OT: Epstein: 'Conspiracy theorists' proved right again

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e8320194-bde0-48a4-
ab96-3cc255d35d66@googlegroups.com:

> you're still a member of the party of Trump!

Stated correctly... "The party Trump tried to steal".

He is not a true Republican, but you sure are a true idiot.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:e8320194-bde0-48a4-
ab96-3cc255d35d66@googlegroups.com:

you're still a member of the party of Trump!

Stated correctly... "The party Trump tried to steal".

He is not a true Republican, but you sure are a true idiot.

You funny guy! ROFL. Tried to steal? TRUMP not only stole the party,
he owns it. The "party" is now Trump's puppet. He lies and they
swear to it. And the Republican Party, your
party, is going to nominate him for a second term! Eight five percent
of Republicans approve of Trump, that's the only way he has his 42%
overall approval number.

BTW, you never answered my question. What do you think would happen if
the RNC saw that 10% or 25% of Republicans withdrew their registration,
left the party, in disgust, like I did? By being a member of the GOP,
you're just enabling and approving of Trump.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 1:53:55 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e8320194-bde0-48a4-ab96-3cc255d35d66@googlegroups.com:

It is not about the actual act
he committed.

So, the actual laws no longer matter in the American system of
justice. That's a new one. Just go after someone and put them in
prison, it's not about what they actually did or didn't do.

You really are one thick skulled fucktard, LardyAss4.

His crime was bringing the phone into the secure compartment.
*That* was "the actual act". He *also* took a picture, and *that* is
what they charged him

Wrong, wrong again. The sailor was convicted of one count of illegally
retaining classified information under the same US code that Hillary
should have been charged. Oh, and the pics he took were deemed
to be at the "confidential" security level. Some of Hillary's were
secret, some were Top Secret.


with because it carried a greater sentence,

which is what they wanted so as to teach a lesson to all other naval
personnel thinking about ignoring the rules with their fucking
personal phones when occupying a security controlled compartment.

So he was cited but not for everything he did, just for the one
that was a proven conviction, evidence in hand.

Yes, for retaining classified material, ie mishandling it. Which
of course is what Hillary did too.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:24:02 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

There is no evidence that Russian meddling on Facebook, buying some BS stuff
there affected the outcome.

Huh? Public dialogue got 'managed' from abroad, and that DOES
affect all that followed. Facebook amplifies the effect, but we can't rewind
the clock to prove it, we have to theorize (or remain ignorant). Ignorance is
scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DARK in that branch.

The fact is,
Hillary was so abysmal, so awful, that she couldn't beat Trump! Ouch!

Weak, and refuted a thousand times already. Popular vote count says Hilary was
a good candidate, your 'absmal' adjective is a distortion that bears no relation
to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:24:02 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

There is no evidence that Russian meddling on Facebook, buying some BS stuff
there affected the outcome.

Huh? Public dialogue got 'managed' from abroad, and that DOES
affect all that followed.

Prove that it affected the outcome, ie Trump winning. You can't,
there is no evidence that it mattered at all, that it changed any
votes.



Facebook amplifies the effect,

Facebook was the main vehicle, what was 'amplified"?


but we can't rewind

the clock to prove it, we have to theorize (or remain ignorant). Ignorance is
scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DARK in that branch.

Seems you're the one theorizing.

The fact is,
Hillary was so abysmal, so awful, that she couldn't beat Trump! Ouch!

Weak, and refuted a thousand times already.

There is nothing to refute, it's a proven fact. She was so abysmal, she
couldn't be the God awful Trump. And the silly libs still can't get over
that.



Popular vote count says Hilary was

a good candidate, your 'absmal' adjective is a distortion that bears no relation
to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

BS. Trump was supposed to be easy to beat, a buffoon, incompetent.
And look what happened. You sound like just another sore loser.
Even worse, the Democrats are doubling down, they are in the process
of doing even worse this time. Of the two dozen running, they are all
a bunch of radical, screwy lib loons, with the possible exception of
Biden. Open border policies, supporting illegal aliens over Americans,
sanctuary cities and states, calling for the elimination of ICE,
more freebies for everyone that we have no money for, free healthcare
for illegal aliens too! And then if Trump wins again, the silly libs
will be blaming something, anything, other than their own stupid positions
and choices of candidates.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

And then if Trump wins again, the silly libs
will be blaming something, anything, other than their own stupid positions
and choices of candidates.

it goes without saying that the lunatics will blame russia

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Blames RUSSIA for Epstein's Death
https://newspunch.com/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-blames-russia-epsteins-death/

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:30:28 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:24:02 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

There is no evidence that Russian meddling on Facebook, buying some BS stuff there affected the outcome.

