GAW has never claimed to be "directly endorsed by trump", at least not to my knowledge (.win however might be, that ive not actually looked into). GAW doesn't even claim to be "close to trump" (which GN does btw), just that they (GAW) work to advance his cause against the cabal like all white hatted anons seem to do today, and the focus here is research.

You can let go of the pile of ash that was the strawman you made their. Its dead, Jim.

You, alas, are tacitly implying that, because they keep showing as "close to trump", and have "unique footage" (which isn't declared theirs by anyone but them, and exists on dvids), they are somehow trump endorsed. Your argument that i quoted before has that requirement baked into the conclusion, but never actually established it as a proven premise as no such endorsement exists. your argument is inherently a motte and bailey.

Let me explain this in detail for you, as you still don't seem to want to let go of it. The motte in this example is "trump won by a landslide/has all the data" with "george agrees trump won". I haven't said he doesn't, or they didn't either. In fact no one has said this is false.

You then conflated this with The Bailey, which is that "trump and george are working together", and based on the evidence so far, or rather lack thereof, that dog don't hunt. It sort of gets up, looks at the door, then hides in the cellar of censorship, whining like a bitch.

Now, ol' George likes to imply it is the case by running off the shirt tails of q and the military, claiming to be with trump all the time, "trusting the plan", and trying to create proofs that say they link them to trump (usually via location targeting, which can be spoofed). However, they cannot prove their connection to the footage taken by the military, and despite them censoring people who bring up that fact, you believe. Why is this?

Oh, Before you say "bot" - No, sorry that's a pleasant lie you were sold. it wasn't a rogue bot or "glitch" as that is narrative lies being played out to you.

There are bugs, and features. A "glitch" or "rogue code" is codespeak for a feature doing what it should as per spec, and the customer not liking the outcomes. This was a feature of blacklisting the link programmatically as a means of securing their source (of income).

I have had to define blacklists and whitelists requirements in my past job in online advertising, so i had to learn how they work. ill guarantee there's source protecting code at minimum in that bot blocking any offsite source file links of their content being mentioned on threads they control. They want to be the only source of that data, but can't. They can only hide they fact it's not theirs, and they cannot do it well, either.

THESE PEOPLE (PARTICULARLY THE SHILLS) ARE STUPID. Most off all because dunno when to quit. But now that I've explained why, please accept both your motte and your bailey are, as a set, ruins not worth keeping for defence.

Now, as for you fren, one thing Q did say a lot was to use logic and reason. That methodology of thought has rules to it. You keep violating those rules. Constantly.. I beg you, please use the mind God gave you.

That by proxy leads me to consider the options that either A) you don't actually believe in the plan exists at all, and are just another shill whose of a higher caliber than most we have seen (but still terrible at actually using logic, so lefty posing as right if you are), or B) are so desperate for a trustworthy source, you'll cling like a limpet to any smiling enemy that flashes the right rhetoric, pun intended.

Benefit of the doubt - i will presume this is merely desperation (for now) . That i can forgive, and easily. Hard not to look for driftwood when the floodwaters are so high. Just keep swimming to shore, we aren't far, and you dont want to grab a gator by accident.

however, I wont read through your past diatribes on other comments if this is the best you can give me as argumentation.

If you want anyone to follow GN from GAW, then address their concerns in comments directly to them in a civil and logical way. Or, alternatively, you can keep getting shown up for the rather obvious faults in your argument, laid bare like an autopsy over, and over, and over, ad infinitum. Your choice.

Bit of advice, mate? Step away and cool your head on this topic for a few. Your comments towards me and others are ludicrously emotionally charged, and you clearly need a moment to calm down to think things through.