Looks pretty similar to the pin worn by the Secret Service, though. I’m pretty sure the pin in the picture isn’t a Marshal’s pin.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/joe_clancy_11.jpg
Well, my point is that it isn’t odd.
Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that the pin you posted indicates that agent is, undoubtedly, a US Marshal. No other explanation.
My explanation is that the pin you posted appears almost identical to the one being used by Obama’s Secret Service.
Which means that, as far as I can tell, your assumption appears to be incorrect. That pin does not belong to the US Marshals. That’s a Secret Service pin.
Which would indicate that this agent is Secret Service, not a Marshal.
Which would mean that Biden has Secret Service, not US Marshals around him.
So the possibilities, as I see them so far:
-
The US Marshals stole the design for their new pin from the Secret Service pin design from Obama’s years.
-
The US Marshals publicly took over Obama’s security during his Presidency without anyone knowing or caring.
-
The pin in the photo above was misidentified, and actually does belong to the Secret Service.
Has anyone researched the pin the US Secret Service currently uses in plainclothes? The Secret Service symbol is also a star, just like the US Marshals.
I agree that the pin in the post above looks like the Marshal’s pin on the basis of it being a star, but it looks far more like the pins in this picture being used by Obama’s Secret Service detail.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/joe_clancy_11.jpg
I can’t find a picture of a Marshal lapel pin with these colors, despite having a very similar design.
I listened to it when it was posted, and wanted to give it a little time to breathe before responding. And my take-away is that Kash talks about Q the same way that tangentially-informed normies do.
When I talk about Q stuff with the outside world, the one correction I’ve had to make 100% of the time was that Q is not just a label for the conspiracy wing of Trump supporters. It’s not just a marketing campaign. It’s not just a symbol for the “Bernie can still win” version of Trump people.
It’s a worldview that believes a drastic, visible, obvious change is coming to this country (and probably the world) before the next Presidential election. That Trump will be the recognized POTUS before the next election, that the Cabal will be exposed, acknowledged, and defeated, and that truth about a lot of crazy things will be revealed to the world.
And it’s kind of an all-or-nothing system. Not much room for compromise. “No deals” and all that.
And “normies” seem to think that Q people will eventually compromise in favor of Trump. That even if the Plan that Q promised never materialized before the 2024 election, Q people will compromise and continue to work within a system they believe does nothing but lie and oppress them.
I have never seen much room for compromise from the Q side when it comes to the 2020 election, or the Plan. And Kash talks a bit like he doesn’t really understand that about Q people.
And, to be honest, I get that feeling from a lot of the celebrity voices this movement listens to. All of them seem to think that as long as they say the right words to you, they’ll eventually push you into showing up to vote for Trump and Friends again in 2024 without the Plan ever proving to the world what you believe to be true.
Perhaps I’m falling for yet another alleged optic, but I’m not certain that Kash understands Q stuff at the level of anyone on this board if he’s suggesting that Q people need to be okay with Trump not returning before 2024.
I think it’s unlikely ivermectin would help, even if you’re right about the parasite.
Even if the initial cause was a parasitic infection, MS is damage to the insulation of the nerve fibers, which basically keeps them from working (as it would with any wire). Nerve damage is notoriously difficult to fix and usually can’t be fixed, even if the initial cause of the damage is long gone.
An anti-parasitic medication can’t repair damaged nerves, and it is unlikely that a parasite has been living and causing progressive nerve damage for over a decade without producing more obvious signs of infection or the parasite being destroyed by the immune response.
I hope you get better soon. Not being able to breathe properly is a miserable experience.
So what is the consensus here? Q asked us to identify the other person, and we did. It’s Siddiqi, Obama’s college roommate.
Who did not have a job in Obama’s administration.
So if this isn’t a picture of Obama being gay, and isn’t a picture of anyone in Obama’s administration, but is just a picture of Obama with his roommate, then why did Q bother responding to this as if it was evidence of something? Did he get it wrong, or is there supposed to be some more abstract interpretation here?
Nothing about this seems very credible yet. Not seeing anyone else reporting on this, either. Probably nonsense, but I guess we’ll see.
Yeah, I was going to post this as well. I checked to see if there way any softening context, and no. There is not. It’s a terrible argument and a sensationalist article.
I have serious doubts that he’ll run again.
