Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A smarter man would vary the topics and mannerisms of his sock puppet accounts. 

 

But intelligence has never been your bag. 

 

 

Now quick, ask me about 9/11 again and pretend you're not BF. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a Q dude today! So glad they can marry each other now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conflating Q supporters with Qs own posts is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Feel proud, you've chosen a path down here. 

 

Well done, BM -- errr, McGee. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Conflating Q supporters with Qs own posts is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Feel proud, you've chosen a path down here. 

 

Well done, BM -- errr, McGee. 

Quoting Travis View no less. They're not even trying. :lol:

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Quoting Travis View no less. They're not even trying. :lol:

 

Sorry bro. I don’t know your brethren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Sorry bro. I don’t know your brethren. 

That's cool. You're not the one who posted it. ;)

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

That's cool. You're not the one who posted it. ;)

 

:lol: That was fantastic. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

3 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

E is the new Q. 

Holy *****, that was my 1000th post. I bet Q predicted that my next post would be 1000 as soon as I hit 999. Crazy!!!!

Edited by BigMcD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brennan and Comey are battling behind the scenes to determine who's going to get the dossier dumped on them: 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/14/gowdy_look_for_emails_between_brennan_and_comey_in_december_2016.html

 

Which brings us back to February of this year and this Q drop: 

D6r1nxAW4AEmWfE.jpg

 

It was never Comey's operation. It was always Brennan's on behalf of Obama himself to cover up what this document and Admiral Rogers uncovered in the spring of 2016:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Brennan and Comey are battling behind the scenes to determine who's going to get the dossier dumped on them: 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/14/gowdy_look_for_emails_between_brennan_and_comey_in_december_2016.html

 

Which brings us back to February of this year and this Q drop: 

D6r1nxAW4AEmWfE.jpg

 

It was never Comey's operation. It was always Brennan's on behalf of Obama himself to cover up what this document and Admiral Rogers uncovered in the spring of 2016:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

It is inconceivable that the leader of the free world and the leader of the democrat party, was unaware of this operation.  In the case of a horrible misunderstanding of well-intentioned people, one would certainly assume they would discuss with the president of the USA given national security concerns.  At a minimum, they would want to avoid any appearance of partisan bias on the watch of President Obama and the DOJ.  For those of us who believe with an operation designed to undo the election, there is no way it all could happen without the approval of the President.  I certainly believe they might have been slick enough to allow for plausible deniability, but the lack of coverage about what the prior admin knew, or assuming an ounce of credibility 8 years into his term--most certainly should have known.  

 

I've told many of my liberal friends, most who consider me to be at least somewhat reasonable on some level, that obama is among the dirtiest politicians in the history of the country, and he was complicit in an attempt to undo an election.  These days, the reply I get is less "You're a crazy Trumptard", more a sheepish chuckle and half-hearted "Whatever".

 

Some things are complicated, some things are pretty obvious. 

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It is inconceivable that the leader of the free world and the leader of the democrat party, was unaware of this operation.  In the case of a horrible misunderstanding of well-intentioned people, one would certainly assume they would discuss with the president of the USA given national security concerns.  At a minimum, they would want to avoid any appearance of partisan bias on the watch of President Obama and the DOJ.  For those of us who believe with an operation designed to undo the election, there is no way it all could happen without the approval of the President.  I certainly believe they might have been slick enough to allow for plausible deniability, but the lack of coverage about what the prior admin knew, or assuming an ounce of credibility 8 years into his term--most certainly should have known.  

 

I've told many of my liberal friends, most who consider me to be at least somewhat reasonable on some level, that obama is among the dirtiest politicians in the history of the country, and he was complicit in an attempt to undo an election.  These days, the reply I get is less "You're a crazy Trumptard", more a sheepish chuckle and half-hearted "Whatever".

 

Some things are complicated, some things are pretty obvious. 

 

Agreed. 

