I've been talking about this for a long time. Even did a few posts on it with completely "unfakeable evidence" that the source is legit.
If you already know most of the Big-Name Deep State players have ALREADY been tried and executed at Guantánamo Bay, feel proud.
You're ahead of the pack.
I've been saying this since I joined this site. You'd think that if anything, THIS would be the site where most of the members already know this to be true. Hopefully most here realize this by now or will get up to speed soon.
Yes!!! Ive been wondering about that too. Is it fear keeping folks from talking openly about that? I really really wonder about it. All of Congress too save a very few perhaps, have been replaced. They are not the original. We are watching a movie 🍿
Why didn't he say "every one of them" then in order to lock it into the context? ...Because he is leaving room for the anons to read in between the lines and be encouraged and reminded of what they already know. Comms are what you guys need to start paying attention to. Stop just doing the doing the mid-wit glaze over "well actually, bla bla" thing.
Because he is leaving room for the anons to read in between the lines...
"Anon" is a title. (Merit-based, as the GAW sidebar to the right suggests.)
Not everyone here is a bonafide Anon.
Not everyone here is fully initiated on how Q/Trump comms work.
Why didn't he say "every one of them" then in order to lock it into the context? ...Because he is leaving room for the anons to read in between the lines and be encouraged and reminded of what they already know.
... or because it was simply unnecessary.
Trump says 1000 things each day, yet there is some fixation by some folks on very core specific fragments of those 1000 things (i.e. 1 or 2 things) because they believe it confirms their subjective belief, while they ignore everything else he says and ignore the way he consistently talks.
If 'anons' still need encouragement at this point, they have missed the boat, imo.
The Q operation wrapped up five years ago.
People should be looking at Operation Trump, 2026.
Thanks for the fact checking. What would I do without your explanations...Honestly FractalizingIron, I know that this is your job on here is but you do need to pick your battles a little better. Also, i'm still right: Why would trump lose this opportunity to send this comm when he was the one who decided to frame the sentence this way? There are about 1000 other examples of him doing things like this. They are in Q proof after Q proof in the last 8 years. The fact that I even need to remind you of this is kinda ridiculous. This isn't a reach by any means unless you just came over here from PW.
I just do not see the need, benefit or value for the actions you are ascribing to Trump, and I'll reiterate, as I have in other comments in this post, that there is Q and there are anons, and there is a very important reason Q emphasized this when (they) did. Certain interpretations HAVE to be recognized as not being from Q but from anons. Unless this is acknowledged, you get the group think creeping back in.
Also, i'm still right: Why would trump lose this opportunity to send this comm when he was the one who decided to frame the sentence this way?
This is subjective reasoning, and at the end of the day, its a conclusion and a belief and an approach (of thought) that you've elected to adopt. Nothing wrong with that, unless one begins to confuse belief with fact, and then moves forward from that point.
And, I guess you and I see "Q proofs" very, very differently. Their purpose, value, time, etc.
I suspect that all these other examples you are referring to are not Q proofs, but are 'Pandamoon proofs'! Like this case, you interpret his words to be validating your beliefs around what Q is and what Q was, and what reality is. I think that's kinda the opposite of a Q proof.
In any case, see my comment to 2ndenthusiast, who, generally speaking, I find a lot of agreement with on many things.
I guess there are some people who still think that REAL RAW NEWS was somehow a secret disclosure operation.... ???
Then, thanks for the advice, but as for battles, I'll call them as I see them.
It is a reach, and one that comes on the foundation of layers and layers and layers of interpretation that is NOT Q, but anon ideas and thoughts. If you create enough layers, the disconnect between the origins and the destination becomes invisible.
We see a very clearly example of this in the lunacy that the brainwashed radical leftists display. But it is also present in those that still adhere to the matrix framework as well. Assumptions being used as facts, beliefs being adopted as proofs of following beliefs.
