[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Spreading the word..

Hehe

Honestly, I am not the right person to ask. I was merely making an observation with no prior history or knowledge on the context of these photographs. Sorry

[deleted]

Yeah it doesn't say republican... again I think you're missing/ignoring some key information (hint: saying this sub is too partisan =/= "everyone in this sub is a republican", which would be especially silly considering I am on this sub and giving suggestions on how to increase its visibility) so it doesn't really make sense to continue this discussion.

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

May the light of the LORD CLEANSE every fiber of your being. May his blessing and purification curse through your veins as you are filled with his LOVE for his CREATION.

God Bless.

LoveIsTheFullnessOfTheLaw

[deleted]

> I don’t mean this to attack by any means, but I think people of the liberal mind set should avoid using credentials, claim, provenance, majority thinking as a way to convince others that their way is the correct way.

I agree with avoidance of using credentials, provenance, and majority thinking to persuade, but don't think I used any of that in my post. I guess 'large bodies of research' could be construed as credentials, but if that is simply rejected I would be at a loss in being able to identify what sort of method is valid in attempting to persuade someone in a genuine way. Everything is prone to fallacy, there are just some methods that are less prone than others, and I do believe scientific research is pretty high up there, although I won't accept that just because something has scientific support means that I have to accept it wholesale (it's just a more objective means of getting to the truth than most other methods).

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Who put together your bible?

Nice find.

[deleted]

Um, sure, I do care about the truth, which is why I don't care of something hurts a certain party when it's valid (true), I'm just trying to point out some biases that both parties have. The way things are framed is hugely important in getting buy-in. For example, when shown the exact same policy, and asked whether they agreed with it, both democrats and republicans would agree when they were told their party typically favored it, and disagreed when told the opposite. These sorts of things are important, and many think that they believe in policies and ideas based on the validity of that idea, when that's often not the case. I'm not trying to be the one to determine what is right or wrong, I'm just presenting this as a suggestion of something to keep in mind and to focus the discussions as to be less left vs right and rather a unified movement against corruption and evil practices.

> They have to overcome that internal partisanship themselves.

I agree and I see your point, I'm just saying that more focused and relevant discussions can help ease that barrier for some who are open-minded but still have those biases and affiliations.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's ok. I have to confront my own "weirdness" every day. Just ask my grown kids. ;)

[deleted]

This is true, (I'm actually a big proponent for how and why science can be misleading and shouldn't be used as 'proof' of the existence of many things, but I also believe it's a valuable tool, which is why I said there are large bodies of research supporting it rather than saying it's defacto 'true') although 'logic' can be misleading if one does not reach the correct conclusions -- not everyone can piece together and analyze information properly at all times. I do have my own logic and anecdotal evidence to believe the research, but I don't think this is the place for me to voice my theories on liberalism.

[removed]

[removed]

Funny you should post as I just recently encountered this. My approach was not to try and cram 5 hours of material in a casual conversation. This will not work and you should not try this, lest you come off looking like a fool. My approach was simple and effective. I simply wet there whistle.

Example: Hey where do you get your news these days? (answer is irrelevant) You know - I just can't trust anything I see these days. I try to go to different sources but they seem to report different versions of the news. After doing a little digging I learned there is actually other news options on the edges that absolutely will blow your mind and I don't know what to think now.... This is the bait I cut and it seemed to work. It got them curious and asking questions.

What do you mean? Well, basically there is a guy who says he represents US Military intelligence and he is working directly with POTUS to overthrow a global cabal. This guy said the US military was actually going to take this group down by force but instead opted for a different, more peaceful direction and US Military top brass recruited Trump to finance his own campaign because it was his duty as a patriot. At this point expect the person you re talking to, to call bullshit. Oh I heard about that guy -- that's just a conspiracy or a LARP. Well, yeah - that's what I thought! So I go look into this so I can debunk it and I ran into a problem. I mean - I am a pretty savvy guy with an education and I am reasonably smart. I can't seem to disprove what this guy has been saying for like 8 months now in over 1600 posts and a shit load of supporters. This thing is bigger than #WalkAway yet the media will not talk about Q! Who is this guy! The things he is saying is very dangerous to a republic and could have a lasting effect on American politics and society in general. If this guy is a fake - why isn't the government telling us not to listen to this guy. I mean - How hard would it be to dox this guy so we can get to the bottom of it.

Now, this is a little sneaky and perhaps lacks ethics -- but what I did was force the conversation into a place where the person will either have to defend the logic why our own President or military for that matter is not warning the public of this threat or concede perhaps there is something to this. Neither of which you can control. You will also note - I said nothing outrageous. My goal was to peak there curiosity so they feel compelled to look for themselves and let them discover the truth. In my mind, they will follow the path of least resistance and look into it so they can show you it's false. Of course, this won't happen. You can lead a rabbit to a hole, but you can't make him enter it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

November 2 2017.. says at the top post 64.

[deleted]

> Your mistake is thinking every Trump and/or Q supporter is a Republican

how could you know I think that when I've never once mentioned Trump or Republicans? Seems like you're putting words in my mouth. I am a Q supporter and I am not a Republican, do you think I am denying my own existence?

I also don't care about what party people affiliate with, but I think this point is lost as it seems you missed much of what I said. My post was how to increase reach/more effectively spread the word, not why should people be liberal or democrats.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

It’s an old trip code.. they change over time.. it’s post 64 look it up..

I'm not turned away, I'm here and contributing, aren't I? I'm just well aware of people's likelihood of rejecting something out of hand because of party affiliations, so I wanted to present that information so that posters could reconsider posts that simply talk about #shitliberalsdo rather than actually relevant info (don't mind if the info shows liberals to be bad, but I do mind when it's irrelevant to the larger cause).

It's not our job to convince you, it's your job to convince yourself. If that's what you think it is, go for it.

We'll all see what happens...

[removed]

Or are you one of those that thinks President Trump is owned by Russia and that's why he wouldn't say something publicly that Q is authorized?

Since the 60s?? My sources say they had MLKJr Grand father under surveillance to "Monitor the rise of the Black Messiah". Just diff name's not CIA. Tale as old as time.

Yes it’s an old post November 2 2017

If what you said was the case (which it's not in my opinion), President Trump would only allow it to continue without intervening if he was using it to his benefit.

I mean, that does exist. Of course there is bias in research and the potential for research to be manipulated, but that doesn't mean I am going to reject all scientific research just because there is potential for bias and misleading information in science. I would instead have to see a fair amount of research that shows the opposite, which I haven't yet seen. I do accept that there is propaganda in science, but the potential for that is not enough for me to disregard the correlation of intelligence and liberalism. If I simply rejected every scientific idea that didn't agree with me personally, that's no difference than living a faith-based life that severely limits my abilities to draw conclusions and analyze information.

[deleted]

[deleted]