>>510641103
> Lolita Express
The plane was never called the Lolita Express. The people who flew on that plane were not necessarily involved in sex with minors. Calling it Lolita Express implies that they were, which is just guilt by association. Yet we see journalists using this term all the time, as if it were true. The whole story is a tapestry of uncorroborated rumors, fantasies, wish fulfillment, coupled with crass desire to exploit the theme, to get clicks, make money and develop a career.
If you ask Epstein true believers for their evidence, they lash out at you. The ones who believe it most have the least evidence. They just know.
> It's common sense
> I don't have to explain it
> You must be a shill if you doubt it
I just saw a clip from WhatIsTruthTV (rumble) that claimed that children younger than teens were also involved. But the video provided no proof, no evidence, and went on a detour into the Franklin Scandal, and surmised that since this other guy offered kids 7 or 8 years old, Epstein must also have done so.
What kind of reasoning is that? It's not evidence-based. It's reckless. And it amounts to nothing. People have been turned into dogs chasing their own tail of thought. They don't even know what's real or well proven or made up. They don't know where they get their facts. They don't read books. They don't care to come across as anything but a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't people tire of this nonsense?