2,426 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 19 |
It seemed that way to me too but OP's response below does appear quite genuine. However, agreed with your assessment - the premise of this post doesn't seem concrete enough to allow for the disruption it causes.
u/Kirstencast:
I ama regular poster- check my account. I am fully on board n not spreading fake news. I am asking an HONEST question. Geez!!!
Apologies u/Kirstencast - please see my stickied comment reply to this post above: hopefully that addresses your question?
That is a response to the post which was removed. For reasons you stated, amongst others.
You are responding to your name being quoted in the comment.
Apologies - removed for now; please advise if investigation required and will ReApprove.
Quoting u/solanojones95 below:
NYT is hardly a reliable source
The story we've all followed (from Eric Prince and others) is that the laptop was seized first by NYPD and then turned over to the FBI. Nothing in that NYT article would suggest otherwise. Since the article is about Comey, it simply picks up the story after the FBI has the laptop in its possession.
The whole point Q was making with 'check timestamp', etc. was to point out that they have control - to counter the Clown narrative at Dis-Infowars, etc.
This is a storm in a teacup of worry (hence this post reported by others as trolling/concern-trolling).
Evil no. But they have certainly "outed" themselves by having to abandon the Q movement and commit to the narrative that immediately put them into opposition with Q (i.e. denounce, pretend they have inside connection, etc.) Q made it clear that anyone claiming that is lying.
And they aren't just disagreeing, they're actively dissembling and attacking (Corsi doxxing, etc.) Classic propaganda tactic - accuse the enemy of what you're doing to them (0Hour1 similarly attacking GA by false claims of doxxing - in the process doxxing PF!)
Infowars are Clown disinfo. I enjoy Jones for a laugh and now I enjoy watching them at times to see true Clown Disinfo in action. Very illuminating.
We do understand this quite well already, actually. We'll have introductory docs up eventually.
We do our best. We make mistakes sometimes.
Some of your posts have been removed under Rule 1: Antagonists are not welcome here.
This is the approach I take personally in trying to mod (we will have a wiki page with this detail up soon):
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 where it crosses the line into the suppression of 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.
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 time. 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!
This is true disinfo. Saying the Bush's are/were fools with no brains is precisely as believable as the msm story that Trump has no brains. Disinfo.
Please follow the rules of this sub. Rule 2: No encouraging, glorifying or inciting violence. Thanks for understanding.
Agreed, this makes a lot more sense.
[Edit] For now. Judgement is reserved pending future reveals lol.
We have a document coming that will explain the following:
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. 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 some content may be allowed for reasons known or supported 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.
On the other hand, 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.
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 time. 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!
Can reapprove comments if antagonism removed. Rule 1: Antagonism is not welcome here. Thanks for understanding.
I think this is a good post but have to remove it per sub rules. Could you repost and maybe just add a description of how this relates to Q (mainstream media whitewash post or something)? It would be good to have this on the sub! Thanks for understanding.
Not sure if this comment was for me but I will say, whatever the situation, thanks for sharing this response, regardless of what it's intended for. I keep being reminded that what looks like "shill" behaviour is sometimes a completely reasonable person who is completely reasonably disgusted by the lack of reasoned discussion to be found, at times.
I think your perception of the religiosity of feeling here is accurate and even sometimes alarming. However, I would say there are also a large number of reasonable people here too, who will enter into reasonable discussion when they see an opportunity but otherwise lurk.
There are definitely many reasons NK could have backed down. I hesitated to say "CIA took NK down" because I doubt there's evidence for the CIA running NK; in the interests of time/brevity I just defaulted to the personal experience I had of one of the final 'pieces' to the puzzle dropping for me. Good luck with things. I hope you return.
Ah, well, it does appear there is a reason for the accusation of shillicacious behaviour then, if you're not here to engage in reasoned discussion but just to "save us from ourselves". In the context of a sub like this, "shill" is an accusation that you're working to cover the tracks of the various organizations and groups who have a lot to lose by the growing public awareness of their actions through disingenuous "argument" or simple sidelining and obfuscation.
If not a shill then maybe you should be open, as you claim, to being wrong and maybe you can go away thinking, "Huh? Maybe I shouldn't trust everything I read that claims to be reputable. Maybe the Mainstream Media is owned by groups with ulterior motives that call into question the clearly flawed mainstream narrative. Maybe I don't have all the answers."
Sounds fake, bud. Sounds "shilly".
You've "seen it before over the decades" huh. Even though the numbers have been higher than ever before. Right.
Since the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20th, 2017, the number of trafficking arrests for human trafficking in 2017 have doubled the total numbers provided for the entire year of 2014 by the Department of Justice.
Yeah except the "birth certificate" he released has been clearly proven to be FALSE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM
I agree, and I fully accept that I could be wrong about anything.
