Hillary Clinton changed her X profile banner to the one quoted in Q drop #2917 one day before the delta.
(twitter.com)
Q-INCIDENCE
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Here's an archive of the website from 2019.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190714232053/https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton
This post is a scandal. Either its clickbait, or the poster did not have enough sense to check and verify the assertion before posting it. (It took me about 4 minutes, even with archive.org being as slow as it usually is.)
Also, some mod stickied it.
It's fair enough to sticky posts in order to get eyes on and have evaluation (true/false? Good/crap?). But stickying a blatantly false and wrong post seems just plain wrong.
Sticky = (now) 102 upvotes. But how many of those who voted or even saw the post think "Hey, wow, this is a Q proof!!! HIllary actually changed her Twitter banner one day before the delta!!!!"?
Stickying this post is an active promotion of fake and false information, imo. It's not "eyes on". It's promoting to the board something that is just . plain . false.
I love our mod team, and our frogs, but this is NOT up to scratch for 'an elite research group' or even a good research board.
The post is bad, but forgivable. But the stickying?
@fatality @propertyofuniverse
At least no one mentioned chemtrails.
Untruths = ok
Chem trails = verbotten.
Seems like you have a lot of pente up frustration there, 76...
Perhaps. But I like logic. Free speech seems so logical to me. Even the illogical kind. I would like to see verboten subjects have their own space rather than banned.
A thousand years ago a round earth would be banned. Now its flat earth.
As Dylan said, "these times they are a changin'.
They DO have their own spaces. That's the point. It's just not here.
I think that it's more accurate to think of these topics as "off topic" rather than banned. The problem is, far too few people respect purpose and respect the imperative - or the right of the board creators/operators i.e mod team - to limit discussion to certain topics, and so without a heavy and serious 'banning' type approach, too many people would simply flaunt the fundamental principles of the board.
Freedom requires definition, limitation, discipline. The disciplined athlete is the one who is free to run at high speeds. The slob who does no training or makes no effort to refine his muscles does NOT have the freedom to run at high speeds.
I guess I like and approve of the definition and discipline that the rules bring, but where I get turned off is the lack of application of the same effort to weeding out crappy and rubbish posts. Like this one.
PS. Hope you got the pun.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Why the web archive from 2019 is relevant? I know the Q post was from 2019, but what you’re trying to say regarding 2019 and webarchive?
If you mean that the current X banner look different - you probably couldn’t see it because of a cache or so. I can confirm - I see the same image now.
I think most of us read the OP as asserting that "Killary changed her X banner just one day ago, one day before the delta for the related Q drop, which has this image in the drop, but which isn't a screenshot of her (then) twitter account".
I randomly chose an archive from 2019, not because of the drop, but to show that there has been no recent change in her banner pic and that this current banner is actually very old.
Aka Killary did NOT change her X profile banner to the one quoted in Q drop #2917 one day before the delta.
Moreover, she did not change the banner just prior to or after the qdrop, either, as this (random) archive from January of 2019 shows (the drops 2917 and 2915 were in March 2019).
https://web.archive.org/web/20190131232227/https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton
The current X banner looks no different to how it did in March 3 2019 or in January 2019, etc.
The premise of the post is completely wrong. Killary did not change her t-profile banner just before, during or after the Q drop quoting the image. This is easily verified as mistaken (aka debunked) in 5 minutes, so why did the OP not even bother to check if his/her Post headline assertion was correct or not before posting? And why did a mod even pin it?
There is no Q proof here, and a lot of frogs not bothering to read, verify etc, have just walked away with completely erroneous information about Q and any Q proofs. That's the very opposite of 'research'.