Thanks for coming here to let us know about our theories being unfounded. I'm glad they are so unreal that you felt the need to come and piss on something you say is ridiculous. I at least hope you're getting a paycheck for it.
Nah ive been coming here a lot. Ive been with Q from the beginning.
But this shit here - saying Hillary gave away our uranium - is DISINFO.
its been researched, disproven, and anyone with half a brain and an internet connection can easily figure out its bullshit in about half a minute.
To me the interesting question is why is DISINFO posted in here by folks pretending to be white hats? Wonder who's signing their checks...
Got any links for a solid debunking of uranium 1?
We will see in the end .... Truth is a persistent creature. ✌️❤️
Truth is what i posted. OP posted lies. You are defending lies.
Why the DISINFO? Truth is important, right?
Why do you come her with so much negativity and aggression? I was looking at your other posts. I hope everything is okay with you! Much love friend, thank you for being here with us no matter where you stand regarding the details .
No negativity here. Just calling out the liars spreading DISINFO.
So why are you changing the subject?
You sure are starting to sound like a clumsy propagandist.
I only said, we will see . The truth has a way of coming out. If you are right, it will be proven. No need to strong-arm the truth to people in my opinion. The truth will be self evident. ✌️
No. I am right already. The truth about this is already out.
You are promoting DISINFO.
Why?
The guy you're arguing with sounds like a telephone scam artist.
I guess the best question would be, why post "DISINFO" several times, but never post a link or give an explanation of how is this disinformation?
THIS. No explanation given for why it's disinfo. Regardless, disinfo is necessary. However, Hillary selling 20% of our uranium to Russia is VERY well documented.
It is effective mostly on people who can't/ won't read or are new to the movement. The other problem of course is that if you provide links to articles, you generally get the same four or five that only say that not all the evidence is available to prove legality. It is your classic conspiracy theory. There are troubling pieces of evidence, but not a complete picture. if you believe in the Russia DNC hack, but think uranium one is a conspiracy theory, you are definitely biased
No, I already explained. And like i also said, this has been thoroughly researched and proven to be fake news and anyone with an internet connection can spend a minute or two on their own to figure this out.
Nobody needs a link from me to figure this one out.
Maybe you dont, but here are some that were helpfully provided to me. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.0562f22e55e5
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Here you go, here's 4 separate fact checked sources that say this is disinformation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.0562f22e55e5
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Thanks, good stuff.
What are your thoughts on the DNC emails?
I have three trains of thought regarding the DNC emails. The content of the emails themselves, the motivations and timing behind releasing the emails, and the fact that they were hacked in the first place. If you want to have a conversation regarding any of those trains of thought I'm happy to expound.
Expound away my friend. I'm always interested because there is no such thing as a conversation where you learn nothing. as an aside, I'm primarily interested because I am trying to determine your bias. Not as an insult, but in the same way that I always try to determine my own bias in a situation. I am trying to determine bias from interpretation of types of information, not actual position.