45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[_dobbo_]

scherzkeks said:

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

Sure, Russia is needed to undermine the current administration. Because other than that it's all going perfectly.

Russia is a side show, Trump is making sure of that by being Trump.

[Byker28i]

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Another blow to Russia Truthers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/ch...

Must be hard being so gullible.

May 18th, that will be interesting. People with real info are interview. Not us amateur sleuths on a forum with no real inside knowledge.

You've coopted the argument that I made many posts ago when responding to one of our resident Russia Truthers.

The overriding point behind many of my posts on this issue is that the Truther set has yet to provide a shred of proof. All we have are allegations of "ties" "hacking" etc. The language used is purposefully vauge, ofc.

All of this is conjecture until solid evidence is provided, from verifiable sources.

I suspect it will not be, as it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy. In other words, politics.

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

You know it's all about the money. The russians have channeled cash to the Donald for some time to make him appear as a valid businessman, couldn't believe their luck when he was elected. I've no doubt the kompromat material includes all those transactions.

[scherzkeks]

Byker28i said:

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Another blow to Russia Truthers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/ch...

Must be hard being so gullible.

May 18th, that will be interesting. People with real info are interview. Not us amateur sleuths on a forum with no real inside knowledge.

You've coopted the argument that I made many posts ago when responding to one of our resident Russia Truthers.

The overriding point behind many of my posts on this issue is that the Truther set has yet to provide a shred of proof. All we have are allegations of "ties" "hacking" etc. The language used is purposefully vauge, ofc.

All of this is conjecture until solid evidence is provided, from verifiable sources.

I suspect it will not be, as it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy. In other words, politics.

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

You know it's all about the money. The russians have channeled cash to the Donald for some time to make him appear as a valid businessman, couldn't believe their luck when he was elected. I've no doubt the kompromat material includes all those transactions.

Kindly ask Loony Louise to provide it for us.

I'll also be needing an update on Federation Agent Jill Stein's and Rand Paul's latest activities, if she's got a second to spare.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Another blow to Russia Truthers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/ch...

Must be hard being so gullible.

May 18th, that will be interesting. People with real info are interview. Not us amateur sleuths on a forum with no real inside knowledge.

You've coopted the argument that I made many posts ago when responding to one of our resident Russia Truthers.

The overriding point behind many of my posts on this issue is that the Truther set has yet to provide a shred of proof. All we have are allegations of "ties" "hacking" etc. The language used is purposefully vague, ofc.

All of this is conjecture until solid evidence is provided, from verifiable sources.

I suspect it will not be, as it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy. In other words, politics.

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 26th April 11:03

Not seen any "Russian Truthers" posting on here. There are plenty of us who are interested in the "Russian Rumours" and are waiting to hear what, if anything, the investigations will find.
We already know that a few members of Trump's team have failed to properly report business dealings and contacts with Russians - those are facts which I think even you would accept. What the impact and influence of those have been (if any) is a separate matter.

[minimoog]

Eric Mc said:

I would suggest the best way to handle his posts is simply to ignore them,

I knew you'd get there in the end.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Another blow to Russia Truthers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/ch...

Must be hard being so gullible.

May 18th, that will be interesting. People with real info are interview. Not us amateur sleuths on a forum with no real inside knowledge.

You've coopted the argument that I made many posts ago when responding to one of our resident Russia Truthers.

The overriding point behind many of my posts on this issue is that the Truther set has yet to provide a shred of proof. All we have are allegations of "ties" "hacking" etc. The language used is purposefully vague, ofc.

All of this is conjecture until solid evidence is provided, from verifiable sources.

I suspect it will not be, as it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy. In other words, politics.

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 26th April 11:03

Not seen any "Russian Truthers" posting on here. There are plenty of us who are interested in the "Russian Rumours" and are waiting to hear what, if anything, the investigations will find.

When you have proof rather than conspiracy theories, we may find common ground.

Unitl then, watching you play with language is almost as funny as the narratives being bandied about.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

jmorgan said:

scherzkeks said:

Another blow to Russia Truthers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/ch...

Must be hard being so gullible.

May 18th, that will be interesting. People with real info are interview. Not us amateur sleuths on a forum with no real inside knowledge.

You've coopted the argument that I made many posts ago when responding to one of our resident Russia Truthers.

The overriding point behind many of my posts on this issue is that the Truther set has yet to provide a shred of proof. All we have are allegations of "ties" "hacking" etc. The language used is purposefully vague, ofc.

All of this is conjecture until solid evidence is provided, from verifiable sources.

I suspect it will not be, as it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy. In other words, politics.

Hillary lost, and this is a strategy being employed to both undermine the current admin. and explain her campaign's ineptitude. It's also a throwback to a painfully embarassing point in our past.

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 26th April 11:03

Not seen any "Russian Truthers" posting on here. There are plenty of us who are interested in the "Russian Rumours" and are waiting to hear what, if anything, the investigations will find.

When you have proof rather than conspiracy theories, we may find common ground.

Unitl then, watching you play with language is almost as funny as the narratives being bandied about.

The only one I see playing with language appears to be the person inventing new spellings of words around here..

[anonymous-user]

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

[p1stonhead]

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Stop being mean to him. He cant possibly say any of those happened because he 'doesnt know enough about them'

[scherzkeks]

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.


Greg the cuck.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.

Greg the cuck.

Simple question for you (again) scherzkeks. I've asked you several times - do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened ?

[anonymous-user]

scherzkeks said:

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.

So much dishonesty in a single line.

Sigh.

[scherzkeks]

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.

So much dishonesty in a single line.

Sigh.

If only you could delete it.

Too bad, so sad.

[Disastrous]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.

Greg the cuck.

Simple question for you (again) scherzkeks. I've asked you several times - do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened ?

I'd love it if this thread ground to a halt and every contributor just copied and pasted the same question until he gives a yes or no answer.

"Scherzeks, do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened, yes or no?"

And repeat

[p1stonhead]

Disastrous said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

Greg66 said:

scherzkeks said:

it has all the markings of a baseless conspiracy.

In which case you should be totally onboard with it.

911, Sandy Hook...

The moon landings?

Might sound convincing, except that you already admitted that I have never posted a conspiracy theory on any of those.

Greg the cuck.

Simple question for you (again) scherzkeks. I've asked you several times - do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened ?

I'd love it if this thread ground to a halt and every contributor just copied and pasted the same question until he gives a yes or no answer.

"Scherzeks, do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened, yes or no?"

And repeat

Tim Farron knows how it feels

[SilverSixer]

p1stonhead said:

Tim Farron knows how it feels

At least he's answered the question, finally.

[Hugo a Gogo]

freefall

[schmunk]

Scherzkeks, do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened, yes or no?

[Byker28i]

schmunk said:

Scherzkeks, do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened, yes or no?

Do we need to add the Bowling Green Massacre as well?

[Disastrous]

boxxob said:

rscott said:

Simple question for you (again) scherzkeks. I've asked you several times - do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened ?

I see, so anyone mentions clinton or obama, regardless of context or historical relevance, and it's a diversion from the thread's topic. Half a dozen posters spend most of their time engaged in personal attacks on one other poster and it's perfectibility acceptable?

OT but 'perfectibility' should be a word!

Scherzkeks, do you believe the Sandy Hook shooting happened, yes or no?