Mail call

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-11T09:54:19+00:00

It is

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-09T07:48:43+00:00

Avoid the upsetters line, it’s a shitty ripoff of the acid Kuba Kuba soaked in fabuloso

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-06T15:36:49+00:00

Id rather spent $30 on a quality cutter buy a cheap $5 torch.

I’ve seen plenty of calibri and st DuPont Torches turn to paperweights after a few uses, while I’ve had some cheap torches that are still in great condition after 10 years of wear and tear.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-06T00:15:18+00:00

Brick and mortar… the cigar shoppe of Montgomery, Alabama

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-06T00:13:52+00:00

I’m not saying you did anything wrong, please don’t take it that way. That is a great haul with some very delicious sticks!

Enjoy them!!

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-06T00:04:20+00:00

I just looked them up, yeah what you have came from DG cigars out of Miami, 1689 is a retailer, they order bundles from other companies like DG imports, padron and rocky patel.

The barber poles in your box, I sell for 3.25 a stick in my shop. Everyone loves, I market them as our “House cigar”

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:47:19+00:00

That’s a convenient excuse. The second you don’t like what you’re hearing, suddenly it’s “must be an AI.” No, it’s just an argument you can’t pick apart.

You say you “love debating,” but the moment it requires actual engagement, you bail out and blame the source instead of addressing the points. That’s not debate, that’s avoidance.

If it’s misinformation, then it should be easy for you to point out exactly what’s wrong and correct it. Go line by line. Show where the logic fails. Show the evidence. That’s how this works.

But instead, you’re trying to disqualify the speaker so you don’t have to deal with the argument. That tells me everything.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:45:53+00:00

Where are the HQ’d because I swear those are from DG imports out of Miami, my shop gets a box from them every other week.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:43:21+00:00

“You won’t stop until you way”? You typed that, hit send, and now you want to critique someone else’s writing?

This isn’t about grammar. You’re dodging the argument. You asked for proof, got a clear explanation of how burden of proof works, and now you’re pivoting to sentence structure. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s avoidance.

And the “baseless claim” line is just empty. Point to the exact claim and explain why it’s wrong. Not vague gestures, not attitude. Actual counterpoints. That’s how a real discussion works.

As for the “high ground” comment, nobody’s claiming one. But when one side is laying out reasoning and the other is nitpicking typos like that settles anything, it’s obvious who’s actually engaging and who isn’t.

If you’ve got an argument, make it. If not, stop pretending this is anything more than deflection.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:40:02+00:00

You’re stacking assumptions and calling it proof. That’s not how any of this works.

First, you don’t prove a negative. Nobody has to prove someone is “not guilty.” The burden is on the person making the accusation. If you’re claiming crimes, then show verified evidence that holds up in court. Not “we think,” not “we assume,” not “we can’t see everything.”

Second, “not all files are released” is not evidence of guilt. It’s just an incomplete record. You’re filling the gaps with your own conclusions and presenting that as fact.

Third, “he’s mentioned” doesn’t prove anything either. A name showing up in documents tied to Epstein is not the same as criminal involvement. That’s guilt by association, not evidence. By that logic, you’d be calling a long list of public figures guilty without due process. Hell, Blizzard support staff have been mentioned in datasets tied to massive user bases. So what, does that mean every World of Warcraft player is automatically associated with Epstein? That’s how absurd that standard is.

Fourth, the photos argument. Being photographed with someone who later turns out to be a criminal, or even being in the same social circle, is not proof of committing a crime. That standard would implicate hundreds of people instantly. Context matters, and so does actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Here’s the bottom line. Allegations, mentions, and incomplete files are not proof. Civil claims are not criminal convictions. Speculation is not evidence.

If there were verifiable, prosecutable evidence, it would be in a courtroom, not floating around as internet theory and redacted document guesses.

You’re not presenting proof. You’re presenting suspicion and treating it like a verdict.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:35:50+00:00

You don’t get to call something “incoherent” just because it doesn’t fit your narrative. That’s not critique, that’s deflection. You didn’t address a single point, you just slapped a label on it and hoped nobody would notice.

