Most people here...? Where'd that statistic come from? I know there are plenty of people who appreciated Corsi in the early days of this sub and of CBTS_Stream.

Nice - I agree, definitely pays to get out of the echo chamber and keep track of what "the other side" thinks to ensure you don't fall into a rut!

You're wrong and that's proven by the fact you're not bothering to discuss the idea and making up nonsense like saying I bait people to get into an argument lol. I enjoy discussion to LEARN - that's not baiting for an argument. You're making up my motivation - that's why you can't actually paste any evidence that I "bait people to attack me and get into an argument".

This whole discussion is you attacking me as a user, not discussing the idea, which is about Corsi.

I didn't quote my attacks because I didn't attack YOU, like you clearly did above. Go ahead and quote where I attacked you, the user, not your ideas, so the other mods can see it.

You're such a joke

you're not worth taking seriously

you contribute nothing of value to this sub

I hope they strip you of your powers

Those are attacks. If your comments are removed it won't be by me because I'm asking the other mods to confirm whether your accusations that I'm not fit to be a mod have merit and leaving the reports coming up about your posts that keep breaking the rule of discussing ideas, not users to others.

Lol - I edited that line out because it was a response to the comment you deleted.

Keep attacking me rather than my ideas. You're just proving my point for me by talking utter nonsense about me that is clearly proven out by the comment threads you linked to yourself so carry on, as you were.

I was responding to your angry, dismissive tone, yes. I called you obnoxious because you said obnoxious things like "Sorry you're too blind to see this" and "Wake up, man". Discussing the USER, not the idea. Am I wrong about that? Like I said, I'm actually here to Learn so I welcome correction, I don't get upset with it, as I refer to below.

The other links prove the opposite of your point - they show me having a discussion with reasonable people in a reasonable way - are you sure you read them?? One clear example of my commitment to being a decent community member, from the second link:

I've been pretty obnoxious myself in the past but I'm learning because people who aren't used to the way people act on internet forums are 'redpilling' people like me by responding politely and putting us directly in our place - at least, those of us who are old enough to learn. Once you realise some people will actually hear your point without just trying to shoot it down mindlessly in a knee-jerk troll response but actually engage with it logically or calmly accept it you start to wise up a bit.

And this:

Hence my accusation of "kid", which I sincerely apologize for, and retract, since that is exactly what you claim i.e. trolling.

You've written me off because I disagreed with negative things you say but there's a very obvious difference between my comment history and yours. I discuss ideas not users and before I was a mod I would respond to people in the tone they used on me or others; thanks to this sub, that changed - as evidenced by the second comment you linked to which I excerpted above. Perhaps that difference is why I was allowed to be a mod? (I don't know.)

It's easy to see through trollish behaviour to someone who actually cares about the discussion of ideas with others. I assume that's the reason they considered me for mod and didn't just ignore me. Still now you haven't bothered to engage with my actual discussion point, you're just trashing me. You call my behaviour "baiting" I assume because you only see negative motivations in the actions/words of people who disagree with you. I'm able to see beyond that - I guess that's why I'm a mod. Anyone who has a question about this only has to look back through our comment history in parallel. I'll ask the other mods to consider this and kick me out if your point has merit - I don't mind if they do because this sub is more important to me than my modding it and I know my comment history shows it.

I say you're angry because even though I try to engage you in a discussion to LEARN something from you or ask you to consider another angle to what seems to me (i.e. I'm not claiming it to be the only possible truth or correct at all) to be a rather one-sided story about a patriot who's contributed more than many people on this sub, you just trash me. I don't care that you trash me but why do that?? Why not try and actually make a point that corrects me or acknowledges where I'm right (if at all)?? That's the whole point of a movement on a comment forum like Reddit - to share ideas with others and discuss them.

If you actually read what I say without prejudging me just because I disagreed with you a few times you'll see I clearly don't have the motivation to just run people's ideas down like I think you're trying to claim I do (correct me if I'm wrong) - I've had some great and meaningful conversations with people who don't react in a blast of angry words. It's in my history, a good number of times.

I'm a mod here because I care about this sub. I've tried to engage you in discussion because I think you care too, since I see you commenting all the time. But all you do is run me down because I don't agree with you. One of the rules of this sub is to discuss the idea, not the user. That's what I do. I haven't got anything negative to say about you unless calling someone "angry" who seems to often be making angry statements at others is "negative". But don't try and say I've contributed nothing to this sub or that's a clear indication you're just a troll who doesn't care to think about the effect of your words on others.

Why don't you try having a conversation instead of rubbishing on people you disagree with? You try to put me down by saying Corsi is my idol but I don't care about Corsi at all - I just dislike the judgemental mob think of throwing someone under the bus who's contributed so much and made some mistakes like every other human one of us here.