 

Which brings us back to the central question many of us have been grappling with since the evidence became undeniable: what can you do about a crooked former President without undoing the entire Republic in the process? 

 

It's such a tricky question to answer, which is why I've said for awhile that I expect the investigation to tie this off before it reaches Obama personally. I thought, for a brief time, they might even tie it off before the scandal lands at the feet of his cabinet -- but now it seems they definitely are targeting his Lts and cappos (Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Kerry, Lynch, Rice). 

 

Indicting Obama, even with justification, would split the country. That's the opposite of what the team around Trump has been striving for, and the opposite of what even the most partisan Q posts have laid out. What I think they've settled on is a strategy that exposes the bad actors within 44's administration, indicts a large bucketful of the worst ones (including several cabinet members) but spare 44 himself. They will target instead 44's legacy -- and expose the dirty laundry for the world to judge him -- while giving him a pass for the sake of the republic. 

 

I think Dev, maybe GG, has mentioned this before (and Row) -- but I could see a scenario where Trump exposes all the ill deeds done under 44's direction in regard to the election, then Trump pardons his predecessor as a way to bring unity. 

 

Clinton might have gotten that same mercy had she not lit his olive branch on fire in January of 2017. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think Dev, maybe GG, has mentioned this before (and Row) -- but I could see a scenario where Trump exposes all the ill deeds done under 44's direction in regard to the election, then Trump pardons his predecessor as a way to bring unity. 

 

Clinton might have gotten that same mercy had she not lit his olive branch on fire in January of 2017. 

 

Not my theory. 

 

My conjecture is that Trump sets up the dominoes to fall, but steps aside as to the proceedings begin.  For the same reasons you cite, I think there will be massive unrest if Trump is leading the house cleaning.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Agreed. 

 

Which brings us back to the central question many of us have been grappling with since the evidence became undeniable: what can you do about a crooked former President without undoing the entire Republic in the process? 

 

It's such a tricky question to answer, which is why I've said for awhile that I expect the investigation to tie this off before it reaches Obama personally. I thought, for a brief time, they might even tie it off before the scandal lands at the feet of his cabinet -- but now it seems they definitely are targeting his Lts and cappos (Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Kerry, Lynch, Rice). 

 

Indicting Obama, even with justification, would split the country. That's the opposite of what the team around Trump has been striving for, and the opposite of what even the most partisan Q posts have laid out. What I think they've settled on is a strategy that exposes the bad actors within 44's administration, indicts a large bucketful of the worst ones (including several cabinet members) but spare 44 himself. They will target instead 44's legacy -- and expose the dirty laundry for the world to judge him -- while giving him a pass for the sake of the republic. 

 

I think Dev, maybe GG, has mentioned this before (and Row) -- but I could see a scenario where Trump exposes all the ill deeds done under 44's direction in regard to the election, then Trump pardons his predecessor as a way to bring unity. 

 

Clinton might have gotten that same mercy had she not lit his olive branch on fire in January of 2017. 

I agree on Obama being indicted, but this really is an 'us v. them' situation.  Any way you cut it, if he's implicated, half the country is upset.   I suppose I can be satisfied with a nixonian bent to his reputation, and he's certainly not going to jail, but this whole thing is absurd nonetheless.  This wasn't some little misunderstanding, or political backstabbing, this was about stealing my vote at a time when my vote mattered (or would have if i didn't live in NY).   I'm not naive, btw, it would not surprise me in the least to hear it happened at other times in our history--but if setting up a presidential candidate, painting him as a treasonous bastard who was working in the interest of a hostile foreign regime is not enough for the citizenry to say "This is too much", what's left that we won't accept?  

