Previous Bread:

>>2472860

TY for this, anon. This might come in real handy, later on, for redpilling effects.

There's a particular twitter handle you might be interested in debating. Her name is:

@GingerMcQueen

Carried the argument all the way to Ex Parte Milligan with her. I'm not a lawfag, by any means, but I understand a thing or two, and love having these conversations with actual lawfags that understand it. She could really benefit from some redpilling, but I honestly thing there are those that are MAGA and 10000% anti-Q for a reason. Not sure if many of them are paid to do it or not, yet. At any rate, many of them value logic and reason above all else.

>>2473459

>also why are the shils trying so hard today

Their end is nigh. Push a sheep up against the edge of a cliff. Does it stand there and take it, or does it push back? Ask a Kiwi. They know for a fact.

>Sorry, NZ; couldn't resist…

>>2473463

>persuasion

This is exactly what's happening.

>>2473499

>>2473574

Me too. Hence this piece of magic:

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/613619.html#614093

>You are learning.

>How many coincidences before it becomes mathematically impossible?

>Wait until you learn who has been talking to you here.

>Q

Just sayin'. The reveal is part of it. Trump's answer is going to infuriate some, though. It's going to be a total non-confirmation like "We all are". I would be absolutely blown away if his answer is "Q is a group of wonderful anonymous people that work directly in coordination with the office of the President of the United States to discover the truth using fact-based deductive reasoning skills."

Yeah; that would floor me, actually.