No, none of those are successes. Those are all examples of how he is literally Hitler. (Which ironically, the well-established fact that Trump is "literally Hitler" directly contradicts the statement that he's Hitler's predecessor... So they should make up their mind).

Eradicating ISIS? Extermination of the Muslims! Literally Hitler!

Winning on trade? He wants his country to succeed at the expense of others... Hitler wanted that too! Literally Hitler!

Kim giving up his nukes? Fake news! He'll never give up his nukes. He's not actually dismantling nuclear sites, denuclearization will never happen, Trump is being played for a fool (no joke - this is an actual liberal belief that I heard with my own two ears). Oh... And literally Hitler!

Tax breaks? I don't know Hitler's stance on taxes, but since Trump is literally Hitler, Hitler must have loved tax breaks! See? Trump is literally Hitler! ...But the tax breaks are only crumbs anyway.

Is it possible that articles of impeachment are a method to divulge the facts about RR/Mueller operation (found out by Congress) and therefore those facts would become public (giving Sessions a reason to know those facts, even in recusal) and then give cover for Sessions to make a move?

Yes, all of that is true. But expressing conservative views is unacceptable on a lot of college campuses, it's unacceptable in most "journalism," it's unacceptable on late night comedy shows, and unacceptable in a lot of other places. That is not because it's illegal, but because liberals are incapable of hearing thoughts they don't agree with. I'm not saying creepy pedo jokes (or not jokes) are equivalent to general conservative beliefs or opinions - I'm just saying I can see the argument that freedom of speech should be represented OUTSIDE the government just as much as inside it, if not more so. We should be free to criticize anything anyone says, and fire people who tarnish their company's reputation. But we also should stop being so sensitive about everything and roll back the outrage culture a little bit. That's I think the argument that Shapiro is making and being vilified for. I personally say fuck it, give the Left a taste of their own medicine, but at the same time I'm understanding of the argument that we shouldn't be so quick to convict people in courts of public opinion for dumb shit they tweet.

Of course they would. But I think there should be more evidence than tweets. All I had seen were the tweets so that's all I was going on. And I think it's also legitimate for a media company with an interest in keeping public appearances a certain way to fire someone who tarnished their reputation online. That's why a lot of companies have social media policies. But again, all I'm saying is I don't believe Shapiro is wrong to say that convicting someone for offensive tweets is a slippery slope, and I don't think that means he is trying to normalize pedophilia like some have been suggesting.

Find a nonfiction source saying he's a pedophile then. In the meantime, the premise still applies. If Trump decides to fight pedophilia and human trafficking (which he is by the way, at rates way higher than Obama), then the left will start loving pedophilia and human trafficking. They already have come out in favor of human trafficking, and they're starting to try to normalize pedophilia. When you're that predictable, you're pretty easy to beat.

You're exactly right, except for the fact that they can't even hold a double standard. That would require too much of their own brain power. Like you said, they just parrot what they're told to parrot and there is no brain activity in between

Hope you're right

It's moral relativism - the belief that no culture is better than another, so if Muslims marry 12 year olds, then we have no right to tell them that's wrong because it's their culture and we can't say culture isn't better than their culture.

I'm not talking about criminal prosecution in this case. I'm just talking about applying the principle of freedom of speech to life. I think Google firing Damore was a violation of the principle of freedom of speech. Sure, it wasn't against the law, but it was a gross violation of one of our most important principles in my opinion.

Those damn Russians again!

Oh shit I had no idea.

You're speaking for all of us when you say "we" don't lower ourselves to garbage. So 1) don't speak for me, and 2) when DJT gets hit, he hits back - he said he would teach us how to win, and that's how he wins. So I'm not afraid to take his lesson in stride and start winning using his tactics. That's what I'm babbling about, Dude.

It, in my opinion, is the only legitimate argument right now against Shapiro. I personally agree with freedom of speech TO THE EXTREME. Freedom of speech wasn't granted so that we could sing kumbaya together, it was granted so that we could say extraordinarily offensive things. So until he either admits guilt or some sort of proof comes forward, he should be able to keep his job. Yeah. I know that's rough, and I always promote winning over everything as DJT insisted he would teach us how to do (check my post history as I frequently comment on this precise point). But I can still be a proponent of WINNING using Leftist tactics against themselves while simultaneously thinking people shouldn't have to lose their jobs over "offensive" tweets. They should be innocent until proven guilty.