I apologize, it took me far longer than I intended to respond. Schedule changes at work tend to play havoc with my Q time, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging.
I'm going to try to respond to main points so my fingers don't fall off. I hope I don't miss anything you intended to hear.
The ability to remain skeptical and discerning while also acknowledging that conspiracies have always occurred throughout history, in my opinion, make for some of the most substantive discussions on this particular board.
We're in complete agreement here. The term "conspiracy theory" carries undeniable negative tone, but I have always tried to use it neutrally. It's a theory that a conspiracy exists. There's nothing insane about distrusting the narrative.
As much as some would object to my saying this, I try to take a very Socratic approach to understanding Q stuff (and non-Q stuff, for that matter). It can come off as combative, but it's really about understanding how someone deals with arguments from any particular perspective. THAT is definitely something I can get behind, and it is an ideal I think most Q people would share with me.
I strongly believe this is one of the biggest variables that separates those who are able to see that conspiracies amongst the highest levels of government and bureaucratic power structures exist, and those who hold onto the belief that the level of coordination would be impossible to achieve and that our sociopolitical power structures are benevolent and that "we shouldn't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence", as the saying goes.
My own theory (so far) is that conspiracy theorists have an overturned pattern recognition system. That DOES give them the potential to see things that other people aren't, like a valid conspiracy, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that all the patterns they recognize are actually valid. I think conspiracy theorists can see pictures in clouds better than most, but clouds are still random data.
I'm not yet convinced (by results over the years, mostly) that Q isn't a particularly interesting cloud picture yet. I may be proven wrong eventually, but to your point, it's not my inability to believe in a conspiracy that is preventing me from signing on to Q. I've been hanging out with conspiracy theorists for most of my life, and rarely in any combative role.
Because what I see on these boards are that there isn't one narrative but a wide array of speculative assertions sometimes based on research and data compiling and other times based on preexisting beliefs, confirmation bias and emotions. And proper research requires the ability to realize we are all susceptible to confirmation bias and dissonance and thus requires individuals like myself and others who will steer blind believers back towards ensuring to question everything.
It's true that there is some variability in Q beliefs, but there are definitely some areas where Q supporters typically don't invest heavy research on these boards, and these typically are in areas which could provide an answer that would actually destroy faith in the Q movement.
For instance, how long has it been since this board make an honest attempt to unmask Q? An identity of the fingers typing those words would either drastically support or drastically deflate the Q movement, no middle ground. Most Q people seem content to assume that it's impossible for anyone to figure out, and if it's NOT impossible, then they don't want to risk Q's cover.
Which, conveniently, means that Q people aren't interested in PROVING one of the only falsifiable beliefs about Q: that Q represents a person or persons that has access and authority to make the kinds of claims that Q made, and to carry out a Plan.
Luckily, Q is on my side here. Look up how many times he says "transparency is the only way." (2817, 2682, 2643, 2539, 2500, etc)
It's more often than he talks about the military being the only way, so why are people here only focused on that? And not Q being transparent? Since transparency is the only way?
Also the second half of that paragraph I feel is an unfair assertion. Many many Trump supporters, like myself, were former liberals and Democrat voters as well.
I understand why you feel it's unfair, but regardless of where you started, it seems hard to reconcile the world that this board wants (and the world Q said he was saving) has anything in common with liberal values.
People change their politics as they age and go through life changes. It's not unusual. I have been around a long while, and have yet to meet anyone with strong liberal values hoping that Donald Trump is coming back to power with a secret military.
A prime example would be the current debate over "gender affirming care" in adolescent children. The left thrives on utilizing manipulative linguistics in order to make an idea sound sophisticated, only understood by "intellectual superiors", and those ideas are often most strongly supported by those with prestigious academic credentials who advertise them as "revolutionary", ideas.
I feel like this would be true if these ideas were impossible to access without higher education. But they aren't. Anybody can read the documents and make their own judgement about the ten-dollar words in them.
It's true that higher degrees are valued in academia, but almost every PhD has research published that you can review. If you think someone is a hack, you're able to literally download their work and publish your own dissection.
This isn't about money. "Intellectual superiority" only exists when you can't access the same source material as the intellectuals, and in the vast majority of cases, you absolutely can.
Regardless of a person's emotional response to this idea, or their conviction that its the morally sound path to lead a child down, it is still quantifiably involves the exact same conditioning processes used in grooming.
