, they say things like, conservatives have the blood of slain students on their hands because they oppose “common sense” gun laws, as if they don’t care if kids die. Of course that’s delusional nonsense.

I think it’s related to the over-prioritization of a moral foundation over the others, but it’s not that only progressives have this problem. For example, in my own experience some conservatives have a skewed view of progressives’ motivations, particularly when it comes to loyalty, another of Haidt’s identified moral foundations. People who value loyalty above all else will think some pretty ****ed up things about people who prioritize other moral foundations above that.

I know you think that you have some conservative views. But I also think you’ve been wrong enough about the motivations of people on the right that it seems apparent to me, something prevents you from imagining their true motivations. I’m a lot more confident that if there were undeniable proof that the president was a kid****er, Trumpers’ reaction would be far less ****ty than you imagine.

But it’s a retarded scenario to put forth in the first place. Whoever asked that question, work out your own morality before you go around testing others’.

 

[Mongo59]

Polls to me are right up there with guessing how many jelly beans are in the jar, someone will eventually guess correctly, but what does it mean?

Others will say they are lucky and still others wish that they were them or they are in awe of their abstract thinking abilities. Meanwhile the "enlightened" person says to them self, "wow, I don't believe I pulled that one out of my butt..."

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to have a very cynical view of the people who disagree with you. Jonathan Haidt conducted an experiment where they gave people a questionnaire, which gave several moral scenarios and then gave multiple choice answers for how moral are those scenarios. People were asked if they identify as left, right, or moderate. A random portion of all the respondents were asked to answer the questions how they would react to the scenarios. Another random portion were asked to answer as they thought a person on the left would answer. And another random portion was asked to answer as they thought a conservative would answer.

They found that the moderates and conservatives were able to predict the answers of progressives far better than the progressives were able to predict conservatives’ reaction to the various scenarios. Haidt explained this through his moral foundations theory, without explaining the theory here, of the 6 moral foundations he’s identified, progressives prioritize care/harm far above the others.

I’m not sure that’s the whole story. Progressives have a deluded view of conservatives. For example, they say things like, conservatives have the blood of slain students on their hands because they oppose “common sense” gun laws, as if they don’t care if kids die. Of course that’s delusional nonsense.

I think it’s related to the over-prioritization of a moral foundation over the others, but it’s not that only progressives have this problem. For example, in my own experience some conservatives have a skewed view of progressives’ motivations, particularly when it comes to loyalty, another of Haidt’s identified moral foundations. People who value loyalty above all else will think some pretty ****ed up things about people who prioritize other moral foundations above that.

I know you think that you have some conservative views. But I also think you’ve been wrong enough about the motivations of people on the right that it seems apparent to me, something prevents you from imagining their true motivations. I’m a lot more confident that if there were undeniable proof that the president was a kid****er, Trumpers’ reaction would be far less ****ty than you imagine.

But it’s a retarded scenario to put forth in the first place. Whoever asked that question, work out your own morality before you go around testing others’.

Ya know, sometimes I think humor should be so obvious that purple isn't necessary.

 

[jamil]

Polls to me are right up there with guessing how many jelly beans are in the jar, someone will eventually guess correctly, but what does it mean?

Others will say they are lucky and still others wish that they were them or they are in awe of their abstract thinking abilities. Meanwhile the "enlightened" person says to them self, "wow, I don't believe I pulled that one out of my butt..."

I remember in a math lesson in elementary school they taught us how to estimate the number of jellybeans in a jar. Interestingly, the students who were good math students tended to be way more accurate than the students who weren’t so good at math. Probably a weird coincidence.

Estimation isn’t exactly the same thing as a guess. Applying statistics and probability isn’t the same thing as guessing either.

 

[KG1]

Ya know, sometimes I think humor should be so obvious that purple isn't necessary.

I got it. It's hard keeping up with the Riddler without wanting to counteract with some humor. It's either that or WTF? Like Dead Duck.

 

[jamil]

Ya know, sometimes I think humor should be so obvious that purple isn't necessary.

I know you were joking. But I think also, given history, were at least a little serious.

 

[Alamo]

Epstein “injured” in jail, early days, but apparently not seriously.

I vote he pulled a stunt trying to get released to a psych ward of his lawyer’s choice.

I think he has too much ego and too little conscience to off himself before the end of trial and appeals, and if his jail “friend” (with his history) had attacked him he'd be dead.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html

 

[Ziggidy]

Epstein “injured” in jail, early days, but apparently not seriously.

I vote he pulled a stunt trying to get released to a psych ward of his lawyer’s choice.

I think he has too much ego and too little conscience to off himself before the end of trial and appeals, and if his jail “friend” (with his history) had attacked him he'd be dead.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html

Maybe it's a warning for him to keep quiet?

Did he have a rope around his neck and smell like bleach?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

He shouldbe protected, kept alive, if only for the slightest chance for more info.

 

[Ziggidy]

He shouldbe protected, kept alive, if only for the slightest chance for more info.

We'll see what happens, I hope you are right.

If this was a suicide attempt, will they consider him too insane to hold trial?
If it's not a suicide attempt, they need to put him in solitary with camera on him at all times. Watch who visits and no outside food allowed in his cell.

On the other hand, it may be a self inflicted cry for help because he fears they are coming after him.

 

[Phase2]

Insane? Based on what? He has cause to be highly despondent and suicidal, but that is perfectly rational in his situation.

 

[BigRed]

Epstein “injured” in jail, early days, but apparently not seriously.

I vote he pulled a stunt trying to get released to a psych ward of his lawyer’s choice.

I think he has too much ego and too little conscience to off himself before the end of trial and appeals, and if his jail “friend” (with his history) had attacked him he'd be dead.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...ide-Attempt-or-Assault-Sources-513174311.html

Strange. Most of Clintons' friends commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of their head.

 

[two70]

Strange. Most of Clintons' friends commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of their head.

Twice. They're very thorough!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

whelp

 

[Leadeye]

Posing a question, if he's legally labeled insane, regardless if he is or not, doesn't that muddy testimony he might give against other pillars of leadership?

 

[BugI02]

Posing a question, if he's legally labeled insane, regardless if he is or not, doesn't that muddy testimony he might give against other pillars of leadership?

I can't see the type of people postulated by such a theory as taking that chance, I think if an operative of theirs had their hands around Epstein's neck, he would be room temp. Him saying nothing at all is much better for them than trying to spin any testimony

 

[T.Lex]

Posing a question, if he's legally labeled insane, regardless if he is or not, doesn't that muddy testimony he might give against other pillars of leadership?

Based on what I think you're asking, there are 2 kinds of "insanity" that you might be referring to.

The first it basically fitness for trial. In a nutshell, if someone can't understand what is happening to them, you can't put them on trial. If, for instance, Epstein suffered brain damage and has no higher brain function, they are unlikely to ever try him. The somewhat good news is that he'd stay (I think) in a jail-like medical facility until he either dies or achieves enough brain function to stand trial.

The other kind that you might be thinking of is the insanity defense. That is a remarkably poor defense in the child molestation arena, although it has been tried before. I doubt his trial team would go with that.

If they raise some sort of mental issue, it may impact a jury's view of his capacity to tell the truth. But, realistically, I'm not sure he'd be able to testify in his own defense. All sorts of conduct could come in and be used against him.

Any sort of testimony he might have against other participants in his escapades would come in the form of leverage for a plea deal. If THAT happens, he likely would be required to testify against those he implicates. In that situation, any evidence of mental issues does become important, too.