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:
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?
I’ll wait to see the actual Maricopa report. Whenever it’s eventually released. I don’t jump the gun when it comes to evidence that is supposed to convince me to change my entire worldview.
Biden getting 81m votes is your entire worldview?