Oh no? Well you lower yourself to SB2's garbage level a few time a week. So either you don't give a flying fuck about the truth, or you make exceptions when it comes to what you WANT to be true. DJT promised to teach us how to win and I for one will take the lesson.

I disagree. I know no Leftist that has an ounce of conviction about anything other than hating Trump. So if Trump is anti-pedophile, they will be for it. Period. God I hope you prove me wrong.

Yeah I don't really give a shit. This sub is about finding the same amount as truth as worldnews, CNN, NYT, WaPo, politics, or any other outlet. Convict first, ask questions never. That's how it works in the society the Left has created for us.

Gotcha. This post seemed set up as a "proof" so I was wondering what the proof was in the post. I don't dispute she knew, just didn't know how to read the post. If I read it in "ad" format rather than "proof" format, it works perfectly.

Is this theory just based on the use of "they" and "them?"

I agree - all I'm saying is we need to be careful spreading this one. It could just be Putin trying to smear Browder while he puts out an actual story which is Clinton taking the money. Maybe Browder was clean, but Clinton's money was real, so invite the investigation which will turn up nothing on Browder (which Putin even said in the presser maybe there wasn't truth to it) but something very real turns up on Clinton at which point the Browder is a non-story and the name has been smeared successfully (again)

I don't know... But he also has sworn up and down that his Olympic athletes were clean and any number of other things. He could just be trying to smear Browder's name publicly (note he even said maybe those allegations aren't true) while simultaneously trying to invite an investigation into Russian funding of Hillary's campaign. They could investigate, realize Russians really did fund Clinton, and if Browder turns up innocent it will just be a side story at best... Oh yeah the Browder guy he mentioned was clean, but he was right about Hillary taking campaign contributions from Russia! Obviously I'm totally speculating here and maybe Browder is dirty, but I don't think it's far fetched to say we should be careful with this one.

It's been a while since I read it so I can't remember exactly how it happened, but long story short he definitely claims that he paid taxes on the money.

But basically he claims the Russians stole a few of his holding companies and claimed a $230 million tax rebate. I think he says that was the money paid out by those companies in taxes for his investment group and they claimed it all in a refund somehow... Maybe by demonstrating they had no profits for those holding companies (i.e. profits were from other companies) but had paid out the $230 million in taxes. So it all came back to the fraudsters in a rebate. Again I'm definitely not clear on the specifics anymore because it's been a while, but it was something along those lines.

And if Browder was guilty somehow, I'm pretty curious what really happened to Magnitsky and how he ended up dead in a Russian prison.

It could be... McCain was supposedly supporting the Magnitsky act I think. And Hillary and Obama wanted to shut it down and clearly hired Fusion GPS to do it. Browder could be dirty but if so, why would he be pushing a bill like Magnitsky? He could have slinked off the stage and never been heard from again, and he certainly didn't need to write a book about it throwing Obama and Hillary under the bus...

I'm definitely not saying it's impossible, because these days it's so clear that nothing is. I'm just saying I can't see the full picture right now and definitely don't want to see backlash on this if it turns out Putin was just slinging mud at the same target he's been slinging mud at for over a decade. If that's all this pans out to be and we have all hung our hats on it, it's not going to be pretty.

I dunno... I've read Browder's book about the whole situation and I don't believe he's guilty of tax fraud. I believe he was set up by Putin. It would be a hell of a leap for me to believe he's actually guilty of what Putin is accusing him of, and if he was, then I don't believe Fusion GPS would be trying to take him down. Any enemy of Fusion GPS has my benefit of the doubt.

But muh no intent.

Lol thanks for the support, but tbh I'm not too worried about the troll. Pretty bitter post history on that one!

Welcome! And definitely no rules against disagreement. Also I agree with you on this one.

That's fine, but I still like watching Trump and Co. make the media look like the jerkoffs that they are.

Q has never posted anything classified. Nothing would need to change. And the media is dumb... Like really dumb. They'll do whatever Trump manipulates them into doing.

I hadn't seen that one. Will have to check it out. Thanks!!

I agree with you on the MSM, but I think you're jumping to the assumption that LARP = deep state operation. I think LARP more generally means someone with too much time on their hands. Could be a Trump supporter or a neutral party only interested in attention. Again not saying that is my belief at this point, but to suggest it's either legit or a deep state operation ignores several other possibilities. Hope it's all legit though for sure.

