Pedo said his friend was also a pedo

[User]

16 minutes ago, herbie said:

She's only 13 and she knows how to nasty,
gonna do a nasty on the White House lawn.

Same MAGAts that condemned Andrew over a 17 year old are now backtracking that 15 is okay.

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, User said:

So why didn't Biden do anything for the last 4 years?

Once again, you start with your absurd, extreme, and false partisan bias and work backwards from there, ignoring all logic, facts, and reason. 

I didn’t say Trump committed any crimes, I said he likely knew what was going on. And sure there are all kinds of influential people political and non-political who would have known as well. There’s nothing absurd, extreme or “false partisan bias”  about that, it is pute logic facts and reason 

 

18 hours ago, User said:

What evidence?

You assert this as if it is true. I guess it's like your magic box of electricity... or magic pipelines. 

The email from Epstein to Maxwell where he says Trump was present when the girls were around and knew what was going on. 
 

My point is that Trump coming out now and announcing and investigation ONLY into Clinton and Democrats ties to Epstein and nobody else is such an absurdly blatant and shameful politically motivated abuse of power especially since Trump would normally be suspect #1 of any honest investigation and he’s doing only in response to emails highlighting his connections. Even you have to agree about that. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t say Trump committed any crimes, I said he likely knew what was going on. And sure there are all kinds of influential people political and non-political who would have known as well. There’s nothing absurd, extreme or “false partisan bias”  about that, it is pute logic facts and reason 

It isn't though. It's a conclusion that's driven by your bias.

The evidence is extremely weak. The fact is we do have a lot of information about actual pedophiles and those who sleep with People under the age of consent. And the one thing that comes across loud and clear is that for the most part Even their close friends and often even their family members and close families such as kids and such have absolutely no idea what's going on, even though in retrospect you look at things and think they really should have had some suspicion.

The majority of the girls that were underage were in the 16 year old range. You know as well as I do that it's not hard for a 16-year-old to look like an 18 year old.

So maybe trump was around and thought the girls were young, and probably suspected they were fooling around with them and such and maybe in the back of his mind he wondered but the vast majority of people unless they have actual evidence or unless the kid comes out and says by the way I'm 16 just assume that they're probably wrong. And that is historically how it works in the vast majority of cases.

A shocking number of comments when someone is caught begin along the lines of "I thought something was weird but I never thought......" 

So far the only "Evidence" Is that we know trump saw the girls hanging around Epstein and didn't ask any questions. A crime

[herbie]

His lackeys have spent months scrubbing and redacting his name from the files now. Time to release them!

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

His lackeys have spent months scrubbing and redacting his name from the files now. Time to release them!

You Tweenkies had 4 years to release them but not a word.

You're nothing but a transparent Libbie hack.

[User]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I didn’t say Trump committed any crimes, I said he likely knew what was going on. And sure there are all kinds of influential people political and non-political who would have known as well. There’s nothing absurd, extreme or “false partisan bias”  about that, it is pute logic facts and reason 

As usual, you avoid the actual point. You are sitting here crying about why Trump is not investigating more people, and the point is that if there were more people to investigate, why didn't Biden do it?

The further point being, you are one of the most blatantly biased partisans on this forum and you only operate from that view point and work backwards ignoring all fact, logic, and reason along the way. 
 

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The email from Epstein to Maxwell where he says Trump was present when the girls were around and knew what was going on. 

Thats it? That is your big evidence? OK, I will email someone saying you were on the island too. I guess that is "evidence" you were there!
 

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

My point is that Trump coming out now and announcing and investigation ONLY into Clinton and Democrats ties to Epstein and nobody else is such an absurdly blatant and shameful politically motivated abuse of power especially since Trump would normally be suspect #1 of any honest investigation and he’s doing only in response to emails highlighting his connections. Even you have to agree about that. 

If Trump was suspect #1, why didn't Biden do anything about it for 4 years?

 

[gatomontes99]

9 hours ago, User said:

If Trump was suspect #1, why didn't Biden do anything about it for 4 years?

They know they are on the wrong side, they don't care. All they want to do is delay, delay, delay. 