In some cases, people simply exchange one matrix for another, repeating the same (thought) practices, but in a completely different context. The problem is not the matrix. The problem is the approach to thought that makes one a slave to, or resident in, it.
If you are going to call my reasoning in this case "subjective" then you have to call everyone who saw trump do an air Q with his hand subjective reasoners. You have to throw out every Q proof that has an air Q in it as subjective because at the end of the day All most people will ever see that as is Trump talking with his hands. This is because that is the most reasonable explanation if you arn't aware of his comms. If that is what you are really trying to say to me then I think you are being irrational and hypocritical because this a Q site. You can see all the "Pandamoon proofs" on the sidebar. Be careful when doing your job not to be like the leftist fact checkers who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"
Also, don't assume that I know less than you about what is actually going on. Don't assume you know why I bring up certain things at certain times. I have a better track record of being proven right than 95 percent of the people on this site and that is including the mods. You most likely don't know who I actually am unless you have very high level clearance.
There appears to be some cross communication and a certain amount of noise in the channel due primarily, perhaps, to difference definitions and conceptual framing.
Regarding "subjective": we are, by nature, subjective beings. It's not a dirty word. Reasoning being 'subjective' doesn't mean it is wrong. (according to my definition, at least) Subjective reasoning is important.
For me, however, I think that certain pitfalls in the information war (and also those which can impact and affect interpersonal relationships, interactions, etc) have to do with how we (aka people) approach: belief, logic, reasoning, proof, assumption, supposition, presumption, etc.
Regarding air Qs: my own opinion, and opinion it is, is that specific air Qs were legitimate and real air Qs, delivering a specific purpose (i.e. reinforcing a q proof, etc) but that other gestures which are quite natural and similar (the drawing a circle and then pointing to the center or person that is the target) are not legitimate air Qs.
How I interpret DJTs gestures and comms, etc, is related greatly to my personal opinions regarding purpose, intent, the frame of the Q operation, etc. And, for me, this is the aspect I find most unconvincing when someone comes along and says, oooh, look, he said everyone was executed perfectly! That means its comms, because he is saying that [all these people'] have been executed.
Frankly, I do not see any purpose of value in that. "Oh, its comms to encourage the true believers" - Really, I don't see it like that. Others do. Its a free world.
BUT, the subjective perspective needs to be recognized as such. The moment anyone says "hey, I CANNOT be wrong on this. It's clear and obvious!" is the moment that they confuse the value of subjective reasoning with the value of objective reasoning, and things can get very murky. imo.
Just like the 1000 salad decodes that people put out now, because, imo, they are hanging on to something that was relevant in the past (Q operation 2017 ~ 2021) but which had a role and purpose and from which the Team (ak DTR, white hats, etc) have moved on from. i.e. actually implementing the plan.
Just because some comms are legitimate, doesn't mean ALL <ahem> 'comms' are correctly being interpreted. Just because some air Qs are real, doesn't mean that every single instance that something somewhere things oh, that's an air Q, is real or accurate.
So, no, I do not have to throw out all Q proofs. It's quite unreasonable from my perspective to assert. hey, you either accept ALL the things that I say are Q proofs, or you have to throw them all out. With apologies, I cannot by into that. If that's what you are asserting, then nah, I'm not on with that approach. But if I have misread or misunderstood you, then obviously either wires are still crossed or something.
Really, I want you to reconsider what you have outlined in your reply above. You have followed a certain type or reasoning, which for you, leads you to the conclusion that I'm being irrational and hypocritical. But please, for Pete's sake, recognize that this is YOUR line of reasoning, and you may very simply not be recognizing what I'm attempting to say.
FWIW, I find your line of reasoning as you outlined it rather confusing and confused. It's not clear to me how your reasoning has progressed, from a to be to c to d.
That's not a criticism, but an honest feedback in an attempt to refine the communication channel and the signal noise/ratio.
