Uh oh, I sure hope this doesn't affect any of our Russian friends who frequent this forum...
Definitely Trump and Putin.
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.
I don't know that I would call Trump cultists "patriots." I think "seditious traitors" fits their vibes better.
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.
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?
Why would anyone want to be a mod here? Shilling for Russia full time can't be good for the soul.
He sounds and looks so nervous.
Insurance, bank and tax fraud is the start. Misappropriation of campaign funds, campaign finance violations, election interference and so much more!
You mean people aren't cleaning out their bank accounts for Trump anymore? I guess the tards got wise.
Do blocks work now?
Trump truly is the worst president of all time.
Sad there's still people out there who think Vaccine Daddy is somehow going to make a comeback.
That's silly. Like, an honest to God retard can't type on a keyboard. Seriously.
More embarrassment from the former criminal in chief.
I'm back, baby! I will not be silenced by those with closed minds and agendas.
What are Republicans trying to hide?
What are the odds that someone insane enough to molest children would also make shit up about a politician he doesn't like?
So, you acknowledge that the article is factually true. Cool.
So, you admit the content of the article is factually accurate. Cool.
So, you admit the content of the article is factually accurate. Cool.
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.
I read everything.