>>3988759 (lb)

>if you’ve been here long enough you’d understand this board is looking more like the CNN comment section everyday. There is no questioning ANYTHING. You’d think at the very least we’d have made some real progress

You're not questioning anything. You're playing the CNN role yourself by making a blanket statement with 0 supporting factual evidence. It's faggots like you who are making it look like CNN btw - and I've been around since day 1 so quit attempting an appeal to authority which, clearly, you cannot yourself support.

So,yeah, you glow. Bye.

>>3988892

>>3988759 (lb)

>if you’ve been here long enough you’d understand this board is looking more like the CNN comment section everyday. There is no questioning ANYTHING. You’d think at the very least we’d have made some real progress

You're not questioning anything. You're playing the CNN role yourself by making a blanket statement with 0 supporting factual evidence. It's faggots like you who are making it look like CNN btw - and I've been around since day 1 so quit attempting an appeal to authority which, clearly, you cannot yourself support.

So,yeah, you glow. Bye.

Oh - and that's 2 logical fallacies so far. Going to try and hit them all? I suspect ad hominem is up next…

>>3989020

Seems likely Soros involvement with FB - and FB's subsequent op-research on him is directly a result of a) Soros recognizing just how bad things are gonna get for FB and b) using that knowledge, as well as some likely other insider-ey info to 'pump n dump' as well as also make large margin-calls.

FB saw this early and tried to get some info on him to get him to quit further-fucking FB.

It didn't work.

>>3989099

meh. Digits suggest I"m close but not quite on the mark :\

>>3989169

The best part of this POTUS-Twat is the visible response.

Totally tone deaf and 100% clearly a triggered bot-script.

>>3989193

ooh!

I wonder how many other POTUS tweets we could find that the respondants (pushed to the top of the stack by twatter) clearly out themselves as automated responses via bot scripts due to missing the mark of the actual topic and claerly just hitting on key words.

>>3989268

be wary of exact dates.

giving an exact date and then nothing happening damages us exactly 0% in the grand scheme of things.

Giving an exact date does however cause (((them))) to fall all over themselves in an attempt to respond or be prepared to respond.

Giving an exact date where nothing happens does nearly as much damage to (((them))) and sometimes more! than giving the same date and pulling the trigger.

'this' is why disinfo is necessary.