You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Why are people posting stuff that is supposedly attributed to wikileaks and then not posting to wikileaks. So far I have seen nothing from wikileaks regarding child trafficking by the Clintons. If you have something from there, then I would love to see it. Really, I would.
So far the best that I have seen about the child trafficking is conjecture from websites that are half-way reputable. The worst is shit in all caps talking about definitive proof that Clinton runs a trafficking ring, and all they have to go on is a 4 chan post from last year.
This shit belongs in the conspiracy theory subverse.
That's great if they are. What OP can do in that case is come back and say that wikileaks has proof of conspiracy theory x, and actually link it to wikileaks' proof.
This is the tenth fucking time today that I see a headline saying that wikileaks has proof of child trafficking in the Clinton Foundation. I click on the link, and it's just some dumbass with a blog posting his reaction to screencaps from /pol/ that were taken a year ago. Nothing has come of it yet. 4 chan is not a reputable news source. They are often news makers, but there are also many trolls and anarchists on the site.
Sort: Top
[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Why are people posting stuff that is supposedly attributed to wikileaks and then not posting to wikileaks. So far I have seen nothing from wikileaks regarding child trafficking by the Clintons. If you have something from there, then I would love to see it. Really, I would.
So far the best that I have seen about the child trafficking is conjecture from websites that are half-way reputable. The worst is shit in all caps talking about definitive proof that Clinton runs a trafficking ring, and all they have to go on is a 4 chan post from last year.
This shit belongs in the conspiracy theory subverse.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's great if they are. What OP can do in that case is come back and say that wikileaks has proof of conspiracy theory x, and actually link it to wikileaks' proof.
This is the tenth fucking time today that I see a headline saying that wikileaks has proof of child trafficking in the Clinton Foundation. I click on the link, and it's just some dumbass with a blog posting his reaction to screencaps from /pol/ that were taken a year ago. Nothing has come of it yet. 4 chan is not a reputable news source. They are often news makers, but there are also many trolls and anarchists on the site.
[–] aboutime 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
what pedophile island?
[–] lord_nougat ago
Oh, don't act all innocent, like you don't know, pedo!