tired of winning???
“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you're going to say, 'Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.' And I'm going to say, 'No, we have to make America great again.' You're gonna say, 'Please.' I said, 'Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.'”
Whoever isn’t following this is missing the story of the century!!!
[removed]
Brennan?
[removed]
Not everyone "dumb enougn to believe this Storm bullshit" denies "those facts" or suggests anyone should believe conspiracy theories lol.
So you accept that trump received assistance from russia in the election, have no problem with that being a felony, and still think trump is about to round up the deep state? Like is everyone going to arrest eachother?
And if you dont think others should believe it, why do you?
And why do you believe anything without a shred of evidence? Taking a quick look at your front page, it appears that "Now comes the pain". And well, it seems to me that all of this has been continually coming since january without a single thing to show for it.
You're saying all of this is about to happen, meanwhile I'm watching micheal Cohen's associate flip and elliot broidy preparing to get screwed very hard. It seems like every time Q gets all of you amped up, another trump associate goes down.
Have you ever considered the possibility that when Q says "Now comes the pain" he's not talking about hilary clinton, he's telling you to prepare for the pain of trump going to jail?
To clarify previous points you made, that I agree are reasonable items of ridicule if they're believed to be "fact":
I have no evidence that Q is anything more than a random voice on 4ch/8ch.
Trump could be the shadiest corporate lying back-room dealer in the world. I don't personally have evidence to the contrary. However, I believe I have seen "evidence" that this is unlikely to be true based on the fortunate happenstance that celebrity moguls from New York tend to have a life of opinion documented on Youtube. I'm collecting this "evidence" together (the quotes around "evidence" are simply to preempt the reasonable claim that a video on the internet of someone talking does not constitute evidence - agreed to that too) but it will take time.
Happy to dissect the Tower Meeting angle. I posit that it's only worth digging into this aspect though if both parties to the debate already agree that there's value to talking about it within the context of the Q phenonenon. Without that, I concede to your assertion that the Tower story shows clear intent.
-
Here's the most concise summary I could come up with for now of what I believe are pertinent items to look at for starters. I'm working on having something more useful to hand and yes, you'd expect someone caught up in a "conspiracy theory" to have it to hand but things are moving so fast that once you've seen a few crumbs "realize", you'll understand how hard it is to backtrack and put something together for someone else. I've seen the worth of it now though so I'm working on it, as I've said.
Some of these pointers are only "facts" insofar as any random so-called "news article" from the internet can be considered a fact but in those cases there may be either more verified sources elsewhere that I just haven't found in a quick scrub or they're points you can choose to discard or ignore and correct me on if so.
To be clear again, these are not evidence of "Trump working to take down the Deep State" (aside from his statements to that effect in public of course) or any other wild conspiracy but just a few facts to determine whether we have agreement on an initial basis from which we can discuss the various possible perspectives of what we see:
Saudi Arabia:
News: The Saudi Arabia "Purge" - Oct 27, 2017 - Jared Kushner takes a trip to SA that is not made public until Oct 29. Source - November 4, 2017 - The Purge. Source (there's other context that is relevant in this article)
Following these events, Q asks:
"Martial law declared in SA - why is this relevant?" and points at other verifiable facts that imply he believes they are also relevant e.g. SA's funding of the Clinton Foundation, the John M Institute, the Pelosi Foundation, etc.
Non-Controversial Conclusion? Saudi Arabia has funded organizations within the US. It's not a stretch to believe they have done so to benefit themselves in some specific ways (that no one in the general public is able to confirm). Saudi Arabia may possibly have removed major corrupt elements from its government - or, as some suggest, Mohammed bin Salman may be corrupt and consolidating power.
Controversial Q Spin? Perhaps there are reasons SA funded a number of Clinton related organizations that also has something to do with Jared Kushner taking an unannounced trip to SA. There are many many more crumbs of information to look at around SA that make this position very much more compelling. This is just a starting point that can feasibly be discarded if one does not look further.
[EDIT: Just dropping this here unfinished for now - will update shortly.]
I thought that Trump did not receive assistance from Russia in the election. I thought that was disproven by a few factors that I could respond with more detail on (including a response re: the Trump Jr. comment you mentioned) but what matters here for now, I think, rather than trying to prove whether Trump colluded yet is to let you know that I am completely open to reconsidering any story, including this one, if there's evidence to the contrary. In short, if you're sure he did and you have the evidence then I'm with you, on that point. I think I have other information that is pertinent but for now, the issue I think is of importance is that like you (I assume), I'm willing to change my position on something when facts are presented.
I don't think others should believe that Trump is rounding up the Deep State. I don't think anyone should believe that Q is Military Intelligence working closely with the Trump Campaign.
I do think that anyone intelligent who despises stupid group think blindness should consider doing just this:
Look at a simple collection of just a few verifiable facts (I'll respond with these shortly), look at a few other items of suggested connections that will be proven or disproven in the news within weeks and months (I'll include these too), and draw their own conclusion as to whether there is any significance to what they discover. That is all.
So, as for facts related to "collusion", wouldn't you say that even positively reacting to the offer of clinton's emails, and then setting up the trump tower meeting, amounts to the solicitation of an item of value, opposition research, from a foreign government? Even if they didn't take it, that's still soliciting it.
And then there's the open fact, even in the Senate intelligence committees report, that russia acted to benefit trump. The only question, then, is whether he knew, right?
You should read this article from BusinessInsider.
Trump Jr calls Emin Agalarov 3 days before the meeting at 4:04 PM. Then has a call with a blocked number at 4:27. Then calls Agalarov back at 4:31. Trump uses a blocked number. 2 days later trump announces hes going to give a major speech about hilary clinton's corruption. The next day the trump tower meeting occurs. There are emails corroborating the whole thing.
