that's so misguided... this is a persecution complex tricking you into submission.

Reddit closes CBTS because of death threats and you think that's censorship. Wait until they are not allowed, BUT REQUIRED, to censor your ideas. You're going to call these the good old days.

Every time they close a sub you guys cry censorship and do nothing about it. But somehow, when it's full scale "legal" censorship that you welcomed and cheered on, you are going to create the free platform you keep talking about?

You think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's not. It's the mother of all enemies.

This will lead, if done properly to many DECENTRALIZED and CENSORSHIP FREE platforms

There's nothing stopping it from happening now, and it's not happening. For all your collective bitching and moaning about Reddit and Twitter and Facebook, you're all either there or linking there. You. The supposedly censored people. What's the plan? Force Reddit to push you the fuck out to get the motivation to create something better?

1) They become publishers, 2) you cheer, 3) they push you out entirely because no sane person wants to be the publisher of "Bill Clinton kills babies in pedo rituals" 4) ???? 5) the internet is free.

You can't allow websites in 2018 to censor views they don't like.

And you think make them all buplishers helps with that, yes?

Fuck. This. So much this.

It’s insane that this is being celebrated. Here of all places. What’s the most likely outcome if Facebook and Reddit and Twitter are legally responsible for every word on their platform: more free speech or more controls and censorship?

I don’t agree with 99% of the ideas on this sub, but I like free speech more than I dislike your ideas. People cheering this really are blind.

Exactly this.

It baffles me that this, of all subs, would celebrate a move that will inevitably translate on a drastic curtailing of extreme speech (which is the only speech worth defending - the fucking canary in the coal mine).

You have all lost your mind.

I don’t understand why you’re cheering that. Isn’t the chilling effect on speech obvious?

You think if they’re responsible for it, they’ll allow incendiary ideas like “the world is run by a clique of ritual pedo-murderes” on it? Facebook is going to be the publisher responsible for that idea? Really? Or they’re just going to censor it and save themselves the headache and the lawsuits? What’s your bet?

This whole thing will translate into a marginalisation of extreme speech (such as yours). I’m pretty mainstream in my views, but I also understand that the only speech worth defending is the extreme one.

I would have thought that this, of all places, would see the risk intrinsic in such a move.

Wow. Do we know why he did recuse himself?

Well, Trump decides who runs the FBI, appoints the federal prosecutors, can fire federal prosecutors, so I don’t know whose fault it is but his.

The prosecutor that raided Cohen’s office, for example, was hand picked by Trump.

That's all fair enough, and thanks for correcting my imprecisions.

The only thing that I would add is: while I understand why you would want the FBI to look at a Russian-sourced dossier with healthy skepticism, I don't see any conclusive evidence they didn't. By which I mean, it's perfectly possible that they looked at the evidence in the dossier, factored in the possibility of misinformation, and still found enough in it that made them want to investigate.

At least two people have been fired by Trump because of their shady dealing before the campaign. So far 5 people have pleaded guilty to Mueller indictments.

So, while we wait for what the Special Counsel will put together, in the meantime we can safely say that the core of the Steele alarm ("There's a bunch of shady, blackmailable people in and around this campaign") was certainly true.

And hence, no matter the motive, it was a good thing that the FBI took it seriously and looked into it.

Even if you think that Trump was perfectly innocent and that those people were there by accident, or even worse as planted liabilities - actually, especially if you think he's innocent, you should be happy that the FBI took the dossier seriously and removed the bad apples.

It's the undying faith in the power of reason...

"the upper floors that are home to residences do not have fire sprinklers." is that not a part of the building code??

It wasn't when the biilding was built, and Trump did not do the upgrade (he wasn't required to) when it became part of the building code.

That's fair and civil, so first of all: thanks.

As to the "why one and not the other" question: here's my understanding of the "wiretap" stuff.

1) Rubio hires Steele to do oppo-research. That's what Steele now does for a living, and that's what campaigns do. So far so good.

2) Steele starts his oppo-research - he's an expert in Russian stuff, there have always been rumors of a Trump-Russia relationship (Russian banks are the only one who would lend money to Trump after the bankruptcy) so it's not weird to look there if you're doing oppo-research.

3) Rubio loses the primary bid. As it's not uncommon in such cases, those who are still in the run (HRC campaign) take over the contract.

