OP is correct, though. The magazine’s “prediction” was wrong.

Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between good independent thinking and general gibberish. Not all thoughts are created equal.

that's not what you said..."From the guy who thinks that masks..."

Yes. Masks don’t have chinstraps.

It's a magazine story from 1997, you haven't read it, and you obviously don't understand the Q drops,

Yes, and the phrase ‘buckle up your chinstraps’ has nothing to do with covid masks.

The thing you're citing is a consummate example of the sort of deranged reaching that gives so much of Q analysis a bad name. Facemasks don't have chinstraps. It's not "layered" or "symbolism"; if it is, it's embarrassingly poorly done.

Also, where tf are you from that you don't realize that Suze is a girl's name...

The internet, where the default assumption is that everyone is male, and the language generically reflects that. "You guys" is likewise a gendered plural quantifier that can apply to women.

shows you haven't done your homework

From the guy who thinks that masks have chinstraps

lmao

And for all we know this might be the kind of show where things get worse and worse and worse and in the end everyone dies.

Hamlet is a great play, after all.

Chinstraps are attached to helmets. Standard masks have bands that go around the back of one's head.

Is this really the kind of intellectual standard you rely on? Good grief.

I mean, that is a weird take. Why would Democrats take the medicine ‘prescribed for losers’ when they hold both houses of Congress and the White House?

It’s legal to expel a member of Congress, but the votes almost certainly aren’t there.

The Constitution constrains the state, not private actors. The claim made wrt lockdowns is that they are a legitimate use of the state's police power. One can of course challenge that in the courts.

Q related... miracles?

Miracles?

But the enemy destroying the country is necessary to prove they’re the enemy!!!!

Someone asked a question about 1a jurisprudence, I answered it.

Cope, snowflake.

This is all complete nonsense.

The 1a issue with Trump and Twitter was that he was selectively blocking interlocutors on the basis of viewpoint. Had he disabled all replies to tweets, the issue would not have arisen.

That’s fine, though. There’s no obligation to host a public forum; merely to not engage in viewpoint discrimination if they are hosting one.

Pokemon Go...?

The YouTube page isn't a public forum: it's a one-way tool for the administration to disseminate content. It would be a different story if comments were turned on and only critical ones were being removed, for example.

No such law currently exists.

No, that is not an accurate description of the underlying law.

Yes.

It’s all complete gibberish, from the standpoint of the US legal system.

A useful question to ask might be: under which hypothetical circumstances would it become clear that things were not proceeding according to the plan?

The media is quite frequently correct, as with McCain.

So many of you are on the outside looking in, and your window is so small and so blurry that you can barely see anything.

The Senate aren’t “directors of a corporation”; they can of course try impeachments, though this one is complicated slightly by Trump being out of office.

But the House of Representatives can, and the Senate can try such impeachments.