Huh? Public dialogue got 'managed' from abroad, and that DOES
affect all that followed.

Prove that it affected the outcome, ie Trump winning. You can't,
there is no evidence that it mattered at all, that it changed any
votes.

Trump's actual winning margin in the electorates that mattered, was about 60,000 votes. It's impossible to prove that the Russian intervention changed any votes at all, but the Russians wouldn't have done it if they hadn't thought that it was going to have an effect, and the scale of their intervention was big enough that they could have influenced 60,000 votes where it mattered.

Facebook amplifies the effect,

Facebook was the main vehicle, what was 'amplified"?

The actual Russian posts got "liked" and passed on to other people.

but we can't rewind the clock to prove it, we have to theorize (or remain ignorant). Ignorance is scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DARK in that branch.

Seems you're the one theorizing.

Obviously. But the theory is plausible.

The fact is,
Hillary was so abysmal, so awful, that she couldn't beat Trump! Ouch!

Weak, and refuted a thousand times already.

There is nothing to refute, it's a proven fact. She was so abysmal, she
couldn't be the God awful Trump. And the silly libs still can't get over
that.

Popular vote count says Hilary was a good candidate, your 'absmal' adjective is a distortion that bears no relation to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

BS. Trump was supposed to be easy to beat, a buffoon, incompetent.

He should have been. Sadly, his buffoonery and ignorance appealed to the deplorables. There were three million fewer of them than there were of people who approved of Hillary, but not enough of them in the three states that won Trump the electoral college (where the Russians had been particularly active).

And look what happened. You sound like just another sore loser.
Even worse, the Democrats are doubling down, they are in the process
of doing even worse this time. Of the two dozen running, they are all
a bunch of radical, screwy lib loons, with the possible exception of
Biden.

Elizabeth Warren is the very antithesis of a liberal loon. You may not like her policies, but she has a raft of well thought out policies (which you are certain to dislike, because you can't think straight).

<snipped Trader4 being his usual pig-ignorant self)>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:10:21 AM UTC+10, Nomen Nescio wrote:

And then if Trump wins again, the silly libs
will be blaming something, anything, other than their own stupid positions
and choices of candidates.

it goes without saying that the lunatics will blame russia

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough Blames RUSSIA for Epstein's Death
https://newspunch.com/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-blames-russia-epsteins-death/

Actually what he said was "How predictably Russian" which was probably a reference to the way people inconvenient to Putin end up dead in Russia.

The implication is that America has the same same kind links between people with political power and American organised crime. The same allegation was made about the Kennedies, though I can't recall them being accused of having anybody killed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:22a74185-8ecd-4a76-b4a2-4c894c95c665@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, wrong again. The sailor was convicted of one count of
illegally retaining classified information under the same US code
that Hillary should have been charged.

Like I said. He broke the law and the rules (protocol) for being
in a classified compartment with a camera.

He took a pic.

They charged him with having the pic, but the crime he initially
committed, which they did not charge, was bringing the phone into the
compartment to start with. JUST LIKE I SAID, you fucking retard.

And you are truly stupid. Military justice is a completely
different animal than civil law.

They could have nrigged his ass for a year just for taking the
camera in.

Go over yourself, dipshit.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1-
8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

By being a member of the GOP,
you're just enabling and approving of Trump.

You are full of shit and 99.999% of the shit your upper asshole spews
is total bullshit.

I am not enabling Trump and I do not approve of him.

You are truly an instigating idiot bastard, and I would surely plug
your upper asshole with an NYPD broomstick handle. I might have to
beat the fuck out of you with it first as that urge would overtake my
meal delivery temporarily. But then you would surely eat it... all.

 

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:qjd5uk$vge$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

They could have nrigged his ass for a year just for taking the
camera in.

Brigged.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1-
8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

By being a member of the GOP,
you're just enabling and approving of Trump.

You are full of shit and 99.999% of the shit your upper asshole spews
is total bullshit.

I am not enabling Trump and I do not approve of him.

Or course you are enabling Trump. You're still a member of the Republican
Party, which 85% support Trump. They are in the process of nominating him
again! And you refuse to answer the simple question;

What do you think would happen if 10 percent, 25 percent of the Republican
Party withdrew their voter registration as Republicans?

You are truly an instigating idiot bastard, and I would surely plug
your upper asshole with an NYPD broomstick handle. I might have to
beat the fuck out of you with it first as that urge would overtake my
meal delivery temporarily. But then you would surely eat it... all.

