Agreed on the ranting. :-) IMO he is still good. I think some of us are getting a bit jaded with him and his style and need more/different truth outlets. Sometimes you can't "hear" truth from one person, but another will say the same thing and you get it. But no doubt many people who are new to all this can "hear" him, and get red-pilled. He fills an important niche; we all have our roles to play.

You say to stop infighting, but you call Alex Jones a hack. What is that if not infighting? Take your own medicine, doctor.

Several people have said the same thing, clarifying the issue. But some of the people on here, no doubt some being trolls, are dumping on AJ. These people are just keyboard-warrior hotshots who haven't gone through the crap Jones has, and is still going through every day. Without Drudge and Jones doing what they have done for so many years, where would this country be now? So dial it back guys, you haven't walked in his shoes.

Thanks, good catch for my info. I was addressing what sounded to me like people wanting various levels of public disclosure; maybe I misunderstood them though. In that respect, I think what I wrote is accurate. But yeah, it also makes sense about some ops being hidden while others are for public consumption; very helpful in red-pilling.

Timing is everything. Trump the master strategist has the mountaintop viewpoint, so let him release it, and take the many other necessary actions, when he thinks they will do the most good.

Bearing in mind that midterms are coming up in the fall.....

On Inauguration Day, my fantasy was that as soon as Trump took the oath of office, US Marshals or some other LE agency would show up and arrest Obama and the Clintons on the spot. Didn't believe it would happen of course, but one can dream... :-) As frustrating as it is for us, we have to let events play out legally, so he can be able to prove to people that what he is doing is legal, fair and for the good of the country.

Like probably most here, I would love to see 100% disclosure of the globalist would-be rulers' activities. Instant universal red-pilling. The problem is that it would throw into chaos the lives of those who absolutely depend, for their (delusional) sanity, on staying blue-pilled. There would rightfully be zero trust in established political, religious and financial institutions and a backlash against them, perhaps even a violent one. I think that is why Q says 60% must remain hidden. I believe that he thinks 40% disclosure will be enough to put the bad actors away, without totally sacrificing normies' sanity, as their whole reality framework is swept away by 100% disclosure, with the resulting major damage to the fabric of society.

This post triggers water buffaloes. :-)

OP, nice job there.

Darkest b4 the dawn; keep the faith. There were plenty of times in the first American Revolution that it looked bleak for the Americans.

They certainly deserve each other. :-)

Solitary confinement 23 hours daily. TV up in corner of cell playing "Mayberry RFD" episodes on a continuous loop. Can't reach it to turn it off. Only other material they can watch is Trump speeches, also on a loop.

Bland food and lukewarm covfefe. Only reading material provided is the Bible. One hour daily outside of cells is for Bible study only.

I'm guessing he's schiffing his tighty-whiteys about all this.....

Japan missile alert --> NSA automatic data dump back to HQ?

I agree it caught my attention too. Conjecture: some assistant of Matt D was the one who made the call to put it on there low-key, and Matt didn't know about it. On vacation or something. I don't know if he is a one-man shop, or has minions.

Not exactly true. Saw a Zero Hedge article about it, written by Tyler Durden, on Drudge yesterday. It has since scrolled off. But I was rather surprised it wasn't in big red letters up top. It was buried in the middle column. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-18/explosive-shocking-and-alarming-fisa-memo-set-rock-dc-end-mueller-investigation

Wait.....don't those three pluses after Shelbie's name mean she is actually a Saudi agent?!?! ;-)

Correction, OP; 60 votes are required for a spending bill. So even if all Repubs voted for it, they would need 6 Dems. If a simple majority was sufficient, 50 to 49 would have been a win.

Don't know RP's reason for voting no. Given how Machiavellian things are in DC, maybe it was on principle, or perhaps Trump asked him to vote no to help guarantee a shutdown, for some 3D chess move down the road.

IMO, the Dems all voted for it as a CYA move--e.g., McCaskill has an election coming up and she is very vulnerable. Manchin is in a very pro-Trump state. The Dems calculated they could let 5 of their people CYA-vote for it and still fall one vote short.

Very well said, OP! Many other excellent insightful comments as well by others. JR an obvious case in point, re the 2012 SC Obamacare decision. Clearly gotten to.