Anonymous ID: bd24ed Dec. 14, 2017, 8:18 p.m. No.197   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>220

>>183

I think it's a psyop. The divide and conquer shills needed it to look like the trip was about to be cracked to justify imposing their name ban.

 

I think the real suspect thing is how the anti-'namefag' ploy has been pushed by certain loud voices since back on half and then the second it gets enforced we have this all happen.

 

And the latest Q posts look to point in valid directions to me.

Anonymous ID: bd24ed Dec. 14, 2017, 9:55 p.m. No.469   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>521

>>458

Why does that set you off? Following the husbands is a worthwhile thing to do with the female players involved.

 

Q even provided an example. Did you know that Susan Rice was married to an ABC News producer? Because I sure didn't.

Anonymous ID: bd24ed Dec. 14, 2017, 10:55 p.m. No.609   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>602

Yeah, XXX has been disruptive but has also been around forever and proven herself at times, I think. Basically led the fight against the Baker's Union.

 

Also, her taste in anime is cool.

Anonymous ID: bd24ed Dec. 14, 2017, 11:08 p.m. No.629   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>613

I don't have a problem with them agreeing to be interviewed, wanting to get the word out and all.

 

I'm more suspect of the interviewee. Isn't it the same guy who got the fake Q email? And just the timingโ€ฆ right in the middle of this, when it can damage credibility and prove the shills "namefags are out for attention" narrative right.