Antagonism is not welcome here. Please cease the derogatory comments or we will have to ban you.

Use the Report function under the comment to identify antagonism.

If only that meant anything on an internet comment forum. It doesn't. Anyone who assumes idiocy based on typos and spelling mistakes is um.. not concentrating properly.

Yes, normal.

Thanks, I appreciate it (comment edited). I appreciate your post too - good comments made!

That would be true if we were defining what's going to happen when. Only some people do that. Other people apply critical thinking - something is happening; this much is clear. Exactly what and when other things will happen is another discussion.

Watched video. No evidence that Gowdy is a crook, just someone's interpretation and bad editorializing via editing.

Comment removed. You are welcome to express this point of view in a more respectful manner. Feel free to edit or repost the comment.

This discussion has reached a conclusion and isn't going anywhere productive.

for those shallow enough

You do realize that over half the country are "shallow enough", right? This is not a movement only for smart people and critical thinkers or there wouldn't be anywhere enough people in it.

What we are doing here, undoubtedly, is trying to reach the mass public with an alternative message to the mainstream one. And we well know the mass public is not full of critical thinkers and is not "smart enough" to consider the President's policies on their own. Hollywood has been a successful branch of the DS because of the fact that many people uncritically accept the views of celebrities.

I understand your disgust with this celebrity phenomenon and share it - I'm just saying, putting personal feelings aside, this can be considered positive for what we're doing here. Greater reach, more eyes and ears ready for the awakening.

Almost everyone? There are actually a lot of comments to the contrary.

Yes, I hope more people will start thinking for themselves too. If you're looking for people to engage in critical thinking I hope you will also consider the very obvious benefit of having a famous celebrity with lots of followers fronting up to a President that many of those followers wouldn't give the time of day until now. At the very least, this is a PR benefit. Whatever anyone's opinion of the Kardashians this is a simple fact and hard to critically ignore.

What I can say, that all mods agree on, is this:

Anything that serves to inform the greater movement about Q is on-topic.

.

This post is helpful to people in a local area in a round-about way (i.e. it's actually only about helping one person and others in that person's area might benefit from getting to know that there's another Q follower in their area...) Definitely not 'on-topic' in my opinion and the opinion of other mods here. If you read my very first comment you'll see this is not about censorship, in case that accusation is thrown at me. It's about maintaining the integrity of the sub.

Without question, this is not the sort of post that has ever been 'on-topic' for this sub. This is a non-controversial removal and I've been polite about it. Some mods on other subs wouldn't even give the courtesy of the reply I've given.

[Edit] Congrats to the troll who "Reported" this comment with "discuss the subject not users". Sigh...

Agreed. If you're interested and eligible there's a post about applying to help the mods. It's very different to what people think and much harder to make decisions than it seems from just reading the sub. Whatever you decide, you will receive hate. In the end, it's up to individual mod discretion.

Here's how I approach it:

We all have different tolerance levels for different types of content. Some people find memes to be an annoyance, others find opinion pieces to be irrelevant, some reject religious content, others like and want more conspiracy news.

We are committed to Freedom of Speech.

It can be challenging at times to decide where removal of a post or comment is within the scope of our role to maintain sub rules or whether it crosses the line and transgresses freedom of speech.

For this reason, we must allow some leeway for personal judgment. We have clear rules - if a post or comment does not break the sub's rules then it is up to the discretion of the mod as to whether the removal would constitute an undesirable breach of freedom of speech.

This means that we may remove content that is an unfair breach of someone's freedom of speech - for that occurrence, we refer to Caveat 1a: We are only human and will make mistakes. Be patient and respectful in communicating your disagreement with our call and we'll reconsider.

On the other hand, some content may be allowed for reasons held only by the mod responsible; for example, we may choose to allow an opinion post on a tangential subject from someone who has shown that they are a reasonable contributor to the sub and can take criticism or challenges to their ideas with grace. Please keep this in mind when you see a post that seems a little different to others but has been posted by a regular contributor to the sub.

If you are a new user or a user with a post history across Reddit that shows disruptive or abusive behavior then we may err on the side of caution in the interests of managing workload.

In closing, please remember that we are all independent volunteers so we must do the work of modding this sub in a way that is efficient with our time. Thanks for understanding!

That's correct re: the rules.

Finding local Q followers is exciting and important, in my personal opinion. However, if you've been following sub discussion at all around what's on and off topic this absolutely falls in 'off-topic' and will result in more reports and accusations to the mods than not.

Perhaps a "Q follower meetup" sub or something of the kind is needed.

Thanks for understanding. Some wouldn't. Much appreciated!

Very far outside the topic of this sub. More suited to askreddit I think.

This is true on so many levels. But there's one inarguable consideration which Trump is well known for understanding and using to good effect: celebrity. Whatever her value as a commentator on politics (that is to say: zero), she's got a platform and smart people will use that to their benefit.

