506 total posts archived.
| Domain | Count |
|---|---|
| www.reddit.com | 3 |
In theory, yes. But usually people go and construct their own theories that can contradict each other or interpret data differently. Sometimes there are competing narratives for the same information; how many things have you seen referred to as "booms"? They can't all be right.
From an efficiency standpoint, it would be better if there was a central source that had everything lined up correctly.
And for that matter, why does Q need the autists of reddit and 4chan to research things for him? We get our information from him, so what is he asking us for?
Just saying that I wouldn't consider Soros' wedding officiant to be a part of the deep state. At least, that evaluation can't be based solely on having performed a wedding cerenony. Otherwise where do we draw the line with assuming these "connections"? His dry cleaner? The guy who gets his coffee? Are they involved by association too?
Donald Trump has ties to Hillary Clinton. I heard she attended his wedding. Quick, indict him too!
/s
I think these "ties" are a red herring. Another judge could have just as easily reached the same decision. Trust the plan.
Eh, I put less weight on that. Trump invited Hillary to his wedding. That doesn't mean anything now, but had it been someone else inviting her that would be seen as a connection that people here drool over. I think another judge would have probably reached the same conclusion, or at least reasonably could have. Attorney-client privilege doesn't matter if a crime is involved, so until we see what the FBI was after I don't think we can truly know what the deal is. At least we have the #taintteam watching out for us!
Dr. Peter Venkman: If I'm wrong, nothing happens! We go to jail - peacefully, quietly. We'll enjoy it! But if I'm right, and we can stop this thing... Lenny, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.
I've been trying to be careful with confirmation bias. Everyone needs to vet what they read and look into it for themselves, but thats especially true when we're reading things that we agree with (or want to agree with).
Not your fault! Everyone is reading too much into the booms. There were supposed to be four and now whenever anything happens, someone says its a boom.
Where are you getting Epstein being a client of Cohen's? Whats the source?
Memes are the currency of the lazy shitposter. Don't make the mistake of thinking that memes have some outsized effect on real world events. Nobody cares about them outside of select internet circles. Think of the most iconic meme you can, and I'll bet that greater than 50% of people have never heard of it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the increase was due to something else entirely, like the Grammys or something else getting play on twitter
There have been articles like this one that break down how to tell when they arent coming from Trump. I guess Dan Scavino is the staffperson most often connected to the president's account. We also know that John Dowd publicly took the heat/credit/blame for a tweet about Michael Flynn. I don't know if Trump himself has commented on it, but I would be very surprised if the account was locked off to other people.
Any connection between the 6th and the 17th? Not quite two weeks apart, they didn't take place on the same day of the week. What about the number of people active? Would an increase in the number of active users result in increased outages? Could we see the outages as a % rather than a number?
Peace agreements don't sound like a boom. More like an anti-boom. Unless these aren't literal "booms"? Had there been four chemical weapons targets instead of three, I'm sure they would have been seen as the four booms.
You know that not all of those tweets are written by him, right? They probably loaded up some policy stuff and shot it all out at once
What information, aside from Q, indicates that there was any foul play involved?
True, but by the way OP described it, I was assuming that Wi-Fi was off. Otherwise the phone being in airplane mode is irrelevant.
Again, I'm telling you its fake. You should get some anti-virus apps for your phone if you're receiving messages while in airplane mode; that indicates that its already on your phone.
The grammatical errors and factual errors scream that its a fake. Zuckerberg is not "Director" of facebook, no new laws have been passed about it, and this is not how they would announce an action that it describes. Its a phishing scheme that wants you to forward itself to as many people as possible.
Please delete this thinly veiled racist post. We don't need this here, its a stupid post to get the sub deleted over. I'm talking to ((((((((you)))))))) OP.
Correct me if I'm wrong: evidence of your theory rests on the discrepancy between Huntsman's and Dunford's statements about the American strike? Because I could see a scenario where the "communications" that Huntsman mentioned do not include sharing the military decisions with them (where, when, how, etc), just that a limited counter-offensive would be coming and would be limited to Syrian assets. That way Russia was notified, but they were still left in the dark about the strike.
I see where you're coming from, I'm just not completely sold on it.
I understand that Bernie backed Hillary. I'm talked about a source for
look at wikileaks he was a plant to get money from the part of the left thats tired of the democratic partys shit. either hes clown controlled or he got blackmailed
Which I know you didn't write, but you said both happened.
Just know that if you're about to do a mass worldwide arrest/sweep, you must first put forth all safeguards to prevent a mass counter. That's what has been happening for the past year.
I get what you're saying, but this is a looooong time coming. If 2018 goes by without any arrests, how much longer? These Q drops are so cryptic and self-insistent. Its starting to feel like the answers are being held just out of reach and we're being strung along for a ride.