When two different lines of reasoning come to such vastly different conclusions, the source normally lies, in my experience, to certain differences in departure points. Aka assumptions that are made, and the reasoning starting from there.
To me, that feels like the case here. I do NOT get the feeling that you understand what I am saying and the points I'm attempting to make, and then, on that basis, you disagree with me. That would be a successful exchange, imo.
But rather, you hear and read some things that do NOT make sense to you in the framework you are using, and so you simply reject them and then in an attempt to reason your way thought them, arrive at the point that I'm being irrational and hypocritical!!!!!
Seriously? I mean, wow.
Suggestion: let's work on trying to understand the other's position on things BEFORE going ahead to draw a critique, based on [my own] method of reasoning, including assumptions, premises, presumptions, etc.
Especially if the conclusion one reaches is, oh, the other person is irrational and a hypocrite!
I'm very willing to consider that my own engagement here with did just that (that is, that I tried to apply a critique without actually understanding you position).
I think that backstep is necessary if there is some level of mutual understanding to be reached here.
Fwiw, I do not think you are a hypocrite, or that you are being irrational per se, even if I think some of your reasoning seems mistaken (to me). I also strongly believe that you, like I are here in good faith, and that difference of opinion regarding some of the things this board discusses is not actually a bad thing, but a plus.
So, I'll leave that here. I do get that some folks believe very, very strongly in the conclusions they have reached, But my main desire in engaging like this is to offer an alternative perspective. Looks like I've been rather unsuccessful in accomplishing that. (being irrational and hypocritical, right?) /sarc
if anything I've written comes across as a personal slur or belittling of your views, then I apologize, and hope that you will, in good faith, point that out so that i can at least review it and correct myself, if required.
Communication is at the core of my professional training. I'm no expert, but I hold the value of successful communication very highly.
Yeah, sorry, this OP take is just 100% plain dumb. It's the nonsense that make some Q aware people sound like retards to others.
It's bordering on delusional at this point. And instead of actually paying attention to what Trump is doing, I guess the REAL RAW NEWS virus is still going around, where all the evil players have been taken to Gitmo and executed, and everyone you see is actually a clone, or actor, or stuff.
At this point, this perspective is simply not rational. IMO.
Of course the drops don't say everyone is executed and replaced. They absolutely do say no name and bush SR were executed, it's not much of a leap to find some were and then replaced too.
The drops 'indicate' that no name was executed. But, can you refer me to the drop(s) that indicate that Bush sr was likewise executed?
If I recall the time correctly, there was all sorts of speculation, but this was anon speculation, not Q.
Also, note that in both these cases, the individuals in question were very publicly acknowledged to be - dead.
As far as I know, there is no actual indication or statements in the drops that imply people were removed, tried, executed and then replaced with actors or clones. That too is anon speculation, not Q, unless I'm mistaken.
There are very important reasons why, towards the very end of the operation, Q wrote:
There is 'Q'. 1
There are 'Anons'. 2
There is no 'Qanon'. 3
Drop 4881
Whether its 'not much of' a leap or a 'massive' leap or a total leap, etc, is also, in my view, subjective.
It has been four years since the last drop, and five years since the 'drop' operation was completed in substance. Speculation abounds as to whether the Q operation was in fact the drops aspect, or something more. Personally, I see the drops as the actual Q operation, which had specific objectives and goals that I think were by and large achieved, although not perfectly.
My own perspective on Q has changed (evolved? developed? grown?) significantly over the passing of the last five years, based on the droips themselves, observable impact, and the actions of the key recognized actors (Trump, Trump team, etc) during that time.
Sometimes I think that some anons are still living in 2020 Q-wise, for various reasons, rather than actually developing and growing their perspective and understanding. Just my opinion, of course.
The actual contents of the golden ticket haven't been stated in the drops but it must be the most significant Intel in them all. If we're ignoring anything that's not explicitly stated then we should be treating the bulk of the drops as disinfo? I can't get there.
