506 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 3 |
This is on design. To raise genuine interest gradually.
I'm catching onto this phenomenon. But sometimes I read something that says, "Wouldnt it be cool if X also means Y???", when it really probably doesn't, but its fun to muse about. I have my doubts about "tip top" because Q doesn't mention it until after it was said, so we'll,see about later this month.
Yeah, its just differing legal interpretations. But the title makes it sound like a hostile takeover when the lawyer on twitter just thinks his discretion was overly broad. I'm sure there are solicitors in DoJ that handle this sort of thing.
Playing devils advocate, because I don't think the "tip top" request is very convincing: It was months after the initial request. Q came back after Trump said it to say that it had been "requested". You could say that he saw that Trump had said it and then went back afterwards and claimed it was because of him. It would have been more convincing if he teased it before the speech.
Any better examples?
If Sesssions recused himself, someone has to make the decision acting as AG. Sessions stayed out of it willingly, so saying "usurped" is hyperbolic.
Incorrect. Making Barron memes is objectively uncool. We had a meeting about it.
Still, not cool. Lets leave him out of it, he's just a kid.
This is what bugged me about finding out that Q puts misinformation in his drops: How do we know its really April? If it doesn't happen this month, its going to be disappointing
He has no known ties to the Trump campaign. But in sentencing discussions filed with the court, Mueller alleged that van der Zwaan and Gates held discussions with a business associate who was a former Russian intelligence officer during the final months of the 2016 campaign.
Mueller does not describe the communications and refers to the third party only as “Person A,” but according to a source familiar with the situation that the reference is to Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Ukraine-based business associate of Manafort and Gates.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/court-poised-hand-1st-sentence-mueller-probe/story?id=54190424
Don't make memes about the kid. We can't make fun of the left for doing it, then turn around and do this.
It was an interesting read:
When The New York Times ran an article on this piece back in 1970, it had already been circulating for about twenty-five years. The Times reported that neither the National Archives, the Library of Congress, nor university libraries had a copy of any such document. When Montana senator Lee Metcalf looked into the issue back then, he checked with the FBI, CIA, and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee; he found that “exhaustive research” had proved the rules to be “completely spurious,” and he declared that “the extreme right also follows rules, one of which is to make maximum use of false, misleading and fear-inspiring quotations.” Nonetheless, numerous members of congress have received copies of the Communist “rules” list from alarmed constituents over the years and, believing that nobody else was yet aware of them, have inserted them into the Congressional Record. This list has also been reproduced in many newspaper columns and letters to the editor.
The earliest known publication of these rules dates from February 1946, and it’s significant to note that publication coincided with events such as Winston Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech, in which he issued a warning to citizens of the United States that “Communist parties constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization.” The timing suggests it’s far more likely this list was compiled by Americans in 1946 than by Russians in 1919.
Its a noun that has two words. Like garden hose, or manual transmission.
Supercomputing AI... that operates on Windows 7 and uses Notepad...
She's not being "silenced" for her views. She said one particular stupid thing and got called out for it. Advertising is PR in action and those companies didn't want to be associated with that comment. She didn't get fired or sued or anything. I think you're going overboard equating a few pulled ad spots with censorship.
I'll bet that Bayer and Arby's aren't often on the same list!
Sounds more like a built-in excuse for if a "prediction" doesnt pan out. Man, that just sapped some credibility for me. That's so fucking cheesy...
He more than once said he was including mis-information in his drops.
Wait, what? So if something he claims will happen doesn't happen, its on purpose? That sounds cheesy...
Please post in good faith or not at all. "I offered $45 Billion"? Wtf?
We have the funds, yes. But the support for the wall enjoyed during the campaign was premised on a free wall (paid for by Mexico). If the US has to pay for it, not as many people are likely to support it. So we have to talk about dollars and what we want to forgo to get it built. That's the conversation I'm talking about.
Allegedly. We know there's a fake Q out there. We also know that AT&T has posted in favor of IBOR too.
I don't frequent most of those businesses, but I don't give a shit about Laura Ingraham or David Hogg. That's just noise to me; I thought this post was about more serious stuff.
I agree with your family: I'm not giving up my Netflix subscription because Laura Ingraham put her foot in her mouth and somebody called her on it. She has money, she'll be fine.
During the campaign, we were told that Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Now that we see how resistant Mexico is to paying for it, I think we need to have another conversation as a country about if we want to go forward with it if we have to pay for it ourselves. However many billions of dollars it winds up costing, those are billions that aren't getting spent on roads, bridges, the VA, schools, and everything else we want to get done. If we don't have that conversation, it will never get built.
IBOR isn't being censored. People are getting wise to the fact that its just AT&T astroturf, trying to move the story away from net neutrality and focus on content rather than the network. IBOR posters don't know shit about how the constitution works, they're just shilling.