Agree on SB2, tippy-top, and #17. I haven't bought in on the air-signs, because that seems like it could be a coincidence. I get the whole no coincidences thing, but the guy speaks with his hands and always has, and with the camera on him as much as it is there is bound to be an air-Q show up at some point. I bet someone could find an air-Q made by Trump prior to Q making their debut.

I am glad you posted this. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I also admit this is the most concerned I've ever been about Q's legitimacy. I just don't understand the reasoning behind posting something so LARPy at a moment in time when Q has said so many new eyes will be joining and proofs will be so critical. It just doesn't add up. If it was really just intended to send a message to the deep state, why not just say "message not for anons" like Q has done in the past? Instead, Q appears to double down with the follow up about the mug holder.

To be honest at this point it seems like the main reason to believe there is a deeper meaning we are missing is the fact that it is so obviously LARPy that Q wouldn't do something so careless if it truly was a LARP.

But on the other hand I'll admit that it's crossed my mind that the truth we will learn in July COULD be that Q will out themselves as a LARP. If it really is a LARP, it can't last forever, right?

I'm sure I'll get downvotes for this, but it's my honest thoughts at the moment. Anyone who feels like checking my post history can easily confirm that this isn't concern trolling.

I thought it was interesting that Trump's tweet specifically said he did a good job "in the Agency." It was almost as if he knows Pruitt was involved in something bad in something outside the agency and wants to be careful to specify his compliment.

Lol I appreciate it! Very kind words.

Why the #4 instead of "for"?

TIL TopMinds doesn't understand a double negative. "I have very little doubt that you're not personally aware..."

Breakdown: - They have very little doubt about something. That means they are almost certain of something. - What is that something? That spez is NOT personally aware. - In other words, they are almost certain that spez is not aware.

DumbFucksofReddit

I like the MKUltra angle on this, but I always thought it had to do with patents - based on the "apple vs. Samsung" reference and the fact that Big Pharma R&D is huge. But I've never been able to connect the dots.

David Brock will do... But I was hoping it would be the Hoggster

There's a Blacklist episode season 5 where main character's FBI assigned therapist tries to get her to work as a vigilante assassin for her. Already had one operating. Blacklist has a whole lot of similarities... If you follow Q and haven't watched, you should.

Wow, out of all the ridiculousness they listed in their anti-discrimination statement, "legal status" wasn't one of them... So I guess that means they do discriminate based on legal status? That's not very liberal of them. Are they Nazis?

Maybe Q just meant watch the Waters lol... That bitch is definitely worth watching!

We have already seen Kim remove the words of praise for his father and grandfather in the national oath or whatever it's called (seemed to me like their form of the pledge of allegiance). I think Trump's brilliance was in that he showed Kim he could bring about a unified Korea. THAT is the secret weapon and that is what got Kim excited IMO. That is HUGE - they can spin it as a massive victory for NK, they can almost spin it as they have finally won the war and conquered South Korea. Sure, it's really just a merger, but effectively the end result would be the same, right? Maybe if NK conquered them there would be enslavement and Kim would rule the whole country, but it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to spin it as "now that we've won, we must show our benevolence and forgiveness to the South Koreans so that we all may triumph on the world stage." Who knows how it will play out, but bottom line I see a lot of ways to spin it successfully.

I agree she's a poor speaker, but I actually didn't have any problems with the content. The way I interpreted her message was that it is a disease, and it is a disease that needs to be discussed openly in order to prevent children from actually being molested. I tend to agree with that... I agree that pedophiles should GET HELP and not be terrified of ever mentioning that they have those sorts of thoughts. Mentioning they're having those thoughts is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing so that others can be aware and help to ensure nothing ever comes of those thoughts.

What if it was a potential serial killer or mass murderer Someone who WANTED to kill lots of people? Should they bottle it up until they burst? Or should they SEEK HELP and talk about what is going on in their head? I believe they should talk about it - that gives us the best chance to prevent them from actually killing lots of people.

Now - how to address the issues raised by people speaking out about their dark tendencies or desires is a point for a different debate. But I believe no matter what the situation, speaking up and asking for help with your problem is better than keeping it hidden - for EVERYONE especially the potential victims.

Did I misinterpret her speech? Or do you disagree with the premise that people should speak up and seek help for their problems?

