A better question is what makes it so easy for you to believe. Ive already seen a thousand people like her make claims and ve found dead wrong. The amount of fillowers a person has doesnt validate their words.
Which other ones of those 'thousand' can say this:
-They're being sued by the President of France,
-They were personally phoned by the President of the United States and asked to 'stop talking about Brigitte Macron' because it was affecting France's cooperation with the U.S. President's peace negotiations,
-They were perceived as a threat to the state of I-s-ra-el because of investigating the assassination of their close friend Charlie Kirk,
-Insider knowledge of TPUSA, a heavily I-s-ra-el-funded enterprise and the proof that Charlie was pulling away from their cause because of their blackmail and threats against him, and their treatment of Gazans, and;
-Holding the title of the #1 Podcast in the world right now....
So, she's not like 'a thousand other randos' who make claims.
I believe something when enough factors are present to crate a reasonable belief. I’m not there yet. Even when I do believe something I’m still open to additional information that can alter a belief I have.
The better question is why do you accept this as fact? Is it because it reinforces beliefs you already have? Because that is dangerous.
What’s so hard to believe about assassins hired to take out those who they deem too popular and a threat to their agenda? This has happened many times. There is a pattern to the powerful.
I cant either. You cant post candace here, who is actually, apparently, the only person, seemingly, TRYING to figure out what is going on without backlash. Like I said a few weeks ago. It is astounding that a board following Q cant support and think maybe she is onto something.
The dismissal Is what hurts us as people IMO. the 24 news cycle has the population ready to move on from anything. We let Israel fucking censor us for crying out loud.
It is astounding that a board following Q cant support and think maybe she is onto something.
Maybe I'm reading the board wrong, but there are a significant number of participants here who actually think Owens is on the money, is a good and credible source. On the other hand, yes, there are others who definitely think that Owens is an attention hound who operates in a manner that makes her much less than credible.
I imagine in a lot of cases, its not simply the assertions that Owens make that turns some people off. It's her whole manner and approach, etc.
I think specifically a board comprised of people who have followed and understood Q (to varying extents) would certainly be ready to question, apply critical thinking and NOT simply buy what someone is selling because it seems to push 'all the right buttons'.
As a cynic myself, (with regards to Owens), the impression you express - "who is actually, apparently, the only person, seemingly, TRYING to figure out what is going on" is the exact image that Owens seeks to present.
To me, she seems to think that her viewpoint and her objectives override anything that the President of the United States is doing. Instead of supporting him and rallying support around him (even while questioning and investigating what is going on, which is a totally legitimate thing to do), Owens, at every turn, raises herself on a pedestal of victimhood and righteousness, which I personally think is one of the key factors that turn people off her and lead them to have serious doubts about her veracity.
Meanwhile, she (seemingly) never presents much substantial evidence to her claims.
Example: Owen claims President Trump called her, but there is no corroborating evidence of that except for her claim. It's a trust me bro situation.
Owen claims that Macron has a hit squad out for her. Is there concrete verifiable evidence to back that up?
Meanwhile, the claims she makes and the approach she presents (which I describe above as victimhood and righteousness) certainly attract certain types of people who are inclined to accept her claims because they sympathize or agreed with that image.
Thus, it works both ways, and you have both fans and critics here.
It's the group around Patrick Byrne / Emerald Robinson.
I have been on the fence about Patrick, because he was CIA, and when he was involved with the Lindell Stop the Steal movement, I was quite disappointed that no-one seemed to react, so I kinda dismissed him, also people on GAW were saying he was a paytriot.
So I referred to it as an intelligence community, but it's really the peeps that are moving and shaking in the patriot sphere.
However, it seems they came up with the goods, about a week before the 2024 election.
Emerald Robinson stated this morning that US intel community has confirmed the veracity of the Owens-hit. Russian intllligence also, according to OP.
How exactly did they do that? Confirmed to who? When? Who is the 'US intel community' that supposedly confirmed <that>?
Asking for a fren.
Exactly. How? This is a much more important question than the topic itself.
None of this occurred LOL.
Well, I guess you are the expert.
Probably they know because they are in cahoots or they seem to be in cahoots but they are working for President Trump
Well then, Emerald Robinson says it's verified then who can argue? Sounds like "because it's science" to me.