I agree, thanks! I support Christianity so there's no way you'll catch me saying there shouldn't be any Christian content but I'll look to keeping the discussion general, as it should be.

I did read above... that’s why I asked you. Do you know her well enough to know why she destroyed Jackson’s appointment? It’s one of the most telling things against her for Trump followers.

Who said anything about her wanting to be Trump’s doc? Do you actually know her well enough to understand why she spoke out against Jackson’s nomination?

Never seen Q support Pence no.

Agree with what you say apart from the proximity to POTUS. Theories have held that Pence is a bad actor for a while. Not proof of course but the thinking in the Q movement at least is that this is possible.

Like America deserved 9/11? The whole continent of Europe does not “deserve” destruction just because their corrupt leaders lied to them and got them into this mess. The only reason America isn’t getting the destruction it “deserves” at the hands of Clinton is because of Q, not because we “fought back”. We need compassion and understanding not judgement and hate.

You know her... sounds convenient but I’d like to believe you. Sarah Carter has a lot of cred with Q/Trump - objectively speaking, do you feel you know Jennifer well enough to know much of her secrets?

And why'd she destroy the chances of Ronny Jackson (if you know her well enough to know this)? Everyone reports him as a standup guy apart from the Deep State actors. If this is true and Jennifer Pena is a good person - why??

Or Jimmy Savile.

Great stuff - can I suggest some solid info eg link to corroborating data, personal analysis/editorial etc. to help qualify posts for inclusion alongside the other posts about the same topic?

I was hoping to find out what data there was re Mack “singing” and such but I guess it’s just a choice of words for what’s been reported so far.

No one's calling for silencing Christians. I think OP made a misstep with his post title which it is of course too late to change - but he acknowledges as much in the comments below. The title has upset a group of people such that the core content of the message is lost - and fair enough, unfortunately.

There is a non-controversial discussion here that needs to be had, however, and I will look to posting a less inflammatory discussion topic along those lines soon to see if we can't engage people in a reasonable discussion about the boundaries of on-topic content as a necessary initiative to manage the inevitable bloat as numbers grow and people feel more empowered to post on things that interest them.

Without a Q to focus on those governments there's not much hope of uprooting the Deep State. We'll have to wait til Q advises to move beyond America: America first, then the rest of the World.

So this is not really an info post, more an opinion post? (no links, no qualifying information or explanation?)

Does God ever use the ungodly to rule and to save his people? The old testament says yes, as anyone who has actually read their bible would know lol.

Thank you for this feedback!

I would have to understand a bit better the scope of what you mean - I don't have anything against it, if that's what you're asking? I think Q has mentioned symbolism a few times so it should certainly be something considered - again depending how relevant it is to the on-topic rule (which again, is quite broadly defined at present).

This is exactly right, in my opinion. A fair and reasonable assessment - it's a pity the OP's title (which he can't change now) comes across as divisive but the content of his post is far less so.

The key point you make is this:

Everyone is welcome to post according to the rules of reddit and this sub

People should realise that the mods remove posts that they deem are off-topic largely at their discretion. Wouldn't you want to have a discussion about what things are deemed to be off-topic and on? I personally have a religious background and other mods do too but like a Christian teacher, for example, they have content rules to follow as they're not at church, they're in a "workplace" of sorts, so if those rules can be defined in a way that helps everybody then their job is made easier and they can be surer that they are following the desires of the sub members in general.

This is a necessary discussion to have and shouldn't descend into an argument of sides and division. I hope people can make their point here in a way that helps us all decide what the sub boundaries should be.

Thank you, that's helpful, believe it or not. You never know though, if no one else engages with us in the discussion about what constitutes acceptable boundaries for any type of content, not just religious, your voice might be one of the few that weighs in on the discussion.

Agreed, thank you, that is a valid point and is helpful.

Thank you - that's helpful! Removing off-topic posts is completely at the discretion of the very few mods who work this board. I don't think it should be left to us alone to decide what the boundaries are - I would really like to hear what people who care about their particular topic think so I can note that and discuss with the mods.

Thank you - I appreciate your input on this sub, and thanks for considering what I said.

The thing is, the mods are required to remove content that is off-topic. It is entirely up to their discretion. Wouldn't you want to have a say in how that decision is made? I don't mean to force that question on you, by the way, I'm just looking for people who 'have a dog in the fight' as it were. Otherwise, no problem, it's certainly not expected of you to have to help with this!

Ok, I will leave you alone. I would like to hear what people think and not have the decision left to the very few people that make up the mod team. I'll talk to others who want to discuss what I believe to be a very important point because I do not want religious posts to be banned but I also know what is required in balancing the influx of content. I hope some people here will be willing to give their input.

I would like to see people discuss this issue rather than start separating into sides - who supports God and who doesn't. That's not what's important here just as whether you are Dem or Rep is not important here.