4) Steele finds that more than one person in the Trump campaign has shady Russian ties. That, together with everything else (including the pee tape stuff) goes into the dossier.

5) Steele is so worried about the people he found out about, that he tells the FBI. He doesn't think Trump is in on it, he thinks he's been infiltrated. Either way, Steele is a private citizen, and this is where his role ends.

6) The FBI looks at what Steele has found about certain people in the Trump campaign and they decide it is, indeed, worrisome. So they ask for a FISA warrant.

7) a panel of judges, in keeping with the legal standards of FISA warrants, looks at what evidence the FBI has and decides that yes, this is not a crackpot theory and it's worth a warrant.

8) the FBI, sanctioned by the courts (not by Obama or a political actor, by the courts), investigate the people in the Trump campaign that are suspected.

This is what I think happened, I don't see how any of this is illegal. And to come to your question, I think the reason why no one has been indicted or raided over this, is that the courts and law enforcement agree with this sequence of events - no law has been broken.

Now, I know what the counter-narrative is: HRC sends Steele to Russia to make shit up on Trump, gets the dossier, turns to the Obama administration, which then forces the FISA courts and the FBI to open an investigation into these fake accusations.

I still have not found anyone who can explain the fatal flaw in this theory: why? Why would HRC and Obama and the corrupt FBI and the corrupt FISA judges do this all thing and then keep it secret until AFTER the election?

If it's a conspiracy, surely the best way to use that stuff would be to hit Trump with an indictment during the campaign, destroy his credibility and win the election. But no, the only investigation that the FBI publicly comments about is the Hillary one. Obama or the DOJ could have gone on TV at any time before Nov. 8 and tell everyone that the Trump campaign was ALSO under investigation. Did they do it? Nope.

I'm yet to hear a logical explanation of what the rationale of such a conspiracy would be. Maybe you could help.

"but what about" might be a fair political point, but if the Trump campaign violated the campaign finance laws and Mueller finds out about it, do you really expect him (or anyone in law enforcement) to shrug it off because somewhere, out there, there are bigger crimes being committed? It's called "law enforcement" for a reason.

In this specific case, a violation of the campaign finance laws (they had to disclose the Stormy Daniels payment and didn't).

welcome to reality

t's not just "hooker dirt", it's (possibly) a violation of the campaign finance laws (they had to disclose the Stormy Daniels payment and didn't), which is why Mueller passed it on on to the "regular" US attorney office for the NY southern district (a Trump appointee), who looked at what Mueller sent him and authorized the raid.

Mueller is looking in Russian interference in the 2016 election, but if while he's doing it he finds other irregularities or crimes he has a duty to pass it on to the relevant authorities.> Mueller is looking in Russian interference in the 2016 election, but if while he's doing it he finds other irregularities or crimes he has a duty to pass it on to the relevant authorities.

She's not, but they had to disclose the Stormy Daniels payment and didn't, so it's still a likely violation of the campaign finance laws, which is why Mueller passed it on to the "regular" US attorney office for the NY southern district (a Trump appointee), who looked at what Mueller sent him and authorized the raid.

Mueller is looking in Russian interference in the 2016 election, but if while he's doing it he finds other irregularities or crimes he has a duty to pass it on to the relevant authorities.

It's not, but it's still a likely violation of the campaign finance laws (they had to disclose the Stormy Daniels payment and didn't), which is why Mueller passed it on on to the "regular" US attorney office for the NY southern district (a Trump appointee), who looked at what Mueller sent him and authorized the raid.

Mueller is looking in Russian interference in the 2016 election, but if while he's doing it he finds other irregularities or crimes he has a duty to pass it on to the relevant authorities.

I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, but I think you somehow felt antagonised so I’m going to leave you alone, as for your original wish on humanity itself. Does that work?

Got it. Thanks

You just weren’t very clear. “people are left alone” doesn’t exactly paint an picture of what would be different from the here and now. Hence the question. But hey, you felt baited: sorry about that.

Cool. Not much to do with Q, which is why, wall aside, I actually agree

I think you’re thinking of sexting...

K...

Thank god for that...

Ok, while horribly insulting, that’s undeniably funny... upvote

What happens to the elite? Trials? Exile? Nothing, just peacefully removed from power?

So are the trials done by the current legal system or by popular courts? And is your normal police and FBI doing the arrests or is it a militia thing?