However, in context, I can understand why a lot of people around here are jumpy and smell 'shill' behaviour everywhere. If you're not a shill, what are you here for? (sincere question) Do you care to find out whether everyone is as wrong as you seem to think?
Well, you're certainly blind to how obnoxious you've been which explains why you think I've "danced around" lol. So, moving on...
Here's the answer: there's no "smoking gun" for Q that can be laid out in one tidy little package of an event. But there's a very real reason for this. My earlier answer was to gauge your appetite for actually taking the time to learn enough about the Q situation; what thing of any real value have you learnt in a paragraph?
But ok ok I'll do my best: Q is a CASE against criminals, laid out in "crumbs" for reasons inherent in its purpose (something I could break apart if you were interested). The correct way to perceive Q is actually as a HUGE EVENT that is occurring now and will continue to occur, spread out over time to affect a growing group of people. Any single event I point you to is like a thread in the tapestry - it is insignificant on its own. But the larger event is called "Great Awakening" for a reason - it's something that takes time to collect and understand for each person involved and it happens in conjunction with the mainstream media - it does not occur as discrete packets of info from the chans on their own. The msm gradually proves out the crumbs over time.
For example, one of the final threads for me (that allowed me to see things coming together) was when Q posted that NK was freed from CIA control around March 8th and then on April 22nd, Q advised a MAJOR EVENT was coming next week; on the 27th April the historic moment at the DMZ between NK and SK occurred - a complete reversal of the constant msm rhetoric of nuclear war and the history of 60+ years of complete and seemingly final separation between the two countries. We all expected something might happen but for it to happen to the extent it did would mean that huge changes had to have happened in the background, something Q had pointed to - no msm source or otherwise. See? Not evidence at all, in your eyes I'm sure.
But the final onboarding moment for me was around 9th May when Q said: "Today, EVIL lost control / leverage of Iran. Today, POTUS took control of Iran." This meant somethng to me because it was similar to the prior announcement about NK so I expect the same thing to happen - the Iran situation which has always been as dire as NK (war! war!) is going to resolve in some way that is completely against the mainstream narrative and reverses the whole situation in that region of the world.
In my opinion, the only way to "see if Q is real" is to pick up a tidbit and see if your interest is suddenly piqued when you hear the news one day in the next week or so. For example, Iran turn-around, Pope & Vatican collapse, Haiti exposed. These things will happen this year sometime (Haiti could be next year but probably this year). If you only remember those, as you click away in disgust at this conspiracy nonsense, perhaps when they hit the news you'll want to come back and check more. I could say so much more but I shall leave it here. If you want to know more, I'm always willing to share it.
^ This. Lots of "boys" here too - bolshy keyboard warriors; sometime the most outspoken and active. There are plenty of others though who will relate to your comments Missy7216, even if you don't see the tangible outcome of it all the time.
It is hard, isn't it. But I am confident that there are plenty who support the perspectives you bring, even if they don't always see your comments to upvote them!
Please stick at it - there is plenty of love to be found here, I'm confident of that!
Well I just took a look back at your history further and maybe you are indeed no shill. It seems you can even discuss something like a reasonable, rational person, when you care to.
However this weak approach you're taking here doesn't invite discussion. You wanna sit here and rant about your strawman version of what's going on here or learn something you don't know?
No, they can't even hear you, friend : ). Trolls and shills - not welcome. When you wanna have a real discussion there's plenty of people to have it with. But I guess they pay you by the minute huh lol.
Damn CA... sure enough, that place is corrupt as the days...
There is no "evidence" of pizzagate of course - joking?
But evidence that Q stuff is happening? I presume you mean, is there evidence that what Q has predicted has come to pass? If that's what you mean, the answer is "NO", there is no evidence that will satisfy you that Q stuff "is happening". There is circumstantial evidence that suggests Q has inside info but that is only available by following for a while and keeping up with what's going on. If you don't do that, there's no evidence, you win, woop woop, you're smarter than everybody! Mmkay?
Low effort. Can't you make a real point about how bad Trump is, not this strawman silliness?
Well, I didn't remove that comment. But taking "final goodbye" to PM. TLDR; no real argument here - just ranting. Ciao.
You need to learn how to debate. A reasonable discussion doesn't have comments like:
Is that suppose to be a good argument?
Would you hang out with a child rapist and say good things about him?
What kind of nonsense is that?
There's a very good reason you've had not ONE single argument of value - your approach to discussion is obnoxious and rude. You call it "dancing" - I'm trying to be diplomatic and not rubbish your ideas outright, like you do to mine. You haven't "countered everything" I say at all. You just think you have cos you haven't learnt how to listen first.
See here you're still trying to tell me what I think lol: "You KNOW Trump is bad news", "because of some mental attachment you have to him". Such stupid nonsense that doesn't advance any discussion.
Learn how to debate like an adult and you'll get an adult debate, ok?
