>>4292805 lb, re: >>4292620 lb
>I will remember that we don't speculate here.
>Of course it is speculation.
I think you mistook my meaning, anon. My post was directed at nominator, not you. I didn't say not to speculate, or that speculation was bad. It's in fact a critical function of the autists here.
I was describing criteria for making something notable. I think it's important we do that systematically because notables are something shills like to exploit. Bakers are a gatekeeper/choke point, one of the few specific targets shills can create arguments and division around – it's been the most constant shilling tactic since the beginning. They tried to go after BO and the BV's and they just can't, our mods are solid af and we're too unified behind them. It's bakers and notables that take the most direct attention. The more we remove notable selection from the subjective, and rather come to a general consensus in the objective, the harder it will be for them to do that. It gets around their Alinsky tactic of picking a personal target then discrediting it. If we have objective standards, any and all anons can defend them, thus diffusing the target.
Gotta love how POTUS just straight proclaims "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
MSM's all "why can't he act more "presidential?" – implying mature, reserved, ''politic" (ie, never say anything against (((them))) or their agenda). Definitely NOT given to "from the mouths of babes" unabashed observations.
Greatest show on Earth.