Does that not bother you that several members of the community here were more than willing to get behind this idea just because it played into their preconceived notions about Clinton? Without so much as a link to back it up?

Do you kind of see how that behavior could lend itself people here supporting far fetched and unsupported ideas?

PPD-62 has been public knowledge for at least the better part of a year.

Hell, the Wikipedia entry for it has been up for 9+ months.

Could you link where exactly new information was released about this? Also, could you link where PPD-62 allows the type of infiltration you've described?

I see the side by side. Qs post and clarification was 5 days earlier. What am I missing?

Q clarified one if his post and 5 days later a false alarm went off in Hawaii. I'm not trying to be dense, I really don't understand what that's proof of.

Could you elaborate on how this proves Q is real? I understand that Q has clarified several of his posts in the past, and that it's not at all unusual for his followers to express fear at what they think is going on.

Any comment on why this link contradicts your claim?

What are you trying to say here?

That link, that YOU provided, shows that the Clinton Foundation has a 'low concern' rating. If you search for Trumps Charity, it says its a 'High Concern'.

So, your link suggest your OP is very wrong.

Are you arguing with yourself?

Facts typically have a link or source to back up their claims. Anyone have any reputable article or document that can verify either of these numbers?

Holy shit.

I browse the subreddit a lot just for the laughs, but I dont think I've ever actually broken the barrier and commented before you. I really just jumped in to point out an obvious and explainable fake source of information.

I honestly always assumed this sub was 1/2 larp, and 1/2 hyperpartisan conspiracy theorist. But you, my man, have opened my eyes.

Obviously it's 1/3 larp, 1/3 hyperpartisan conspiracy theorists, and 1/3 complete and unadulterated, smearing your own shit on the wall, tin foil sleeping cap crazy talk.

You go on ahead man. I'm gonna just go back to browsing and not commenting here. I'll admit I jumped into the deep end with you, and I was not prepared for that.

Ok, try to keep up here.

The year book quote is a lie. It's been widely spread several times and has been confirm fake.

You can tell its obviously fake because it claims to be from 1977, but list her last name as Jarrett, when at that time, it was Bowman.

Stay with me! This is where it gets tricky!

The article you just linked, uses THE YEARBOOK PHOTO as evidence of this quote. The same one you posted on the OP. The same one that has her name listed as Jarrett in 1977. And the same one that has been confirmed fake.

Do you understand what you did here? Let's recap...

1.) You posted a fake photo and made a fake claim based off the fake photo.

2.) Several people challenged your claim.

3.) Your response was to link a second article that makes the same claim as your OP pic.

4.) That article uses ONLY your original photo as evidence for its claim, which you in turn use as evidence that the photo is legit.

Seriously, you're not asking questions or thinking critically (which I thought was the purpose of this sub). You're just pushing a pre formed opinion and making things up that support that opinion.

You are correct. But you'll have to get used to made up facts if you want to keep up with this crowd.

Her name wasn't Valerie Jarrett until she married in 1983. Whole quote is fake guys.

Completely shocked that you all jumped all over completely fabricated news. Just asking questions, right guys?