To be fair, what you've said here is that conditioning is the same thing as brainwashing. Which I disagree with.
Conditioning has a negative connotation, but it literally just means that someone learns to respond to a stimulus a certain way. This is how we learn things.
If I train a child to finish their dinner by offering dessert, I am conditioning them to eat their whole meal before spoiling their appetite. I guess this COULD be described as brainwashing, but that seems absurd.
So, grooming, brainwashing, learning? These are all just forms of conditioning. You can't define these things simply by recognizing conditioning. You identify harm. And while you may have feelings about how rejecting biological gender roles may cause harm, you certainly can't claim that it's the kind of harm that pedophiles cause by conditioning children to be receptive to being raped.
I don't have the time or will to get into a debate about transgender stuff, as it's not really in the Q stuff that I'm interested in. But I will say, based on my perspective, that Q people tend to generalize literally any event that happens outside of the conservative sphere as "liberal values."
So liberals get stuck with "our values" somehow being supporting child drag contests and forced sex reassignment surgeries just because some Twitter person wanted to post a headline to piss you off and collect conservative clicks. No rank-and-file liberal voter supports coercing a child into sexual reassignment surgery, and I've never met one that would support such surgery on a child.
However, these objections are once again just meaningless, emotional conjecture, since non binary people are so frequently spotlighted and idolized in the media and often provided with career opportunities over regular people, all in the name of inclusivity and diversity. They are practically a protected class, and people like Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais have been widely criticized and scorned by not just LGBTQ advocates but anyone on the left as well, just because they made jokes about them 🙄
Around here, it's common for me to be told to stop believing TV reality.
So, I'd like to, more respectfully, suggest something similar.
Non-binary people are interesting. Some people find them fascinating. Some people find them revolting. Some people feel better for supporting them. Some people will post memes about how irritating it all is. But they are also pretty rare, as an identity.
And despite that, just like liberals, you're talking about the individuals on that television screen, simply because they're non-binary. Which was the point of the station hiring them in the first place.
Liberals aren't ignorant to this. We know that most companies posting pride flags on Twitter don't give a shit. We know that some flamboyant androgynous YouTuber is getting famous merely because he's weird and stupid, and that's frustrating for everyone. We're all getting old and these kids are too weird for us.
At the end of the day, the companies are going to put on television what people will watch on television, and people are going to watch on television the stuff that they don't encounter in real life. Which, typically, are going to be outliers. The vast majority of trans people just want to be left alone and, frankly, for you to not even know they were trans.
Truth is more important than the GOP. Truth is more important than anything Q claims. Truth is more important than even Donald Trump.
I agree here. And I'll make a similar statement, easily, that truth is far more important to me than any imagined allegiance I've been accused of. I couldn't give less of a shit what position Reddit is supporting, or the Democrats are supporting, or whatever.
Fighting for these objective truths to be observable by all is the only way we can ameliorate the schism between the right and the left. And our ruling class and many elected politicians are completely aware of this. So they will expend as much time and resources as necessary to ensure that both sides will continue perceiving different versions of what we think is true. This is exactly how I know conspiracies exist.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but I also still disagree that Q is as cosmopolitan of a movement as you would have me believe. There are definitely forces working to make elite/non-elite class struggles look like racial struggles or political struggles. No question.
But I don't see the Q movement as a fight for "everyone." It's a conservative movement. Trump's positions are politically conservative, and the only people hoping that he is coming back are people who agree with him.
If there is eventually some unimpeachable proof released that demonstrates Trump's proven electoral victory and all the other stuff that Q promised, then a lot of liberals (like me) will eat shit and accept it.
But this Q stuff is a lot of work, and staying motivated long enough to DO that research requires a significant amount of hope and faith that you weren't wrong about Donald Trump. Liberals have no such hope of Trump's competency, and thus, aren't going to be motivated to run the gauntlet.
Which leaves us with this movement being mostly hopeful conservatives, right?
I have no choice but to be extremely suspicious of any political movement that is claiming to be fighting for a non-political truth on my behalf. Wouldn't you?
And my goodness, this is probably the longest thing I've written on here. I hope it's coherent, because I've been writing it for like an hour now and I'm not proofreading it. I apologize if anything comes off as unclear. I'm fucking exhausted and need to take an actual break from today.
Take care.