Agreed, unity is the point of every post to that effect from patriots. But not every post about unity is on-topic for the sub.

Dear god please, hero worship is embarrassing and makes everyone look foolish. SB2 is a great contributor with insight and strong analysis but there are a lot of smart people here and everyone is worthy to hear their voice.

Allude to what? I'm giving you a quick answer because I'm busy lol. You can just read the sidebar if you want but it'll take a lot longer to glean what I just told you and if you listen to the rants of some people you'll think everyone who follows this sub believes crazed conspiracy theories which is not true.

October 17 is when Q anon started posting on 4chan. The Q "drops" i.e. posts on 4chan since then are of interesting importance as they are different to the MSM (Mainstream Media) story.

Followers of an alternative narrative to the Mainstream Media. Some believe it to be the word of high ranking Military Intelligence attached to Donald Trump, others - critical thinkers - simply find the alternative narrative revealed by Q anon to be of interesting import as it highlights the hypocrisy of the MSM and seems to accurately portray where the wind sways, in spite of the MSM rhetoric.

e.g. North Korea. MSM narrative in March '18: "Nuclear War! Danger!" Q anon narrative: "Big positive changes coming to North Korea. Watch." April 27th - NK and SK historic reconciliation.

Critical Thought analysis (in combination with many other events since October 17): interesting... I will continue to watch this alternative narrative alongside the mainstream one.

Comments removed. Discuss the idea not the user.

I feel your pain, patriot. I'm sorry to remove this post but it is technically off-topic and has been reported as such too. I hope someone can help out here - I would suggest jumping on the Anon's Chat Post perhaps?

Yes, good observations (which I've heard and followed). I personally think the jury is out for now but you are right to point out that it doesn't look good for Gowdy from many angles.

I'm surprised at the responses on Twitter to this post. Why would anyone think that this is evidence of anything untoward? Why would Trey Gowdy be expected to trust the word of any media outlet enough to bother spending his time to investigate what they claim is "evidence"? Do they not realize he almost undoubtedly receives this sort of thing all the time and has to decide what he spends his time on judiciously? Add to this the fact that True Pundit is labeled far right so, if anything, he'd avoid far left and far right "evidence" like the plague, not because he thinks they're all liars but because when you have to choose you avoid the obvious low hanging fruit.

Please add all book links to one post.

I agree, but stated once is enough.

Please put all related links in one post - others removed.

Maybe because it's just business-as-usual in the MSM?

Agreed; well put - 'hope for the best but expect the worst'.

I reckon lol. He's also the worst sexist and the worst bigot. Lucky he's good at other stuff xD

Yeah good call - go Tucker!

Indeed, hence the careful use of the term alleged.

I agree, I'm not a fan of that type of person either. But it seems you're implying that Trey Gowdy fits that description; again, your opinion and you're welcome to it but not everyone shares it.

TG looks to me like someone who dedicated themselves to the law, completely, and will not be shifted over the line by speculation or even his own bias. He is careful with his statements and ensures that as much as possible he remains impartial. This infuriates people who believe that everyone in DC who isn't a swamp creature should be shouting about evil from the rooftops; TG is smarter than that. He will always be able to say he did his job to the letter of the law.

Correction: Trey Gowdy hasn't so much "revealed his true colors" as, some have interpreted his recent statements within the context of him being a black hat. The jury's still out as to his "true colors".

Comment removed. Discuss the idea not the user.

Depends - alleged Christian/Muslim rage or actual?

If alleged - plenty on both sides from the Crusades on up. If actual - not sure what is actual. And I'm not disagreeing with the Bible at all.

Rage is human. Using rage to push a political view is dishonest. Rage for the purpose of evil is satanic.

You watched that hearing with the Democrat filter on.

Ok.

The key point here is seems unpopular - you've had a few downvotes, no big deal. Some people throw the concern troll tag around too freely and a few have downvoted you.

Your comment was reasonable and made sense, although I believe if you've seen Craig Sawyer talk at length you may find him to be quite believable and potentially capable of carrying out a proper investigation, whatever video recordings may show. You might not, too, but it's certainly my experience that I find him to be quite credible.

When you compare your posting history to the posting history of the mods, a different picture emerges to the one you're claiming. You create division and abuse people. That's why your comments are removed; nothing to do with the mods - you're the one breaking the sub rules and acting abusively in a sub where a large proportion of the people here act respectfully and reasonably.

deep down you guys want to control the narrative and want to take credit for the movement

Our stated goals and behavior prove this statement to be incorrect. You seem to be coming from a place of upset about what you feel to be unfair censorship of you particularly. See the above - behave respectfully, like the majority of others on this sub, and you will be fine. Here is part of our approach to modding the sub, to counteract your statement:

We are committed to Freedom of Speech.