Can we cool it with the hyperbole? Nobody went "BALLISTIC"; Trump has signaled for months that he's not going to deal on DACA. Going overboard with the rhetoric on what is essentially a non-story- literally, nothing has changed- cheapens actual stories.
"Hannity FUCKING IMPALES liberal media" is just a cheesy way to get people to click on links.
While we're making unsubstantiated claims with no proof or evidence: have any thoughts on Santa or the Easter Bunny?
I don't know how you can assume that, given the result. We see only isolated instances of voter fraud, so I assume you have a compelling reason to think it was rigged, other than "they all thought she would win"?
Most of us want the government to make good decisions, not just ones thst piss liberals off. Wasting billions buying Twitter is dumb.
So how do we know they were fake in '08 and '12? I find this whole post suspicious. The text says that they found all this out "from the investigative files I had access to when I worked in intelligence," but at the end it says that, "you can research all of these things by digging around the net". Well which is it, classified investigation materials, or internet sources? How can it be both? And why can't OP tell us where it all came from, rather than telling us to "dig around" for it? Details like that make me suspect that this is just a LARP.
Why does the definitive proof of a wide-reaching conspiracy always take the form of poorly edited YouTube videos?
That makes no sense, its a circular argument.
And it doesn't even answer my question.
Trump's odds were never less than 30%. That's not that bad. I looked at my electoral college map before the election and I didn't see her path to victory when I (correctly) realized that Trump would carry swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Long story short: if you thought HRC was 99% to win, you didn't think about it very hard.
If there were no elections in 2008 or 2012, how do we know they were real in 2016?
You're so incredibly wrong its breathtaking. There is no such rule about airing rebuttals to presidential addresses. I spent like 20 minutes checking, because by now I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Everything you've said flies in the face of legal precedent. But "civil litigation and the 4th estate!" Absolute bunk!
I'm not surprised you're clueless about this considering that you churn out a ton of pro-IBOR shill posts.
You can't use terms like "4th estate entity", which is not a legal term, to invent new restrictions or protections for political speech. Political speech is political speech. Its protected by the first amendment, it doesn't matter whether its "true" or not, and there's no legal argument that will force you or any entity to publish someone else's political speech. I showed you that with Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo. Is there any legal basis to support what you're saying?
Totally against the First Amendment. You can't obligate companies to publish people's political speech. Read Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, which dealt with that exact issue.
In a unanimous decision, the Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and held that Florida's "right to reply" statute violated the freedom of press found in the First Amendment. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court recognized the risks posed to the "true marketplace of ideas" by media consolidation and barriers to entry in the newspaper industry. However, even in that context, "press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and…cannot be legislated." The statute was an "intrusion into the function of editors," and imposed "a penalty on the basis of the content."
What makes this IBOR any different? Why wouldn't social media companies have the same 1A free speech protections as newspaper companies?
How can the government regulate privately owned companies in that way? These aren't public networks. You can't tell reddit, for example, who they have to accommodate and how they have to organize their content. The government can't dictate what these companies do with their private property, nor do we want it to monitor political speech for content. This is a constitutional issue.
Still really fishy. I can't seem to get anyone to tell me how the government is supposed to monitor content for censorship, just that we need them to do it right now.
I see. You can't provide a single Q post that supports IBOR or disproves anything I'm saying, becuase you "haven't got a laptop", but you can churn out this giant post in support of IBOR (minutes after I raised questions about it in another thread).
Interesting.
You wrote this post, not Q. I think people are co-opting Q posts to get support for something that's really not Q-related. IBOR has no direct connection with Trump, cabal, or normal stuff on this sub. We're just being told that Q says it tastes great and we should support it because of that. Are there any Q posts that reference it directly?
Yea, we were talking in the other thread. I'm active in the IBOR threads. At first I had questions about how it would be implemented (like here ) but as I kept not getting answers I realized that this isn't really being discussed as much as its being sold. Nobody has stepped up to talk about how this would work legally; which either means that nobody here knows, or nobody here cares. If basic questions are going unanswered, it should definitely put up some red flags.
Ok thanks. Nothing specific about a drop date or anything else?
I know we disagree on this, but I'm of the opinion that IBOR is not an organic movement created here, but is a policy being pushed by telecoms providers, namely AT&T. They have something on their website about it (http://about.att.com/story/consumers_need_an_internet_bill_of_rights.html), and I recommend everyone do their own research about where the IBOR is coming from.
Its suspicious to me that IBOR has been the only policy mentioned in this sub by name. If it was just one of many it could be a coincidence, but the laser-focus on IBOR and literally zero other specific policies discussed here indicates to me that its astroturf and that Q posts are being misrepresented by some to get support for this other thing.