>>257368

I still think it was either the Bushs or perhaps the Clintons. In a grand scheme of old money, both are supremely old, granted (Clinton is new power, for sure, so seems minor on a lot of ways) But the Bushs had a lot of reach in quiet ways, and their money did go back into dark circles… Rockefeller had been waning and the croaking may have been the last of it, because you won't hear the name mentioned anymore in society circles, but that one really didn't fir. It's more about who exerts influence in current times (near past and influential)

With the election of DJT over a Bush (Jeb) and their extended family, the Clintons they were neutralized in political power. Make sense to anyone but me?

>>257475

Well, I consider the Saudi tie, the old money of PB to people like the R's and GS. It's one of many links. We pretended we had a two party system with the sham of GHWB>WBC>GHB>Obama. It was an illusion that we as a populace had say because so much was actually done behind the scenes. They became emboldened with the thought of "centrists", or people that are issue driven vs party affiliation and they hid what they were doing less, under the guise of cooperation, etc., A subtle mindfuck, really. Made it easier for each belief system to accept the other when they transferred it back and forth.

>>257485

I am going to admit I didn't read any threads from when I logged at about 11:00 est to when I came in an hour ago. Didn't see a point because it was neck deep in seriously good sliders and fuckery. We all get distracted or off track and want to share, and we all know there are many points of interests that may tie back in and have to discuss it with peers to "bounce" stuff, but the caliber of shills has risen significantly. It is either that, or it is a lot of new people nattering like old women. I was filtering so heavily (unusual for me) that I would go minutes without new responses and thought the board was broken. Its harder for people like me - that were already on the chans when Q began this adventure and have seen so many repetitions of the cycles- to be tolerant on some days and I glaze a lot at the very obvious dumb teen ager tricks like HEY 4,10,20 GUEYS or I FOUND A BRACKETED MESSAGE… Reading any archive of early days (like a good researcher would or even someone with three braincells would know that we would have found it and wouldn't ask.

If a mod is working in the background to cut the bullshit, they do not have to announce themselves. That is merely enforcement by presence, like a cop. It works a little when Charger George shows up, but it also gets the stick pokers to try harder and fuck stuff up.

So I take it someone came in and did a sweep? It would not be nor ever will be Q. To do that they would have to be given the ability and that would then create a trail of sorts. Not going to happen. Just letting those pushing that thought. Not happening. The gore porners, and tranny porners, and anti semites and anti church and people that are actually filling a thread with arguments between themselves will come and they will go. They wre huge last night though. Any real anon getting drug into the conversation and responding is complicit to the problem and pretty quickly be called a shill for allowing their emotions to over rule their logic circuits.

>>257623

I'll bite for the moment after reviewing all of your posts. You present a devils advocate argument and some actual true statements, with a twist. We do notknow in total how many FISAs there really were. That is fact. They have selectively chosen these to talk about. I believe this was intentional for two purposes: 1. to discuss the others at this time would possibly step on top of Mueller and would indeed me a violation and 2. to make people point out your exact statement and begin to ask the questoins so that it no longer looks like a targeted witch hunt and smear campaign by Trumpers. It is the natural thing to do. Ask the questions you are. Without the data, the eveidence of it ALL, how will we ever really, truly know?

Are they that smart to set the table? Well… they have been doing it now for months because rabid liberals that think emotionally and blindly (as would conservatives be, btw, in different settings) will run right in to try and tear it down with "Proof". All I can say about your potentially inflammatory request to dig more is: Yup. We need to dig more. And in cases we cannot because it's classified and we need the government to do it for us, we have to make them. Speculation will do us good only in that it satisfies an emotional need to and connect dots we do not have visuals on.

>>257697

This is where yo strt to look like a shill because it doesn't matter whether they showed up yesterday. Yo ask for critical thinking then go to a stupid emotional tear down. There are no sides here except the truth. Who fucking cares if they showed up. Do you need your god damned cookie? I get yur big post and can take it for what it is worth in the overall fashion, but this ... muddles your message completely unless it's just cult busting. I know a couple of halfway decent YTers that are on this crusade. It is not your job to save these people. You know that. I am not going to dox you, but your questions directly echo those of one in particular. So either you are in That person's cult and NOT a free thinker, or you are them and should be ashamed of yourself for being a hypocrite.

>>257802

Look, I am all for free speech, etc. But I think everyone needs to become very familiar with the whole scope of this. A company is not the government. With a simple TOS they can and do restrict your ability to have free speech. You AGREE as a user of their service to abide by their TOS at this time. If we support a Christian Baker not making a cake for butthumpers then we have to support butthumper baristas from not serving to Christians Art is subjective, after all, right? What you are actually all pushing for is nationalization of these companies in order to truly "protect free speech under the constitution." You realize that, right? Otherwise, you must allow market forces to work in this. They censure you, go somewhere else. If they are too big to go somewhere else, well now we have to force them to change their terms of service, and prove that they are abiding by them (thank you Project Veritas!!!) and that would mean regulation or auditability. You need to figure out what you want and define it, if someone hasn't already. If someone has, hitch to them and concentrate the effort. A true bill of rights would allow for the David Dukes and PETA freaks (just being fair) to all be able to say what they want. I have the right and responsibility to read or not read, and to be given credit for making up my own mind. This constant manipulation of people with fancy words and implying they are easily influenced or stupid goes both ways people.

>>257874

Not JA. sigh. I retract my stupid people and being able to read comment. I am all for censure-ship… NOT! I will harangue people that do not read. If you do not pay attention, you deserve what you get