Anonymous ID: 44f7d7 Jan. 10, 2024, 9:31 p.m. No.20223910   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>3918

>>20223824

 

You've redefined both Vivek's (purported) plan and what would happen under Trump, but both are debatable.

 

Firing 75% is something I heard. That's not the same thing some people would hear when you say 'smashing things.'

 

Past history may not be indicative of future results. But Barr may not be what many hear when you say 'moral constitutionalist โ€ฆ quietly weeds out commie bad agents.'

 

Set all that aside, what is the best way to solve and ensure 'never happens again'

 

Probably depends how deep you believe it goes. Which in my experience, depends how much research you've done.

Anonymous ID: 44f7d7 Jan. 10, 2024, 9:41 p.m. No.20223953   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4023

>>20223888

 

I'm devils advocating so

 

It's not gratification it's information needed to plan my family's future

 

Hope or none? Or where in between? Plan or no? Votes count or don't? Trump or not? Flip or no? If it depends on faith in a relationship between three letter comped Twitter posts (which any internal employee could stall?) and a clock that I cannot verify the provenance of, how exactly is any of this for my greater good as an individual?

Anonymous ID: 44f7d7 Jan. 10, 2024, 9:51 p.m. No.20224014   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4037

>>20223974

 

So a computer algorithm could reverse engineer the code, and even determine the markers, but an anon needs someone to explain it, and even then probably won't understand. And for those who understand how to read it, nothing can be concluded except that the marker is verified. Possibly some reasonable guesses about what might be big news later. What am I missing

Anonymous ID: 44f7d7 Jan. 10, 2024, 9:55 p.m. No.20224033   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>4043

>>20224015

 

That would be for plausible deniability, so that when all the anons figure out the code through trial and error and use it to know beyond mathematical probability that Q isโ€ฆ using a code for some reasonโ€ฆ then they couldn't prove it without looking as sketchy as the clockfag