Search results

No I was just mocking your use of 'I've got the receipts' which is something you might expect a university student to say. You move the goalposts so much it's v difficult for a conversation to actually go anywhere - you've successfully obfuscated the initial point sufficiently as to not feel...

Is that 5th or 6th go of bringing that up? I'd be embarrassed to have to keep shifting back to previous arguments to try and score points, as you seem to make a habit of doing - genuinely pathetic behaviour. Obviously you've never got anything wrong in your 50,000 contributions.

It's a nice AI list of 'receipts' :sick: Much like the other poster, your now introducing the concept of a client list and suggesting this was the claim all along, when it clearly wasn't.

That's not what I said at all - my point was about using other's actions in the past to justify something you are doing now. 'These people did X, so they can't lecture me on Y'. The correct extrapolation would be something like a leftist arguing that they can morally justify any poor treatment...

Where did I deny that? Specifically the 'Epstein list', because you're right, that is what those articles labelled a conspiracy - not the abuse ring itself, but the existence of a list. Obviously you'll know the 'Epstein list' wasn't and hasn't been the topic of any of my posts today - you'd...

No idea how this relates to what I said?

It would certainly help if you actually made a point and didn't rely on *coughs* like some sort of moody teenage girl. The reason I asked if you actually read the articles is that they don't remotely 'prove' what you're suggesting they do - you're again conflating wider conspiracies around...

Have you actually read the articles you shared? What do you think they are proving exactly?

Oh grow up - in what world am I covering for anyone and how am I doing so?

Seems a bit aggressive, but sure. That there is some overlap with the truth in all of the bollocks that those groups punted is not surprising - to suggest that now makes them correct or credible is just guff. They've been hilariously wrong on far, far more than they've been slightly right on.

And yet that's what you seem to be taking :) Let's not pretend QAnon and Pizzagate are now proved right or accurate - that's an enormous conflation.

Just a completely made-up reality. I've literally never heard Epstein and his island described as a 'right wing conspiracy'. The only people I ever saw or heard defend Andrew were right-wing monarchists - does that mean I can claim all of 'you guys' support nonces? This stuff is so so weak.

As if to prove the point just made. What some fruitcake 'activists' chose to do years ago is not a justification of anything you do now.

Well firstly it's just a 'race to zero' logic - you can justify any behaviour of your own by finding someone who has done worst. But more broadly, the all-encompassing nature of how you use 'the left' just means that you're not even using to argue against specific points or posters - it's so...

I find the whole 'imaginary leftist man doesn't have principles so why should I' argument that you regularly make a very weak one. Trump's name is all over the files, with many many allegations against him - I think it's incredibly unlikely he's just an innocent bystander in it.

From someone who is outright rejecting quantitive data that goes against their prejudice, this takes a very amusing lack of self-awareness.

Or the other posters who have said the same, or the actual data. Just the tabloids.

And I think you are talking rubbish. Great debate that, thanks for sharing.

Genuinely, do you find stuff like this convincing..? In your mind you can dismiss all other Trump/Epstein ties and allegations based on that?

Fair enough - I would agree that comments such as you describe are extreme and unnecessary. Anyone talking about worst ever signing can't have been around very long.