I don't want to dox myself, but my county is marked blue, and there's no way in hell Trump lost it. Even the maps covered in red have blue in the wrong places.
It's going to feel sweet when 2020 is finally fixed.
Yes. Excellent strategy. Thanks for pointing it out.
One of the many things I appreciate about this board is that though so many can be in agreement about something, they can still have a slightly different perspective and it's so valuable to hear what other people have to say.
This is a little known thing, your votes DO NOT MATTER and they never have!
Electoral College may vote anyway that they please, their vote is not required to match that of the people. It has always been this way because the average person cannot pay enough attention to make an informed decision, they are also lied to non-stop!
Pence was correct with saying that he could not block their vote, he cannot. Even if the election was stolen, and it likely was, the Electoral College always has final say. Makes me pissy about all the recounts in the past, FOR WHAT?!
I feel this is only a push to remove the EC, they have tried before. The EC is the last bastion of defense against complete Democracy (Mob Rule) which the mob really wants removed. As a nation we require leaders that support and uphold the republic, not a fictional democracy! If we are turned over to true democracy we have about 1 year before everything burns because fear is one hell of a motivator! Democracies lead to dictatorships! ALWAYS!
Because the Electoral College has followed popular vote it does not mean that they are required to.
If they were required to follow popular vote then we would have Biden anyway, Senate is allowed for tie breaker, not for determining magnitude of fraud and negating Electoral votes over the possibility.
Biden HAD to be in office right now. What is happening has to happen. It HAD to be seen.
Notice the influx of "Nazism" on both sides? It had to be seen to be believed.
If our poles are violence we should remain centered.
With all this infighting and shilling in this community alone do you imagine a complete democracy to be a viable option for it's continued success? 51% tells the other 49% what to do and how to do? Reddit? Throw a few paid accounts at it and your will shall be had over the masses in weeks! We are a Republic with Democratically elected Representatives for a reason. Already they use the boot of the Governing Body against the common man in such a way that they steal his very life force and it is accepted as normal. In the Beginning these laws did not apply to man but fell on the corporation. Through promoting democracy the corporation has managed itself person-hood and labeled the common man as a corporation under the law insisting the laws specifically made for the corporation on to the common man.
Changing of the Guard, happens like twice a day at Buckingham.
We can reign it in now or they will continue to force unconstitutional levies and obligations in their unending bid to own humanity! Using us as their weapons to boot.
I don't usually have the confidence in your understanding of non-Q people that you think you have, but I'm always up for a testable hypothesis.
I'm interested to see if your strategy of simply telling liberals that Trump is the only obvious solution to these current problems "with emotion" is effective. I'm not really sure how it differs from what has already been going on, but I'm up to learn.
I have a pretty good track record at predicting how normies will react to the theories around here, so I'm absolutely up to hear how you'd approach this with a normie on the street.
You are claiming you have a good track record, but that is only by your definition of one. Our definition may be different. To have that debate we need to first be clear on what we're defining as a "normie".
It would be like claiming "I understand how women think" but then you only mean women from one group who live in the wealthy suburbs of San Francisco area while we might mean women in deep red stats.
You might think of a normie by your definition of a centrist, but we would term your type of normie as strongly left-leaning and not a "normie" at all.
I'm asking you to define it in your own words. I'm not asking how you think "normies" here are defined. You claimed you are a good prognosticator of how "normies" think. So I want to know what you mean by a "normie". What is your idea of a typical normie?
Is a normie pro-vax to you? Are they pro-mask to you? Do they agree with gay marriage? Do they agree with transgender therapy for children? Do they agree with preferred pronouns?
I'm using it in the most general sense, which is, "what the world outside of Q thinks."
We can't have a debate until you define the term. You claimed that you were good at predicting how normies will react, but you did not define your idea of a normie.
Now you are saying that anyone who doesn't follow Q is a normie. So Trump-loving patriots who don't agree with transgender therapy are "normies" by your definition if they don't follow Q? (You do know the majority of Trump voters don't follow Q or even know much about it, don't you?)
You've basically said by your current position that majority of Trump supporters are normies.
I am asking what, in your opinion, is a "normie".
Do you think normies agree with transgender therapy and preferred gender pronouns? (Yes or no?)
Do you think normies agree with gay marriage?
Do you think normies are pro-vax?
Do you think normies are pro-mask?
I think you know very well the point I'm making. Just answer the questions above with yes or no. It's real simple.
I'm not really certain how to respond, because you're suggesting that "normies" are some labeled political class. If I say yes, yes, yes, and yes, I'm describing someone further left than no, yes, no, no.
Both people could hold beliefs that Q is nonsense, right? There are plenty of Trump supporters considered "normies" because they aren't on the Q Train.