It sounds like you have boiled down the very essence of being an anon to nothing. Analysis and investigation are what we do and we always lack concrete evidence.
Nothing wrong with lacking concrete evidence. Or doing speculation. But I personally think its important to recognize speculation for what it is, and be aware of its limitations / benefits.
I am going to listen to his speech again, but I too thought he was talking about Military operations. Guys, I want some solid sauce on the deaths. Not “ Look at the ear lobes, they don’t match! That’s not Gates, that’s Central Casting! “
Big difference between "everyone was perfectly executed" and [of all those things,] "every one was perfectly executed."
Listen for yourself, but context is key.
I won't be surprised to learn that many deserving villains have in fact been executed, including Joe Biden who Trump has many times referred to as being shot, but I don't think he said that here. Listen and judge for yourself.
The "every one" that was perfectly executed was "everything [he's] done." Every one of them was perfectly executed. He's not talking about people being executed.
The only way the plan would ever be possible is if the mass majority of the top and mit-top enemy was removed in the dead of night and replaced by almost perfect doubles. If you think this is impossible then you are living in the past.
I've been talking about this for a long time. Even did a few posts on it with completely "unfakeable evidence" that the source is legit.
If you already know most of the Big-Name Deep State players have ALREADY been tried and executed at Guantánamo Bay, feel proud.
You're ahead of the pack.
I agree. Side of beef was one of them.
I've been saying this since I joined this site. You'd think that if anything, THIS would be the site where most of the members already know this to be true. Hopefully most here realize this by now or will get up to speed soon.
Yes!!! Ive been wondering about that too. Is it fear keeping folks from talking openly about that? I really really wonder about it. All of Congress too save a very few perhaps, have been replaced. They are not the original. We are watching a movie 🍿
And at least 3-GAW Glowies don’t like it one bit. Makes me smile.
Appreciate you!
NOT "Everyone was perfectly executed". He said, " Every one was perfectly executed". Those two sentences have two completely different meanings.
He's saying that every operation they carried out was perfectly executed.
Why didn't he say "every one of them" then in order to lock it into the context? ...Because he is leaving room for the anons to read in between the lines and be encouraged and reminded of what they already know. Comms are what you guys need to start paying attention to. Stop just doing the doing the mid-wit glaze over "well actually, bla bla" thing.
"Anon" is a title. (Merit-based, as the GAW sidebar to the right suggests.)
Not everyone here is a bonafide Anon.
Not everyone here is fully initiated on how Q/Trump comms work.
Yeah, true. It has been 8 years though. Time for people to get with the program.
Exactly, Came here to say this. The percentage of actual Anons here is actually pretty low IMO.
... or because it was simply unnecessary.
Trump says 1000 things each day, yet there is some fixation by some folks on very core specific fragments of those 1000 things (i.e. 1 or 2 things) because they believe it confirms their subjective belief, while they ignore everything else he says and ignore the way he consistently talks.
If 'anons' still need encouragement at this point, they have missed the boat, imo.
The Q operation wrapped up five years ago.
People should be looking at Operation Trump, 2026.
Thanks for the fact checking. What would I do without your explanations...Honestly FractalizingIron, I know that this is your job on here is but you do need to pick your battles a little better. Also, i'm still right: Why would trump lose this opportunity to send this comm when he was the one who decided to frame the sentence this way? There are about 1000 other examples of him doing things like this. They are in Q proof after Q proof in the last 8 years. The fact that I even need to remind you of this is kinda ridiculous. This isn't a reach by any means unless you just came over here from PW.
haha Thanks for the kind reply!
We'll disagree, which is of course OK.
I just do not see the need, benefit or value for the actions you are ascribing to Trump, and I'll reiterate, as I have in other comments in this post, that there is Q and there are anons, and there is a very important reason Q emphasized this when (they) did. Certain interpretations HAVE to be recognized as not being from Q but from anons. Unless this is acknowledged, you get the group think creeping back in.