This is a fantastic post. I read through about half before I realized there is no way I will have time today to give it a proper response. I do intend to respond, because there are some areas where we agree, and I always enjoy finding those. Give me a day or so.
Because somebody keeps going around and creating accounts that take advantage of the fact that u/Zeitreise has a username that most people won’t immediately recognize if misspelled.
A couple of these imposter accounts have been banned already, according to the logs.
Losing friends is different than losing anyone else. You chose your friends out of the millions of people around you. You have no obligation to them, but enjoy their company enough to offer it anyway. That is meaningful in a way that isn’t obvious until it’s gone.
I am sorry for your loss.
Please don’t forget that he isn’t the one in pain right now. You are. Don’t forget to take care of yourself.
I waffled for a bit before responding to this, so I truly hope you read this in the good faith it’s intended.
You are saying he “naturally would be in constant contact with his colleagues.” This isn’t something you know for sure, but something that you are making an educated guess about.
It’s a theory, one based on him sharing a job title with people that you believe are involved in a conspiracy to poison people, or at least hide that people are being poisoned.
Was this individual ever proven or discussed as a member of the conspiracy before today? Probably not.
But if you add this individual to the conspiracy, then you get to count his actions as being a part of the conspiracy.
Which means that now, you can claim that “they” (the conspirators) are avoiding “their” own vaccines. And that is suspicious.
But you can only make that claim if you accept the theory that the PharmaMar CEO is part of this conspiracy.
Do you see the issue? If I’m allowed, as a conspiracy theorist, to add conspirators into my theory based only on a job title, then I can craft whatever narrative I want just by picking and choosing conspirators from convenient news stories.
I accept it would be damning if your theory of this individual’s involvement in a conspiracy were proven true. But I don’t assume it’s damning based on the possibility that the theory is true.
Does that make sense?
Which, I believe, is a COVID test and possibly some drug treatment options, not a vaccine.
I’m just trying to see what the OP meant when they said this guy was faking “his own shot.” This guy doesn’t make shots, and there’s nothing in his company’s profile that I can see that suggests he does.
If this guy doesn’t make or sell COVID vaccines, then his personal hesitancy to get one isn’t nearly as damning as if we were talking about Pfizer or Moderna or something.
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys thought AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
If the shot is good for everyone, why would he fake his own shot?
He runs the company PharmaMar.
Do they make a vaccine?
I am truly sorry to hear about your son. Nobody should have to experience that.
You flatter yourself to imagine you're doing us a favor
I’m under no such illusion. My goal isn’t to convert anyone here, just to understand how you arrive at the perspectives that you do.
It’s hard to do that without presenting the obstacles that I encounter when attempting to reconcile your beliefs with my own and the beliefs of others.
If I can’t figure out how you respond to a counter-argument, then I don’t know how you’re managing the dissonance I experience when attempting to adopt that belief. It’s not malicious, just Socratic.
And to be clear, understanding the beliefs here is not simply “reading the Q posts”, because we’ve all done that, and every single one of us has a slightly different idea of what the Plan looks like and what the end result will be. Including among Q believers.
Talking with people is the best way of learning about their beliefs. I can just ask you questions rather than assume your answers or have the television tell me what you think about things. I can’t imagine a more direct means towards the truth about Q given the circumstances, can you?
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
If you’re talking about Christian views on things like evolution, it’s not that the Christian views aren’t tolerated. It’s that they can’t be tested or verified. It’s not falsifiable.
Doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But if it’s right, we can’t prove it one way or the other.
And, to be clear, there are plenty of Christians who work in science, psychology, academia, and so forth. Christian therapists are popular in more conservative states and are free to include religious principles in their work.
Did I misinterpret your question?
Parkland shooting victim, funeral announcement and location from 2018.
https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/north-lauderdale-fl/alyssa-alhadeff-7762839/amp
Also, not sure why you’d order an autopsy for a gunshot victim, so I wouldn’t expect one anyway, hoax or not.
Please be careful with this philosophy. This means you’re using the media to decide reality just as much as any brainwashed sheep normie would.
When you believe someone is a serial liar, it means that you don’t trust them and have to evaluate everything they say carefully if you’re going to listen to them at all.
Blindly believing the opposite of what the media says is no better than blindly believing them. It’s not as simple as assuming that liars can’t use reverse psychology.
It looks like the site is down at the moment, but is this the same story from January 2021, or a new arrest?