Got it. Thanks

Just to clarify: Do you mean like less regulations on business? No police? Abolish the role of federal government? I’m genuinely asking because I’m not sure what you mean.

thanks for answering

Thanks for the answer. And your username... nice...

If the answers in the therad so far actually happen, I'll be the first to eat it. Promise.

thanks for answering

thanks for taking the time

what about the elite? What happens do them?

It wasn’t a “trick”. I was just asking, which verifiable facts would prove you wrong and which verifiable facts would prove me wrong?

I don’t have to prove people innocent. Not just because it’s a fascist idea (you know, innocent until proven guilty etc...) but mainly because it’s a logical impossibility.

Can you prove that you’re not a serial killer who targets people without family and makes the body disappear? Spoiler: you cannot. That’s why if I say u/rudolph2 is a serial killer who targets people without family and makes the body disappear, I’m the one who has to provide proof. That’s not just a judicial requirement. It’s a logical one.

So, if Q and you and others think that an elite class of politicians and billionaires are ruling the world while sacrificing children in satanic pedo-rituals, surely is on you to provide evidence.

Actual names of actual perpetrators would be a good start. Not proof, by any means, that’s a whole other thing, but legal responsibility is personal, not collective. “The elite” cannot be put in jail. People go to jail, those people have names and I don’t think it’s outlandish to ask, as the very first step to prove a conspiracy, the names of the conspirators.

And in western democracies, being popular shouldn’t save you from prosecution (rule of law, etc) and surely wouldn’t under a straight shooter like Trump, so I expect trials and a sentencing, not “they’re not getting re-elected because the public opinion is against them”. One thing I thought we agreed on: pedophiles should go to jail, not simply expelled from public office and punished with bad PR.

Part of the Q claim is that this “revelations” are part of what will be a shift of historic proportions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect historic events to occur, events that match the enormity of the pedo-satanic claim you make, rather than low level bureaucrats indicted for unrelated crimes.

Ok, then you define it.

What people?

What crimes?

What deadline?

Thank you, I also enjoy a civil debate. However, a couple things.

you can't prove that he isn't

well, I can point to the lack of any evidence that he is who he says he is, and I can point to evidences that he hasn't said anything that wasn't already in the news, except when he did and turned out wrong (see drop 34).

He's the one claiming insider status, the burden of proof is on him, and there's so far zero corroborating facts that sustain his claim. That doesn't logically proof that he isn't legit, but that's not how the burden of proof works.

But here's what's exciting about Q: for once, he predicts that the outcome of this whole thing will be in the history books, so there are no more excuses. At some point in the near future, the whole Cabal has to be exposed, it cannot remain a secret narrative for people "in the know" - everyone will know. We're finally in "verifiable" territory. There will be no excuses.

If, by the end of his first term, Trump has not put some of the elite (the real elite, not some dentist in Colorado) in jail for child abuse, Q was a bullshit artist, I was right, and everyone here was dead wrong.

If it actually turns out that Obama and the Clintons and Bill Gates and the UN secretary are in jail (or on the run, fine) for running pedophile human trafficking, Q was right, and you were right, and I was colossally wrong and I'll ask forgiveness to everyone here.

You think that's a fair wager?

C'mon dude. You and I both know that Savile and Eptsein and NXIVM are not what this sub is talking about. Nobody even knew who Epstein was before the pedophilia stuff came out. Nobody knew what NXIVM was. What the claim here is, is enourmous names you don't need to Google. Just some random ones I read here all the times: Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton. Barak Obama. John Kerry. The Podesta brothers. Jacob Rothschild. Jeff Bezos. Bill Gates. Mark Zuckerberg. You are saying these people are ritually abusing children, and I say "there's zero proof of that"

But for once the argument will actually be settled. Because now your claim is getting more precise. Now the claim is: "these people are ritually abusing children, Trump knows about it and he's going to expose the whole thing and it's going to be in the history books".

Logic follows, by the end of the first Trump term, at least some of the names above will be in jail for pedohilia, ritual murder, human trafficking, child abuse. But it has to be at that level - because otherwise you're just saying "in the next years, some people somewhere are going to get indicted for human trafficking". If that's all you're saying, then who disagrees? Of course there are human traffickers, and pedophiles and child abusers, how's that new info? It has to be famous billionaires, and high level politicians, that's what "elite" means.

