>>1728785 lb

You want proof about an argument I had with BO and Baker? Sorry, don't have it handy but it is in the breads. Do you really want me to provide proofs as conversations from every single day that this larp came here and others said they followed him? Do you really want me to shit up the bread with dozens of proofs showing what a larp he is? You really expect me to have proofs that other anons from here did believe him? I could go back and look thru breads where he was indeed in the notables, but I am not going to waste my time doing that. You want the proof, go back and look for your self. He created his first account (BC17) in Mid April. The 18th, I think. He created ETS right after Q exposed his -23 password. He created AlicefulTruth last week. He has pushed the JA = BC17, This Alice narrative constantly. Ever wonder what brought up this Alice in Wonderland narrative lately? Or JA?

You actually can verify what I've said. Whether you want to or not is up to you because I don't care one way or another. I am not arguing with you anon. You made statements and I countered them. Do what you will with it. My last post on the subject.

>>1729003

Not logical given the context of Q's drop.

>>1729018

Since when did Q need to confirm anything for it to be notable?

>>1729035

A Republican Majority vs. "the full weight of the House" (Dems and Rep's).

A Republican Majority is needed to bring a measure to the floor for a vote since Rep's control the House and Senate. By control, I mean Rep's have the majority.

>>1729077

I'm going to ask again. Since when has Q confirmed anything?????????

Especially for it to be a notable? Show me one thing in notables currently Q has confirmed!!!!

>>1729099

I'm afraid it is going to beat to death and back. Just like "watch the water" and a few others.

But, every time someone posts something stupid like ARM Co that has absolutely nothing to do with Q's drop, I might point out the lack of logic.

>>1729125

Sure that wasn't the baker?

>>1729116

They are exactly the issue here. Are you stoopid?

>>1729181

Apparently I read a hell of a lot more than you do.

Look at notables and show me where Q has EVER needed to confirm for them to be included. I'll wait.

>>1729158

I checked. You are right. Was not baker.

>>1729213

Maybe a bot, maybe not. But I happen to agree with it. It is the only thing that fits with Q's drop. Not one of the other acronym's fit in with need a Republican majority.

>>1729283

The you jumped into a conversation without reading the back end of it. Anon did indeed claim Q must confirm something for it to be notable. That is 100% false. I am done arguing about it. With all the shill bakers we've had, notables are mostly a joke anyway.

>>1729317

Then my apologies anon and thanks…:)