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I will need
to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El Paso nut case.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:44:26 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:22a74185-8ecd-4a76-b4a2-4c894c95c665@googlegroups.com:


Wrong, wrong again. The sailor was convicted of one count of
illegally retaining classified information under the same US code
that Hillary should have been charged.

Like I said. He broke the law and the rules (protocol) for being
in a classified compartment with a camera.

Sure, but that isn't what he was convicted of, stupid.

He took a pic.

They charged him with having the pic, but the crime he initially
committed, which they did not charge, was bringing the phone into the
compartment to start with. JUST LIKE I SAID, you fucking retard.

ROFL. No, that is not what you said. You said that he was convicted for
having the camera in a secured area. Of course you did that in a lame
attempt to defend HILLARY? And what "Republican" does that? So, he was
actually convicted of illegally retaining classified material. And what
he had was classified at most as "confidential", the lowest classified
material category. Hillary did the same thing, only her server had
secret and top secret classified material. We even have an email where
she directed a staffer, who was having trouble sending a classified
document by the secure govt system, to "remove the identifying information
and send it via regular email". And that would be straight into her
illegal, unsecure, email server. Thanks again for playing.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:39:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:30:28 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:24:02 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

There is no evidence that Russian meddling on Facebook, buying some BS stuff there affected the outcome.

Huh? Public dialogue got 'managed' from abroad, and that DOES
affect all that followed.

Prove that it affected the outcome, ie Trump winning. You can't,
there is no evidence that it mattered at all, that it changed any
votes.

Trump's actual winning margin in the electorates that mattered, was about 60,000 votes. It's impossible to prove that the Russian intervention changed any votes at all,

Thank you for admitting the obvious.



but the Russians wouldn't have done it if they hadn't thought that it was going to have an effect, and the scale of their intervention was big enough that they could have influenced 60,000 votes where it mattered.

A hippo farting in Africa could affect the weather.....

Facebook amplifies the effect,

Facebook was the main vehicle, what was 'amplified"?

The actual Russian posts got "liked" and passed on to other people.

no shit Sherlock, welcome to the internet.

but we can't rewind the clock to prove it, we have to theorize (or remain ignorant). Ignorance is scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DARK in that branch.

Seems you're the one theorizing.

Obviously. But the theory is plausible.

The fact is,
Hillary was so abysmal, so awful, that she couldn't beat Trump! Ouch!

Weak, and refuted a thousand times already.

There is nothing to refute, it's a proven fact. She was so abysmal, she
couldn't be the God awful Trump. And the silly libs still can't get over
that.

Popular vote count says Hilary was a good candidate, your 'absmal' adjective is a distortion that bears no relation to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

BS. Trump was supposed to be easy to beat, a buffoon, incompetent.

He should have been. Sadly, his buffoonery and ignorance appealed to the deplorables. There were three million fewer of them than there were of people who approved of Hillary, but not enough of them in the three states that won Trump the electoral college (where the Russians had been particularly active).

The simple fact is the Democrats picked a loser, a throwback to the past,
nothing remotely like what the voters were looking for. They are in the
process right now of making an even bigger mistake. Most of America does
not want open borders, sanctuary cities and states, the elimination of ICE,
more freebies. Worst of all, all those freaking Democrat morons raised
their hands at the debate as being in favor of free healthcare for ILLEGAL
ALIENS! So, if Trump wins again, who's to blame? Russians? ROFL

And look what happened. You sound like just another sore loser.
Even worse, the Democrats are doubling down, they are in the process
of doing even worse this time. Of the two dozen running, they are all
a bunch of radical, screwy lib loons, with the possible exception of
Biden.

Elizabeth Warren is the very antithesis of a liberal loon.

ROFL. I'll record that as equal to your constant denial that the libs
here have been howling about Trump and Russian collusion since 2016.
Silly, stupid lib.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:58:08 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:39:58 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 9:30:28 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2019 at 9:24:02 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

There is no evidence that Russian meddling on Facebook, buying some BS stuff there affected the outcome.

Huh? Public dialogue got 'managed' from abroad, and that DOES
affect all that followed.

Prove that it affected the outcome, ie Trump winning. You can't,
there is no evidence that it mattered at all, that it changed any
votes.

Trump's actual winning margin in the electorates that mattered, was about 60,000 votes. It's impossible to prove that the Russian intervention changed any votes at all,

Thank you for admitting the obvious.

That you were asking for "proof" of a point that could never be proved?

but the Russians wouldn't have done it if they hadn't thought that it was going to have an effect, and the scale of their intervention was big enough that they could have influenced 60,000 votes where it mattered.

