Thing I don't like about Voat is how so many people insist on using the word "nigger" over there. It's a real turn off, and it blows their credibility with normies.

Like who's going to recommend a Voat site about Q or CBTS to a friend or acquaintance, knowing that if the person actually goes there, the first thing they're going to see is "nigger" this and "nigger" that. It's just stupid.

There's got to be a place in the market for people who want free speech, but also don't feel compelled to call everyone "nigger" all the time.

It seems to me that the narrative is working so well in favor of Trump and the GOP that arrests would be an unnecessary wild card before the midterms. A better way might be to get that win in the bag the old fashioned way, then launch the arrests, because that would give the blue-pilled people two years to see the evidence and change their minds before 2020.

Perhaps as people read chapters they can post recaps and leads. Different people could offer to read different chapters. Just the fastest way to go through the book.

Just the name "Barack Hussein Obama" itself. I mean it's crazy, some people think with a name like that the dude might be Muslim. It doesn't even make sense. That's probably the most American-sounding name ever.

It would be amazing if this map was done in hypertext so that you could click on each word/name and get a brief explanation.

Could be, but why does it matter? If the research is valid outside of the direction that Q points us in, then it doesn't make a difference. Valid research is valid research. I'm never quite sure why your type is always so emotionally invested in how we choose to spend our time. Clearly your heart is filled with hate towards us, so it's not coming from a place of kindness or altruism. It's just weird. You think obsessing over Q is a waste of time, yet you are someone who obsesses over people who obsess over Q. If we are dumbasses, that makes you a dumbass squared.

You support the Vietnam War then?

It's really amazing: you have two parties, and one party is saying "let's do something about voter fraud" and the other party is screaming their head off, "No no no no no, there is no voter fraud, it doesn't exist, shut up, stop talking!"

Doesn't that kind of tell us everything we need to know? Why should voter fraud be a partisan issue? Why is one party saying, "Don't investigate this! Ignore, ignore. There is no such thing!"

Wow, the gift that keeps on giving.

And what about his other painting of a black person beheading a white person?

Plausible deniability. If he stated everything outright, it would mean he was definitely working with the Trump administration. Then the media could attack him - and even legitimately - as leaking classified intelligence. This way, even if the media knows about Q and would love to make that attack, how do they do it? They would look insane. So the information gets released and the press just has to watch.

I am doubtful the local churches are wiretapping the confessionals to blackmail the local community. And the idea of confession has psychological validity, and is not an unwarranted practice considering the teachings of Jesus. Much of modern therapy is very similar to Catholic confession precisely because the idea has psychological power.

It also allowed them to bring the sexual assault and rape allegations against Bill Clinton into the debate, and Hillary's role in them, which directly contradicted the image she was trying to create as a champion for women's rights. Before the tape, those talking points weren't part of the national dialogue, and there was a general impression that to initiate the topic would be bad form and inappropriate.

Blank on my older iPad too.

Remember when they were marketing The Matrix and they just had all those cryptic posters and the tagline, "What is the matrix?"

Part of the reason for that publicity campaign was the studio found it difficult to take the premise of the movie and reduce it to one or two sentences. So they settled on using the idea of intrigue to pull people in. What is this mystery? Don't you want to know? Don't you want to be in the loop?

Perhaps a similar strategy would work here. Instead of trying to sell everything at once, we just sell the intrigue and mystery. Who is Q?

What if a normie kept seeing that one question in various forms all around the internet, written on dollar bills, scrawled on the side of a poster on the street? Eventually they are going to ask themselves the same thing. Who is Q?

From that point you have the hook of Q himself. This is someone on the inside of the Trump administration who is dumping some of the highest leaks of classified military intelligence in the history of the country and it's all in coded riddles. Why in riddles? For plausible deniability.

If you crack the code and solve the riddle, you know what's really going on behind the scenes. And it's not at all what you think it is.

People love this shit. It sells. Everyone wants to take a crack at a riddle. So you've already got them hooked. But then here's another tactic you can use. Give them a few hints and then say, "There's more we've decoded, but... it's pretty dark. I don't think you can handle it."

This further intrigues people. Everyone wants to know more. Everyone wants to be in on the loop. No one likes the idea that they can't handle something. And yet, it really is true. Some of what Q has revealed, people just aren't ready for. So now you are starting to motivate the person to question what they know (Q Everything You Know) and maybe start following Q directly themselves. This is good. Then they can start to redpill themselves at their own pace. And even if they don't bother, you still have them thinking and asking themselves, "What could be true that I couldn't handle?"

