Found the source. This image is from Sep 4 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeTmTufB0c
EDIT: ok on first glance I thought it was, now I'm not so sure. Maybe same day, maybe not. What you think folks?
Heads up u/Joys1Daughter, image does not appear to be accurate (no source, no surprise, eh?)
Here is a video of the departure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_JwE-udyZU
But does beg the question of when/where it is from. There is a similar one here:
https://cdn.nur.kz/images/1120x630/452f08af2d89df8c.jpeg?version=1
Also, here is the arrival:
I'm all ears if you know of any bigger names that might go Trump's way...
Keep in mind that endorsements can have a cumulative effect. No one knows the names of the 51 intelligence agents who lied about Hunter's laptop being a Russian intelligence op, but the fact that 51 intelligence agents would stab the president in the back (figuratively) affected many people's votes.
Also, while some of these names aren't big nationally, they are big regionally, and could flip some critical districts if they're timed right.
In line with this. I'm wracking my brain for who else could be possible.
Maybe Alan Grayson? He dragged a lite Fed Audit through to the finish line.
Cindy Sheehan--anti-war Democrat.
Marcy Kaptur--bank bailout opponent.
We may also be getting too clever here. If these people are selected to speak to the lost liberals in our lives, perhaps we should just let them and be around to gracefully welcome them when the time comes.
Thx fren. It seemed a bit too on the nose and I spot checked one and was unable to find a source. Thx to you & u/winn for being frosty and removing it.
People are seem to have become more friendly about being source-checked. It used to illicit some angry responses but now there are peaceable mea culpas...
Bottom line is we all have a lot of incorrect data floating around in our noggins and there seems to be collective acknowledgement that we can help each other shake it out.
Ok interesting. I was reading the Rothschild's speech to British parliament regarding pasteurization and apparently a big part of the concern w/respect to pasteurizing is that a large % of British cattle had tuberculosis?
You see any connection there? Maybe Rothschild knew how to cause the TB?
...we cannot deny it, that 40 per cent. of the whole of our cattle in this country react to the tuberculin test. But we have to bear in mind at the same time, that only one half per cent. of our dairy cattle yield tubercular milk, and, if we were to take the drastic steps in the matter of slaughter which are taken in the United States, where there is something less than one half per cent. of the cattle affected with tuberculosis, of course the availability of milk in this country would be reduced. Milk would not be so available in this country and, as a result, there would be an adverse effect on the health of the population, and especially that of the children.
I'll also note that again here we had the pattern of a test creating a lot of hysteria that seems out of proportion to the risk...
Damn them, it's the same fucking game....
I am also uttering this warning because there is a great deal of popular misconception on the danger to human health of milk which contains bovine tubercular germs. It is my experience from time to time to receive drafts of articles and books on various agricultural subjects with the request that I shall provide a foreword or preface. I received one only a week ago, and the proposed title of the book was, Your Enemy the Cow. That book, so far as I was able to read it, contained a good deal of information, although rather exaggerated, similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has submitted to your Lordships to-day.
Damn them...
...by giving the distributors better-keeping milk, it would make the producers victims of price-bargaining.
Double damn them...
The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, mentioned experiments at Reading University, and I would remind your Lordships of experiments by Messrs. Mattick and Golding into the nutritive properties of pasteurized milk, the results of which were published in the Lancet in 1931. I will not weary your Lordships with details, but it was conclusively proved that a diet of pasteurized milk reduced the fertility of rats by 52 per cent. Further research was described in the Lancet in 1936 when exactly the same results were confirmed.
Ok but this is kinda cool, electricity as a means of pasteurization without killing the nutrition?
I gather that the Committee, influenced to some extent by the views of the late Sir Oliver Lodge, supported the practical results but were not convinced that electricity acted on the bactericidal side otherwise than as a thermal agent. But that is not the end of the story. There was further research under the same heading and the results were published in 1925. These proved conclusively that electricity played the major part in the slaughter of the tubercle bacillus and did so at a temperature considerably below that considered requisite for pasteurization. Furthermore, this process did not discolour milk or give it any unpleasant taste.
I think the timing is really tight but it's something like:
Biden dies or gets the 25th
Trump wins the election
Kamala fights the result on the basis of good polling and challenges the result.
But I've been wrong about plenty of this stuff.
A ridiculous number of people are hyped on Kamala. Need at least a few months of her to get people used to the idea.
It would also make sense thematically to have Kamala play the bitter incumbent that denies the election result--especially if she continues to be "up in the polls" as she is now.
The white hat ops always put people's minds in a state of extreme logical conflict that forces them to think for themselves. So making liberals doubt and then protest the result seems like where we'll end up.
There was some serious double entrende going down at the DNC.
Ashley Biden with the "when I was 8 with dad story".
Then Biden with the "there were good people on both sides" with respect to Palestine/Israel/Hamas protests. (however one wants to characterize those)
That House investigative report dropped pretty quietly.
From 2014 to the present, as part of a conspiracy to monetize Joe Biden’s office of public trust to enrich the Biden family, Biden family members and their associates received over $27 million from foreign individuals or entities. In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny. The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China. While Jim Biden claimed he gave this money to Joe Biden to repay personal loans, Jim Biden did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The Biden family’s receipt of millions of dollars required Joe Biden’s knowing participation in this conspiracy, including while he served as Vice President.
Joe Biden used his status as Vice President to garner favorable outcomes for his son’s and his business partners’ foreign business dealings.Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies.Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.
The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the Committees. This raises serious questions about whether these funds were provided as gifts disguised as loans.
Under the Biden Administration, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) afforded special treatment to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the Hunter Biden case, describing the investigation as “sensitive” or “significant.” Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges. These unusual—and oftentimes in the view of witnesses, unprecedented—tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden.
The Biden Justice Department misled Congress about the independence of law enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of the President’s son. Witnesses described how U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware and now-Special Counsel David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, had to seek (1) agreement from other U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in a district geographically distinct from his own and (2) approval from the Biden Justice Department’s Tax Division to bring specific charges or take investigative actions against Hunter Biden. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Weiss was only afforded special counsel status after the investigation came under congressional scrutiny.
The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding key documents and witnesses. The White House has impeded the Committees’ investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden. In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.
I'm gonna give it a shot and see if it changes my blood pressure at all.
Wouldn't say I necessarily have "bad" numbers but just curious to see if things shift...
u/JohnTitor17: Can you confirm that you have to pop a crazy # of pills to do this? I bought the highest L-Lycene content pill in the store and it needs 3 pilils for 1000mg. So it'd be 12 pills a day?? Is there a brand you like that is more potent?
Also is it for normal for there to be secondary ingredients in L-Lycne? Mine has B-6, Vitamin C (!) and a pretty crazy amount of Zinc too (25mg per 1000mg L-Lycene).
Here is a similar one for Trump.
https://dod.defense.gov/OIR/gallery/igphoto/2001822468/