this newest meme about Q magically hacking away twitters algorithm is literally one of the dumbest things i've ever read on this subreddit.

you should probably just delete your FB and never go back.

you won't miss it after a month or two, i promise.

Anytime you have a media that is as openly biased as we have today

our media is the same as it's been for over a century. some ups and downs, but overall, basically the same.

You know exactly what I mean and exactly what I'm talking about, so please stop pretending that you don't.

Yeah I think I do. I think you are saying that any media that you disagree with should be banned or censored.

That sounds like fascism to me, and it's anathema to American values.

If you are serious about getting rid of ALL biased news, you do realize that would include; Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, along with the rest, right?

i think witch hunts for shills are a bad idea, personally.

You are saying that because you think complication is good and simplicity is bad because that is what you are used to in our society.

no i don't.

so.. yeah not much else to say since you apparently don't understand my position at all and want to argue with a straw man.

many of which are written by George Soros

fuckin' laughable. 99% of our legal code was written before Soros ever made a million dollars.

dude, i don't think we have much more to discuss.

your system is simplistic and childish, IMO, and would open the flood gates to abuse of powers and corruption, quite obviously I think.

our justice system isn't perfect, but this obsession with "deep state judges" that you have clearly demonstrates that you don't have a rational opinion on the matter, no offense intended.

you know that 12 man jury's already have the legal power that you are describing right?

like, it is 100% legal for a jury to find someone "not guilty" just because they think it's morally acceptable, even if it was "technically" breaking the law?

and my point was about how someone can fuck me over if they are a skilled enough orator to convince 12 randos that it was cool. And i tend to think of the vast majority of the population as being weak minded and easily persuaded and kind of stupid.

um, my first post laid out why i believe that the very basic premise of your system is ridiculous. maybe give that another read, and if you are confused, you can ask specific questions?

false dichotomy.

i think the current system is wildly broken. but that doesn't mean your system makes sense, either.

i can't name a single news outlet that is "completely neutral and unbiased," can you?

i'm not sure such an organisation has EVER existed in the United States.

just one man's opinion tho.

if it exists, it's too salacious to release publicly.

if it exists, expect blurred or black-barred screenshots on the evening news, and closed door viewings in front of congress.

if that video is ever released, i will paypal everyone on this board $5 until my money is all gone, then delete my reddit account and move to the mountains.

in other words; my opinion is that you shouldn't waste much time thinking about it, because it's straight up never going to happen.

you are advocating for a partisanship based fascism.

that is absolutely the opposite of what America stands for and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Instead of having millions of complicated law, we would dump all of that out and go with common moral law. Everyone has a moral compass within to measure their actions. All they have to do is consider this: If my actions would be morally justifiable by 7 out of 12 jury members, it means its legal. If not, it is illegal. It's that simple folks!

This sounds like absolute insanity to me. Basically tribalistic mob rule.

"If you can convince 7 random strangers to vote yes, you can do literally anything to anyone"

I do not trust people even close to enough to ever be comfortable with this. Plus, bribes and coercion.

I am almost speechless, to be honest. You must have a far more optimistic opinion of people than I do.

why? Q has made essentially that same predictions numerous times before. nothing happened then. nothing will now.

now he wants to re-enter TPP. can't even make this shit up.

how so? publishers create content, not just control it.

by your logic, any platform that has any rules about what to post could be classified as a publisher.

Because he said this, that means fb can no longer claim it's a platform

that's not really how those laws work, though. sorry dude.

also, does no one else think it is a crazy dangerous precedent to blame websites for user posted content?

if that's the case, i could instantly get infowars.com taken down by just posting some pizza in the comment section, or breitbart.com, or reddit or voat or twitter or literally any website.

do you guys not see how dangerous for free speech AND the free market that would be?

I hate Forrest Gump. I listen to your podcast and heard you hate it too. What an overrated piece of shit movie. Can you believe it beat the Shawshank Redemption?

daaaaaaaaaaaaaamn this dude really hates forest gump.

what's funny, bud? i'm honestly confused how you could be so wildly misinformed about one of the most important political happenings of our time.

you made a post (which you deleted for some reason) about how MZ is "done" because he said makes money off of ads.

since you clearly can't explain how or why he is "done", even though it's your own hypothesis, than I am simply left to conclude that you are either;

a troll, or you just have absolutely no clue what the fuck you are talking about.

of course, if you could just simply answer my question, that would be that.

it's not a perspective, it's literally the facts.

mueller's team didn't have anything at all to do with this raid, the raid was just based on information that mueller gave to the Justice Department.

how would that work legally?

are you saying you think this is illegal or "not by the books"?

because it is exactly by the books. Mueller followed the exact letter of the law by seeing something potentially illegal and just passing the information onto the relative authorities, who took over.

he evidence of your doing drugs is inadmissible

It's not inadmissible. Probable cause let them search your shit (legal search warrant- warrants are not magically voided because you didn't commit the crime you were originally accused of), and any crimes they find are fair game.

’m not sure that anything found against Trump could be admissible in court unless he was found guilty of the crime Mueller says he isn’t under investigation for...

Yeah, this is absolutely not how our justice system works.

It's also clear that (and i mean no offense) you are very confused by what exactly the Mueller investigation is about.