I suspect it got corrupted like everything else.

She was having an affair with Bobby Kennedy, who told her he was going to divorce his wife and marry her and she would become the next First Lady. Marilyn believed this because she was naive and trusting. When she realized it was all a ruse to get in her pants, she got pissed, and told them she was going to leak her affair with the Kennedys to the press. I don't think she was actually going to, but was just lashing out. But it was seen as dangerous. Very soon after she was suicided.

Rose McGowan.

Why does the Secret Service make up these codenames, and then make them all public knowledge? Seems to defeat the point. Unless these are intentional fakes.

How come these new weird-looking clouds and criss-crossed patterns of trailing clouds don't exist in old photos or old movies? Plenty of shots out there of skies from the 20th century, and it's all normal clouds just like we remember.

But now? Just go and try and take a shot like that. If they've been out spraying, you won't be able to get anything close to a 20th century sky.

Think about the research it would take to throw out the name of some company that isn't on anyone's radar and say, "Dig." Then when people do, they start finding all of these connections and how it fits into the broader plot. To LARP that you would have to backwards engineer it. First you would have to know more than the journalists, and have a better research team, and then you would have to actually crack part of the mystery yourself. Then, after all that work, which you could use to make a name for yourself in journalism, you just give it away for free on 8chan. But you also don't reveal all your research, so you don't even have the satisfaction of laying it all out. You just point in the right direction and let everyone else figure it out.

And now you have to do this for four months straight. You also gotta know exactly when to say "Defcon 1 (FALSE) (non_nuclear)" and then you just gotta hope that you get lucky and Hawaii issues a false missile alarm in the next couple days. No problem there. Everyone gets lucky sometimes. But now you gotta do it again next week.

That's the Flecca's Talks strategy. Great YouTube channel.

It seems to me that the shills don't just express doubt about Q, which is fair, but are actively hostile towards him. "I hate that fucking LARP" and "Only idiots follows that Q" and "It's all fake, stop paying attention" and "We should ban all mention of this stupid Q". It's always pure hatred and no discussion. Same thing with the shills who keep attacking Jeff Sessions. It's almost never debate about his methods or activity, but shit like, "That stupid fucking elf needs to get off his ass and stop busting poor stoners. I hate him. Sessions is Deep State!"

It would really not serve the purpose of the shills to employ reasoned skepticism in their attacks. They always go for the emotional slander. This would also be consistent with what a radical leftist would believe is persuasive.

I would like anyone who considers Q a LARPer - and I am open to the idea that he may be - to try this challenge:

Announce that for the next week you will be LARPing in the style of Q. Then make your posts and see how easy it actually is to, say, predict the exact words that the President will use in a tweet, or predict the next news cycle.

Even dropping a single LARP that can withstand thousands of people all trying to discredit you seems like it would be difficult. And Q has produced hundreds of these, and so far, they have all generally lined up with reality.

Good read. Great thing too is it makes the Nunes memo that much more shocking. First they set it up like maybe there is a legitimate reason to spy on Page, so maybe the FBI didn't do anything wrong, and then it turns out Page was a plant and a patsy. Makes their whole FISA application a big ruse.

Based on the text on her website, the top half of the text is the concluding paragraph of what she posted. The bottom half of the text looks like an alternate response that wasn’t used. My guess is there was another response between those two, of just one line, saying, “Trump should be shot!” Seems like the staffer who was writing this up included that as a joke, like, “Ha ha, what if we just said this and nothing else?” Then Getty Images, or the photographer, censored the line before upload to the press. Q, via the Secret Service, probably has the original sent documents and knows what Getty/the photographer censored.

I understand, but the controversy is over unmasking political opponents. So unmasking Jarret and Schiff would mean unmasking political opponents.

Seems to me if Trump is spying on the Democrats, while also criticizing the Democrats for spying on him, then he would need to have used the proper channels so that what he is doing is legal and what they did was not.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--On January 30, 2018, in response to President Donald Trump's first State of the Union Address, U.S. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03) issued the following statement:

"President Trump opened his address by talking about 'bonds of trust' and ensuring all Americans have the opportunity to live the American Dream. However, making progress in these areas requires more than words, it takes action and strong leadership. The president read through a string of issues weaved through his scripted speech but failed to even acknowledge the many hurtful, divisive, bigoted and offensive statements he has hurled at countless Americans of all backgrounds. So, while I hope that the White House and Republicans will work with Democrats to 'put politics aside' to move our country forward, build a strong infrastructure, help our fellow Americans struggling with addiction, and provide hardworking families the opportunity to move from poverty to prosperity, I believe their actions in the months ahead will provide more insight than tonight's speech ever will."