This isn't my label I'm using. I'm using the label of you guys to describe the "other", those who aren't Q. Exactly how they would answer a Facebook political quiz isn't really important, as long as they aren't looking at things through the Q perspective.
I'm not really going to die on the hill of some offhand comment I made and I'm not sure exactly what it is you want to debate here.
So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.
94-96% of people will wake up to the cabal and their election tampering and global control of information and finance systems.
Okay. But this evidence isn't currently available, correct? Because if it were, you could show it to 100 people and walk away with 94-96 eager new believers, right?
Q specifically wanted high IQ autists for a reason.
I think it's a haughty claim to assume that simply using the website 8chan was a sign of "high IQ autism." That leads to a circular conclusion. "Q only talked to high IQ people, and I listen to and believe Q, so therefore, I must be high IQ, and the people who believe what I do must also be high IQ."
People who have no opinions of your own who will gladly parrot whatever drops on TV at 4am that morning.
I admit it's incredibly frustrating to know how absolutely wrong you are about me and know there's no way you'll ever allow yourself to be convinced you were wrong. About anything. It's not a good trait for a researcher to have.
DEFINE NORMIE.
I really don't have time to re-have conversations with people who didn't read the first time, so this is it.
Normie, no matter where it is used, is a reference by an "in group" to refer to the "out group." The in-group members usually are referring to some marginalization they feel, which means they are superficially considered by the outgroup to be "not normal."
Incels use it to mean people who have sex. Comic book nerds use it to refer to people who don't read comics. Q people refer to it to mean non-Q people.
You can disagree. You're welcome to have a personal definition that differs. I do not really care. I am not spending more time debating the precise definition of slang.
That is actually a great idea and I just posted it.
It's not just the Never-Trumpers. It's also the people who just accepted it as a fait accompli.
Anyone who didn't fight the Biden won narrative is also at fault.
REPORTS: SCYTL DATA SHOWS LANDSLIDE WIN FOR PRES. TRUMP
ALLEGED SERVER SEIZED BY U.S. ARMY SHOWS PRES. TRUMP HAD 410 ELECTORAL VOTES ON ELECTION NIGHT
Source: One America News
Sauce?
https://democratelectionfraud.blogspot.com/2020/11/oann-report-alleged-server-seized-by-us.html?m=1
Thanks u/CQVFEFE and u/rayw_wwg1wga 👈🏻
I don't want to dox myself, but my county is marked blue, and there's no way in hell Trump lost it. Even the maps covered in red have blue in the wrong places.
It's going to feel sweet when 2020 is finally fixed.
and let the conspiring Republicans off the hook? or MSM-Tech?
what happens when you let criminals steal an election? they govern like criminals.
It’s not democrats vs republicans, it’s republicans and democrats against us
Looks like we held the line pretty good in oklahoma.
A place where even squares can have a ball
Yes. Excellent strategy. Thanks for pointing it out.
One of the many things I appreciate about this board is that though so many can be in agreement about something, they can still have a slightly different perspective and it's so valuable to hear what other people have to say.
"war drum" shouldn't involve convincing retards that they were wrong. It should be about turning these morons into compost for our victory gardens
Liars refuse.to yield. we will make them yield. Republican and democrT Like. Hannity and Maher.
There is no fence sitting here.
This is a little known thing, your votes DO NOT MATTER and they never have!
Electoral College may vote anyway that they please, their vote is not required to match that of the people. It has always been this way because the average person cannot pay enough attention to make an informed decision, they are also lied to non-stop!
Pence was correct with saying that he could not block their vote, he cannot. Even if the election was stolen, and it likely was, the Electoral College always has final say. Makes me pissy about all the recounts in the past, FOR WHAT?!
I feel this is only a push to remove the EC, they have tried before. The EC is the last bastion of defense against complete Democracy (Mob Rule) which the mob really wants removed. As a nation we require leaders that support and uphold the republic, not a fictional democracy! If we are turned over to true democracy we have about 1 year before everything burns because fear is one hell of a motivator! Democracies lead to dictatorships! ALWAYS!
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history
I didn't talk down to anyone.
Because the Electoral College has followed popular vote it does not mean that they are required to.
If they were required to follow popular vote then we would have Biden anyway, Senate is allowed for tie breaker, not for determining magnitude of fraud and negating Electoral votes over the possibility.
Biden HAD to be in office right now. What is happening has to happen. It HAD to be seen.
Notice the influx of "Nazism" on both sides? It had to be seen to be believed.
If our poles are violence we should remain centered.
With all this infighting and shilling in this community alone do you imagine a complete democracy to be a viable option for it's continued success? 51% tells the other 49% what to do and how to do? Reddit? Throw a few paid accounts at it and your will shall be had over the masses in weeks! We are a Republic with Democratically elected Representatives for a reason. Already they use the boot of the Governing Body against the common man in such a way that they steal his very life force and it is accepted as normal. In the Beginning these laws did not apply to man but fell on the corporation. Through promoting democracy the corporation has managed itself person-hood and labeled the common man as a corporation under the law insisting the laws specifically made for the corporation on to the common man.
