2
CuriosityUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

Candace/Tucker is doing exactly what Trump wants them to do.

How do you know?

Think: How do you destroy Israel's reputation/support, which must be done to take down the Cabal?

it's counter-productive for Trump to criticise Israel openly - you need to keep the opponent"s guard down and keep them loving/trusting you.

So you find someone else who's smart at exposing Israel's evil doing, frame that person as your enemy too by letting them criticise you. You have then made it out you're taking Israel's side against the person. That way Israel's reputation is openly hammered while you appear to remain loyal to Israel.

You then accelerate Israel's reputation destruction by amplifying the person's public visibility, using the Streisand Effect. You openly/publicly criticise that person's criticism of you and Israel - increasing their public following.

2
CuriosityUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks man, appreciate it. My comment was is no way criticism of you/your post btw. I come off that way to others, but never mean too lol. Classic Autist tendencies lol.

1
CuriosityUnity 1 point ago +1 / -0

You want a quick way to evaluate whether mandate/law/policy is genuinely for your safety and not using "safety" to hide evil intent?

If the mandate means individuals learn how to themselves, how to be more self-sufficient, so you don't need others to protect you, it is for safety.

If the mandate doesn't involve that at all, but just increases control over what you can do, it's for malicious intent.

3
CuriosityUnity 3 points ago +3 / -0

You can take this strategic understanding.

  1. The DS/Cabal have been violating the 4th Ammendment en mass via foriegn and domestic Intelligence Capabilities for years. That's a given.

  2. To defeat the Cabal, you need to know what they know, and acquire information they aim to acquire quicker than the Cabal can - otherwise the Cabal wins, just because you stuck by the 4th while they didn't.

  3. To have gathered all the info on all Cabal people, which Q attests to, itself required disregarding those evil people's right to the 4th.

Remember Trumps' post, "He who saves his nation breaks no law."

Jesus Christ: "We are not here to serve the law, the law is here to serve us." One consequence: If a law prevents those specifically tasked with defeating evil from defeating evil, it's not serving us but enabling evil and our destruction.

  1. Such surveilance companies don't care about anything but money. When the Cabal needed their tech for mass surveilance, they either provided and were paid, or if refused, some got suicided, and then happily complied. If their tech is useful, you use their tech.

Now to Israel:

  1. Using Israeli linked companies means using companies which Israel itself depends on to function.

  2. Using such companies means understanding Israel's vulnerabilities because it's security protocal is known since the companies' technology created it.

  3. Who operates such Israeli companies? What if the Q team did what other intelligence agencies have historically done? Those Israeli companies themselves were created by white hats, falsely presented themselves as loyal to Israel, then made Israel dependant on their technology, giving the Q team all the access/control over Israeli intelligence and security.

  4. The Q team are high-strategists - if I can think of this idea (and I'm a nobody), pretty sure they did. How did the Q team know all about Epstein's Israeli espionage long before we did, espionage which Israel would've definitely wanted to keep completely secret? Hmmm, makes you wonder who established and operates the Israeli-linked companies Israeli Intelligence relies on; almost like their technology was intentionally made to be accessed by the Q team. The tech did a pretty shit job at hiding Israeli classified information, which included the Rothchild family secrets, which Q also knows everything about. What if the other tech companies the Cabal used are fully infiltrated by White hats? This stratregic thinking is barely anything. I'm no team, haven't studied strategy - it's commonsense if you put yourself in Q's shoes.

  5. That fact that those treasonous American based companies are funding means nothing. They are always help who's ever in power. They're sucking up to Trump. Trumps knows these companies have billions to spare (and all their lovely crimes - they're aware of that), and won't dare say no to Trump when he "kindly requests" "only" a few 100 million from them.

"Hello Bill Gates, I heard you're generous. A 100 mill donation from Microsoft would be so generous of you to this country." "Whats that? You sound a bit hesitant. Kind of reminds of how hesitant Epsteins' aquintances are now. You've heard of that Epstein guy, right? It was all over the news - look him up."

  1. Israeli companies also want to stay on Trump's good side. He's convinced Israelis he's their biggest friend. Good, keep up the act, and they'll fund Trump's projects. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Or, perhaps, let those Israeli companies think they've designed and know the tech the US Intelligence will rely on. Cool - now you control their false beliefs of your vulnerabilities that will shape any strategy they can use against you.

Just based on intuition, in high-strategy, it's probably best not to openly attack your enemy but take control of your enemy's resources and strategies; take action to make them dependant on you through making them believe your action is a sign of your commitment to them, all while giving the illusion they control you.

