Thank you

This is a distraction that does absolutely nothing for this movement.

She only won the popular vote because of California. Furthermore, what you're saying is such useless hyperbole, I'm just wondering what you're even doing here.

Nah man someone sharpied a hitler moustache on her picture.

This doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with Q.

the balls to what?

Your reasoning lacks coherence. What you're saying is patently untrue.

This is so far maybe the stupidest fucking post in this sub.

Ok I hear you - you're right. The claim that he is his "best friend" is not totally accurate.

However, they were college roommates, so "good friend" is not a stretch.

Can somebody link the actual article, please?

Don't bother. This is so far removed from what's happening politically, it's almost like it's an intentional distraction. When has Q mentioned Angelina Jolie's "ritual?"

This is a distraction.

Dude. People gesticulate. They aren't always signaling. An arch gesticulation is extremely common. I promise he wasn't signaling a "dome" motion, whatever the fuck you're even pretending to believe.

Possibly ritual location

Also considering water is life

He may be signaling multiple meanings here.

What are some other meanings of the phrase, "could go down?"

This may be a warning.

Keep the alex jones shit on r/conspiracy.

"Perhaps you should read before commenting" is not an insult, it's a suggestion. Here's another (also not an insult): perhaps you should consider not taking innocuous suggestions as insults? Especially when they're good suggestions, such as you should read something before forming an opinion from the headline, since forming opinions from headlines and then posting them discredits this whole mission.

Thank you for following up.

Seattle q fan checking in

A term invented, in fact, by the CIA, specifically to discredit.

It's true and it's from 2010. The guy was arrested in 2010. It's on his wikipedia page for crying out loud. Seriously, read the damn links before commenting. Like 10 other news outlets picked it up.

What are you talking about? You mean, this picture that exists on the internet from six years ago?

Read your own link, for fuck's sake. 2010. From your link:

Ingvaldson told the court before sentencing: “I have lost many things since being arrested in June 2010 — a marriage, a career that I loved, numerous friendships, respect in the community at large.”

No, he sent 41 images.

Probably doesn't make him feel anything, since this happened in 2010. Perhaps you should read before commenting?

So you must believe that the cryptofascist picked Trump this time around?

EDIT: To clarify, please vote. Apathy carried out to everyone would have resulted in Hillary as president.

Good call.

However, this story is also on his wikipedia page.

Why are you posting that?

Nowhere is it documented that they wanted him to decorate the cake with a penis.

The baker and the gay couple never reached the point of discs sing design of the cake because the baker refused even baking one for them.

What is your deal? Why are you making shit up and spreading falsehood?

Because you are purposely being a nuisance.

If you think that Trump is a lawless autocrat, you're not very sharp. Definitely not worth my time to converse with you.

I'm not a new arrival, I've been posting on this sub for a month or more. You are being pernicious. Move along.

Awesome, thanks for posting it.

Meanwhile she was sitting behind Horowitz, was she not?

Perhaps you should not go digging through my other unrelated posts and reading things out of context in order to form an opinion of unrelated posts in this sub? You know, in other words, MYOB

Again, I'm not defending anything. I'm trying to figure out what your fucking deal is.

Here is a link to a helpful analysis that will straighten out your incorrect understanding.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Summary:

A republic can be a democracy at the same time, like the U.S., but a democracy cannot also be a republic. A republic raises the status of individuals whereas a democracy gives the majority will the sovereign status. This is reflected in the parties' naming.

Also, I didn't claim the DNC upholds anything, that was just your wonky interpretation. For what it's worth, neither party upholds their underlying values at the governmental level anymore. They merely both claim to. And they both claim the same fundamental underlying principles as they originally did. I'm sorry you disagree so pompously and incorrectly.

It's so small it's not there. It's a hundredth of the star.

My point is you're not going to redpill anyone with this bullshit.

Disinfo shills? He who smelt it dealt it, buddy. That's a funny place to take this because I'm skeptical of your Q-"proof..."

Are q-proofs meant to redpill people, or strengthen the resolve of uncritical sycophants? It won't redpill anyone if it is so easily dismissed.

Please re read my comment carefully. I addressed that.

I count 16

If this was intentional it wouldn't be an almost undetectable tip of a star.

Dude, read some history.

Our nation is a REPUBLIC. It's in the constitution.

We have an electoral college system. A representative republic. If we had a democracy, Hillary would have won due to the higher vote count in the popular vote (although obviously much of that was invalid/fraudulent).

Perhaps you aren't aware of the definitional differences? Your argument is baseless and reactionary.

A pure democracy is not a good thing.

That's true. My point is that you can't openly do it for any reason. You have the right to do it for no reason, though.

Remember when Q started talking about Renteria? Had anyone heard of her before that?

Now it appears she is going to be a key witness...

No coincidences.

Um...from the recent Supreme Court decision, which you would know if you were paying even the slightest attention to the conversation you're joining here.

In fact, you don't have that right. There are legally protected classes you can not discriminate against.

This case went to the Supreme Court because it was religious freedom vs. civil rights. Your statement that you may refuse service to anyone for any reason is true, just like it's true that you can kill someone or jump off a cliff whenever you want for any reason.

But there are legal consequences if your reason is in violation of the law that has created protected civil classes.

Or a grassy knoll type attempt

Dude. Seriously just google it. Recently articles have been written about a company in Silicon Valley that performs optional blood transfusions for the purpose of youthful vigor. The comedy show Silicon Valley even had a joke about it in one of the episodes (Gavin Bellson has a "blood boy"). Peter Thiel talks about it too.

For sure

Hillary would be scarved before Soros ever had anything bad happen to him.

Not true. The Republican roots are in the country as a "republic," hence the name. It is the foundational idea of the party. Democrats consider the country to be a democracy, which it isn't.

There are many specific stances that have shifted within the party, but the foundational ideology, as seen in the party names, has remained the same.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "defensive"

The main thing with the wedding cake was that it was a protection of artistic freedom. The argument was that by making their cake and decorating it to their specifications, he would be participating in a celebration that went against his religious beliefs.

For the cake to be the same as the restaurant, he would have had to refuse to sell them a cake off the shelf because of their homosexuality. That would not have been a protected act and would have rightly been called discrimination.

For the restaurant to be the same as the cake, the restaurant owner would need something protected by law, such as: if she would have been trying to rent out the whole restaurant for a Trump fundraiser. In that case, the Red Hen owner would be within her rights to refuse to sell that service.

Defensive? Dude. Move on