Changing of the Guard, happens like twice a day at Buckingham.
We can reign it in now or they will continue to force unconstitutional levies and obligations in their unending bid to own humanity! Using us as their weapons to boot.
Bingo!
Hmm.
I don't usually have the confidence in your understanding of non-Q people that you think you have, but I'm always up for a testable hypothesis.
I'm interested to see if your strategy of simply telling liberals that Trump is the only obvious solution to these current problems "with emotion" is effective. I'm not really sure how it differs from what has already been going on, but I'm up to learn.
I have a pretty good track record at predicting how normies will react to the theories around here, so I'm absolutely up to hear how you'd approach this with a normie on the street.
What is your definition of a "normie"?
You are claiming you have a good track record, but that is only by your definition of one. Our definition may be different. To have that debate we need to first be clear on what we're defining as a "normie".
It would be like claiming "I understand how women think" but then you only mean women from one group who live in the wealthy suburbs of San Francisco area while we might mean women in deep red stats.
You might think of a normie by your definition of a centrist, but we would term your type of normie as strongly left-leaning and not a "normie" at all.
So please specify what you mean by "normie".
Well, if you ask most people around here, I'd be considered one, so I guess that's something.
I'm asking you to define it in your own words. I'm not asking how you think "normies" here are defined. You claimed you are a good prognosticator of how "normies" think. So I want to know what you mean by a "normie". What is your idea of a typical normie?
Is a normie pro-vax to you? Are they pro-mask to you? Do they agree with gay marriage? Do they agree with transgender therapy for children? Do they agree with preferred pronouns?
Define your idea of a normie.
I'm using it in the most general sense, which is, "what the world outside of Q thinks." Which is typically the way it's used around here.
If I knew what point you were trying to make, I may be able to give you an answer more conducive to whatever conversation we're having right now.
We can't have a debate until you define the term. You claimed that you were good at predicting how normies will react, but you did not define your idea of a normie.
Now you are saying that anyone who doesn't follow Q is a normie. So Trump-loving patriots who don't agree with transgender therapy are "normies" by your definition if they don't follow Q? (You do know the majority of Trump voters don't follow Q or even know much about it, don't you?)
You've basically said by your current position that majority of Trump supporters are normies.
I am asking what, in your opinion, is a "normie".
Do you think normies agree with transgender therapy and preferred gender pronouns? (Yes or no?)
Do you think normies agree with gay marriage?
Do you think normies are pro-vax?
Do you think normies are pro-mask?
I think you know very well the point I'm making. Just answer the questions above with yes or no. It's real simple.
I'm not really certain how to respond, because you're suggesting that "normies" are some labeled political class. If I say yes, yes, yes, and yes, I'm describing someone further left than no, yes, no, no.
Both people could hold beliefs that Q is nonsense, right? There are plenty of Trump supporters considered "normies" because they aren't on the Q Train.
This isn't my label I'm using. I'm using the label of you guys to describe the "other", those who aren't Q. Exactly how they would answer a Facebook political quiz isn't really important, as long as they aren't looking at things through the Q perspective.
I'm not really going to die on the hill of some offhand comment I made and I'm not sure exactly what it is you want to debate here.
So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.
Okay. But this evidence isn't currently available, correct? Because if it were, you could show it to 100 people and walk away with 94-96 eager new believers, right?
I think it's a haughty claim to assume that simply using the website 8chan was a sign of "high IQ autism." That leads to a circular conclusion. "Q only talked to high IQ people, and I listen to and believe Q, so therefore, I must be high IQ, and the people who believe what I do must also be high IQ."
The last time you were challenged directly to back this claim up, you publicly failed. You're still welcome to demonstrate exactly what source I stole my SPECIFIC arguments from in that thread, since I am profoundly stupid and clearly not capable of doing this level of analyses without someone to help me with all the big words.
I admit it's incredibly frustrating to know how absolutely wrong you are about me and know there's no way you'll ever allow yourself to be convinced you were wrong. About anything. It's not a good trait for a researcher to have.
I really don't have time to re-have conversations with people who didn't read the first time, so this is it.
Normie, no matter where it is used, is a reference by an "in group" to refer to the "out group." The in-group members usually are referring to some marginalization they feel, which means they are superficially considered by the outgroup to be "not normal."
Incels use it to mean people who have sex. Comic book nerds use it to refer to people who don't read comics. Q people refer to it to mean non-Q people.
You can disagree. You're welcome to have a personal definition that differs. I do not really care. I am not spending more time debating the precise definition of slang.