 

Using the kavanaugh hearing as an example, it seems fairly obvious that each time an attempt to smear a conservative nominee fails, the left escalates.  The most recent excersize involved accusing the candidate of being a rapist.  Sexual harassment in the Clarence Thomas model was no longer sufficient.  Some have said the next logical justice up ACB (assuming Trump nominates) is somewhat protected, but I disagree.  She gets the Harris/Durbin/Blumenthal/etc treatment---assaulted a child when she was a babysitter at 14...a mystery abortion at 15 or something like that.    Nothing is off limits, and absent pushback they simply push the next narrative.  There was a movie many years ago about a female nominee for VP accused of all sorts of salacious things, and the outrage that followed.  Just a decade or two later, it's the hollywood crowd lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks over unsubstantiated and salacious rumors, with many folks suggesting the guy wasn't fit to serve because in spite of 30 years of distinguished public service----he decided to fight back and defend his honor.  

 

i guess we'll see. 

 

 

Edited by leh-nerd skin-erd
  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It's such a tricky question to answer, which is why I've said for awhile that I expect the investigation to tie this off before it reaches Obama personally.

 

I don't think it's coincidence how quite Hussein has been in relation to Russia Gate. My guess is that there is already a deal cut for him to keep his pie-hole shut (for the most part) in order to avoid lasting punishment.

 

As the circle tightens, however, will he be able to suppress his own base instincts of trying to prove how he is the smartest man in the room? Will he talk his own way out of a deal?  I sincerely hope so.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

?

No idea what happened there with my phone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GG said:

No idea what happened there with my phone. 

 

:beer: I thought someone might have posted and deleted something you were responding to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 5:57 PM, McGee Return TD said:

BOOM WEEK!

 

And it's delivered... funny how you (or your other handles) won't acknowledge this and instead want to shift focus away from Q and onto Q supporters. 

 

That's why you keep losing. 

 

On 5/14/2019 at 7:46 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

* RR blasting Comey

 

* Durham revealed (completing a Q proof)

 

* Iran starts to boil

 

 

And that was Monday. 

 

(But no booms :lol: )

 

On 5/14/2019 at 7:57 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

Oh... gee. 

Image result for gina haspel white hat

 

Plus: 

 

* Immigration reform announced. 

* Comey v Brennan heats up

* Rome clears out it's intelligence agencies

* Iran revelations

 

... And it's only Thursday. Biggest news tends to come at 5pm on Thursday or Friday... so we're likely not done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And it's delivered... funny how you (or your other handles) won't acknowledge this and instead want to shift focus away from Q and onto Q supporters. 

 

That's why you keep losing. 

 

 

 

Plus: 

 

* Immigration reform announced. 

* Comey v Brennan heats up

* Rome clears out it's intelligence agencies

* Iran revelations

 

... And it's only Thursday. Biggest news tends to come at 5pm on Thursday or Friday... so we're likely not done. 

I think you're right on all this.  But as confusing as this call can be, my real issue is trying to figure out how the %$#@ to pay my $#@!ing Directv Bill.  I have two accounts, one is suspended (i place it on ice in the off-season then flip it on for Season Pass), the other at a second home.  I can't get online.  I can't pay via automated system. I'm being told my account is indeed suspended per my request, but I owe the $92 anyways.  🤑

 

If, say, John Brennan can get this all worked out for me, I may become a commie rat just like him. 

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think you're right on all this.  But as confusing as this call can be, my real issue is trying to figure out how the %$#@ to pay my $#@!ing Directv Bill.  I have two accounts, one is suspended (i place it on ice in the off-season then flip it on for Season Pass), the other at a second home.  I can't get online.  I can't pay via automated system. I'm being told my account is indeed suspended per my request, but I owe the $92 anyways.  🤑

 

If, say, John Brennan can get this all worked out for me, I may become a commie rat just like him. 