That is why this bill, that Trump will sign, will end their delays. FoxNews (The Most Trusted News In America)

[Venandi]

On 11/17/2025 at 10:23 AM, BeaverFever said:

...such an absurdly blatant and shameful politically motivated abuse of power

I think we've heard this exact line before...

It seems like only yesterday that moderates urging caution said things like " won't be long before Democrats are saying the same thing Republicans are now."

Remember those days?

Some here told you up front that in a couple of years we would be asking you "WTF did you think was going to happen?" The only answer was don't be silly.

What say ye now sir?

In a few more years I think you'll be doing the exact same thing all over again... and when you do, you'll offer and defend the same responses you find frustrating and antidemocratic right now. 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2025 by Venandi

[Nationalist]

This is gonna bite the Tweenkies in the a55. Then they'll make a bunch of wild accusations. 

Meh...stupid people with green hair...

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

I think we've heard this exact line before...

It seems like only yesterday that moderates urging caution said things like " won't be long before Democrats are saying the same thing Republicans are now."

Remember those days?

Some here told you up front that in a couple of years we would be asking you "WTF did you think was going to happen?" The only answer was don't be silly.

What say ye now sir?

In a few more years I think you'll be doing the exact same thing all over again... and when you do, you'll offer and defend the same responses you find frustrating and antidemocratic right now. 

 

 

 

We never had any doubt that Republicans would use legitimate investigations into their ACTUAL misdeeds as a pretext to initiate baseless investigations, witch hunts and fishing expeditions targeting democrats. 
 

Notice Republicans don’t even try to pretend that their abuses of power are legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about past democratic abuses and then say “now it’s our turn to be corrupt”. That’s literally saying out loud that it’s ok to be a corrupt authoritarian regime and this how America should be from now on. 

Edited November 18, 2025 by BeaverFever

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Notice Republicans don’t even try to pretend that their abuses of power are legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about past democratic abuses and then say “now it’s our turn to be corrupt”. 

You were expecting a different result eh? 

There... I fixed it for you. 

Notice Democrats didn't even try to pretend that their abuses of power were legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about Republican abuses and then say “now it’s our turn to be corrupt”. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s literally saying out loud that it’s ok to be a corrupt authoritarian regime...

No, that's literally saying you were warned repeatedly not to embark on your own flirtation with a "corrupt authoritarian regime" lest the see-saw catapult you out of the playground.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

...and this how America should be from now on. 

Not should be, likely will be though.

Your turns coming and I don't believe for one second that Democrats will take the high road when it happens. Not only won't the high road have progressive footie prints on it, the Flybabies and Roboduhs of the world will be saying things like:

HA HA HA... LMAO, you lost loser... HA HA HA. Losers always lose and you're a loser LMAO.

It would be nice to be wrong about that so If you believe it's not going to happen I'd love to hear why.

 

  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We never had any doubt that Republicans would use legitimate investigations into their ACTUAL misdeeds as a pretext to initiate baseless investigations, witch hunts and fishing expeditions targeting democrats. 

What you mean is you never thought they would do to you what you did to them  

You were warned, you reap what you sow

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Notice Republicans don’t even try to pretend that their abuses of power are legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about past democratic abuses

No they don't. They pick on my new and stuff that should never have been a real issue but for some reason the democrats made an issue when they were in power

Again there's nothing the republicans are doing that the democrats didn't do first and just as bad and when you didn't complain then you lost the right to complain now

[User]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We never had any doubt that Republicans would use legitimate investigations into their ACTUAL misdeeds as a pretext to initiate baseless investigations, witch hunts and fishing expeditions targeting democrats. 
 

Notice Republicans don’t even try to pretend that their abuses of power are legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about past democratic abuses and then say “now it’s our turn to be corrupt”. That’s literally saying out loud that it’s ok to be a corrupt authoritarian regime and this how America should be from now on. 

Of course Mr extreme partisan is here telling us all the investigations Democrats ran against Republicans were legit and all the ones against Democrats now are corrupt.

Sure Jan. 

 

[gatomontes99]

 

This video destroys...I mean DESTROYYYYSSSS!!!! every democrat talking point used in this thread. 

Epstein donated tons of money to dems.

Epstein helped dems in hearings against Trump

Epstein hated Trump because he thought Trump turned him over to the FBI.

