So that when someone points out the fact that, for example, Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express 26 times, and both Clintons spent time vacationing together at the Epstein's New Mexico ranch that he his 'baby making factory', a normie with minimal information will go 'oh that's that crazy Qanon comet ping pong stuff, this guy is nuts' instead of believing it.

This is typical conspiracyspeak.

Crackersmack, are you saying that there's something wrong with flying on airplanes?

Are you saying that an actual crime other than flying on an airplane was committed?

If you ARE saying it, WHY DON'T YOU FUCKING SAY IT?

Because if you SAY that a crime was commited without any direct evidence, then you've crossed over into "crazy Qanon comet ping pong stuff". So instead we get the mealy-mouthed tactic of listing facts that aren't all that incriminating as if they were.

Unfortunately, you don't avoid the crazy ping p;ong conspiracy theories altogether:

>>>Qanon is a 'muddying the waters' tactic to create social pressure to turn the reality that many wealthy and powerful politicians and heads of industry were ensnared in a decades-long international human trafficking scheme run by Epstein into a fringe conspiracy theory that only a crazy person would believe.

>>>So that when someone points out the fact that, for example, Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express 26 times, and both Clintons spent time vacationing together at the Epstein's New Mexico ranch that he his 'baby making factory', a normie with minimal information will go 'oh that's that crazy Qanon comet ping pong stuff, this guy is nuts' instead of believing it.

You're literally saying that QAnon was dreamed up so that people wouldn't believe that Bill Clinton had flied on that airplane? Wait, what?

Or were they trying to cover up the embarrassing truth that Bill Clinton is so pussywhipped that he has to bring his wife to the underage sex orgy?

John I know that you find nothing wrong with what Epstein did, and would have eagerly accepted an invitation to fly on the Lolita Express, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong with human trafficking of children.

You

That was an accidental post, but I think that, in this case, it's a good enough response.


You

Oh, shit, I can't help myself.

>>>John I know that you find nothing wrong with what Epstein did,

Are we still talking about flying in an airplane?

>>>and would have eagerly accepted an invitation to fly on the Lolita Express

I'll be honest. I know I probably shouldn't admit this publicly, but Im sort of afraid to fly.

>>>but that doesn't mean that there isn't something wrong with human trafficking of children.

And now you're changing the subject, because up till now we've been talking about riding on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane.

Now, if you want to allege that Bill Clinton engaged in sex trafficking, you can always allege that, if you'd like to do that. As far as I know, it's something that could have happened, and we can talk about any evidence that you have, but words mean things, and in the world of English speaking people, "flew as a passenger on the sex trafficker's private jet", while certainly embarrassing, does not mean the same thing as "sex trafficking". Look it up.

Basically, you're engaging in the intellectually dishonest practice of making the leap from "flying" to "sex trafficking", by pretending there's no difference.

There's nothing about the idea of Bill Clinton flying on Jeffrey Epstein's jet that remotely approaches the level of bizarre or incriminating that would require people to believe that it's a crazy ping-pong conspiracy theory.

What you seem to have actually alleged, however, is that to distract from the stories of Bill Clinton flying on Bill Epstein's jet, someone has been spreading stories of Hillary Clinton sexually molesting children so she can murder them and drink their blood. I have to be honest, Crackersmack, to me that seems counterintuitive.

The real lunatics would not be a political force without this all the endless nudging and winking by bad faith trolls.

John why do you suppose the jet was referred to as the "Lolita express"?

>>>John why do you suppose the jet was referred to as the "Lolita express"?

And there it is, the noncommittal rhetorical question. It's how you argue when you don't t have an argument.

The sources for the " Lolita express" designation seem to vary. NEWSWEEK says it was the tabloid press (after the story broke). Someone else said it was "locals". It's hard to find a source, but it sure is quotable! Everybody sure knows about it NOW!

Here's a rhetorical question for YOU, Socrates:

When the Wall Street money man made the invitation to the former President of the United States do you suppose that the words 'Lolita Express" were mentioned? Was it painted on the side of the fucking plane?

John have you ever done weed edibles?

You

anybody hasn't*

It's one of the most saturated and covered topics on the internet.

The best source IMO is the qanon anonymous podcast guys. Literally journalists who go to every Q event and talk to them like human beings and ask them questions.

I appreciate that podcast because while they do have fun talking about the insanity, there's an undercurrent of treating them like people.

Q used to be one thing, but now it's gobbled up just about every conspiracy theory group that exists. Christians, nonchristians. Starchildren. Apocalyptic evangelicals. Reiki healers. Numerology pagans. Flat earthers. Hollow earthers. Matrix/simulation believers. People who think trump is actually JFK jr.

It's exactly as stupid as it seems and there's no hidden truth being masked by the clownshow. The clownshow is the reality of qanon. And like most conspiracy theories, some facts exist as the barest hints of credibility for the rest of the belief system.

Gmork thinks Q stands for Quiznos and it makes his stomach start grumbling

What could have possibly happened in 1964 to send crazy racists running to Republicans?

According to you, it was democrats hanging up a "southerners aren't pretty" sign.

OH, Nominal. I just can't quit you.

Word

Having written most of this thread, I can tell you that it's primarily me, completely destroying Crackersmack's facile dishonest argument, so completely that Crackersmack will be ashamed if he/she/they have any sense. Read it or dont read it. It was DEFINITELY worth writing!

Crackersmack countered by implying, etc again, that I'm a pedophile. TOUCHE, Cyrano!

I’m not asking for a tldr, I’m just stating my position

Perfectly valid.

Hahahahaha, smacked thinks he's people!