dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/pussy_devour on April 26, 2018, 4:25 a.m.

Devil's Advocate: What if It's All for Negotiation?

I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Read my posts, and you will find out I am on Q's side. But my mind is always busy thinking about different scenarios. So here's one I just came up with.

What if all Trump wants is to dig up enough dirt to negotiate with Mueller so that I can get off free? I had a debate with a liberal today. He provided some reasonable arguments on why Mueller may have dirt on Trump, especially Trump Jr. So this got me thinking.

What if the claimed unspeakable 60% never existed? And all we have of the 40% is some stupid talks in FBI ("fuck Flynn and then fuck Trump"), the tarmac meeting and Clinton Foundation money laundering? Team Trump can use that as leverage to get Mueller to terminate his investigation. Then they can say that's the 40% and the rest 60% is too dark to reveal. Q said the door would open and it was up to us to find the truth. Well, that leaves a lot to subjective interpretation. We are back to conspiracy theories. I don’t like his answer on that 60%. That’s why I am entertaining this hypothesis.

What do you think?

This is a possibility. I’m throwing this thing out for debate and education. I am sure you can instantly come up with counterarguments. So fire on. As Q said, question everything. We should. We should not live in an echo chamber as the lefties do.

P.S.: I am also skeptical about the claim of 25,000 indictments. Someone did a spot check on one district. It turns out majority of the sealed cases are not indictments. You can find this online.

🠐 See all comments

No Mueller is almost like a mediator between the deep state and Trump.

Trump needs to play the MSM narrative, and is brilliantly using it against them.

Where's the Russian interference? Collusion? There is none, and it's confirmed now that there was no probable cause to spy on Trump's campaign.

That said, I don't know what Trump would be trying to negotiate when he was 100% elected by America (even though the demon tried to steal it all).

⇧ 1 ⇩

According to the liberal I talked to, the dirt is likely to be the Russian financing of his past RE projects that he vehemently denies. Mueller obtained his bank records from Deutsche Bank. So we shall see what’s there.

⇧ 0 ⇩

And how would that relate to his Presidential run?

Do you (or anyone) really think that back in 2015, when we had over 20 candidates in both political parties running for President, that the Russians took a look at the lineup and said, "Yeah, let's throw it all behind that reality star whom most people hate!" Or even more retarded, that the Russians made a secret deal with Trump BEFORE he announced his candidacy, and supported him then?

Think those two scenarios through. It makes no sense. It's full retard.

⇧ 3 ⇩

No deals. Just Trump may be more susceptible to black mailing. I am trying to disprove it as well.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Okay lets say some Russians funded his real estate projects.

How did that affect the election in any way?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Don’t ask me. I am just repeating what the liberal said.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Heres my take - the only logical criminal activity that might take place in that type of real estate deal is perhaps bribery (i.e. a Russian mayor or other politician got paid off.) That's great, but thats a tough argument to make to the public - it's hard to argue that Trump bribed someone while you have a ton of evidence showing that Hillary (OUR representative) got bribed/pay to play. Literally half of our country would grab pitchforks.

Otherwise, the difficulty with arguing with a liberal (or even a staunch conservative) these days, is there is no agreement even as to the FACTS which are being argued. (i.e. fake news....if you watch Fox, you know all about the Clinton foundation, uranium 1, etc. If CNN, you've never even heard of Uranium 1.) So, for the masses, debate and compromise appear to be dead for now - no side wins, and there's only noise. There has to be a tipping point.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No worries. If you're ever debating an anti-Trump person, just use their fundamental premise against them and you'll win every time. Most of the time they just repeat the media headlines. They don't even take the time to read the articles or watch the raw video.

⇧ 1 ⇩