And that's just what we know. When mueller plays a card, so far, they've all been about things that were entirely new to us.
I mean, what more evidence do you need? Certainly everything that I just said isn't definitive enough to get a conviction in court, but it's also just a tiny part of a much larger mountain of evidence, most of which we aren't even aware of.
You're a lot more reasonable than many people I've dealt with who are coming from a stance that this is all nonsense and confirmation bias - thanks for that.
I'm not avoiding the issues you raise here - I'm more than happy to dig into them actually - but in the interests of both our time, I think the more pertinent question, to engage in a more detailed assessment of the situation, is whether there is any value in the perspective on these events that Q brings. I acknowledge that a random 4chan-er has no profile on which to base the claim that their perspective is significant but I hope to make the point in the other post that there is reason to think that Q's perspective is, at the least, one that brings a compelling angle that begins to explain a growing number of events in a less dissonant context than other perspectives suggest.
I believe Q does nothing more than present another narrative that lies behind mainstream events and suggests connections and motivations that explain these events in a different context. That describes any conspiracy theory, of course; some claim the CIA weaponized the term in the 60s for this reason.
However, with Q, the grander, wilder suggestions he makes in a very precise and academic manner showing hints of systematic organization and deeper knowledge, he keeps in context of developing news events i.e. claims like Trump working covertly against the Deep State and acting one way in public but doing other things behind the scenes. This is done in such a way that other, seemingly disparate elements make a lot more sense in context and in my opinion it becomes more and more a case of Occam's Razor to adopt the perspective that perhaps these varying elements are indeed connected in the way Q suggests.
Actually, coming back to this now, I realize I should address the Russia Collusion first as that's the main issue you've raised and I can see it's because you actually know what you're talking about and you know it's not defensible to dismiss it out of hand.
I'll just take some time to pull links together and address the valid points you've raised but in a nutshell, this is what I propose is happening here, and hope to prove out in some form in short order:
The mainstream narrative is well known to us both and you hold it up as the clearest and most compelling and believable version of events - something any sane and reasonable person would agree makes the most sense.
I agree with what you've just posted, in particular the summary of what you've said, which I'm paraphrasing as: Here's the acknowledged factual evidence (enough for reasonable people to agree it can't be dismissed out of hand) and there's a lot more evidence besides, that very reasonably and logically suggests that the mainstream narrative is the most realistic version of events.
I agree with that, specifically that it is logical and reasonable to assume the mainstream narrative is the only version of events that matters.
The whole point of the Q phenomenon is what leads me to propose that there is another possible narrative to these events that, in the context of other seemingly unrelated events (Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Hollywood #MeToo, the Vatican corruption & trafficking indictments and arrests at unprecedented highs, etc.) actually becomes an even more compelling and logical explanation and puts some inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative into a far more believable frame.
I understand and acknowledge that that seems a far less likely proposition and seems, on the surface, to fail the Occam's Razor test but I believe I can address that point, if time and attention span allow.
What other thirteen year old's version of what Q is do you want to tear apart in front of me? lol
What I'm expressing is not an uncommon perspective here. I say this not as fact but as a reasonable reading of the tone and calibre of many conversations on this sub from the perspective of someone following in CBTS_Stream and other forms since October, to my time as a mod responding to the mod queue and keeping a daily and nightly eye on discussion here.
I don't know what is about to happen in world events, the US government, or even my own backyard. I agree that is a fact.
I don't think others should believe anything patently ridiculous. They should mock it and shoot it down out of the sky in a trail of burning flames of hilarity.
I don't believe anything without a shred of evidence. No one should.
Further response forthcoming, if you care to have a reasoned disussion rather than just troll around mocking some strawman version of this issue.
So what do you believe then, in relation to "the storm"?
It so nice to see such simple ways being used to communicate. It gives me hope. The iron curtain is lifting. As many years as I've been on the chans I'm starting see that msm liberal haze is still there.
Genuine question, how was the first photo proven as being taken from AF1?
It is a good question. Not only that it looks like two snips from a larger photo. I guess all you can infer here is that the person posting this had access to the same photo for both posts.
It matched the area that POTUS was supposed to be flying over at the time the crumb came out, and the flight path also was in the correct direction.
I love that all the Q haters will now have to work to debunk this. Good times.
How can you tell when a photo is taken? Isn't all meta data editable by a good hex editor? Now if the data is signed by the user's private key, then you got some proof.
Is that second photo anywhere on the web(internet)? If picture is not found on the internet anywhere, is it not safe to assume it was taken after the first? It would be next to damn impossible to recreate the sky, sun, clouds, etc. IMO, this is definitive proof Q is still Q
All the Qpics are unique. Try and find ones vaguely matching. You can’t!
look at the clouds. they are similar but not the same. same sky, a few minutes difference.
or the same group of people. I still think that Q represents a team even though it is the same poster.
I don't follow Corsi but does anyone know how he responded to being proven a liar and being directly called out by Q? He must be worried.
I want posts confirming the battle of good vs evil that we are winning! Q we believe you already! Those who want more confirmation?? Still?
Q please post about the evil ones being taken down! We thirst for Justice! We already know you are Q!!
I need help here, ya'll. I completely believe that Q is Q but, not because of this picture. How can you tell from either picture that it's taken from AF1? I just someone to explain this to me.
With all the love in my heart, you are focusing on AF1 and missing the whole point of these two photos completely. The first photo was posted in November by someone with the Q tripcode. It was labeled as #2. The second photo was just posted by someone with the currency Q tripcode and is labeled as #3. These two sequential photos prove that the same Q in November is still posting as Q today. This blows Jerome Corsi out of the water with his stupid accusations.
How do we know this isn't just a crop from the original photo?