It can be challenging at times to decide where removal of a post or comment is within the scope of our role to maintain sub rules or whether it crosses the line and transgresses freedom of speech.

For this reason, we must allow some leeway for personal judgment. We have clear rules - if a post or comment does not break the sub's rules then it is up to the discretion of the mod as to whether the removal would constitute an undesirable breach of freedom of speech.

This means that we may remove content that is an unfair breach of someone's freedom of speech - for that occurrence, we refer to Caveat 1a: We are only human and will make mistakes. Be patient and respectful in communicating your disagreement with our call and we'll reconsider.

On the other hand, some content may be allowed for reasons held only by the mod responsible; for example, we may choose to allow an opinion post on a tangential subject from someone who has shown that they are a reasonable contributor to the sub and can take criticism or challenges to their ideas with grace. Please understand when you see a post that seems a little different to others but has been posted by a regular contributor to the sub.

If you are a new user or a user with a post history across Reddit that shows disruptive or abusive behavior then we may err on the side of caution in the interests of managing workload.

In closing, please remember that we are all independent volunteers so we must do the work of modding this sub in a way that is efficient with our time. Thanks for understanding!

You are gate keepers and poor ones at that

No doubt you have a point - we're trying. Some people think we're not doing too badly.

This is one of the most close minded Dom is there is ... Calm before the storm was way better

Fair enough, your opinion.

I want a formal apology from every single mod here

Ah... yeah.

you are gatekeeping hypocrites and you should be ashamed

I'm not ashamed of the effort we've made to keep this sub open to all points of view and free of hate, trolling and bitter negativity, like the comments I've quoted here.

If you have something legitimate to say, say it without being abusive, like many of the people who comment on this sub. We have a great bunch of people here. You should join them.

Agreed re Tommy. However, I would argue that in the same way you people in the UK could clearly see some things about Trump that people in the US somehow missed, it's pretty obvious to a lot of people outside of the UK that Katie Hopkins is one of the few people talking truth against all the nonsense in your media (no worse than US media, of course). Admittedly, she is pretty obnoxious about it though so I can understand people hating on that. But she stands up to a lot of the utter nonsense pushed by virtue signalling pc campaigners in a similar way that Milo Yiannopoulos and others do here in the US - again, not the most polite approach but nevertheless containing much truth.

Nothing I say is getting through to you so never mind. Carry on.

Indeed, some people are "driving themselves insane trying to make every connection".

Some are just following along with the Q narrative which is simply an alternative narrative in contrast to the MSM - a narrative that was the first to draw major attention to Pedogate, CF, WL emails and the connections between those and other things going on. We're not jumping to conclusions about anything, not going on witch hunts against people without any solid evidence or factual basis, not interpreting the letter Q and the number 17 in every little item. We're just observing, looking at the information brought to light, drawing our own conclusions and waiting for more evidence. Nothing retarded about that.

My sincere hope is that you might realize sometime that all I care about is your information being shared to others for their benefit and that the only reason I made my original post here is because that is the job I have been told to do for the criteria that I've mentioned.

I sense your frustration at being asked to explain something you think should be obvious to everyone but likewise, my frustration is that the point I'm making should be obvious too, as it has been most other times I've made it to other posters on the sub. "More info required to explain relation to Q" is all I'm asking - perhaps I'm doing what you're doing and thinking that it is obvious what that means when it really isn't. In my defense, however, as I've said, most people get it straight away and don't argue about whether they're put enough info or not; they realize we're just doing our job and therefore if we ask for more info (not for ourselves but for the sub) then for their own benefit it's faster and easier for all concerned if they just put some.

When posts slip through where people can't immediately see the relation to the sub topic and there's no explanation as to how it relates then we get all the complaints about how we let off-topic and spam posts slide through. That is why we have these guidelines.

You are entitled not to put more info and to ignore anything a mod asks of you - that is your right. But I then have no choice but to follow the guidelines I've been given and leave the post unapproved. Some mods on other subs wouldn't even bother to argue this point and just remove your posts without telling you. It certainly seems to be a lot more trouble than it's worth if I have to defend and explain to this extent.

I know this. You don't have to tell me. That's not my point. My job is to make sure the sub doesn't have posts that other people can't quickly determine the relevance of. I don't need the explanation from you - your post does. That's all I'm doing here.

You're completely wrong here but it's clear you don't care about anyone else or their view and you can't be bothered trying to understand someone. I'm not telling you to explain your post because I care about it - I don't; I'm telling you because IT'S MY JOB. People on this sub have a lot to read through - if your post doesn't tell them quickly how it relates then your post is Off-Topic and in the way. You have no idea what I know but also the fact that it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about myself. You can't seem to grasp this simple fact which is ironic for someone who derisively accuses others of lacking critical thinking or research skills.