Anonymous ID: 2c091d Dec. 12, 2017, 12:27 p.m. No.81624   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1703

>>81596

Ok, was that so hard to include? No one on here knows who each other is, so no sense in getting offended if someone is skeptical. There’s been a shit ton of Q posts, and a shit ton of shills junking up the threads; sometimes it’s hard to tell who is legit and who isn’t, especially if you happen to miss a post or don’t remember. Chill

Anonymous ID: 2c091d Dec. 12, 2017, 12:38 p.m. No.81672   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1685 >>1706

>>81669

Using that picture doesn’t work. Trump has pictures with Weinstein as well. Not saying anything in regards to that, but it will invalidate your point and people can just throw him without a trump back at you. Just something to think about

Anonymous ID: 2c091d Dec. 12, 2017, 12:40 p.m. No.81685   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>81672

Damn, anyone else notice your autocorrect screwing up more lately? That was supposed to say ‘with Trump’ not ‘without Trump’

Anonymous ID: 2c091d Dec. 12, 2017, 12:52 p.m. No.81747   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>81678

I mean, I can see how people are taking it that way. I can understand why he may have posted that, but I won’t lie and say there’s not a part of me that was a bit frustrated he took it there with those particular words. Sometimes certain things can make it harderer for the overall cause. But, at the same time, I also don’t know exactly how much info will be available to the public and clarified after this is all said and done.

Anonymous ID: 2c091d Dec. 12, 2017, 1:36 p.m. No.81926   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1933

>>81902

Yeah, I guess I can see that. I was a bit frustrated in his choice of words, but they’re also taking advantage of women who are finally standing up for themselves in legitimate circumstances and using that momentum for their own agenda to hide the corruption. And it’s also getting easier and easier to see what their next move is going to be.