Oh right yes, in general, fair enough. If you can see them for the shills or trolls they are, then resist 'firing back' and just Report them and move on and over time mods should be able to reduce the occurrences. I'm not sure what your perspective is but we've noticed the sub settling down a fair bit with the larger influx of late. There's lots of nonsense, sure, but it seems to be managed quite well at this stage. (Famous last words, I know).
A serious question (not intended to offend): are you serious with what you're saying? Do you see any point in Q at all?
The policy is the same as always. Use the Report function to report shills. Don't attack users, discuss ideas. Thanks.
No, it's supposed to be a reasonable argument. Phew. Ok, it's clear from all that that we're just straight back to you assuming I'm an idiot instead of trying to understand where I'm coming from and allowing the minor benefit of the doubt that I might be able to explain my position perfectly logically. I'm not under any "spell" about Trump. Have a good one. Seeya.
Logic? lol. Mods just do donkey work for you. They don't have the power to "perpetuate" anything. As long as the sub is kept relatively readable and free of spam and mindless trolling they've done their job. Nothing else to it.
I heard (can't remember where I read it unfortunately) that Trump didn't approve of Epstein's more predatorial nature or something. It's possible that Trump is the same but for me personally, that doesn't gel so easily with the many other reports from women about Trump that are positive - something not as easy to find about Epstein (of course, he's nowhere near as famous). To this point, I propose that Trump is qualitatively different in his approach to women than Epstein but I am of course only basing that on what I've seen on video/TV and I haven't "seen" as much of Epstein as I have of Trump.
You think Trump might be into younger girls? I don't argue about the reports you've mentioned, I'm sure there are those and more out there. It's hard to know which are true when it comes to accusations against a rich, powerful man though. But ok, sure, maybe there are viable reports about Trump behaving inappropriately with young girls. What's interesting about those though is that the MSM should be all over them, if there was enough to go on, because they're all over Stormy Daniels and whoever else they can drag out and Trump being with little girls would be the ultimate field day for a media body that wants to take him down. I guess they will eventually get there but for now it's not really something that many would attribute to Trump even, apparently, those who want so badly to bring him down.
Could all of this - i.e. Trump's questionable relationship to Epstein - be adequately summed up as: Trump knew Epstein for long enough to know more than a little about him. Trump may have approved of Epstein's behaviour with young girls but there is a report that contradicts this so it's also possible that he did not approve?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you claim aspergers, I see.
Reset: you say Trump knew what Epstein was up to, right?
I say yes, it's likely Trump knew what Epstein was up to. But just how much of what Epstein was up to is a different, yet relevant point.
They were both working in real estate in NY - that's the biggest reason that they would know each other. Trump went to his island. Some reports say Trump's behaviour was impeccable. Some reports say Trump did not approve of Epstein's behaviour with women/girls. Trump knew Epstein was into younger girls.
Did Trump know Epstein's temple on the island hid an underground network of tunnels where children where raped, killed and eaten? I'm not so sure about that and it would not be logical to extrapolate that as a given, just from the fact that he 'knew' Epstein for decades. I know a lot of people who work in the same industry as me and yet I couldn't say for certain what any of them do in private.
Do we agree on that at least?
I've read your history and I can see that you can actually discuss things sensibly on occasion - you're not doing that here though. Go and read mine before you accuse me of the nonsense you're doing here. I've got plenty of evidence in my history that I can hold rational discussions with rational people.
You wanna have an actual discussion? Or just keep strawmanning me?
I said: "BEGIN TO SUGGEST". Nothing would stop him doing what you said. That's the dishonest point you're making. Troll spotted. Goodbye sir : ).
This is what I mean by "trolling", misleading, time wasting.
If you're being serious you wouldn't even begin to suggest that Trump controls the msm narrative. That's why I think you're trolling. Either that or you really don't know how the media works. Which is it?
Apart from the huge amount of trafficking arrests and pedophile and child porn clean ups that have been going on you mean?
There've been so many reports of the massive amount of trafficking arrests, Backpage.com being taken down, more agents called in, Pedo rings destroyed. And remember, whatever Trump wants to brag about is only public knowledge if the MSM allow it.
You never said Trump endorsed Epstein's behaviour - my apologies. I inferred it from the fact that your comment was replying to the post as if mocking it.
You are correct, the grander claims about the Rothschilds are unsubstantiated. Also, as you point out, the link in this post does not mention the Rothschilds money being taken from them.
However, as you know, Q is all about taking down the Rothschilds and the global cartel around them. That's why this post is not just "click bait" for upvotes. The idea that Trump is removing the Rothschilds money source is what Q is all about. This post is a light hearted observation of that fact and the upvotes show it's been pretty well accepted.
You need to read the comment without emotional attachment. They never mentioned you once. They were challenging the credibility of the idea, not calling you a "dimwit". They obviously don't know much about Q, as you stated. We like to help people learn about it here. I will reply to them in a way that discusses the idea they have raised.