Happy 5th Birthday Q
LET'S GOOoOoOo
It seems like only yesterday!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
This didn't happen in 2017, though.
Well the person that replaced her after she was thrown in that van that day is definitely not Hillary. The person portraying her at the fake inauguration was DEFINITELY not Hillary, sooo, where is she?
ded
At Georgetown University waxing rhapsodic about Madeline Albright?
Five-year delta is rapidly approaching, though. ;-)
It clearly specifies she'll be arrested in 2017 but disinfo is necessary.
Yet we will still tell you the actual date, simply the year is a ruse
Why though? If telling the exact date is bad because she would have time to prepare, why still narrow it down to 1/365th of her life that she has to be worried about and take precautions for, allowing her to do whatever she wants during the other 99.9% of her life?
Why put enough of your intentions on front street for the criminals to avoid your nets, while not giving your students any concrete timeframe beyond "once a year, get your hopes up"?
I'll be honest, I never understood the idea that the master plan is out there for us to see, and us being able to decode it in no way means the plan is inherently suspect because ANYONE CAN DECODE IT INCLUDING THE PEOPLE THE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO CATCH. I just don't buy that Q is talking at some frequency that center-lib hawks with a small army of support staff at their fingers are incapable of hearing.
This idea carried water in the first few months, when Q was just a non-tripfag 4chan meme - it's much harder to swallow in a world with multiple books and podcasts about Q readily accessible, and years of dated events and post-hoc deltas have all failed to pass.
How do you know it didn't happen as stated?
So, she was arrested five years ago but also she was allowed to have a casual, friendly, possibly paid speaking appearance talking up globalist Madeleine Albright a month ago??
I'm gonna go waaaaaaay out on a limb and say that as of September 30th, 2022, HRC has not been arrested and is in fact living a very comfortable (if unfulfilling) life, buoyed by our tax dollars. I'm gonna go even farther out on that limb and predict that we will not hear of her arrest in two days, or a month after that, or a month after that.
In fact, here is my overall grand bet - if Hillary Clinton is arrested it won't be in 2017 and it won't be on the day before Halloween (and neither will the announcement be).
Arrested is not the same as jailed.
Why would she be allowed all these freedoms and comforts?
It makes zero sense, and it makes less and less sense the farther from 2017 we get. Alas, I guess there's no real point in arguing it, because by definition you have chosen a position that can only be proven right, and never proven wrong.
My position, that the Clintons have not been arrested for their crimes, can be easily disproven by a public display/announcement. If that comes to pass, rest assured that here will be my third stop and I'll come eat all the crow uou wanna serve me. I'll even come up with some sort of sausage themed avatar so we can put a dunce cap on it and we can all make fun of how foolish and lacking in faith I was.
But you can always just say "sure, that date passed, but we don't know for sure that something isn't secretly happening!" Even if she dies you can just guess that she was secretly executed or whatever. You have chosen a position where you never have to draw a hard line where you could be proven wrong. Your argument never has to die until you do. It's arguing, but with a safety net so you don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance.
I like my own arguments to have stakes. HRC is not arrested, and will not be revealed to have been arrested this year. On January 2nd, 2023, I'll swing by here to re-up that assertion. If I'm proven wrong, I'll come here to take any taunts or memes you wanna sling my way. If you're too busy at that point doing celebratory things, I understand.
She's at least still in court for racketeering... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63184300/trump-v-clinton/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
It's a civil suit brought by Trump as a private citizen and not the government, and it was dismissed in September, as your link shows. Trump is of course fighting that with an appeal, but this suit has in general not gone well for him, if you peruse through all the motions. I mean, he apparently failed to correctly pay the filing fee at first and the whole thing was almost thrown out until he ponied up the 400 bucks? That's what I, an admitted complete law novice, gathered from browsing your link.
Also, she is probably not in court. This lawsuit is still mainly in the lawyer back-and-forth stage.
Also, this suit was only brought earlier this year, so probably not what Q was referring to in 2017.