And so on. It is all in the video. Enjoy.

 

[gatomontes99]

Video #2 as things break:

Jeffries was pals with Epstein. 

 

[I am Groot]

On 11/16/2025 at 3:17 PM, CdnFox said:

That's true as far as the age of consent goes, but it would never have been legal in Canada because he would have held a position of authority over those kids. Just like even today it's still illegal for a teacher to sleep with even a 17 year old student even though that's well above the age of consent.

Even that concept/law is relatively new and didn't exist prior to 1988.

On 11/16/2025 at 3:17 PM, CdnFox said:

But at the risk of attempting to sound like I'm minimizing what happened it is true that it was not pedophilia. He was never accused of sleeping with children, what he would have been guilty of is hebephilia if the allegation of the 14 year old was true or just unlawful sexual conduct  and of course trafficking if it's true that he 'rented' the girls out to others for the purposes of blackmail or influence as has been suggested. 

AFAIK from what I've followed, these were attractive young women/girls who voluntarily went to join up what they thought of as an exciting, rich, celebrity-filled life of free food, drugs, and booze. They traded sex for favours. From the late '60s on through at least the '90's that was really not considered a big deal by society. No one made them stay, threatened them, or beat them - which would definitely not be the case in a real 'sex trafficking' operation.

On 11/16/2025 at 3:17 PM, CdnFox said:

But it has blown up into this weird myth. People have come to believe that he was trafficking women of all ages including children in a large numbers and selling them off to people in a sort of child slavery gig where you went to this island and picked out the two or three youngsters you like and took them home with you or something.

In reality we're talking about a small number of girls, a few of which may have been under the age of consent as well as being employees, and we're talking about a few of them being pressured to sleep with a few men. Now that's still absolutely horrid, and there's no doubt that he exploited even the women who were above the age of consent and that's not legal.

But it's also not this massive giant organization of evil servicing all the rich people of the world like many think 

No. It's the media running wild with a salivating story featuring teenage girls, sex, and celebrities. And lawyers making a bundle out of using what was considered casual sex back then to blackmail rich people today. Virginia Giuffre changed her stories multiple times over the course of this, including starting out by saying she never slept with Prince Andrew. That changed to her sleeping with him, and it was fun, and then to sleeping with him, and it was gross and disgusting, and then him possibly (depending on the day she told her story) raping her. She seemed to be basically building stories as per her lawyers in order to make money.

[I am Groot]

On 11/16/2025 at 1:56 PM, TreeBeard said:

Conservatives, when faced with an actual pedophile ring rather than a made up one in a pizza shop, try and change the definition of pedophile so their hero doesn’t look so bad.  

The definition of pedophile has never changed. And it involves an irrational sexual fixation on prepubescent children. Maybe you should look it up. And I dare you to find anywhere on this site that I've ever said anything good about Trump.

On 11/16/2025 at 1:56 PM, TreeBeard said:

Or make the crazy claim that child sex trafficking would have been legal if they did it in Canada.  

At that time, it would have been. At least as it's been described here. REAL sex trafficking would not have been, of course. That involves physical force, terrorizing the victims, beating them, threatening them and/or their families with death, and keeping them imprisoned. That is not what has been alleged with Epstein. 

 

[Nationalist]

On 11/18/2025 at 12:31 PM, BeaverFever said:

We never had any doubt that Republicans would use legitimate investigations into their ACTUAL misdeeds as a pretext to initiate baseless investigations, witch hunts and fishing expeditions targeting democrats. 
 

Notice Republicans don’t even try to pretend that their abuses of power are legitimate,  they just lie/exaggerate about past democratic abuses and then say “now it’s our turn to be corrupt”. That’s literally saying out loud that it’s ok to be a corrupt authoritarian regime and this how America should be from now on. 

So...you're actually saying that you Libbies did, with knowledge and malice, warp the laws in order to "get Trump" and everyone who supports his platform. But that now that you've had your way, the Republicans should not reciprocate. 

Your political and media heros are doomed. They are already being destroyed one by one. And this is only the beginning. Yes...you snot-nosed little sh1t...it's time to pay the piper. You dumb fcks spent your load and failed.

Your stupidity is only eclipsed by your nastiness. 