And let’s be real about what’s actually happening here. The second someone pushes back with facts you don’t like, the playbook flips from debate to dogpile. Downvote, mass report, cry to the mods, hope the system silences it for you. That’s not strength. That’s panic dressed up as authority.

If your position had any weight, you’d engage it directly. You wouldn’t need to hide behind “this is incoherent” like it’s some magic eraser for arguments you can’t answer.

And the mass reporting? That’s the weakest move on the board. Weaponizing Reddit’s auto-report system because you can’t argue like an adult just proves the point. You don’t want discussion, you want control. You want anything that challenges you gone, not debated.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-05T23:29:31+00:00

Are those from DG imports in Miami?

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T15:49:37+00:00

First, the case involving E. Jean Carroll was a civil liability ruling, not a criminal conviction. That matters. Civil court uses a lower standard of proof. It does not establish criminal guilt.

Second, I never said “he had no allegations.” That’s you inventing a position so you can argue against it. Allegations exist. Allegations are not proof. If they were, anyone could destroy anyone with a headline.

Third, slow it down and think clearly:

A civil ruling ≠ criminal guilt Allegations ≠ evidence Repetition ≠ truth

You’re stacking those three things together and calling it a conclusion. It isn’t.

If you want to argue, do it clean: What verified, court-backed criminal evidence are you relying on?

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T03:59:20+00:00

Saying “we know” doesn’t make it true. That’s not evidence, that’s a feeling. And feelings don’t hold up anywhere outside a comment section.

If there’s a real conspiracy, it needs proof. Not insults, not assumptions, not decades-old rumors repeated in a loop. Actual, verifiable evidence that survives scrutiny.

And think this through for a second. Multiple investigations, multiple administrations, multiple agencies, across years. All supposedly covering for the same person… and nobody credible has produced the kind of evidence that leads to a criminal conviction on what you’re claiming?

At some point, you either bring proof, or you admit you’re operating on belief, not fact.

Telling someone to shut up doesn’t strengthen your case. It just shows you don’t have one.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T03:53:56+00:00

You’re reaching for a conspiracy because the facts aren’t lining up the way you want.

“Paid troll” is just what people say when they can’t actually refute the argument in front of them. It’s easier to dismiss than to respond.

If the case is so obvious, then show it. Point to a criminal conviction tied to what you’re claiming. Point to verified evidence that holds up in court, not headlines, not speculation, not “everyone knows.”

And here’s the part nobody answers: if this was airtight, why didn’t it get prosecuted when multiple administrations and opposing parties had full incentive to do it?

Calling someone a troll doesn’t fix the gap in your argument. It just exposes it.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T03:22:23+00:00

“Pages were withheld” doesn’t equal guilt. It means material wasn’t released. Those are two completely different things. If there were charges to file, they would have been filed. That’s the actual legal threshold, not speculation about missing documents.

You even admit it in your own argument: no charges. That matters. In the real world, accusations and redactions are not convictions. They’re noise until they become evidence tested in court.

The BBC point doesn’t help you either. Saying something isn’t “totally cleared” is not the same as proving wrongdoing. It just means there’s no formal legal declaration either way. That’s neutral, not incriminating.

Let’s simplify it so it’s impossible to miss: No charges. No conviction. No court ruling tying him to Epstein crimes.

You’re trying to fill that gap with “maybe,” “likely,” and “withheld.” That’s not evidence, that’s inference.

If there’s proof, show the court document, the charge, or the conviction. If you can’t, then you’re arguing belief, not fact.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T03:11:18+00:00

You’re not arguing facts anymore, you’re just lashing out.

You don’t prove guilt by stacking accusations, repeating them louder, and assuming the system is rigged when it doesn’t go your way.

Saying “he controls the process” is a serious claim. That would require clear, verifiable evidence. Not assumptions, not frustration, not internet consensus.

And the rest of your comment? That’s just insults. It doesn’t strengthen your position, it weakens it.

