>>4471567

I wholeheartedly concur. I red-pilled a total dumb-ass with this. He got it as well as he's gonna. Very effectively put together for broad audience appeal and comprehension.

>>4471603

Yeah. Excellent. I've seen it, but it's been several years, so just watched it again. Doesn't get much more persuasive (in a BRIEF presentation) than that!

>>4471607

Oh my. Could it be?

>>4471547

HRC signed Page 7/10

"7/10 plane crashes are…"

>>4471876

353 posts after the linked post, a 17Q/18R-76 kinda Revolution number, and… well enough to make me go Hmmmmmm…

>>4471952

6.14 is DJT's birthday, FWIW

6:14:55 (25th=two fives) is famous/infamous 'R'-post time.

6:24 is 426 reversed… "For 26" = "For 86" = "To be eliminated" (clock goes up to 60, therefore 26 beyond the 60 limit = 86).

Just spit-balling stuff here, Mr. "For 53/35" timestamp.

>>4471945

>>4471963

N529JK… I speculate he has a 19 y/o kid by now. Great digits for the question posed. "For 35, 36" and "For 28, 1963"… ignore my number-fagging. It's late.

>>4472028

I think he's flipped on his Hollyweird cohorts. Dunno. We'll see what happens.

Watch at/near 45 seconds…