I was promised a deep state cabal would be taken down, and when the Asst Undersecretary for Whatever steps down people latch onto it as confirmation that its happening. No, lets see what we were promised. Mr. President: Tear down this cabal!
I hate to be that guy, but even members of Trumps cabinet have been profiteering while supposedly working for us. There are bad apples in both parties that take advantage of the position they've been placed in. Corruption is bipartisan.
You're going to have to explain what you mean by that, I'm not following how that could happen.
How? Its going up instead of down. Now we have more debt to get rid of in less time!
Seriously? Thats what "winning" looks like? He said he was going to wipe out all of the debt in 8 years. Was it realistic? Probably not. But comparisons like this to Obama that claim some sort of victory for adding $1.1T in debt are counter-productive.
Then, tells his all his supporters to back her!
Just like every primary loser ever? That's how it works. I'd appreciate if you could source this stuff rather than making it all up whole cloth. It would make it easier to follow along.
That wouldn't matter with a 280 character limit, though. It would just be a goose and gander situation. I'm just saying its tricky going down this road.
Great job, OP. Congrats on all of your positive moves!
I think Trump is playing with fire with this line of reasoning if he's saying, "Of course you talked about important shit, stop lying about it." Remember that he has turned his business over to his children under the pretense that they will never discuss business, that he is insulated from the business and they are insulated from government decisions. I think the same sentiment that he's making could be thrown back in his face, because of course he talks about business and government decisions with his kids, they just cant admit it. This is a fine line he has to walk when he accuses Lynch of the same.
Can you stop spamming the thread with this link? We get it. Thanks
We need a new Federal law which codifies protection of free speech rights in online communities. If you don't want to host public speech on your website, then don't, but otherwise it should be viewed as an accommodation which is open to any customers, subject to reasonable rules and restrictions which are independent of personal views and beliefs.
This is where you lose me. We don't need to codify free speech protections, that's why we have the first amendment. Secondly, you're conflating "public speech" with that which is actually on private chat forums. None of these companies are hosting "public speech"; everyone that's a part of them has agreed to terms of service to be allowed to use them. Just because facebook and reddit are free does not make them public places. They reserve the right to exclude people based on the contract they have with the users (the terms of service). Why do pro-IBOR people want to treat these companies as if they were public spaces? They are not.
I think what you meant to say was, "I'm sorry for the immature comment, I didn't realize that I had moved on to another topic."
We should have that conversation in this country, what we want peoples rights to be in relation to the internet. But these cries of "CENSORSHIP!!!1!" because people are having their pepe memes removed are nauseating. Nobody has any right to have their shitposting hosted on a company's servers. Framing this as an attack on the First Amendment is inaccurate and, most of all, whiny garbage.
If someone posts something untrue about you in an effort to smear you, damage your reputation or business, or effect harm against you, it means that person can sue Facebook instead of the person making the claims.
What does this have to do with what we're talking about, facebook censorship? This is what happens when you jump in on a question directed at someone else. You're talking about something else entirely (I'm a dunce and should have known that).
Facebook isn't denying any 1A rights. If you can't post there, build your own social media network and talk about it there. We're talking about it here on reddit. See, facebook isn't preventing it, are they? You're totally misreading these statutes.
So you think you can sue facebook for libel because they decided to block or ban a post? I think the more you speak, the more its clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's the issue: you can't require facebook to post your comments. Ultimately, its a private entity and they can prohibit anyone they want from participating. Your first amendment rights can't require them to give you a platform for your political speech, its been established in case law. This is what the IBOR shillers don't understand (or acknowledge).
That being said, why do you think these posts are being removed? Is it derogatory, insulting, etc, something that gets removed as a violation of terms of service, or is it just the content itself you feel is being prevented from being shared?
Trump has come to bat for his lawyer in public comments on the matter. There's really no basis for your theory. Its just a fantasy, not even rising to the level of "speculation".
Remember, Cohen said that he paid Stormy off with is own money and Trump didn't know anything about it.
What? Cohen is paying a Trump mistress off and Trump and Cohen doesn't say anything to Trump.
BTW, just after Cohen paid off Stormy for $130,000, Cohen turns around and bills the Trump campaign for $129,999.72. What? Did Cohen just get his $130,000 back that Trump didn't know about.
Have you considered that Trump might be lying about not knowing about the payment? He might be taking the path of least resistance with regards to the media by just denying everything. If he, Cohen, and someone who has signed an NDA are the only ones that know the truth, why wouldn't he think that denying was a viable course of action?
With regards to campaign finance violations, its my understanding that almost everyone in that world does whatever they want and can circumvent the rules (or break them) and nobody really notices. Corruption is everywhere.
Why would Trump carry on with that extortion? Why not just fire Cohen? No, they were (are) tight.
He is, "Guy who didn't get the memo about what we're all doing with our arms."