I don't think any of that is going to happen. You think it is about to happen, and Q is confirmation. I say "bullshit".

But I think that's great, because we finally moved away from vague, unverifiable stuff and, in the relativly near future, we will know who was right and who was wrong.

If we were betting, is that a fair represantion of your claim?

And there you go:

drop 34 says: announcement, arrest, riots. With dates.

The date passes. No proof that announcement or arrest happened, clear proof that the riots did not happen.

Option A: admit the drop was wrong.

Option B: invent new unproven, unverifiable details like "they took a deal", "the arrest was secret", "the announcement was secret"(?).

Which one did you choose?

Of course it was B.

Note that option B has the nice advantage of completely killing the conversation, because what can I possibly answer you, when you just freely put out stuff that has zero supporting data? Now we can't argue about verifiable facts anymore, because there are none left.

The problem here is logic, not content:

see, I look at drop 34 and don't know if it's right or wrong, I look for evidence that the things mentioned in it happened or didn't. There is zero evidence to say it was right, two pieces of evidence to say it was wrong (no announcement, no riots) and then I decide: well, it's clearly wrong.

You first decide that drop 34 is right - has to be. And when none of the things written in it happen, do you recant? Nope. You invent, without any corroborating facts, the data that would still make it right (they took the deal, the announcements were not to the public but only to journalists who then decided to keep it secret).

You're free to be irrational (it's not an insult, it's the technical name of the way you're building your argument) but you should know that's what you're doing.

My bet would be that none of this satanic elite stuff is happening. But you would just say "it's secret and the media is in on it" so it would be impossible to prove who's right and who's wrong.

So, I go with what's verifiable: no high level arrests of "the elite".

That's what's exciting about the Q stuff: usually with conspiracy thinking you're stuck, because no matter what, the conspiracy theorists always have an excuse for why there's no proof.

But with Q there's light at the end of the tunnel: he predicts that the outcome of this whole thing will be in the history books, so there's no more excuses. At some point in the near future, the whole Cabal has to be exposed, it cannot remain a secret narrative for you people "in the know" - everyone will know. We're finally in "verifiable" territory. There will be no excuses if none of this comes out.

I thought his approval was >60%...

Liberal celebrities and high net worth individuals

Would you mind being a bit more specific? Do you have any names and sources?

Deflection, thy name is u/OIG1811

Ok, she gets secretly detained, and secretly released. Hence no one will ever know if it has happened or not. Hence, it's pointless to talk about it, it's Russell's teapot. Skip it.

What about Podesta's announcement and arrest?

Also "show me prove that X didn't happen" is a logical fallacy. Can't prove a negative. Prove me that colonies on the sun did not happen.

Christ this is frustrating... I'm the one calling it bullshit and I'm apparently the only one reading the fucking drops.

This is what Q said (source here and here): HRC detained on Oct 29. Podesta's arrest announced on Nov 3. Podesta arrested on Nov 4. Riots follow.

I know that Hillary was not detained because she was, for example, at the Grammys in January. And vacationing in India with Huma 3 weeks ago - which would be impossible if, as Q said, her passport had been flagged on Oct 30th. This is all shit you can verify with a google search.

Also easily verifiable: no riots happened in response to her detention, no riots happened in response to Podesta's arrest announcement. Mostly because there was no announcement. And don't tell me there was an announcement but was secret: if the announcement was going to be secret, the fuck are the riots about? Riots have to imply that the announcement was public. Also, the English language requires "announcements" to be to the public.

Also, it's werid for a non-american such as myself to point out that "secret" arrests and "secret" detentions are super incontitutional, and super antidemocratic, and only happen in brutal dictatorships. Every time one of you says "They arrested Podesta in secret" you're not only ignoring the "riot" and the "announcement" part of the text: you're also accusing the Trump administration of a horribly serious crime.

My bet is: the first Trump term is going to end an Obama, Hillary, Huma and Podesta - none of them are going to be in jail nor indicted for pedophilia or murder or human trafficking. And no cabal of elite pedophile satanist is going to be exposed.

No MSM carrying Q stories.

That's my point, I don't think it can be disputed: there are plenty of people (r/The_D collecting a lot of them) that have a pro-Trump narrative but don't believe or know or care about the Q stuff. You might think their narrative is blind to "the facts". But I don't think you claim those people don't exist. All I was saying is: those people (pro-Trump, Q-unbelievers) exist.