A hippo farting in Africa could affect the weather.....

The classic example is a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, but elections don't work the same way as the weather.

Political propaganda works, which is why politicians spend a lot of money on it. The Russians clearly spent quite a bit on their Facebook advertising, and it clearly had some effect. That doesn't prove that it "won" Trump the electoral college, but his margin in actual votes cast wasn't large.

Facebook amplifies the effect,

Facebook was the main vehicle, what was 'amplified"?

The actual Russian posts got "liked" and passed on to other people.

no shit Sherlock, welcome to the internet.

You asked, so presumably you weren't able to work it out for yourself.

but we can't rewind the clock to prove it, we have to theorize (or remain ignorant). Ignorance is scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DARK in that branch.

Seems you're the one theorizing.

Obviously. But the theory is plausible.

The fact is,
Hillary was so abysmal, so awful, that she couldn't beat Trump! Ouch!

Weak, and refuted a thousand times already.

There is nothing to refute, it's a proven fact. She was so abysmal, she
couldn't be the God awful Trump. And the silly libs still can't get over
that.

Popular vote count says Hilary was a good candidate, your 'absmal' adjective is a distortion that bears no relation to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

BS. Trump was supposed to be easy to beat, a buffoon, incompetent.

He should have been. Sadly, his buffoonery and ignorance appealed to the deplorables. There were three million fewer of them than there were of people who approved of Hillary, but not enough of them in the three states that won Trump the electoral college (where the Russians had been particularly active).

The simple fact is the Democrats picked a loser, a throwback to the past,
nothing remotely like what the voters were looking for.

This is the story you like to tell yourself. That just makes you an idiot - nothing more.

<snipped the usual misapprehensions>

Of the two dozen running, they are all
a bunch of radical, screwy lib loons, with the possible exception of
Biden.

Elizabeth Warren is the very antithesis of a liberal loon.

<snipped Trader4 being even dimmer than usual>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1-
8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I will need
to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El Paso nut case.

Granting Trader4's intellectual short-comings, the police might well take a dim view of him wasting their time, and save DLUNU from having to take the trouble to find the twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1-
8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

snip

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I will need
to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El Paso nut case.

Granting Trader4's intellectual short-comings, the police might well take a dim view of him wasting their time, and save DLUNU from having to take the trouble to find the twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That figures, we have an angry poster here who has now graduated to
making actual physical violence threats and you support him.

Nuff said on that one.
and you think it's cool.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:14:45 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:01:17 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1-
8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

snip

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I will need
to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El Paso nut case.

Granting Trader4's intellectual short-comings, the police might well take a dim view of him wasting their time, and save DLUNU from having to take the trouble to find the twit.

That figures, we have an angry poster here who has now graduated to
making actual physical violence threats and you support him.

Nuff said on that one, and you think it's cool.

DLUNU clearly has anger management issues, and does waste time venting them.

The anger isn't a useful response to your persistent fatuity, but it is entirely understandable. If this were a moderated group, you wouldn't be allowed to waste the groups time, but it isn't, so we have to settle for regular derision.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:5540eb5c-572b-4c65-
b888-d2e9d07c86b6@googlegroups.com:

That figures, we have an angry poster here who has now graduated to
making actual physical violence threats and you support him.

Show even one. You cannot.

You are a goddamned liar.

You are the kind of guy that needs to have his mouth mashed, and be
sure to point out why so you might actually learn.

Guess what, dumbfuck... *that* was also NOT a threat.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c463fbd8-cff7-4bcf-8013-d38af89c321d@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:07:07 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:2d1342cd-dfd3-45e1- 8cce-3b42f4a9131d@googlegroups.com:

snip

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I
will need to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El
Paso nut case.

Granting Trader4's intellectual short-comings, the police might
well take a dim view of him wasting their time, and save DLUNU
from having to take the trouble to find the twit.

I never said I would do any such thing as 'find him' or any other
act. I said what *should* happen to him. I said what I would like
to do to him. As far as I know, however, NYPD broomstick handles are
not available. And he would never post his name and address, so he
is an unknown entity. I'd have a hard time getting that NYPD stick
up the ass of an unknown entity.

And I would likely have to make an insertion machine to get past
the 2 foot thick ass cheeks just to get to the insertion point.

I stated what *should* happen to him. And that it would make a
great youtube video.

Some threat... not.

Intellectual shortcomings doesn't begin to describe the stupidity
level he has imposed upon himself. A common problem with children
that 'grow up' numerically and gain some education, then toss it all
out the door to become a political fanatic.