-1
MagaPede69 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Uh oh, I sure hope this doesn't affect any of our Russian friends who frequent this forum...

2
MagaPede69 2 points ago +3 / -1

This is an angle of the conspiracy I'm surprised I don't read more about. It actually makes a lot more sense than a lot of the ideas thrown around here and elsewhere about the virus if you think about it. Use propaganda to convince political rivals that safety measures don't work or are unnecessary, treatment options are bogus or that the virus doesn't exist at all. Line up to watch the old, fat white Republican men die in droves... It's brilliant.

-5
MagaPede69 -5 points ago +4 / -9

The Clintons haven't had an ounce of political influence or power in like six years. What's the obsession? At least Trump is somewhat likely to run again or at the very least be the Republican kingmaker in 2024. No one but the fundies give a shit about the has-been Clintons.

2
MagaPede69 2 points ago +3 / -1

I’m seeing an unhealthy amount of skepticism, belligerence, paranoia, disbelief that anything positive will ever happen again—- Just moody fucking bitches, to speak frankly.

First time in a conspiracy forum?

-3
MagaPede69 -3 points ago +3 / -6

Insurance, bank and tax fraud is the start. Misappropriation of campaign funds, campaign finance violations, election interference and so much more!

2
MagaPede69 2 points ago +3 / -1

You mean people aren't cleaning out their bank accounts for Trump anymore? I guess the tards got wise.

2
MagaPede69 2 points ago +4 / -2

Sad there's still people out there who think Vaccine Daddy is somehow going to make a comeback.

3
MagaPede69 3 points ago +4 / -1

That's silly. Like, an honest to God retard can't type on a keyboard. Seriously.

2
MagaPede69 2 points ago +4 / -2

I'm back, baby! I will not be silenced by those with closed minds and agendas.

-1
MagaPede69 -1 points ago +4 / -5

What are the odds that someone insane enough to molest children would also make shit up about a politician he doesn't like?

1
MagaPede69 1 point ago +3 / -2

So, you acknowledge that the article is factually true. Cool.

1
MagaPede69 1 point ago +3 / -2

So, you admit the content of the article is factually accurate. Cool.

1
MagaPede69 1 point ago +3 / -2

So, you admit the content of the article is factually accurate. Cool.

-1
MagaPede69 -1 points ago +3 / -4

You know you're right when the only defense is attacking the credibility of a source.

Let's take the Washington Post piece I shared, for instance. Was Thomas J. Barrack not arrested? Is he not a billionaire? Does the indictment against him not accuse him of being an agent for the UAE? What in that article is factually inaccurate?

Just because you don't like the news doesn't mean the news isn't real, friend.

view more: Next ›