FBI agents excluded, LOL
I haven't read a single Q drop, but I enjoy the mantra of WWG1WGA and the intellect of the posters here.
Plus, the dooming over on Patriots gets old.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Do you think the election was stolen?
Not with the evidence I've seen, not right now, no.
I am willing to believe it's possible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I haven't seen anything extraordinary.
I have yet to see a reason why the Red Mirage that was predicted by pretty much everyone has been proven wrong. I know a lot of people don't want it to be true, but it makes 100% sense to me that if Trump told his people to vote in person, and Biden told his people to vote by mail, and mail votes are almost always counted after in-person votes, then that explains the shifts to me.
The fact that Biden got more votes than anyone in history doesn't surprise me, because I think that more people in history turned out to vote Trump out of office than turned out to vote Biden in. I was one. I do not care for Biden, but definitely wanted Trump out of power. I never would have gone to a Biden rally.
I also am not convinced that literally every single judge, DOJ member, and other authoritative bodies are in on a conspiracy to unseat Donald Trump, especially considering how many of them were his appointees. I think his evidence just never was considered extraordinary enough to back up his extraordinary claim.
I will revise my beliefs if presented with such extraordinary evidence, which is why I'm watching Lindell's symposium right now. We'll see if he presents that extraordinary evidence he promised.
I understand time is precious, and I've always respected the way you've presented yourself on these forums, these posts included.
That said, it is my belief that your obligations to moderating /r/QultHeadquarters have probably robbed you of the time you could have spent here, digging what we dug.
But, I can also see how your analytical mind would choose to allocate less time here than there. We've had to chase a lot of fairy tales, and it's only fairly recently (with the devolution posts and the symposium) that we are being given more direct confirmation of the intricacies of The Plan.
Until these very recent events, I've also viewed Q skeptically, but with extreme faith. I believe the likely reason is our backgrounds and experiences. I've been Blessed with an extremely varied life that has allowed me insider insight into the gamut of fields at play. I won't get into the specifics but I have direct experience in mass journalism (fake), the entertainment industry (sleazy), government (corrupt), finance and economics (evil), IT (stupid), international criminal networks (?), psychology (deadly powerful) and healthcare (farming humanity). This insight allowed me a literary interpretation of Q that I've found eludes a lot of other smart people., IMO you included.
Not meant to be disrespectful, or braggadocio. I never mention any of this stuff - it's bad form. But you have a high intellect, I suspect you'll at least consider what I'm saying.
Actually, I spend WAY more time here than I do there. I only mod over there because I happen to be there sometimes and offered to do it.
Also, I appreciate your kind words and am not insulted in the least by the rest. I am pretty much impossible to offend. I actively seek to be proven wrong, because either I'm not, or I get smarter. Being offended drastically impedes my ability to learn things.
It
goes
a
little
something
like
this
They showed how the voting data of multiple states matched the same algorithm, do you disagree?
I saw them say that's what they were showing me, yes.
I don't know for certain that's what they were showing me, because to my knowledge, no outside experts have reviewed their claims yet. I also don't have that evidence in front of me to review myself.
It seems fair to wait for a few days for experts who aren't associated with Lindell to have a chance to respond, right? We aren't just going to take their word for it that what they're telling us they're showing us is the same thing as what they're showing us? Trust, but verify?
Also, you have an interesting username. I know what that chemical is. Any particular reason you've named yourself after it?
Have you had an opportunity to read any of the devolution stuff? Before reading (if you did), were you aware of the post election military appointments made by Trump and if so, did you think they were unusual? I remember thinking at the time it was very odd for the lamest of ducks - an outgoing POTUS - to be making military appointments in late November and December of 2021. And even weirder for those appointees to be announcing a change in the chain of command to essentially eliminate the chain of command, and have all special ops reporting directly to Chris Miller. These are questions that hung in the air for me in late 2020.
I was also in real time waiting for the election interference report originally "due" 45 days after the election. I read the report (which I think was delayed slightly) and noticed that Ratcliffe's report on interference was referenced in a footnote, but inferentially as a supporting reference. In other words, the report widely disseminated in the news concluded "no election interference" and then simply cited to Ratcliffe's report, as if it was in accord. I thought that was surprising so I looked for Ratcliffe's report which was not easy to find. (First clue). When I did finally find it I learned that he totally disagreed with the "no interference" conclusion. That's when my interest was really piqued, because the citation to Ratcliffe was not only misleading, but dishonest. When you cite to concurring authority, you simply say "See Ratcliffe report." When that report is in disagreement, you at least "But see" and would most accurately cite it as "But see, contra, Ratcliffe report."
Devolution guy's theory is not really a Q thing specifically, but would not be inconsistent with the idea that there was a military operation in play. His series was fascinating to me because he was talking about the questions I had, above, that went unanswered. Would love to know your thoughts.
I like the idea of endogenous THC that's all.
That's what the symposium is about, showing this information to the entire world so it can be picked apart. If they were lying or incorrect in what they found it will be shredded to pieces.
What about the preliminary findings of the Maricopa audit? 74,000 more mail-in ballots received and counted than were mailed out?