I like how the statue of liberty has her arm broken, so damn obvious.

Thanks! Seriously crazy shit here.

Are you talking about this e-mail?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43113

Or is there another e-mail about walnut sauce I should be on the look out for?

Thanks fren! Could be that, Alex does tend to mash things up together.

The reason why I would like to find the e-mail is because of the heavy implication of pedophilia.

I get you get a thrill from your perception of superiority. I hope you continue to live in a world where you can afford that privilege.

Facebook responds to White House accusations that the company does not sufficiently censor "misinformation," "We will not be distracted by accusations that are not supported by facts."

-Is this a CYOB statement? trying to put distance between Facebook and the Whitehouse so they can beat trumps free speech lawsuits?

I'm happy to have actual evidence of what I have believed to have been going on behind the scenes confirmed but I still feel like this all her statements are yesterday's news. Hopefully, this will wake a few people up and lead to a successful independent career for Ivory. Other than that, not much is going to change probably.

Shapiro, ex-National Security Council adviser to Barack Obama and deputy chief of staff at the Central Intelligence Agency.

'I remember thinking I was right back in the thick of it,' he said.

'This brought me back to feelings of confronting truly horrific matters at Langley and in the Situation Room at the White House.' Langley is the home of the CIA.

So... Obama is a POS who covers up after his friends.

The first paragraph is kind of my point. There really is no knowing, therefore, it is not a good example of a Q prediction. My post is a criticism of that particular example.

Also, Delta's (admittedly from my little understanding) don't really match up as the strike happened a week later.

This post does not question the validity of Q. Nor does it make a statement about Q's predictive value, including Q 1254.

This post questions the use of a specific Q post for its predictive value.

Also, as a general matter, I agree that outcomes are a good measuring stick for predictions. Or "future proves past."

Critical analysis is a necessary step in thinking for oneself.

I have not made a statement as to Q's validity based on the prediction. I have instead question the premise that Q's statement "Iran is Next" is a "good" example of a prediction.

Also, Yea, the U.S. under Obama had a lot of nasty relationships with Iran. I'm glad Trump put a stop to a lot of it.

That was my effort to show that I'm referring to a prediction made by this community.

Yes I am a dweeb. :)

Your example's are ample proof that hostility between U.S. and Iran. The question is, can those be example's be fairly used as a measuring stick of the accuracy of Q's prediction. My position is no because Q's post is too open ended.

I'm not ignoring the strike. The issue is that "Iran is Next" is to vague and open-ended. Anything can fit inside it.

As for my own inevitability comment, its very well known that Iran has been operating in Iraq and Afghanistan backing jihadists for years. So... yea, some kind of U.S. led response is foreseeable.

My point is that its not a good example of a prediction. Also, I'm not the only one referring to it as a prediction, look:

https://greatawakening.win/p/11SK2bY5o1/remember-when-q-posted-iran-next/c/

That is a valid point, but it still leaves a weakness when using this particular example.

I'm confused by your assertion. The reason why its a "bad Example" of a Q prediction is because it is too open ended. There is simply no way of knowing whether it is accurate or not. After all, in the larger context Iran and the U.S. have been at odds for a long time, it could be said to be inevitable that some form of hostility erupts.

That is why its a bad example.

Also this is my opinion. So I suppose you could say its "bloviation."

I'm not trying to demoralize you or manipulate you. These are my honest thoughts about this prediction.

I'm also not demanding proof. I'm simply stating, that the prediction is too open ended. So its not possible to know what is meant or if it is accurate.

You're right, he never said there would be an attack on Iran. People believe he meant that there would be an attack on Iran because there actually was an attack on Iran.

My point is that its not possible to know what he actually meant. Since it could mean almost anything as long as it concerned U.S. and Iran.

Consequently, its not possible to determine if the prediction is dead on, since we don't even really know what he predicted.

Never said lie. Just saying the prediction is open ended and far too many things fall inside of it.

The second biggest lie the devil ever told was that you are powerless to change things.

When you don't fight they win. You want to know why we lost? Its because no one watched them. Trumps administration was compromised from within. Cocaine Mitch and his team filled Trumps team and stopped legal efforts to prevent the Democrats from cheating. Now you know how much they cheat, you can watch them.

If you want clean elections get on you elections board. Or hell, just look up who is on your elections board. Do you know why we lost? Its because no one bothered before the fraud to look them up and fight for clean elections!