You don't have to be part of Trump's inner circle to see just how much of a backstabber Pompeo is.
I never said that. I said, unless you are part of Trump's inner circle, you do not know the actual reasons why Trump did not include Pompeo in Trump Admin #2. (I think there are several likely reasons, but I'm not pretending that I actually know.)
Trust Kansas likely never meant Pompeo to begin with.
This is unequivocally wrong from several angles. Q confirmed in a picture of Pompeo that he was "Kansas". (It was a picture of hands holding a card with a checklist and an anon queried: "Is this potus? I thought Potus does not wear a wedding ring like this?" (paraphrased) and Q confirmed "Kansas". The picture is of Pompeo's hands.
If you check the Q drops, it's unequivocal.
The angle that "Oh, Q said Trust Kansas but Q never (or likely never) meant Pompeo" is just fanciful thinking attempting to avoid the issue of what Q meant. In my view, this approach is firmly grounded in a willingness to just run with what feels an emotionally satisfying "Oh, I can hate this guy because now he's an enemy" as opposed to actually applying some very serious critical thinking that includes working through the implications of the idea that we're in an information war, and that Trump team is waging narrative war against a very dark enemy.
It might be comforting to choose that path, but it's not constructive. In my opinion.
"Trust Kansas" ~ Q
Whether this is disinfo or not you're free to speculate, but it is exceedingly clear to serious anons that Kansas refers to Pompeo.
The fact that you're kissing Pompeo's ass makes me question you, for real.
Question away. My track record here speaks for itself. (Cannot say the same about you... but...)
What's telling to me is that you are willing to take your beliefs, theories and ideas and parade them as if they are facts. That's intellectually dishonest.
It appears that you don't seem to care that false information was presented here and spread, simply because it dovetails into your personal animus towards Pompeo.
The argument about Pompeo belongs in a separate post and conversation.
I accept your passion for Maga and for supporting Trump. We share that. But we make more progress against the matrix and the programming that the Cabal has been pursuing in our societies for decades now by applying rigorous standards to how we deal with information, highlighting truth, than by leaning in to groupthink and emotionally driven analysis.
I never said that. I said, unless you are part of Trump's inner circle, you do not know the actual reasons why Trump did not include Pompeo in Trump Admin #2. (I think there are several likely reasons, but I'm not pretending that I actually know.)
This is unequivocally wrong from several angles. Q confirmed in a picture of Pompeo that he was "Kansas". (It was a picture of hands holding a card with a checklist and an anon queried: "Is this potus? I thought Potus does not wear a wedding ring like this?" (paraphrased) and Q confirmed "Kansas". The picture is of Pompeo's hands.
If you check the Q drops, it's unequivocal.
The angle that "Oh, Q said Trust Kansas but Q never (or likely never) meant Pompeo" is just fanciful thinking attempting to avoid the issue of what Q meant. In my view, this approach is firmly grounded in a willingness to just run with what feels an emotionally satisfying "Oh, I can hate this guy because now he's an enemy" as opposed to actually applying some very serious critical thinking that includes working through the implications of the idea that we're in an information war, and that Trump team is waging narrative war against a very dark enemy.
It might be comforting to choose that path, but it's not constructive. In my opinion.
"Trust Kansas" ~ Q
Whether this is disinfo or not you're free to speculate, but it is exceedingly clear to serious anons that Kansas refers to Pompeo.
Question away. My track record here speaks for itself. (Cannot say the same about you... but...)
What's telling to me is that you are willing to take your beliefs, theories and ideas and parade them as if they are facts. That's intellectually dishonest.
It appears that you don't seem to care that false information was presented here and spread, simply because it dovetails into your personal animus towards Pompeo.
The argument about Pompeo belongs in a separate post and conversation.
I accept your passion for Maga and for supporting Trump. We share that. But we make more progress against the matrix and the programming that the Cabal has been pursuing in our societies for decades now by applying rigorous standards to how we deal with information, highlighting truth, than by leaning in to groupthink and emotionally driven analysis.
I mean, according to Q.