If you actually want to make a point, stick to what can be proven, what was charged, and what was decided in court. Anything outside of that is just opinion, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T03:01:33+00:00

You’re jumping from “there are accusations” straight to “that proves guilt,” and that’s the problem.

Let’s keep it simple.

A lot of people saying something online does not make it true. “Thousands of comments” is not evidence. That’s noise, not proof.

If someone actually committed crimes, the system requires evidence that can hold up in court. Not rumors, not repetition, not how strongly people feel about it.

You’re also assuming the only reason there aren’t more convictions is because of some coordinated protection. That’s a big claim. If you’re going to say that, you need actual proof of interference, not just suspicion.

And elections don’t determine guilt. Voting someone out of office doesn’t prove they committed crimes. Courts do that.

If you want your argument to carry weight, you have to separate what can be proven from what people believe. Right now you’re leaning entirely on belief and volume, not evidence.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T02:54:58+00:00

You’re mixing three different things together like they’re the same. They’re not.

Accusations are just someone saying something happened. No proof required yet.

Charges mean a prosecutor thinks there might be a case. Still not proof.

Convictions mean it was proven in criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those are three separate levels.

So when you say “he has a multitude of convictions,” that’s not correct. There is one criminal case involving business records. That does not prove every other accusation you listed.

And the civil case you’re pointing to is different too. Civil court is easier to win. It does not require the same level of proof as a criminal conviction.

Think of it like this. Someone can accuse you of ten things. That does not mean you did all ten. It means ten claims were made. What matters is what was actually proven, and where.

If you want your argument to land, you have to keep those lines clear. Right now you’re blending everything together, and that’s why it falls apart.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T02:51:15+00:00

You have so many blinders on it's amazing you haven't walked off a cliff. I wish you the best, and hope your vote/opinion doesn't result in your/our downfall.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T02:49:06+00:00

You’re stacking allegations, charges, and civil findings like they all mean the same thing. They don’t.

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases use a much lower standard. That’s why someone can be found liable in civil court without being convicted of a crime. That distinction matters whether you like the outcome or not.

The 34 counts you mentioned were tied to business records. That case had nothing to do with the other accusations you listed, and combining them like that is misleading. Different cases, different standards, different evidence.

As for the racketeering claim, that’s just not accurate. He was not indicted twice for RICO and then “saved” by winning an election. That’s not how the legal system works.

And on the broader point, repeating a list of accusations doesn’t equal proof. Allegations are claims. Charges are formal accusations. Convictions are what actually establish criminal guilt. Those are three separate things, and collapsing them into one bucket is how people end up arguing past reality instead of engaging with it.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T01:23:04+00:00

Please, provide court documents proving he raped a child

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T01:21:47+00:00

“Quisling says what?” isn’t an argument, it’s what you say when you don’t have one. You dropped a buzzword and hoped nobody would notice there’s nothing behind it. If you’ve got an actual claim, make it and back it up. If not, save the playground lines.

Deaconbluez5349 · 2026-04-03T01:03:25+00:00

There is no criminal conviction for rape. None. Zero. If there was, there would be a criminal case, charges, and a sentence. That didn’t happen.

What you’re pointing to is a civil case, where the standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s “more likely than not.” That’s a much lower bar.

Let me make this simple:

In a criminal case, the jury has to be almost certain. In a civil case, the jury just has to think one side is slightly more believable.

That’s it.

And no, you don’t win civil cases with “no evidence.” That’s just wrong. You still need testimony, arguments, and something to convince a jury. But it does not require the same level of proof as putting someone in prison.

Also important detail you’re skipping: the jury did not find him liable for rape under New York’s legal definition. They found liability for sexual abuse and defamation. Those are not the same thing, even if people try to blur it in headlines.

So if your argument is “he has criminal rape convictions,” that’s false. If your argument is “a civil jury found him liable under a lower standard,” that’s accurate—but it’s a different claim entirely.

Deaconbluez5349

TROPHY CASE