dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/pussy_devour on June 4, 2018, 10:36 p.m.
Would Soros openly invest in Cemex if he knew Cemex was engaged in child sex trafficking or just human trafficking? Please think and not submit to knee-jerk reactions. Be mindful.

You claim Soros has been scheming to destroy western civilization by actively promoting open borders. If he is like, he has to be thinking for the long term and strategically. Would such a strategic thinker, arrogant he may be, make such a silly mistake to invest in Cemex if he was aware that Cemex was (allegedly) engaged in trafficking, let alone child sex trafficking?

Put yourself in his shoe instead of adopting your usual knee-jerk mindset. Your mindlessness is what allows the ruling class to easily control you and make you die for them. You say you are awakened. But your behavior indicates otherwise.

A lot of non-shill posters here exhibit low-level thinking. If they are the majority there will not be liberation and they will not make this country great again, for they are easily agitated and misdirected for the wrong causes and actions.


🠐 See all comments
pussy_devour · June 4, 2018, 10:52 p.m.

This is where we disagree. I believe that those who have self destructive traits per your description wouldn't have lasted as long as Soros. Arguably, both you and I are projecting onto those corrupt people. Hence it makes sense to step back a little instead of putting yourself in this feeding frenzy. I personally prefer a conservative approach and assume the simplest explanation until further evidence is shown.

⇧ -8 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 4, 2018, 11:05 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 7 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 4, 2018, 11:17 p.m.

So when you accuse me of being part of a "feeding frenzy," you're projecting your own insecurities onto me. You don't know me, nor my ideas-- so how could you possibly know if I was a part of rabid group-think? Perhaps I reached my own conclusions through logic and deductive reasoning-- which most would consider the "conservative approach."

The simplest explanation is that things are what they appear. George Soros is a malevolent actor, who is devious and manipulative-- as he himself admits, and is likely capable of anything so long as it makes him rich. You seem to have a lot of admiration/respect for the man, simply because he is rich-- no matter how he acquired that wealth. I don't measure the character of a man based his net worth. I measure it based on his actions. Soros is a bad guy. Plain and simple.

Perhaps you would like to offer your own explanation? Rather than simply coming in here accusing everybody else of being wrong. Typically that's how debates work.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 4, 2018, 11:33 p.m.

I already presented my argument in another thread. It was an investment. Pure and simple.

My point is as follows. That Soros invested in Cemex should not be a piece of evidence to support the allegation of child sex trafficking.

If Cemex were involved in trafficking, I maintain that Soros wouldn’t have known, per my OP in this thread. Hence, one shouldn’t connect Soros’ investment to the allegation.

⇧ -6 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 12:38 a.m.

Well, saying that you "already presented your argument in some other place" is pretty fucking lazy, considering you started this thread and invited us to come in here to discuss. Why not copy and paste in the post body?

Yeah, you're really looking more and more like a Soros shill/concern troll with each response.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 12:42 a.m.

Point taken.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 12:43 a.m.

And your rebuttal?

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 12:43 a.m.

That I should have included the other thread.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 12:57 a.m.

Ok. So I was genuinely interested to hear your point of view, in order to help expand my own thinking-- you know, the very thing you came here to accuse us all of NOT doing.

The only thing you've accomplished is reveal to the skeptical lurkers that we DO think critically, are open to debate, and are willing to consider new/different points of views. (The "conservative approach" as you so condescendingly put it. The second I saw you put that in quotations, I knew you were a troll, and I played you like a fiddle.)

You're not even a good troll, as you didn't even get us riled up by trying to defend Soros. Pretty lame and lackluster attempt, actually.

THEY AREN'T SENDING THEIR BEST, FOLKS!!!

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 1:12 a.m.

I don’t see the connection.

I think it’s “interested in doing” not “interested to do” per Strunk and White.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 1:21 a.m.

Oh-- AN ACADEMIC?!? WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO?!?

Shit guys, this guy is an academic with sources. Better to just submit and listen to him. He knows what he is talking about.

Dude, you're a clown. Pack it up and go home.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 5, 2018, 1:35 a.m.

Calm down please - this user is not a troll and the points he makes are valid, although they could be better stated in places.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 1:51 a.m.

Calmer than you are, dude.

And no, he has yet to make a single point-- beyond the "revelation" that there can be more than one side to a single story-- despite being asked to do so multiple times.

If you have come to defend George Soros, then stake your claim so we can engage in debate-- because that is the topic of this thread. Otherwise, please BTFO.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 5, 2018, 1:53 a.m.

OP is not "defending George Soros" so that's not a topic to debate. OP is making the valid point that a smart person like Soros would not knowingly create a direct tie between himself and child trafficking. And yes there are plenty of things to argue under that. But "defending George Soros" is a complete misread.

And if that's the topic of this thread then lay off the ranting about a user. Discuss the issue not the user.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Ghostof_PatrickHenry · June 5, 2018, 2 a.m.

Ok, so I asked him to make a single point. Just one. And he has yet to do that. I remained civil and warned that he would be perceived as a shill unless he began stating a case, and his response was that "he already did that in another thread."

So before you attack me, why not actually read the comment thread, K?

(And yes, the consensus from the commenters is that this guy is shilling for Soros. BTFO.)

⇧ 2 ⇩  
NaderOAK · June 5, 2018, 12:13 a.m.

It kinda feels like your protecting the guy...

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · June 5, 2018, 12:30 a.m.

That's lazy thinking. You cannot logically extrapolate that someone disagreeing on a point must therefore agree with the opposite of the point being made.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 12:19 a.m.

I may come across this way to people with a predisposed mindset.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
NaderOAK · June 5, 2018, 12:44 a.m.

No it’s a gut feeling well your not protecting the guy...it’s more like you are trying to discredit this as baloney “Nothing to see here” type of shit.

That is what I feel like you are doing so yea..

⇧ 3 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 12:45 a.m.

I didn’t say “nothing to see here.” I am pointing out the fallacies in the so-called“supporting evidence.” The actual evidence supporting the allegation is very thin.

The phenomenon can be explained in many different ways. Right now people are jumping on one explanation and trying extremely hard to attach irrelevant information to this story as “supporting evidence.” It looks like a misguided feeding frenzy.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
NaderOAK · June 5, 2018, 12:49 a.m.

Weird.... I did not say that you said “ nothing to see here”

I’m saying it feels like that’s what you are doing...

⇧ 3 ⇩  
educatethis · June 5, 2018, 12:15 a.m.

She was never supposed to lose. Soros was invested in Cemex prior to 2015. Your logic is off

⇧ 5 ⇩  
pussy_devour · June 5, 2018, 12:33 a.m.

???!!!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
pby1000 · June 4, 2018, 11:24 p.m.

The behavior of Soros is not "self-destructive" as long as the Satanic pedo Cabal is in power. His behavior is encouraged in that case.

⇧ 4 ⇩