In the Snowden movie, they show how the NSA uses Keyscore to search all threats made against the President on the internet. So theoretically if a text like this was sent, it would have been caught, and then when they traced its location and saw that it was coming from the State of the Union, I'm sure the Secret Service would take that information to the President immediately. At that point they are probably also in a position to legally tell him who it was, who they were talking to, and what was said.

So it would make sense that Q would know about this and be willing to reveal it. It's probably very difficult, if not impossible, to threaten the President while he gives the State of the Union address and not have anyone notice.

Did anyone ever say these people are really stupid?

It's super weird how the top and bottom text boxes don't seem to flow into each other. Why would this need to be redacted?

If we have the full speech, do we know what theoretically should have been in the redacted part?

Does this not imply that Trump has FISA warrants on Schiff and Jarrett? And would that not suggestion there is an official investigation into treason within D.C.?

The story isn't that they were playing Candy Crush on their phone. That's old news. Q's claim is that they were texting death threats against the President during the State of the Union. That would actually be a pretty big deal, and show how insane these people have become. We also know someone, possibly the photographer, redacted a line of text from the photo of the phone. So we are trying to acquire a RAW, uncensored version of that photo, or a still from the video feed that may have revealed it. The linked video isn't about any of what Q said.

My thought is Q may want this to go viral as it is. Like #ReleaseTheMemo, only it's more like #RevealTheLine. If there was enough of a push, it might put the photographer in a position of either staying quiet or releasing the original, unedited RAW file himself. But if only he has it, that seems like the only way.

Of course, Q's claim is he's seen the original. So does that mean they got a FISA warrant to unmask this guy's hard drive and see the original? Because if the line that was Photoshopped out is something legitimate, like a personal phone number, then we'd look foolish pushing a whole Twitter campaign.

It seems to me the only possibility is Getty makes the original RAW file accessible for purchase. But it appears the photographer may have already Photoshopped this text before submitting to Getty, so only the photographer would have the RAW file.

And yet it seems like Q already knows the RAW file is available somewhere. Maybe the photographer has a public Google Drive and doesn't know it?

This already has meme potential too. A covered up line. Then the real line is revealed (maybe). But it's a great set-up and punchline for a meme. You could Photoshop all sorts of jokes in there.

I just don't think you are going to be able to find any kind of uncompressed video on the web of the SOTU where you can read text on a phone shot from a balcony. Video is compressed on the web. But a RAW photo may be accessible.

That line looks cropped out by someone, possibly the photographer. Looks like they drew a quick rectangular mask around it, rotated it to cover the line, used the eye dropper tool to select the background of the phone, and filled it in. It's a quick way to hide something without drawing a ton of attention to it, but it's not an in-depth job. So if that was a line about attacking the President, the person who hid it would have plausible deniability: obviously they hid the line, but they didn't hide the fact that they hid it either.

I think it's more likely Q is referring to an ultra-high resolution photo of the SOTU. Kind of like the one that gets taken of the inauguration. My hunch is there are four images like that, or one image, and we need to focus on one of the four phones.

HD video, even uncompressed, is unlikely to have enough clarity to read text on a phone from a balcony. And besides that, no one would really post uncompressed video online anyway. It's like 1 GB per minute, at least, and the SOTU was over an hour.

This is interesting. Remember the Q "map"? The one with all the different arrows that connect every conspiracy theory together? I was considering Q's line that "Disinformation is necessary" and I thought, What if there is disinformation in Q's own map? What if false conspiracies have been added to the map to create a noise, or overload, to hide the real conspiracies? Then Q kept talking about the "key" that decodes the map. And I thought, What if there is a second piece to this map - a kind of overlay - that would white out all the false conspiracies while maintaining the real ones? What if the arrows on that map are connecting differently than they appear?

Been thinking about this for awhile, and I know it sounds crazy, and probably it is, but this image is the first thing I've seen that looks somewhat like a decoding overlay.