This is subjective reasoning, and at the end of the day, its a conclusion and a belief and an approach (of thought) that you've elected to adopt. Nothing wrong with that, unless one begins to confuse belief with fact, and then moves forward from that point.
And, I guess you and I see "Q proofs" very, very differently. Their purpose, value, time, etc.
I suspect that all these other examples you are referring to are not Q proofs, but are 'Pandamoon proofs'! Like this case, you interpret his words to be validating your beliefs around what Q is and what Q was, and what reality is. I think that's kinda the opposite of a Q proof.
In any case, see my comment to 2ndenthusiast, who, generally speaking, I find a lot of agreement with on many things.
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ARwe8ZV9Y/x/c/4eZDCQhcgeU
I guess there are some people who still think that REAL RAW NEWS was somehow a secret disclosure operation.... ???
Then, thanks for the advice, but as for battles, I'll call them as I see them.
It is a reach, and one that comes on the foundation of layers and layers and layers of interpretation that is NOT Q, but anon ideas and thoughts. If you create enough layers, the disconnect between the origins and the destination becomes invisible.
We see a very clearly example of this in the lunacy that the brainwashed radical leftists display. But it is also present in those that still adhere to the matrix framework as well. Assumptions being used as facts, beliefs being adopted as proofs of following beliefs.
In some cases, people simply exchange one matrix for another, repeating the same (thought) practices, but in a completely different context. The problem is not the matrix. The problem is the approach to thought that makes one a slave to, or resident in, it.
imo.
If you are going to call my reasoning in this case "subjective" then you have to call everyone who saw trump do an air Q with his hand subjective reasoners. You have to throw out every Q proof that has an air Q in it as subjective because at the end of the day All most people will ever see that as is Trump talking with his hands. This is because that is the most reasonable explanation if you arn't aware of his comms. If that is what you are really trying to say to me then I think you are being irrational and hypocritical because this a Q site. You can see all the "Pandamoon proofs" on the sidebar. Be careful when doing your job not to be like the leftist fact checkers who "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel"
Also, don't assume that I know less than you about what is actually going on. Don't assume you know why I bring up certain things at certain times. I have a better track record of being proven right than 95 percent of the people on this site and that is including the mods. You most likely don't know who I actually am unless you have very high level clearance.
First and foremost, I appreciate the reply.
There appears to be some cross communication and a certain amount of noise in the channel due primarily, perhaps, to difference definitions and conceptual framing.
Regarding "subjective": we are, by nature, subjective beings. It's not a dirty word. Reasoning being 'subjective' doesn't mean it is wrong. (according to my definition, at least) Subjective reasoning is important.
For me, however, I think that certain pitfalls in the information war (and also those which can impact and affect interpersonal relationships, interactions, etc) have to do with how we (aka people) approach: belief, logic, reasoning, proof, assumption, supposition, presumption, etc.
Regarding air Qs: my own opinion, and opinion it is, is that specific air Qs were legitimate and real air Qs, delivering a specific purpose (i.e. reinforcing a q proof, etc) but that other gestures which are quite natural and similar (the drawing a circle and then pointing to the center or person that is the target) are not legitimate air Qs.
How I interpret DJTs gestures and comms, etc, is related greatly to my personal opinions regarding purpose, intent, the frame of the Q operation, etc. And, for me, this is the aspect I find most unconvincing when someone comes along and says, oooh, look, he said everyone was executed perfectly! That means its comms, because he is saying that [all these people'] have been executed.
Frankly, I do not see any purpose of value in that. "Oh, its comms to encourage the true believers" - Really, I don't see it like that. Others do. Its a free world.
BUT, the subjective perspective needs to be recognized as such. The moment anyone says "hey, I CANNOT be wrong on this. It's clear and obvious!" is the moment that they confuse the value of subjective reasoning with the value of objective reasoning, and things can get very murky. imo.
