There’s some crazy stuff out there about tribunals, executions, body doubles, AI cloning, etc. . . Sadly, I’m at the point I might believe anything. But, since I’m new to these parts and fear that I might sound like a crazed consp theorist (which my family thinks) . . . I’ll start with the question of tribunals. BTW it’s taken me a while to build the courage to ask, so take it easy on me plz.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
How do "we know for a fact" about NoName? I was trying to find the support for that assertion a few days ago and was unsuccessful.
Please provide the factual sauce.
Q said McCain would return to headlines. 30 days later he was dead. Q's post and McCain's death were both at 28 minutes past the hour. Q also said about McCain that every dog has it's day. The White House put their flag at half staff on National Dog Day.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECiZ-AVUwAEwkFq?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
I love how Biden was wearing dog socks in a manner reminiscent of H.W. I figure old Timberwolf (H.W.) was put down like a dog and Biden will soon have his turn.
Why would it be done in secret? I don't understand why a traitor being executed would be known to politicians but hidden from the public.
Maybe he made some deal in exchange for getting a public cover story for his death.
Maybe the crimes he committed can't be made public right now for reasons of national security. Can't really tell everyone you executed a Senator and Presidential Candidate but can't say what for.
Q did originally say 80% of their cabal cleanup would have to be done in secret
Thanks for your reply. It's just frustrating that the public is battered with propaganda day in and day out, and no one knows what is really going on.
What I'm looking for is evidence.
Not hearsay or coincidence. Something that would stand up to scrutiny by the lawyers in my family.
Then wait, I suppose. The entire premise of Q also rests on “you have to let everyone see“ in order to awaken. Not "here's this one thing," and “here's another," but a sewing of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
For the lawyer members, have them think about it as casting doubt on the assertion (criminal) vs. what you're asking for which is a "preponderance of evidence,“ (civil).
Shift either your burden or their burden.
If an alarm goes off at 11:30am every day, prove to me without looking at the clock that it's not set to 11:30pm and the clock isn't set incorrectly. Or, accept that being set icorrectly is heresay but the alarm at 11:30 is true.
Are you looking for argumentative support or are you looking to refute by demanding standards for acceptance you haven't defined?
Argumentative support, definitely.
Isn't the military justice based on criminal law? Maybe I better listen to Senator Graham questioning Kavanaugh on that again.
Not a lawfag which makes it even tougher.
But, I am into discerning TRUTH, and my method of validation often involves waiting (+searching) for more information to be revealed.