2
Politiskep2 2 points ago +2 / -0

How does it follow that a ruling allowing prosecutors to go after Trump's tax records will in any way make them vulnerable to similar attacks? Just precedent? The courts are so corrupt that precedent doesn't matter at all to them. I don't mean to be dooming here but I don't see the vulnerability.

1
Politiskep2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Mister President, there is no way we can get rid of McConnel unless something is done about the election of 2020.

2
Politiskep2 2 points ago +2 / -0

The subversive play they can use on us is "Trump 2024" or "WE have to take back congress in 2022"

If the election of 2020 is allowed to be stolen, there is no point in ever voting again. But I don't think Trump will let it be stolen much longer.

13
Politiskep2 13 points ago +13 / -0

I would interpret a push for Trump 2024 as the next backstop of our enemies. The push should be for Trump 2020, because if they are allowed to steal that one then there is absolutely no reason to even vote in 2024, they'll just steal it again.

2
Politiskep2 2 points ago +2 / -0

They probably can, but by using unethical organ harvests/transplants, transfusions, and maybe the adrenochrome thing.

3
Politiskep2 3 points ago +3 / -0

I can only speak for myself, but my mentality was along these lines: I know that the Republicrat party is bad, and the only way to get someone into the whitehouse who will actually oppose the TPP is to elect an outsider who isn't in the uniparty club. This narrows it down to either Sanders or Trump.

Because I was still somewhat media influenced, it looked like Sanders was the only one who had a snowball's chance in hell at this. However, I understood what was happening immediately when he sold out, so I switched to Trump and proceeded to get redpilled on all the pedo shit. I already knew the Clintons were bad and running a mafia, but I didn't know how bad they really were. The only items I truly changed my mind on were tax cuts and global warming. (which are good, and a hoax, respectively)

1
Politiskep2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Somebody do something!!!

Hahahah, are you kidding here? All these 3-year deltas lining up, resignations all over the world, Military elections in Myanmar, DECLAS immediately before he "left," and you're choosing right now to act like a fainting maiden?

8
Politiskep2 8 points ago +8 / -0

I believe those had referred to Soros, Saudi family and one other, Rothschilds maybe.

-1
Politiskep2 -1 points ago +6 / -7

I love Mike Lindell but he seriously needs to learn when to shut up, that absolutely destroyed his credibility with a ton of fence sitters.

17
Politiskep2 17 points ago +18 / -1

He fired them because they wanted to argue the impeachment case that Trump cannot be impeached as a private citizen. This would be a tacit admission that he lost the election, which he didn't.

3
Politiskep2 3 points ago +3 / -0

He's one of the governors who ordered covid patients into nursing homes, apparently to deliberately infect as many senior citizens as possible. And knowingly, because he moved his own parents out of the line of fire as it were.

4
Politiskep2 4 points ago +4 / -0

He said "scare event necessary" and the ending would not be for everybody. Scared yet? Trump is leaving the presidency. Ending that you like?

If this was a military op then Trump's presence is NOT desirable, they all will scream orange hitler if he's involved in any way at all. From the beginning, Q has made it clear that the intention is to avoid unnecessary collateral damage.

I'd be happier if Trump got two terms, but think like a general on this. What is the win condition? It isn't that TRUMP specifically gets a second term right after his first one. It's removing the bad actors in such a way as to maximize the safety of the people.

2
Politiskep2 2 points ago +2 / -0

I haven't given up yet, anons. Lurking mostly, reading stuff that doesn't look like shilling. In light of this post the inauguration makes sense, but if this were a book I'd be skipping to the last chapter.