 

:lol: :beer: 

 

Just to restate my take on Q (not for you as much as others, the bolded just prompted this): my take on Q remains the same as it was in the OP. Q is purposefully highly partisan and the content can be divisive and/or outrageous. It's beyond speculation now that Q is tied directly to/working directly on behalf of 45 -- to the point that 45 himself (more than likely) posts as Q+. Those are the only certainties I would say about Q if pressed -- but that alone makes the entire subject fascinating because it leaves us with only two choices. Either Q is: 

 

a) Pushing fake, partisan information with 45's knowledge and consent in order to foment rabid loyalty to Trump within a very small circle of the population in some new form of information warfare which he can disavow at any moment... (which alone would make Q the biggest political story of his presidency considering the information shared)

 

or

 

b) A back channel/workaround from the DNC controlled MSM narratives to spread real information and evidence to the people on behalf of 45 and his MI team... (which would also make Q a historic enterprise and one of the biggest political stories in US history)

 

It's one or the other. Either option leaves us with a major story, a major piece of the puzzle and should not be ignored. But that still does not (for me) make Q anything more than a supplemental source of information. It's but one piece you can use to verify other pieces -- that's it.

 

Think about how nuts the attempts in the MSM to paint Q as a cult, crazy, or dangerous has been over the past year. Really think about it and compare it to other "anonymous insiders" who have claimed to have spectacular access before. It's not like Q is the first "person" to come forward with such tales. Q isn't even the first from 4chan/8chan. In 2015-2016 alone there were multiple insiders claiming to be delivering the truth (FBIanon/MegaAnon), and before them were countless others who've made wild claims before -- yet none of them, NONE of them, has gotten the coordinated mass push back from not just one or two MSM outlets, but nearly every one plus the entertainment world (NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, late night hosts, cable comedy shows et al). 

 

What makes Q different? Why are people in positions of power in the media and Hollywood willing to spend so much time and dedicate so much ink and airwaves to "debunking" an anonymous insider? More than that, why haven't the very same outlets and journalists who've dedicated hundreds of columns and articles debunking Q ever taken the logical step of directly linking Trump to Q+? It's easy to do, there's much more evidence to make that connection than there EVER has been evidence about Trump/Russia working together. Plus, if Q is as dangerous and wrong as they like to write about in their columns, wouldn't a direct relationship to Trump give them the ammunition they've been looking for (for 3 years) to get Trump out of office? 

 

Yet... crickets. That kind of obvious missed opportunity on the part of the MSM cabal makes my spidey-senses go off. The only reason they wouldn't make that connection is if they fear/suspect that Q+/Trump could back up everything Q+/Q has dropped in the last year and a half

 

Those are the questions that drove me to Q -- it's my curious nature dovetailing with the work I was doing on the USIC/Russia. 

 

Whatever Q is or isn't, the connection to Trump which cannot be denied at this point, makes it a very important and possible historic story to pay attention to. Which is why it's always so telling when those suffering from acute TDS take the time to make dozens of posts down here mocking Q per their instructions/programming without ever bothering to understand the subject material. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

:lol: :beer: 

 

Just to restate my take on Q (not for you as much as others, the bolded just prompted this): my take on Q remains the same as it was in the OP. Q is purposefully highly partisan and the content can be divisive and/or outrageous. It's beyond speculation now that Q is tied directly to/working directly on behalf of 45 -- to the point that 45 himself (more than likely) posts as Q+. Those are the only certainties I would say about Q if pressed -- but that alone makes the entire subject fascinating because it leaves us with only two choices. Either Q is: 

 

a) Pushing fake, partisan information with 45's knowledge and consent in order to foment rabid loyalty to Trump within a very small circle of the population in some new form of information warfare which he can disavow at any moment... (which alone would make Q the biggest political story of his presidency considering the information shared)

 

or

 

b) A back channel/workaround from the DNC controlled MSM narratives to spread real information and evidence to the people on behalf of 45 and his MI team... (which would also make Q a historic enterprise and one of the biggest political stories in US history)

 

It's one or the other. Either option leaves us with a major story, a major piece of the puzzle and should not be ignored. But that still does not (for me) make Q anything more than a supplemental source of information. It's but one piece you can use to verify other pieces -- that's it.

