Listen To The Jeffrey Epstein Tapes: ‘I Was Donald Trump’s Closest Friend’

[Legato]

Just now, robosmith said:

When you post here, you're TROLLING to EVERYONE. Duh

Okay I'll post there, how many beans have you counted.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Okay I'll post there, how many beans have you counted.

Recess is over, and it's nappy time at your Kindergarten class.

[Chrissy1979]

13 minutes ago, Legato said:

I'm sure the "limp wrist" covers that..

So you worship Trump because of his wig, makeup and girdle?

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You made the claim it's FAKE. The burden of proof is ON YOU.

I already refuted the claim that he NEVER FLEW on Epstein's jet with evidence from Maxwell's trial. Duh

You have to prove it is real if you want it to mean something. Further, riding on a jet isn't a faux pas. Prove something happened.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

 

By a jury of his peers, when the judge twice clarified it was indeed "rape" after you guys were whining that it was "just sexual abuse."

Nope. That's a lie and we've discussed it.  It wasn't even on trial for rape or accused of rape. This was a trial against someone else.

No jury or judge has ever even a little bit found trump to be guilty or liable for rape. 

Not that you care, you fully support rapists as long as they're on the democrat side  

 

[NAME REMOVED]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. That's a lie and we've discussed it.  It wasn't even on trial for rape or accused of rape. This was a trial against someone else.

You are lying again, Can't you go through a single day without lying?

[Chrissy1979]

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. That's a lie and we've discussed it.  It wasn't even on trial for rape or accused of rape. This was a trial against someone else.

No jury or judge has ever even a little bit found trump to be guilty or liable for rape. 

Not that you care, you fully support rapists as long as they're on the democrat side  

 

I assume Bill Clinton is probably guilty, even though he's never been convicted. Why do you assume Clinton is guilty and Trump is innocent, even though Trump has been convicted by a jury of his peers?

I await your cowardly non-answer.

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

You are lying again, Can't you go through a single day without lying?

Really !   Well post the court case where trump was accused of rape and found guilty of it then.   

Kid, you never miss a beat when it comes to showing how stupid you are. 

[Fluffypants]

14 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I assume Bill Clinton is probably guilty, even though he's never been convicted. Why do you assume Clinton is guilty and Trump is innocent, even though Trump has been convicted by a jury of his peers?

I await your cowardly non-answer.

He wasn't convicted he was found liable which has a lower standard of evidence and doesn't need a unanimous jury. It is not a conviction. A conviction means he was found guilty of committing a crime. You can be found liable for something that you didn't even do.

He was literally found liable based on BS, they could never of convicted him of anything with the complete lack of evidence that was brought before them.

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Fluffypants

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Chrissy1979 said:

So you worship Trump because of his wig, makeup and girdle?

 

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Recess is over, and it's nappy time at your Kindergarten class.

You two must be secret lovers. Did you have to show Robo how to remove a girdle?

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

I assume Bill Clinton is probably guilty, even though he's never been convicted.

And yet you support him and this party that supports him as well. And you supported his wife who was complicit in his crimes. 

So the real question is why are you even bringing this up with trump? You obviously decided that you're quite comfortable with a party that supports someone you believe to be a rapist, a president that is someone you believe to be a rapist, and even the wife who is complicit in helping cover up the crimes being the president. You don't speak out about any of that in fact you've all but defended it

Is that why you felt the need to lie about trump? Is that why you pretended that he'd somehow been found guilty of rape when that has never been the case? To differentiate from your own support of a group of people who are or support rapists?

Just now, Legato said:

 

You two must be secret lovers. Did you have to show Robo how to remove a girdle?

DON"T REMOVE THE GIRDLE!!!! IT'S  A TRAP!!!

2 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

He wasn't convicted he was found liable which has a lower standard of evidence and doesn't need a unanimous jury. It is not a conviction. A conviction means he was found guilty of committing a crime.

 

Actually you're wrong. You're talking about his sexual misconduct trial. He was never charged with or found guilty of rape at that trial nor was he found liable for rape. The whole rape thing was never introduced

He was found liable for sexual assault or sexual misconduct as I recall. But never rape

[Chrissy1979]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And yet you support him and this party that supports him as well. And you supported his wife who was complicit in his crimes. 

So the real question is why are you even bringing this up with trump? You obviously decided that you're quite comfortable with a party that supports someone you believe to be a rapist, a president that is someone you believe to be a rapist, and even the wife who is complicit in helping cover up the crimes being the president. You don't speak out about any of that in fact you've all but defended it

Is that why you felt the need to lie about trump? Is that why you pretended that he'd somehow been found guilty of rape when that has never been the case? To differentiate from your own support of a group of people who are or support rapists?

DON"T REMOVE THE GIRDLE!!!! IT'S  A TRAP!!!

Actually you're wrong. You're talking about his sexual misconduct trial. He was never charged with or found guilty of rape at that trial nor was he found liable for rape. The whole rape thing was never introduced

He was found liable for sexual assault or sexual misconduct as I recall. But never rape

That's a lot of words to obfuscate the fact that I don't support Clinton, but you support Trump.

And you still were too scared to answer why you assume Clinton is guilty but not Trump.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

DON"T REMOVE THE GIRDLE!!!! IT'S  A TRAP!!!

 

According to those two, girdle removal is rape committed but not fulfilled. I sense George Boole is rolling in his grave.

