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:
We know for a fact that John McCain was executed so I would have to assume their was a military trial first. We had always believed that and it was confirmed by both Chris Christie and McCains daughter who slipped up.
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
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?