Just like the 1000 salad decodes that people put out now, because, imo, they are hanging on to something that was relevant in the past (Q operation 2017 ~ 2021) but which had a role and purpose and from which the Team (ak DTR, white hats, etc) have moved on from. i.e. actually implementing the plan.
Just because some comms are legitimate, doesn't mean ALL <ahem> 'comms' are correctly being interpreted. Just because some air Qs are real, doesn't mean that every single instance that something somewhere things oh, that's an air Q, is real or accurate.
So, no, I do not have to throw out all Q proofs. It's quite unreasonable from my perspective to assert. hey, you either accept ALL the things that I say are Q proofs, or you have to throw them all out. With apologies, I cannot by into that. If that's what you are asserting, then nah, I'm not on with that approach. But if I have misread or misunderstood you, then obviously either wires are still crossed or something.
Really, I want you to reconsider what you have outlined in your reply above. You have followed a certain type or reasoning, which for you, leads you to the conclusion that I'm being irrational and hypocritical. But please, for Pete's sake, recognize that this is YOUR line of reasoning, and you may very simply not be recognizing what I'm attempting to say.
FWIW, I find your line of reasoning as you outlined it rather confusing and confused. It's not clear to me how your reasoning has progressed, from a to be to c to d.
That's not a criticism, but an honest feedback in an attempt to refine the communication channel and the signal noise/ratio.
When two different lines of reasoning come to such vastly different conclusions, the source normally lies, in my experience, to certain differences in departure points. Aka assumptions that are made, and the reasoning starting from there.
To me, that feels like the case here. I do NOT get the feeling that you understand what I am saying and the points I'm attempting to make, and then, on that basis, you disagree with me. That would be a successful exchange, imo.
But rather, you hear and read some things that do NOT make sense to you in the framework you are using, and so you simply reject them and then in an attempt to reason your way thought them, arrive at the point that I'm being irrational and hypocritical!!!!!
Seriously? I mean, wow.
Suggestion: let's work on trying to understand the other's position on things BEFORE going ahead to draw a critique, based on [my own] method of reasoning, including assumptions, premises, presumptions, etc.
Especially if the conclusion one reaches is, oh, the other person is irrational and a hypocrite!
I'm very willing to consider that my own engagement here with did just that (that is, that I tried to apply a critique without actually understanding you position).
I think that backstep is necessary if there is some level of mutual understanding to be reached here.
Fwiw, I do not think you are a hypocrite, or that you are being irrational per se, even if I think some of your reasoning seems mistaken (to me). I also strongly believe that you, like I are here in good faith, and that difference of opinion regarding some of the things this board discusses is not actually a bad thing, but a plus.
So, I'll leave that here. I do get that some folks believe very, very strongly in the conclusions they have reached, But my main desire in engaging like this is to offer an alternative perspective. Looks like I've been rather unsuccessful in accomplishing that. (being irrational and hypocritical, right?) /sarc
if anything I've written comes across as a personal slur or belittling of your views, then I apologize, and hope that you will, in good faith, point that out so that i can at least review it and correct myself, if required.
Communication is at the core of my professional training. I'm no expert, but I hold the value of successful communication very highly.
cheers
What's that grammar pun about killing grandma? 😆
A panda eats, roots and leaves.
A panda eats roots and leaves.
(one Aussie slang for sexual congress is 'to root')
The difference between "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma".
That's the one!
Yeah, sorry, this OP take is just 100% plain dumb. It's the nonsense that make some Q aware people sound like retards to others.
It's bordering on delusional at this point. And instead of actually paying attention to what Trump is doing, I guess the REAL RAW NEWS virus is still going around, where all the evil players have been taken to Gitmo and executed, and everyone you see is actually a clone, or actor, or stuff.
At this point, this perspective is simply not rational. IMO.