I love how instead of Trump openly investigating Erika Kirk or exposing her ties, her acting is so hilarious, melodramatic, not believable, that all the White Hats needed to do was just put the spotlight on her; knowing her crap acting will automatically raise suspision, causing people to look into her background and discover the truth. Then Trump just played along as if he's "compromised" and can't speak out against her. That part of the movie was pretty funny.

2
CuriosityUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

You tell them the most transphobic thing is their body because it only let's you be male or female, and you can't change it's mind.

Then tell them gender affirming care is extremely transphobic because it means your gender is affirmed by changing body parts. But trans is all about how body parts have nothing to do with your gender.

Don't answer their accusations because your saying it has validity worth answering, that's the trap intelligent people make dealing with retards.

Whatever they accuse you of, ignore it, and just state something useful that does not relate to their accusation. That's how you change the mind of normies: they change based on short statements, especially funny ones which make others look stupid, not intellectual refutation.

2
CuriosityUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm convinced these people are so out of touch with reality that it has to be demonic. There has to be a demon in them in some sense causing this delusion.

2
CuriosityUnity 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here's what the Court did:

What is in dispute: Is there a candidate's interest that grants standing for challenging of state's election laws which concern the manner in which votes are counted?

Supreme Court Majority: Yes.

"As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election."

Practical Consequences:

  1. Candidates can now challenge the legality of an electoral process before, not just after, the election takes place.

  2. A candidate is now able to challenge, for instance, laws on how/when/why certain votea are counted.

  3. Of interest to us, therefore, challenging laws which permit/mandate counting ballots after election day now have standing.

  4. We now have the legal avenue to stop post-election ballot counting.

Summary of Courts Argument:

  1. Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have a “personal stake” in a case to have standing to sue.

  2. A candidate has two personal interests: a. A fair electoral process. b. To represent the people.

"Candidates seek to represent the people, and their interest in that prize cannot be severed from their interest in the electoral process."

  1. Said interests meet the criteria for "personal stake".

  2. Laws concerning the electoral process affect said personal interests.

  3. Therefore, Article III of the Constitution grants standing to challenge electoral laws based on said interests.

1
CuriosityUnity 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not in agreement, however, there is a passage from scripture which lends strong support to your position:

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews but are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you."

Those we identify, and which identify, as the Jews who are hell-bent on the eradication of Christian morality in the world, are in fact not Jews, says Christ. They are Satanists who either actually think they are practising Judaism or Satanists who are mascerading as Jews.

Research lend's support to both.

1
CuriosityUnity 1 point ago +1 / -0

We, the awakened, must be eternally thankful to God. God had mercy on us such that he chose to preserve us from being the sheep that were manipulated into turning themselves into a life-long political statement.

They mutilated their body in a permanent way and in a manner whereby they can never have children of their own or experience sexual pleasure.

They were habituated and weakened to survive off constant social validation as their only source of self-esteem.

They made themselves hideous and no one will pursue a committed relationship with them.

No longer feeling trendy, eventually reassigned as disordered, permanently disfigured by surgery and permant brain altering drugs, each day they will face the sight of their mutilated body, and reminded of the excruciating fact it is irreversible.

As years pass, the trend they were deceived into embracing becomes increasingly distant into the past, and irrelevant to society, all the while seeing those who weren't so foolish as they were now have kids, a family, a faith, and contentment.

Starved from self-esteem, severe Depression will take it's place, and they'll believe suicide is their only means of escape from misery.

When the veil of validation is lifted, they'll feel like they've been thrown into the wilderness, all alone, disregarded, and the words of "You're strong, beautiful, courageous for being who you are," were all illusory. Their isolation in wilderness will quickly prove they were never strong, beautiful, and courageous.

1
CuriosityUnity 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everything that's publicly stated is strategic: either,

(1) misdirection ("CIA will start operations against Venezuala"),

(2) acting ignorant/delayed/incriminating ("close to solving... antifa," "Epstein hoax!"),

(3) subliminally inviting alliances/submission. ("20B to Argentina." Next day, "40 billion to Argentina").

(4) Entertainment (acting poorly educated: "wettest in terms of... water," "). This is actually Extremely important but not for reasons most think.

(5) Subliminal reassurance to followers Trump has not changed the slightest (classic post rants, swearing, and never sounding like there's an authority greater than himself = "I don't ask for forgiveness," "I'm already in heaven," never shows his religious side, never apologises).

(6) Keeping the core of the core of his base always engaged (what propelled him to victory in 2016): the traditionalist people with actual Autism. Hyper important. Trump can't afford to lose the Autists (actual clinical Autists) or he's deeply vulnerable. This is not sarcasm or a laughing point. This is seriously important for Trump.

I'm happy to briefly state what each point means if anyone wants.

Just as in 2015-2016, Trump focuses first on (6), then (5), then (4), then (3). However, (2) and (1) kick in after victory.