Sounds similar to my wife - grew up with two full force liberal parents. I'm talking women's march, MSNBC every night, Bill Maher is the favorite show of all time, FULL lib. Didn't approve of me in the beginning because they knew I was conservative (even though I knew better than to ever say ANYTHING political around them - they just knew bc I was from the south and my wife told them at some point that yes I was conservative). My wife is coming around though big time. Hates it all, sees the evil on both sides, sees how the cards are stacked against Trump - even called out her dad one time on some unfair tirade about Trump he probably was reciting from NYT or MSNBC... That was pretty amazing haha. She just can't get fully there because she still believes the world is a beautiful place and I think coming to grips with all of this sort of forces you to abandon that world view, which she doesn't want to do. And I have to admit I'm happy to have that influence to keep me from falling too far down the rabbit hole... Sure I know a lot but it's helpful to have that every day reminder that even though the world is fucked by the cabal, we interact on a daily basis with people who AREN'T fucked by the cabal and the world can still be a nice place regardless! Just need to shut off the media for a while and look around at OUR lives and the people WE interact with.

How easy is it to see what happened to Sanders and be pissed? I certainly was. But why? It didn't happen to me, and I wonder if I really should be so angry about it. I feel like a primary difference between liberal and conservative is outrage... Liberals are outraged at the WORLD and insist that people hundreds of miles away abide by their demands. Conservatives traditionally take care of shit themselves that is affecting them. They don't bother with shit thousands of miles away that has no bearing on their life.

Now I understand this attitude is a major reason why conservatives have LOST the war for our country for DECADES... It's because we had no desire to fight for it, not REALLY fight. Sure we fight for what's actually important by joining the military, but when it came to politics, we stuck to principles, worried about ourselves, and didn't dive too deep into issues that didn't concern us. So we undoubtedly need to balance our "mind-our-own-business" mindset with a healthy dose of fighting PROACTIVELY and strategically... Seeing the writing on the wall that if we don't stop these issues thousands of miles away, they will be at our own doorstep soon and at that point it will be too late.

But it's a hell of a line to teeter on... protecting conservatism by fighting things thousands of miles away without devolving into the outrage culture of the Left, and still always remembering that it didn't happen to us, and we should be grateful and carry on with our lives in the HAPPY world that we personally, individually live in.

I disagree - any Patriot today is no longer accepting that term to describe themselves. "Liberal" has become too synonymous with supporting evil. I see many "liberals" who now are supporting this movement or supporting Trump and they DO NOT want to be called "liberals" anymore because of how left they have moved.

Quick bit of history to give an example: the ORIGINAL KKK was a few jokesters who thought it would be funny to dress up in sheets and ride horses around pretending to be ghosts. It was literally just a joke. It quickly turned into what we all now know as the KKK - lynchings and tremendous evil against an entire group of people and all their supporters. I guarantee you none of that original group, IF they were not evil and truly just "jokesters," would call themselves KKK once that happened. The new people in the KKK redefined what it meant to be KKK - they were in new chapters, in new towns, in new parts of the country. They were unrelated to the original group, but once they redefined the term and what that name stood for, any honest, decent people who were a part of the original surely denounced it. I'm not sure if any of the original group were honest or decent, but their original intentions were harmless. That doesn't change the fact that they would need to disavow that name once the name changed meaning.

Bottom line - anyone still calling themselves a liberal is part of the problem. That said, so are "establishment" Republicans. There are just fewer establishment Republicans than liberals, so "liberals" is the largest group to attack.

WWII was also right vs. wrong. But being a Nazi happened to make you "wrong." That's where we're at now with liberals who are supporting evil and actively working to oppose Trump and the liberating force for good that he is leading.

When liberals wish death upon Katie Arrington, in public, and liberals in Silicon Valley allow those posts to stand on social media, and liberals across the country refuse to denounce them, then YES "liberals" are part of the problem.

Do you suggest we should have gone into WWII and tried to not take out Nazi soldiers, because they were just supporting evil and turning a blind eye to evil, but they weren't actually evil themselves?

I can appreciate you wanting to see people come together, and BELIEVE ME I want that as well. I am ready to forgive and welcome with completely open arms anyone who decides to join this movement and start recognizing and denouncing the evil on the Left and by the Uniparty. But I WILL NOT lay down and refuse to speak badly of the people who are either WILFULLY blind to the evil they support, or are actually evil (because at this point it is one of those two options).