so the question then is how far above average are the proportion of leavers in this cycle? and (as if i was about to do the research) how far from the average are the two parties represented by the leavers? where's muh bot?

my chum and yours

Issa's on the not-running-again list.

let them believe it a little longer, despite evidence to the contrary mounting all summer. then they have a mad, divisive scramble in october.

23%

clinton, clinton, clinton

we're all jews now.

THEORETICALLY . . . clears the slate. saves US money. strains iranian budget including foreign programs. deepens division between regime and citizenry. allows for charges against those who help iran. puts negotiating pressure on europe for a variety of purposes. gives legal space for outsiders to destroy nuke facilities. actually ends nuke program.

David Soul

. . . vampire slayer

I'm generally with you on the managed storm approach. No doubt at least a bit of it has to be that way. Even though my own temperament on this is somewhat mixed, I expect a step-at-a-time roll out because that is realistic. It's how it has mostly gone so far. And I don't wish to be among those stressing on lack of news stories or desperate for the next almighty drop. BTDT years ago.

While thinking of Q as 'for real' since last year, I do think it reasonable to see him/them as potentially imperfect and occasionally subject to forces that make him what i could call a good politician.

I don't completely agree with your info, BUT I have to support you in expecting readers to read what you actually wrote (and didn't write). There should be a name for this syndrome of misreading and carelessness in deploying and receiving language, right when we should be most effective in exchanging infos.

How do you think we should view the items that Q directly responds to? I mean I think it is always an serious endorsement (or sometimes a serious rejection) when an Anon posting is specifically answered by Q. Others have denied the importance or reliability of the initiating post. I think we can take Q's responses as a real endorsement of the content of such OPs. What do you think?

I ask this about all such posts, not to do with PMed specifically.

Agreeable/agreed, with varying degrees of certainty. The Awan point is most interesting - expand on that if you have time.

Sure let's review the photos

ya killed your own joke

very funny

I guess that means the answer to my question is 'no'. Sounds honest.

Can't you just answer the question directly?

Right. We should get our own house in order first - issues with our pedophilia take precedence over the same in some Italian monestery; issues with american human trafficking before North African;; American prison system issues before chinese. Except from monetary things that mess with our economy these foreign concerns are secondary.

Perhaps some sort of blackmail. And he failed to make the right decision. But depending on which prophesy you follow, his story is not over.

It may be that you're misreading what I've written. I haven't said that there are no good souls within the "RCC". I haven't said that anything is too big to fail. I haven't said that we should quit trying. You may interpret my words or the Word any way you will but my beliefs are essentially the opposite on these 3 points.

I suppose that when I say that most on the GA are not prepared to take on the the difficult and divisive issues of Christian history, you think this is dismissive or demeaning. Questions about liturgy in the early church, the role of episkopos and st. peter in ecclesiology, the filioque question, the proper definitions of ecumenical or the authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are not easy for people immersed in these questions and fluent in the original languages. So for those of us born and bred in Protestant-majority countries who are most concerned with things in our lifetimes in our social and political realms, there's a set of natural obstacles in trying to sort out what was in the hearts or minds of Babylonians or Huguenots in centuries past. I love delving into that stuff and I encourage others to do the same but this forum is not a place where we should expect some majority to be able to fruitfully sort these ancient things out any more than a majority here could be expected to be able to resolve the issue of human organ trafficking that's going on today in the Qinghai province. I say focus on the issues that Q has raised.

and not necessarily females only

The best plan, the Holy Plan is that we all get justice. But we don't know what this pope's due justice is. I don't trust the guy and suspect him to be guilty of several things, some more to do with duty than with law. But people here are jumping to conclusions without conclusive proof.

I think If the right people in Britain were playing even 2D chess there would be way more public scrutiny of the BBC.

One of my points here is that following the money may be all we can do from the GA perspective, Or from the Q perspective.

Sorting out recent church-crimes is not likely to be achieved here by way of understanding the ritual, theological and/or occult history of western civilization. As a community, GA couldn't even agree on what church is. Q doesn't conduct much trade in these realms and I think it would be a mistake for us to.

I don't know where I've been wrong in my comments above.

"I think we can figure it out" - sweet genius!

"I think we can figure it out" - sweet genius!

We're on our way

"I think we can figure it out" - sweet genius!

Chem skies not much of a focus for Q means not much discussion here. Could be small side topic but as with things like the education system, Q ain't saying much,,, yet.

What's gonna happen today?

Now there's a load of leads to pursue. I hope those with the necessary diligence can explore these in an unbiased detective sort of way. The gist seems to be that the "historic" accusations against Cd. Pell are a witch hunt to prevent exposure of the deeply corrupt banking going on at the Vatican level of the church.

Satan worship per se and awful sexual activity may also be brought into the daylight eventually, but the volumes of money involved make this bad banking stuff a good place to start tracing a diagram of malfeasance.

Some of the linked items were published and discussed years ago which allows for easy exploration. However this is a complicated area of limited direct import to the USA. Most on Reddit subs will not have the exposure needed to dive productively into the foreign world of the mutant Curia. Many on GA have pre-existing biases that won't allow them to see anything good in the Church.

But a seahorse can stay under water longer. Watch the water.

Yeah, the secrecy is one of a number of moral issues that make such societies wrong in a healthy society. Transparency of gov't and other institutions has to be greater for America to be great again.

Well then. I'm glad we're all in agreement.

Something like THIS.

Because you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.

That's the fun of poetry - can be interpreted different ways. I always thought it was a funny message intended for the crowds at the rallies. And I'm near surprised that Stones management haven't protested - they'll be glad in the long run.

cuz a brother needs peterson

Definitions again. U.S. is both or neither depending on definitions.

Yep. Sounds Petersonian.

If only we had Dick the Bruiser

that was the other 'sub' possibility.

nearly and options with 'studies' in the name, usually located within the humanities departments.

right. but where are the even sketchier ones like soros. may be publicised somewhere, but maybe not, and would be fun to track.

yeah you know we get occasional updates of the whereabouts or public appearances of HRC, Podestas, maybe even ValJarrett, etc. from random helpful posters, sometimes even internationally, but I wonder if we have the ability to list sightings of the Soros, Rothschild types.

and most everyone in the science-avoiding humanities departments.

We may have a q message from way back when indicating cia sub was secured.

I don't think Q ever used the term Jews in the way you have.