 

Think about how nuts the attempts in the MSM to paint Q as a cult, crazy, or dangerous has been over the past year. Really think about it and compare it to other "anonymous insiders" who have claimed to have spectacular access before. It's not like Q is the first "person" to come forward with such tales. Q isn't even the first from 4chan/8chan. In 2015-2016 alone there were multiple insiders claiming to be delivering the truth (FBIanon/MegaAnon), and before them were countless others who've made wild claims before -- yet none of them, NONE of them, has gotten the coordinated mass push back from not just one or two MSM outlets, but nearly every one plus the entertainment world (NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, late night hosts, cable comedy shows et al). 

 

What makes Q different? Why are people in positions of power in the media and Hollywood willing to spend so much time and dedicate so much ink and airwaves to "debunking" an anonymous insider? More than that, why haven't the very same outlets and journalists who've dedicated hundreds of columns and articles debunking Q ever taken the logical step of directly linking Trump to Q+? It's easy to do, there's much more evidence to make that connection than there EVER has been evidence about Trump/Russia working together. Plus, if Q is as dangerous and wrong as they like to write about in their columns, wouldn't a direct relationship to Trump give them the ammunition they've been looking for (for 3 years) to get Trump out of office? 

 

Yet... crickets. That kind of obvious missed opportunity on the part of the MSM cabal makes my spidey-senses go off. The only reason they wouldn't make that connection is if they fear/suspect that Q+/Trump could back up everything Q+/Q has dropped in the last year and a half

 

Those are the questions that drove me to Q -- it's my curious nature dovetailing with the work I was doing on the USIC/Russia. 

 

Whatever Q is or isn't, the connection to Trump which cannot be denied at this point, makes it a very important and possible historic story to pay attention to. Which is why it's always so telling when those suffering from acute TDS take the time to make dozens of posts down here mocking Q per their instructions/programming without ever bothering to understand the subject material. 

 

 

 

 

Great read and thanks for the summary.  For me, I'm just a guy trying to get by and raise a family.  I don't need someone in the media telling me how crazy some entity is, I don't much listen to politicians because just off the top of my head, 50% is pure BS.  I mentioned Kavanaugh hearings, and do frequently because I cannot reconcile the attempt by supposedly 'good people' to destroy another human being for fun and profit.  That was one of those ugly moments in our history where I watched, considered, tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who might feel different than I...and walked away thinking that the 'leaders' of the opposition are literally scumbags of the highest order.  

 

I consider what is offered in some media outlets, but I read/watch/listen and consider the agenda being proffered.  I reserve the right to look at all sources, consider what makes sense to me, and consider what information is lacking that seems to be common knowledge.  I consider placement of a story in a newspaper, the language carefully chosen during a newscast (This TRADE WAR could hit AMERICANS hard on EVERY ITEM IN THIS SHOPPING CART!"), and anything else I can think of.  

 

This brings me to Q.  I don't actively search anything out on the Q phenomenon, don't know where I would look to begin with, but review what I see here.  That makes me vulnerable, in a sense, because for all I know, you could be Sybil from the old high school novel and have 4 different computers and 4 different screen names for the 4 different voices on your head that really don't seem to like each other.  On the other hand, I'm a natural skeptic so I plug on, mindful of the spies in the woods dressed as pine trees.

 

So, as to Q--I think you make some excellent points, and I think Trump's obvious plan to brand his message, in his way, via twitter certainly lends credence to your theory.  Honestly, I really don't see it as all that different than the supposed insiders that leak all sorts of %$#@ that Lester Holt tells America about on the evening news.  A little more theatrical, a bit more colorful and cryptic...but what old Lester does, really is say this:

 

Source in WH...connected...powerful

Eyes 2 SC being fired. 45 2 consider.

Consequences = crisis of consti2shun

When...If?  

Stenny Hoyer?

 

He dresses it up a bit, throws it on a teleprompter, and for that they give him an Emmy.  Q does it and it's something to be mocked...and your point on "Why only Q" makes a lot of sense.

 

Oh, I think Stenny Hoyer is a funny name, so I Qed him up.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...