Thats what i think too. Seems too many people with their finger in the paytriot pie.
LOL, it is what it is.
What makes it so hard for you to believe?
A better question is what makes it so easy for you to believe. Ive already seen a thousand people like her make claims and ve found dead wrong. The amount of fillowers a person has doesnt validate their words.
So tell us what you think happened
'A thousand people like her' you say...?
Which other ones of those 'thousand' can say this:
-They're being sued by the President of France,
-They were personally phoned by the President of the United States and asked to 'stop talking about Brigitte Macron' because it was affecting France's cooperation with the U.S. President's peace negotiations,
-They were perceived as a threat to the state of I-s-ra-el because of investigating the assassination of their close friend Charlie Kirk,
-Insider knowledge of TPUSA, a heavily I-s-ra-el-funded enterprise and the proof that Charlie was pulling away from their cause because of their blackmail and threats against him, and their treatment of Gazans, and;
-Holding the title of the #1 Podcast in the world right now....
So, she's not like 'a thousand other randos' who make claims.
For gosh sake man. Listen to yourself!
I believe something when enough factors are present to crate a reasonable belief. I’m not there yet. Even when I do believe something I’m still open to additional information that can alter a belief I have.
The better question is why do you accept this as fact? Is it because it reinforces beliefs you already have? Because that is dangerous.
No one is saying anything is absolute fact… but you mocked Emerald Robinson as if this person has no credibility, which is why I asked why.
What makes it so easy for you? I question everything. Seems most of what ive heard in the past were all blatant lies. So there is that.
What’s so hard to believe about assassins hired to take out those who they deem too popular and a threat to their agenda? This has happened many times. There is a pattern to the powerful.
So now we trust the intelligence community? I can't keep up
I cant either. You cant post candace here, who is actually, apparently, the only person, seemingly, TRYING to figure out what is going on without backlash. Like I said a few weeks ago. It is astounding that a board following Q cant support and think maybe she is onto something.
The dismissal Is what hurts us as people IMO. the 24 news cycle has the population ready to move on from anything. We let Israel fucking censor us for crying out loud.
The censorship is disgusting.
Maybe I'm reading the board wrong, but there are a significant number of participants here who actually think Owens is on the money, is a good and credible source. On the other hand, yes, there are others who definitely think that Owens is an attention hound who operates in a manner that makes her much less than credible.
I imagine in a lot of cases, its not simply the assertions that Owens make that turns some people off. It's her whole manner and approach, etc.
I think specifically a board comprised of people who have followed and understood Q (to varying extents) would certainly be ready to question, apply critical thinking and NOT simply buy what someone is selling because it seems to push 'all the right buttons'.
As a cynic myself, (with regards to Owens), the impression you express - "who is actually, apparently, the only person, seemingly, TRYING to figure out what is going on" is the exact image that Owens seeks to present.
To me, she seems to think that her viewpoint and her objectives override anything that the President of the United States is doing. Instead of supporting him and rallying support around him (even while questioning and investigating what is going on, which is a totally legitimate thing to do), Owens, at every turn, raises herself on a pedestal of victimhood and righteousness, which I personally think is one of the key factors that turn people off her and lead them to have serious doubts about her veracity.
Meanwhile, she (seemingly) never presents much substantial evidence to her claims.
Example: Owen claims President Trump called her, but there is no corroborating evidence of that except for her claim. It's a trust me bro situation.
Owen claims that Macron has a hit squad out for her. Is there concrete verifiable evidence to back that up?
Meanwhile, the claims she makes and the approach she presents (which I describe above as victimhood and righteousness) certainly attract certain types of people who are inclined to accept her claims because they sympathize or agreed with that image.
Thus, it works both ways, and you have both fans and critics here.
Not THE inttelligence community, but a very specific one.
It's the group around Patrick Byrne / Emerald Robinson.
I have been on the fence about Patrick, because he was CIA, and when he was involved with the Lindell Stop the Steal movement, I was quite disappointed that no-one seemed to react, so I kinda dismissed him, also people on GAW were saying he was a paytriot.
So I referred to it as an intelligence community, but it's really the peeps that are moving and shaking in the patriot sphere.
However, it seems they came up with the goods, about a week before the 2024 election.