Of course the drops don't say everyone is executed and replaced. They absolutely do say no name and bush SR were executed, it's not much of a leap to find some were and then replaced too.
Have you seen the new Brennan? Barely looks like the old Brennan.
Yeah, I dunno.
The drops 'indicate' that no name was executed. But, can you refer me to the drop(s) that indicate that Bush sr was likewise executed?
If I recall the time correctly, there was all sorts of speculation, but this was anon speculation, not Q.
Also, note that in both these cases, the individuals in question were very publicly acknowledged to be - dead.
As far as I know, there is no actual indication or statements in the drops that imply people were removed, tried, executed and then replaced with actors or clones. That too is anon speculation, not Q, unless I'm mistaken.
There are very important reasons why, towards the very end of the operation, Q wrote:
Drop 4881
Whether its 'not much of' a leap or a 'massive' leap or a total leap, etc, is also, in my view, subjective.
It has been four years since the last drop, and five years since the 'drop' operation was completed in substance. Speculation abounds as to whether the Q operation was in fact the drops aspect, or something more. Personally, I see the drops as the actual Q operation, which had specific objectives and goals that I think were by and large achieved, although not perfectly.
My own perspective on Q has changed (evolved? developed? grown?) significantly over the passing of the last five years, based on the droips themselves, observable impact, and the actions of the key recognized actors (Trump, Trump team, etc) during that time.
Sometimes I think that some anons are still living in 2020 Q-wise, for various reasons, rather than actually developing and growing their perspective and understanding. Just my opinion, of course.
The actual contents of the golden ticket haven't been stated in the drops but it must be the most significant Intel in them all. If we're ignoring anything that's not explicitly stated then we should be treating the bulk of the drops as disinfo? I can't get there.
hey, I never said to ignore anything.
I'm just asking, was there a drop that indicated that Bush Snr was executed? Cos I missed that one.
That's all.
Are you talking about the letters delivered at the funeral?
I'll agree that its plausible, but its not exactly verifiable. = speculation.
It sounds like you have boiled down the very essence of being an anon to nothing. Analysis and investigation are what we do and we always lack concrete evidence.
????????
Nothing wrong with lacking concrete evidence. Or doing speculation. But I personally think its important to recognize speculation for what it is, and be aware of its limitations / benefits.
I am going to listen to his speech again, but I too thought he was talking about Military operations. Guys, I want some solid sauce on the deaths. Not “ Look at the ear lobes, they don’t match! That’s not Gates, that’s Central Casting! “
Give me declas. Unadulterated declas.
Big difference between "everyone was perfectly executed" and [of all those things,] "every one was perfectly executed."
Listen for yourself, but context is key.
I won't be surprised to learn that many deserving villains have in fact been executed, including Joe Biden who Trump has many times referred to as being shot, but I don't think he said that here. Listen and judge for yourself.
Many shots fired at Davis. Literally and metaphorically.
If I may add another version ?
" It's got Ball Sack Eyes 👀 "
George Sore Ass
R&M Eyehole Cereal
Get on up outta hea!
o7 😁
Yeah, obviously the context semi covers him on this statement but come on, read in between the lines.
Exactly PandaNoon17.
"Joe Biden is shot." ~DJT a hundred times
lol, ONCE.
And, "my car is shot". Perfectly acceptable vernacular.
kek! Troll vs. Troll
u/#lowenergy
🤣🤣🤣 I hope so!
The "every one" that was perfectly executed was "everything [he's] done." Every one of them was perfectly executed. He's not talking about people being executed.
HOOOOO LEEEE SHNIEKIES
The only way the plan would ever be possible is if the mass majority of the top and mit-top enemy was removed in the dead of night and replaced by almost perfect doubles. If you think this is impossible then you are living in the past.
Hmmmm, I always wondered where Tom Hanx and his glove pics went.
But God.
PERFECTLY EXECUTED....How is that possible? Time Does Tell