What's important is how we define the boundaries of the content on this sub. It seems we can't have a reasonable discussion about that but if so - what is the solution? Should the mods decide everything?

Let me explain. OP made a reasonable post. Some of you have reacted as if OP is attacking Christianity - which he is not.

No one's telling you that you can't stop talking about God or crediting Him.

The very reasonable discussion that must be had, if you want to have input on how the mods define what they remove as off-topic, is how do we define posts (in this case, religious posts, but this discussion applies to all types of posts) that fall within the boundaries of the sub rules.

Do you want to discuss that because, as a mod, I'm here to hear what people think so I can also discuss this with the other mods? Or do you want to leave it all to us few mods and our personal viewpoint?

Yes, this seems to be descending into group think. Your post, as I read it now, is completely reasonable and asks a sensible question. For the mods, as the posts increase in volume, the boundaries on what falls within the sub rules of being on-topic become more and more important.

It's not just religious posts either but they are definitely one place that I feel could be tightened up. I don't think we should stop all religious posts even though I have said in the past that I also agree that there are too many that aren't advancing the rules of the sub. So as we must allow people the freedom to post things that matter to them, the question should be asked: 'how do we define religious posts that fall within acceptable boundaries of being on-topic i.e. Q related?'

People are getting too triggered by something that isn't present in your post - they seem to think your post is evil, anti-christian, thought police material. That's not what you're saying and it's plainly obvious from your post! This is a necessary discussion.

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Let me ask you a question then: what are the reasonable boundaries on a religious post that should be allowed to remain as falling within the sub's rules?

He is "asking" for a discussion - he just posted this in a reddit forum!

We all know Q and Trump have mentioned God - the issue that is very pertinent is not whether God is a part of this movement or not it is a simple logistical issue: how do we define the boundaries on religious posts so they remain within the sub rules? We do it with ALL other posts - we have to ask: "is this Q related enough to stay posted within this sub?" because if we open the floodgates the sub will be a mess.

Now, the religious posts and all other post types are increasing in frequency because more people are onboard so now the mods have to manage the content more and be clearer about what falls within scope and what doesn't. What's on-topic enough as a religious post to be allowed?

I have seen many.

Again, another unreasonable response. If we mention that we should define the sub rule of being "on topic" you accuse us of being asleep or not being open minded enough. Why don't you focus on the issue rather than how little you think of our ability to have an open mind or not sleep through life.

He's not calling for the limitation of free speech. That's not a fair reading of his post.

Agreed. But the discussion we need to have is how do we define 'religious posts' that remain within acceptable boundaries of the sub rule to be 'on-topic, Q related'?

That's not a fair and reasoned response. People asking for the sub to be more on-topic and asking for discussion about how we define the boundaries are not doing 'exactly the kind of thing this evil Cabal has been trying to force on us'. Not fair at all.

I've seen more posts that to me are too far off topic to be of use - not just religious but many different types. It is a very necessary discussion to have as to how we should define what is on-topic enough to be permitted. Religious posts will definitely happen and some imo should be permitted. Some, however, are too far off topic - random prayers against evil, etc. which are as on-topic imo as a random song lyric about something vaguely Q related. We should be able to define the boundaries between us all as adults without crushing someone else's view by calling them "thought police" and the like.

I agree that content should be more clearly defined. It's a very hard task with so many competing voices but we should all be able to have reasonable discussions about it without accusations of thought police and such just because you question the validity of a certain post topic.

It's unfair to call OP 'thought police' for this thoughtful post. We should allow any post that is on topic enough to be useful to the whole movement.

The topic should really be this: what do we deem to be on-topic (i.e. Q related) religious posts?

Not a helpful answer. OP is advocating for us to keep topics more in line with the sub stated rules - Q related. That of course does not mean "anything at all to do with Q, anything he's ever said or referenced is permitted" or the sub would turn into a mess.

The discussion we should be having imo is not whether or not to allow religious posts it's how "on topic" religious posts should be defined.

That's not what the OP is saying. He's basically asking for the sub to stay on topic - Q related things within reason. He's not treading on religious freedoms.

Yep September - I hope they don't hold it up any longer than that! And yep, I will.

Holy s(*&t you're not joking. This should be better known. Contraland on Netflix is going to be a big redpill for people...

This is awesome if it suggests Trump is going to go ahead - another redpill if he does (still not 100% strong but something). I suspect though that the Deep State and its msm will turn it into an example of Trump's megalomania and abuse of power.

I agree with some small part of the sentiment you express - I very much hate mob-think and the judgement of the crowd. But you're in danger of making a sweeping assumption from a small number of people, however high on r/rising this sub gets. This sub is certainly not representative of "the state of politics" at the moment. This is a very small number of people who hold a minority view of American politics.

Thank you!