[gatomontes99]

Hood rat say Trump be trippin o'er Epstein 

Turns out all of those donations came from a different Jeffery Epstein. A doctor with an unfortunate name.

 

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Even that concept/law is relatively new and didn't exist prior to 1988.

True. When I was growing up the age of consent was 14. Prior to that in Canada it was 12.

BUT  even then it was considered unlawful if a person was in a position of authoirty over someone.  Such as a teacher couldn't sleep with a student even if they were of age, or a psychiatrist etc etc.  and  if you were someone's employer it was seriously walking a line that could go either way. 

Quote

AFAIK from what I've followed, these were attractive young women/girls who voluntarily went to join up what they thought of as an exciting, rich, celebrity-filled life of free food, drugs, and booze. They traded sex for favours. From the late '60s on through at least the '90's that was really not considered a big deal by society. No one made them stay, threatened them, or beat them - which would definitely not be the case in a real 'sex trafficking' operation.

well the thing is they often started out as employees. This is why trump was angry at epstein for "poaching", they were staff working at mar a lago and epsiten would convince them to quit and go to work for him.  Then the managers would complain to trump that epstien 'poached' the staff. 

It's alleged that after that epstein and ghislaine would pressure and groom the girls to be as you say, and if that's the case then under the law they exerted undo influence on someone they had a position of trust and authority over and even tho their ages wouldn't be a crime in Canada in most cases it would probably still be considered statutory.  And of course it's also alleged that they took money or benefits from other people in exchange for 'providing' the girls to them, which would be 'trafficking'. 

But those charges would not be a 'slam dunk'. And prosecutors stated they were a little nervous pressing charges especially the first time because this could be a challenge to prove. They had more evidence the second time but of course he never went to trial. 

 

Quote

No. It's the media running wild with a salivating story featuring teenage girls, sex, and celebrities.

Media? Blowing things out of proportion? OUR media? Our beloved 5th estate , that bastion of fair and even reporting and unbias commentary?!?!!?  The HELL you say!!!!!

Quote

And lawyers making a bundle out of using what was considered casual sex back then to blackmail rich people today. Virginia Giuffre changed her stories multiple times over the course of this, including starting out by saying she never slept with Prince Andrew. That changed to her sleeping with him, and it was fun, and then to sleeping with him, and it was gross and disgusting, and then him possibly (depending on the day she told her story) raping her. She seemed to be basically building stories as per her lawyers in order to make money.

Yeah well, whatever the truth is it's very clear that the story has long since taken on a life of its own and run amok.

There is some possible evidence which promotes the idea that at least one businessman was being blackmailed. And that's absolutely horrible if true. And my gut is that there was sexual misconduct of some species or another. Girls may have been pressured inappropriately we're taking advantage of.

But that's not the same as pedophilia, which is what every single person in the world out there claims he is guilty of. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children. This sounds at worst to be a case of possible statutory rape based on being in a position of authority of somebody who was of young age or underage based on the law of the land where it occurred, and possibly trafficking which is basically pimping but the girl doesn't get paid. Very serious stuff but not what the media accuses him of

[TreeBeard]

On 11/20/2025 at 6:42 AM, I am Groot said:

The definition of pedophile has never changed.

The argument seems to be that it doesn’t matter so much because the children were 15.   Not sure that’s a strong argument in favour of sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking or sex with minors.  
 

But carry on….

[User]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The argument seems to be that it doesn’t matter so much because the children were 15.   Not sure that’s a strong argument in favour of sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking or sex with minors.  
 

But carry on….

Whose argument?

You are just continuing to make shit up and run away from being called out. 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Whose argument?

You are just continuing to make shit up and run away from being called out. 

Catholic League’s argument.  Groot’s argument.  And maybe your’s?   Do you quibble with the term pedophile being used?

[User]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Catholic League’s argument.  Groot’s argument.  And maybe your’s?   Do you quibble with the term pedophile being used?

Then quote where they said that and respond to them. Instead, you dishonestly make vague comments as if that is some universal position being advocated for. 

[robosmith]

On 11/14/2025 at 8:15 AM, Nationalist said:

Hilarious. What desperation.

Your ^BUPKIS is ALWAYS desperate hilarity.