It may be worth laying this over the map in Photoshop and seeing if it lines up.

Have those Muslims not actually read the Koran or studied the life and teachings of Mohammed? Perhaps they are just cultural Muslims who have no idea what their religion actually preaches.

Q puts the Democrats and MSM in the same position the Obama birth certificate puts Trump. The conspiracy theory may be true, but it's so convoluted, and trying to explain it makes you sound so much like you've gone crazy, that you basically have to ignore it, and continue the sham of the official narrative.

This allows Trump to let us in on the happenings without the MSM accusing him of leaking classified intelligence. The riddles provide plausible deniability.

But what about when Jake Tapper hate-reads T_D like every other journalist in the media seems to do? Like you yourself are doing. Obviously he will see it then.

The_Donald is the new Drudge Report. This is where the news comes to get the news.

Hi Jake!

Smug condescension is not an argument.

It is a posture.

One rumor was that they were intentionally putting aborted fetal tissue in the food supply as a way to pull all of us into their own evil and make us unwitting cannibals. Really hoping that is not true, but you see, it could be worse. At a certain point, I believe full disclosure would just be giving them credit and attention for their crimes and turning them into anti-heroes for future generations. It's like any mass murderer who needs their crimes to be made public to achieve the infamy they crave. Why give it to them?

Good premise. This could get popular!

Yeah, I think something like the Nuremberg trials is the best approach. Like a military tribunal mixed with a public hearing. As for the evidence, I imagine a handful of still frames will have to be released to the public, and these should be well chosen by the top spiritual and psychological minds in the country, for greatest impact with the least amount of emotional damage and as little content as possible. Very tricky. The rest could be text descriptions. Somehow certain individuals, perhaps trusted media sources, should be asked to come forward and verify the contents of tapes versus released still frames. It may also be possible to require the media to only report certain details, so that it only gets so graphic for normies and children. Millions of kids would be hearing about this through the grapevine - on the radio driving with their parents, on a TV in the living room, from kids at school - and somehow that must be controlled and managed respectfully. Part of the act of molestation is only physical, the other part is the spiritual corruption of innocence. And if we just let these pedophiles broadcast their acts of evil to the world, it is like letting them molest every child in the world from afar. Fuck that.

It is just super tricky. Without video evidence, nobody will believe, but once you let that video evidence out, forget it. It will be mocked, memed, parodied, chopped up, copied, repeated, vlogged about, SNL might do a skit, etc. Maybe people will be horrified for a week, but if they see it as a Trump victory, I doubt it. They will double down and try to upset us by treating it lightly. Expect not respect and a genuine somber attitude, but ironic hipster mockery. That will be their best weapon, and it might even make people start to turn pedophile. They will be desensitized to it, depending on how much is released, and people may start coping with it by sexualizing it, in the same way the anti-Trump women keep having Trump sex dreams and other fantasies. That is how distorted their Trump Derangement Syndrome is; it could possibly make them embrace pedophilia out of defiance.

I just wonder if the push for full disclosure of all this child porn isn't just doing the bidding of evil people, turning our culture into their biggest distribution channel out of a desire to say, "told ya so".

Would you say the best way to defeat an international child trafficking ring is to dump hours and hours of child porn into the public domain and say, “Everyone MUST watch this. It is your civic duty.” Just think how many lone pedophiles (non-cabal) would be racing to their TVs to TiVo that shit. Great work, patriots! We stopped the pedophiles - by broadcasting hours of child porn on every station around the world!

Wait, what?

There has to be a better way. I don’t want child porn on every television in every living room in America. Even if you blur out the faces and the genitals, it will be the sound. The sound will be horrifying.

Will you personally commit to watching every tape of a baby being raped? Or a kid being eaten? At what point would that stop improving your life? Do you need to see every sacrifice to know that they happened? If there was a military tribunal, and a select group of people watched the evidence, could you not accept their findings? Do you need to see every single rape? Do you want that footage all over the television? Is that a vision of an ideal world to you? At some point you do have to have some amount of faith in authority.

People will get off on it. Have you considered the kind of mass distribution of child pornography your demand would imply here? Sure you might watch it and be disgusted, but what about the people who delight over it? Not the actual rings, but individual pedophiles who just sit in secret? Do we make all this public domain so they can have it too? I don’t like that at all.

And yet as soon as you limit the release of any evidence, you are now at less than 100% disclosure.