[PIK]

Hard to say, could very well be true,or a case of misery loves company. Any other names?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

That's a lot of words to obfuscate the fact that I don't support Clinton, but you support Trump.

 

So what you're saying is you absolutely support Clinton and therefore can't really complain about me supporting trump

[Chrissy1979]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So what you're saying is you absolutely support Clinton and therefore can't really complain about me supporting trump

Actually, I never supported Clinton. He obliterated the social welfare system and bragged about cutting support to poor people. But he's irrelevant now, isn't he?

Why can't you answer the question why you assume Clinton is guilty (as I do) but refuse to believe Trump is guilty?

 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Actually, I never supported Clinton. He obliterated the social welfare system and bragged about cutting support to poor people. But he's irrelevant now, isn't he?

 

 

You very obviously supported Clinton and you support the party that supported Clinton as well. You supported Hillary who helped Clinton cover up his crimes.

And he's still a major figure in the party. He was one of their keynote speakers at the convention. Hillary is directly helping harris and coaching her right now.

So yeah, a little bit late to the game to be pretending that you care about rapists in a political party. You've been supporting them all along

[PIK]

I think everyone should just agree, both are not suitable for the job. Arguments are good on both sides.

[Chrissy1979]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You very obviously supported Clinton and you support the party that supported Clinton as well. You supported Hillary who helped Clinton cover up his crimes.

And he's still a major figure in the party. He was one of their keynote speakers at the convention. Hillary is directly helping harris and coaching her right now.

So yeah, a little bit late to the game to be pretending that you care about rapists in a political party. You've been supporting them all along

So you don't have a preprogrammed talking point that addresses the question why you believe Clinton is guilty and Trump is not?

[CdnFox]

Just now, PIK said:

I think everyone should just agree, both are not suitable for the job. Arguments are good on both sides.

Trump is not a great choice for the job but he'll do okay. He did okay last time. Pre-pandemic his record was good. Not great but pretty decent.

I think it would be an absolute disaster under her. And to be blunt I don't think that she would be the one running things. I think she will do what she's told. Which begs the question what are you really getting if you vote for her.

Having said that I don't think either are what you would call an awesome choice. I'd like to think with over 350 million Americans out there if they looked hard they'd find better choices. People who are actually about unity and you have the skills to run a good solid economy and handle for an affairs. And restore dignity and pride to the office. Neither of these two are going to do that.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trump is not a great choice for the job but he'll do okay. He did okay last time. Pre-pandemic his record was good. Not great but pretty decent.

I think it would be an absolute disaster under her. And to be blunt I don't think that she would be the one running things. I think she will do what she's told. Which begs the question what are you really getting if you vote for her.

Having said that I don't think either are what you would call an awesome choice. I'd like to think with over 350 million Americans out there if they looked hard they'd find better choices. People who are actually about unity and you have the skills to run a good solid economy and handle for an affairs. And restore dignity and pride to the office. Neither of these two are going to do that.

Thanks for proving your IGNORANCE of the US system by claiming "they" could have found someone better.

You don't even specify who you believe "they" are.

The system is, INDIVIDUALS decide to run and the voters decide who wins. Simple as that. There is NO "THEY" who finds candidates. Senior Party officials can suggest to people they should run, and raise money to support them, but that's ALL.

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for proving your IGNORANCE of the US system by claiming "they" could have found someone better.

Oh noes!!!  Triggered leftie denialist is triggered!!       

 

Quote

You don't even specify who you believe "they" are.

I specified that we don't know.  And that's the problem.  Still having trouble with basic english i see  

 

Quote

The system is, INDIVIDUALS decide to run and the voters decide who wins

Not really. That was the way it was intended to work but in practice it often doesn't.

I know that by your own admission you're extremely uneducated when it comes to politics, but throughout history there has often been a power behind the throne. As one famous democrat said "I don't want to be president, I just want to control the nomination process"

It's clear she won't be running the show. So the question becomes who would?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh noes!!!  Triggered leftie denialist is triggered!!       

 

I specified that we don't know.  And that's the problem.  Still having trouble with basic english i see  

 

Not really. That was the way it was intended to work but in practice it often doesn't.

I know that by your own admission you're extremely uneducated when it comes to politics, but throughout history there has often been a power behind the throne. As one famous democrat said "I don't want to be president, I just want to control the nomination process"

It's clear she won't be running the show. So the question becomes who would?

Your ^OPINION is completely UNSUBSTANTIATED as USUAL.

Like I said, senior Party officials (or others) can SUGGEST that candidates they like should run and RAISE money for their campaign, BUT THAT'S ALL. Individuals CANNOT determine the general election candidate.

ONLY the vote of DELEGATES can do that. Duh.

Why do you Canucks continually pretend you're experts on US politics? LMAO

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your ^OPINION is completely UNSUBSTANTIATED as USUAL.

 

My opinion is expert. I have more than enough experience knowledge and training to be able to be qualified to offer an expert opinion

Which means that it's your opinion here that is unsubstantiated as usual   

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your ^OPINION is completely UNSUBSTANTIATED as USUAL.

Like I said, senior Party officials (or others) can SUGGEST that candidates they like should run and RAISE money for their campaign, BUT THAT'S ALL. Individuals CANNOT determine the general election candidate.

ONLY the vote of DELEGATES can do that. Duh.

Why do you Canucks continually pretend you're experts on US politics? LMAO

The Democrats have literally done it the last 3 elections. Obama was the only one that was able to overcome the swamp appointments.