0
Redpillgirlfrommars 0 points ago +1 / -1

Is that actually confirmed?

0
Redpillgirlfrommars 0 points ago +1 / -1

All Q posts people relate to current events are about past events, lol. Which is probably why the “predictions” never happen.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
5
Redpillgirlfrommars 5 points ago +5 / -0

It’s 100% what you say it is and this whole thing is starting to feel like a psy-op since people here are starting to believe the bad guys are actually the good guys. The FBI are not fucking patriots. They aren’t “white hats”. They’re a tool used to obliterate your political opposition while ignoring their own wrong-doings. I am actually disgusted people here are saying this shit.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, the same FBI that has been attacking any person showing any support for Trump has suddenly decided they’re going to do the right thing.

This is not “white hats”. It’s the fucking corrupt FBI being corrupt.

0
Redpillgirlfrommars 0 points ago +2 / -2

Bro. It’s the fucking FBI. They’re worse than the KGB.

This is the kind of bullshit that makes me think this “trust the plan” thing IS a psy-op. So many fucking people here use mental gymnastics to convince themselves that absolute worst of the worst bad guys are actually the good guys in disguise.

Get that shit out of your head. The FBI is not good. They were NEVER good. This is not “patriots in control”, this is once again using government agencies to attack and bring down political opposition.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +1 / -0

There aren't any. You have to learn to read through the bullshit. Read a mixture of right-wing and left-wing outlets, ALWAYS CHECK THEIR SOURCES. ALWAYS. If it's part of a quote, find the quote in full and cross-check (they will ALWAYS leave out critical context so the quote can be twisted into fitting whatever narrative they want to go with). Compare the articles, and draw conclusions. You will never find a single news source that reports accurately, without any bias.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +2 / -1

Yeah....OP is actually the gatekeeper. I agree that right-wing news sources do not always report on a lot of important happenings, or do substantive investigative journalism, but there's many other important "conservative" topics that they do report on. Either way, saying that because they don't report on [three very bold claims that would be hard to prove], that means they're not conservative isn't really fair.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +1 / -0

Get a job at a bar/restaurant. Openings are a dime a dozen and you can make REALLY good money.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +1 / -0

Babbitt doesn't fit here. That one doesn't really scream "false flag". As we typically see with false flag, there is a strong narrative/agenda that goes along with it. It fills media headlines, politicians talk about it endlessly, Hollywood tweets about it, etc etc, all of which string back to the same agenda. That's the entire point of false flags. Babbitt wasn't used for any of this. It was talked about for maybe five minutes then memoryholed. It didn't influence any of the capitol happenings (except for maybe the people directly around her who witnessed what happened). I was at the capitol, no one even knew about it. No one had service due to the large crowd size so no one was getting real-time updates of what happened. No announcement was made. No one knew anything about it until they left.

Plus that "21 reasons why Babbitt was a false flag" video that somehow convinced everyone here that it indeed was a false flag is retarded and it pains me to see so many people so naive. The kid who made the video has quite obviously never been in any real-life, serious situation/has no knowledge/reasonable expectations of real-life high-stress situations. It is pretty apparent that he's comparing what happened to things he has seen in movies and drawing conclusions based on the vast differences between real life and Hollywood. For example, he says that her eyes being open means she's not dead. People don't always peacefully close their eyes upon dying. Also, he was flat out wrong on several things and has horrific depth perception (the angle of the shooting was correct if you account for the angle, height difference, camera angle, etc. The angle he drew was incorrect, but to the audience watching the video, their eyes follow the angle he drew instead of envisioning the actual trajectory).

The media/politicians chose to lie about several unrelated deaths to tie them back to the "insurrection" instead of using Babbitt's death to push the same narrative. The one death that actually occurred at the capitol, as a result of the capitol, was swept under the rug. I get that false flags are a thing, but labeling every tragic event as a false flag is kind of ridiculous. We lost one of our own and while the left ignores her, many people on our side dismiss it as being fake. Very sad.

5
Redpillgirlfrommars 5 points ago +5 / -0

Reposting my comment:

You guys should probably read the actual study because it’s absolutely batshit crazy.

I wouldn’t believe a single statistic they put out. It’s full of fearmongering bullshit and i get the feeling they’re hyping up the numbers to make the left more fearful/demonize the right even more. They’re using it to brand the right/anyone who believes there was election fraud/“covid conspiracies”/etc as domestic terrorists.

https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TSC-White-Paper_QAnon_16April2021-final-1.pdf

0
Redpillgirlfrommars 0 points ago +1 / -1

You guys should probably read the actual study because it’s absolutely batshit crazy.

I wouldn’t believe a single statistic they put out. It’s full of fearmongering bullshit and i get the feeling they’re hyping up the numbers to make the left more fearful/demonize the right even more. They’re using it to brand the right/anyone who believes there was election fraud/“covid conspiracies”/etc as domestic terrorists.

https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TSC-White-Paper_QAnon_16April2021-final-1.pdf

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +2 / -1

A source with knowledge of the meeting said, “Bannon needs money to bankroll his political agenda. Epstein has plenty of money, and craves power and access.”

a source with knowledge of the meeting

Cmon.

16
Redpillgirlfrommars 16 points ago +16 / -0

Lol that’s funny

4
Redpillgirlfrommars 4 points ago +4 / -0

They also don’t have freedom of speech and people can be thrown in prison for social media posts. That’s not very awake, lol.

3
Redpillgirlfrommars 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ehhh you definitely can. My brothers GF of like five years is a textbook liberal that parrots CNN headlines. She constantly complains about men (especially if the news is running a story about a man doing something bad to a woman), thinks men are rapists, women are paid less because they’re women, “pink tax”, etc etc etc.

Still with my brother though and they have a house together/are planning to get married.

8
Redpillgirlfrommars 8 points ago +9 / -1

This sounds like some spooky campfire tale.

“The indictments...are......FOR YOU!”

They’re not. Relax.

5
Redpillgirlfrommars 5 points ago +5 / -0

No offense but I highly doubt that. If this is as big as people believe, they’re not going to go out of their way to ensure people on some random forum who they aren’t even able to verify are kept up to date and being “nudged”. That’s very naive thinking.

-1
Redpillgirlfrommars -1 points ago +1 / -2

Lmao for real. People are so paranoid about this shit but still have a smartphone like it’s not a literal GPS/tracking device.

1
Redpillgirlfrommars 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why would they have the actor fuck up on so many occasions? That doesn’t make sense. You’d think the actor would at least be able to make a coherent statement about any issue.

3
Redpillgirlfrommars 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah people never read articles here, just headlines. Then bitch about liberals only reading headlines. Then downvote you for pointing out no one read the article.

It was authorized on Jan. 4, also. So this was after the stolen election.

view more: Next ›