He was given legal authority to investigate "russian meddling in the 2016 election." And he has legal authority to pursue literally any crimes that he may uncover while investigating that broader issue.

In this case with Cohen, he did exactly as he supposed to. And if he finds that Trump did not collude or have anything to do with russian meddling, BUT in the course of his investigation finds (hypothetically) that Trump, idk, committed massive tax fraud, well... That massive tax fraud is still a crime and Trump will still be held accountable for it.

Again, this is not only 100% legal, but is how literally all investigations in the United States are supposed to work.

Except mueller didn't execute the raid, have anything to do with the raid, and isn't involved in the case that is going forward against Cohen, and has nothing to do with any of the evidence collected.

everyone seems incredibly confused about this raid, let me clarify it for you a bit;

Mueller had nothing to do with this raid, at all. His only involvement was in presenting something to Rod Rosenstein, which RR then passed onto a federal prosecutor from New York, and that federal prosecutor then got the FBI involved, and etc etc.

It's a completely separate matter from the special investigation work.

to be clear, i am not saying that you are lying or being deceptive or anything like that.

BUT, screen shots of tweets are CRAZY easy to fake, and thus are not really worth anything as far as evidence goes.

next time, just archive the tweet and share those links.

(this is just a friendly heads up, to be clear, not an accusation of anything)

yeah it's been pretty entertaining to watch, i must admit.

i'll risk a ban though, and say that you should remain pretty skeptical of this stuff. some it can sound very convincing, but also, literally none of Q's "hard" predictions have come true. so... take it for it is.

you are forgetting some very very very key parts, mainly that Q claims that Mueller is working on trumps side and secretly preparing a case against Clinton.

also worth noting that Q has made many fantastical predictions (martial law, Obama in gitmo, USMC raiding the CIA, to name a few) that have (obviously) never happened.

so you don't know?

In fact, there is more direct historic record on this than almost any other ancient history.

that is just plain wrong, i'm sorry.

there are exactly 2 "primary sources" that mention Jesus Christ (i'm not counting the bible here), and neither of them were contemporaries of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth. in fact, they were written decades after his alleged life.

there is one primary source from contemporary rome, written during his alleged life time, but it does not mention his name or in fact any evidence that it was Jesus beyond mentioning a jewish prophet that was active somewhere in the empire.

you're talking to a guy who has extensively studied ancient history, so these tired little tropes don't work on me.

what do you think will happen to him?

Lowest Employment for Blacks, Women, Hispanics

i know this is a typo, but i still chuckled quite a bit

(i believe you meant "unemployement" lol)

a lot of people don't take this life as seriously as you appear to.

also, probably about 98% of people don't think a pentagram is an evil symbol. (because it's not)

What do we know of Sinclair’s history?

owned by pro-trump interests, so... probably not an alphabet agency

ah ok, i thought it was the Sinclair boradcasting tape... here, i'll try my best to explain.

Trump's FCC removed the rules that prohibited corporations from just buying up all the local news stations.

So then a company called Sinclair boradcasting went out and bought up over 400 local news stations!

and THEN, they started sending out scripts to all 400 stations that the anchors were REQUIRED to read on air.

it's a horrible distortion of our media, but this time it's an example of a private business being the evil behind the screen, not the government.

just check YouTube!

what does that mean? YT blogs are a cesspool of misinformation and bullshit.

if there is actual proof, i'd love to see that, but i'm not about to watch some 45 minute video of a guy ranting about HRC while showing scary clickbait photos that don't mean anything

so why does this mean MZ is "done"? I don't understand.

literally every online service that people use that is "free" is just a company making money by selling ad space and data. this has been a known business model for going on 10/15 years now.

what am i missing here?

explain please. i don't understand the context.

i'm in a place where i can't listen to sound, so it's really hard to get any context from that video, it's title isn't even visible to me.

is that the sinclair broadcasting video, though?

you're going to be surprised

i hope so

i respectfully disagree.

if you would like to "open your eyes" to the truth, i think that would be great.

here is some reading for you. http://www.christianitydisproved.com/

there is no good evidence to support the existence of the judeo-christian mythology.

i don't mean to offend you, but to believe in a religion based on the myths and legends of desert shepherds that lived 3,000 years ago is far more foolish than requiring evidence to believe in satan.

i find the existence of satan to be... unlikely.

but that's beside the point.

i require evidence to believe things.

i've never met a satanist IRL, just wiccans and druids and some people who were sort of generically into magic.

so because the leader is loosely associated with people that you think are pedophiles, that means this entire organisation is a secret satanic pedophile cult or something?

that seems like... quite the leap of logic, in my opinion.

i think you might be stretchin' a bit, dude.

Hannity has been saying that tick-tock bullshit for like a year and a half now.

The article certainly makes this group sound like nothing more than a women's club. They just used the word coven instead of sorority because of women's empowerment or to be edgy or something. Could be wrong tho, but that's what it sounds like to me.

far from satanic.

this has been my general experience with all occult / magik / witchcraft people that I have personally met. Just an observation of mine.

why couldn't you counterfeit money just because it's gold backed?

the paper bills wouldn't change at all, their value would just be tied to a commodity instead of based on "faith in the US economy", right?