Trump called obama baal on tucker interview
BARRACK OSATAN 👹
I noticed trump referred to obama as baal before quickly correcting himself , nothing is by accident
https://rumble.com/v3aw75q-tucker-carlsons-interviews-with-president-trump.html
01:17:00
I agree.
And at the risk of overly harping on a topic, I think it's more important to reflect on methodology and approach that Q obviously employed and encouraged anons in than it is to take certain fragments, sayings and blow them out of context and thereby out of proportion.
Expressions and sayings by Q like : "there are no coincidences"
I mean, it's one thing to accept that Q was pointing to things that are NOT coincidental (even though on the surface they may appear so if your view is limited or in the shadows) by highlighting them with this expression, but another altogether to stretch that in to an ontological view that there literally ARE no coincidences ever.
"Nothing is by accident" is not a Q quote, but its in the same vein.
"Misspellings matter" is another one, which to the critical thinker seems clear that Q is referring to the Q drops and the comms between Q+ and Q, and other aspects of how the intel world uses comms. But to take that and hold that every single misspelling by DJT now, or by others (Scavino, etc, etc) is a comm or necessarily meaningful, takes the original context and blows the saying into a completely different orbit.
I'm not saying that absolutely no misspellings by DJT <now> are without intent or meaning, but rather that the original phrase and context was the Q operation, meaning the period of time when Q was posting (2017-2020; + several occasions).
Context is important. In fact, context is critical to meaning. Language only retains meaning because of the context it exists in.
In the OPs case, I think its a stretch to say Trump called Obama "Baal." You can see him doing a verbal fumble with Hillary just a few moments prior. Such verbal fumbles are par for the course, particularly if you are speaking a lot or for extended times.
I think you're out on a limb assuming that 'no coincidences' means there are coincidences.
Q asks if we believe in the existence of coincidences, period. Even before Q, I already absolutely did not.
all you have stated in your argument is that you do believe in their existence. that's fine, but lets just call it what it is
yes and no.
If I go down the street and bump into a friend I have not seen for a long time, but only recently thought about, that's probably not a coincidence.
If I go down the street and see my neighbor who I see every time I go down the street, is that never a coincidence?
If I tune in to MBC and see the rabid lefty dragon lady (forget her name), is that NOT a coincidence? It may not be a coincidence, but it doesn't mean that there is some hidden meaning there, either.
My point is, we can take things Q says too far and put them out of context.
i understand your opinion, but i'm still a no-coincidence absolutist. everything in your perception is according to pattern and speaks to your circumstances. we are all here facing these challenges together because of certain things we have in common. you and your neighbour live on the same block because of certain things you have in common.
people can misunderstand these reasons, but there are many layers of meaning, so even the misunderstandings are meaningful, and devoid of coincidence.
ok