I agree with you, tbh. I also tried playing around with combinations of 4, 2, 0, and 20 mapping to D, B, A, and T, respectively, and this was the closest I personally got to referencing anything that made any kind of sense.
I'll take this as a lesson to step back and take some time to learn from others before advertising my own attempt at taking a crack at this. I think us newbies are just so excited to have arrived here in the first place that we're a little trigger-happy in wanting to contribute without thinking about how we might be hurting the cause by clogging up the channel with noise. I apologize.
Oh, I'm not saying I buy that story. It's more so that even the existence of such an explanation renders this useless as a means of red pilling our normie friends & family.
Can anyone confirm that the timestamp isn't a result of appending an earlier article, i.e. originally having it be about the rally but then shifting to the protest afterwards?
I'm asking because I think this would be an excellent red pill if it's exactly what it appears to be.
What about converting to seconds?
4*60 + 20 = 260
Drop #260:
Who knows where the bodies are buried? FLYNN is safe. We protect our Patriots. Q
Supposedly Trump is meeting with Flynn, Powell, and other Military Intelligence officials tonight, as someone else posted about.
Also, as has already been stated, we're likely being told to avoid protests for our own protection.
When all of this is said and done, I really think our country should seriously consider formalizing our weaponized autist capability. I'm thinking a Space Force Corps of Autists.
Wouldn't it be more politically expedient to try to ease this in, e.g. Federal law requiring states to split up electors proportionally according to popular vote, reallocating electors proportionally to population, etc.?
I'm having a hard time believing that they just feel so emboldened that they can proceed to carry this out straightforwardly.
Fraud aside, this in itself would be a by-the-books way to never lose another election. Since they'd never lose an election, there'd never be a majority elected to undo this. A bold, self-perpetuating power-grab.
This was enough to red-pill my wife and MIL to the fact that, at the very least, things are not as they appear on the surface.
I hope they cut her a catch-and-release deal where they send her back with a wiretap to gather incriminating evidence on her comrades.
But the terms of the deal are such that, after she's turned on her comrades, the deal is reneged on some technicality.
I saw on another thread that she was spotted last night.
Pure speculation, but it would be interesting if they cut her a deal where they wiretap her and send her back to gather incriminating evidence on her comrades.
I didn't notice on Twitter since I don't use it (besides looking at POTUS tweets lol). I also didn't have Q followers in my Facebook friends list, so I wouldn't have noticed it there, either.
I did however notice it on Tik Tok several months to a year ago. Q stuff was trending and making its way into my FYP (that was actually what got me to see Fall of the Cabal). It didn't take more than a month from that time it was trending for all Q related hashtags to be blocked from search. After that videos were taken down even though they didn't seemingly violate terms of service.
I was an atheist originally.
First, I converted to broadly monotheistic from philosophical arguments. At this point, I knew that either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam had to be true, or that no religion had it right.
Then, I converted to broadly Christian from historical arguments regarding Christ's death and resurrection. At the point, I knew that Christ was God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that Christ died that I may have new life, and that God desired a personal, saving relationship with each and every person.
Many of the dividing lines between denominations weren't trivial. Things like infant baptism, what exactly are the sacraments, are we saved by faith, works, or a combination of the two, etc. were doctrinal points with massive implications for our lives. I was attending Baptist services at this point while trying to wrestle with this stuff.
Actually, on the atheist to Catholic path, that final step -- what denomination do I think is correct? -- was the one that took me the longest. Everything before that, once I started digging, felt like an easy choice.
It really came down to taking all of the doctrinal points that I was struggling with and weighing the arguments from each side against the Bible and against history (e.g. writings from Church fathers, councils, Protestant reformers, etc.), and commentary on these from modern apologists & theologians designed to be more accessible to modern audiences.
Definitely consult with your husband assuming he's well versed. There's more apologetical content than anyone could read in a year for any denomination. I could recommend specific things if I knew what your specific hangups were.
My last bits of advice: Study every side. For every person that supports x and argues against y, make sure to find someone that supports y and argues against x. And pray, pray, pray! I didn't do enough of that in the beginning, trying too much to rely on arguments and not seeking enough guidance from God -- I struggle with intellectual pride and I didn't really recognize it until well into my conversion, but it was becoming a stumbling block against continuing to progress.
As far as the actual "initiation" if you decide on Catholicism: If you were baptized in another denomination, chances are, the Church will recognize it so long as it used the Trinitarian formula. You would go to a local parish and attend a year long process studying what the Church believes, and then, come Easter, if you decide that you believe, you follow through with Confirmation and receive First Communion. This process is called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). At some parishes it's great, at some it's terrible -- depends on who's teaching it. At my parish, luckily, it's taught by an ex-Reformed minister who went to Reformed seminary but converted to Catholicism later in life -- as such, he could handle pretty much any objection you threw at him. Unfortunately, the process will feel redundant if you start it already having done your research and made your choice.
Ahh, gotcha. Poor reading on my part. And I'd agree with you.
There was one instance with Elon that made me question if he's not like the others. It was when he off-handedly said that he thought that Tesla stock was overpriced to the predictable outcome of Tesla stock plummeting. I don't believe that anyone that's sold their soul to shareholders would be be honest about something like that.
Also, the moment where he cried during an interview in response to being asked to comment on the fact that a lot of his 'heroes' have been highly critical / negative about his work. It could always be fake, of course, but it seemed genuine to me and was incredibly humanizing.
It would make no sense to delete Q accounts in response to the Capitol protest.
Q believers are precisely the ones that believe that there's an underlying plan, and that it's not our place but the military's to rectify the situation. So, we'd be the very last group of Trump supporters that you'd expect to engage in acts of "domestic terrorism".
If anything, wide dissemination of the Q conspiracy could actually reduce acts of uprising in the short term, not the opposite.
Not all of us tech guys are bad, friend.
More of us than you'd think are conservative or right-libertarian and devout Christians. Of course, we hide the extent of our views in our work environment since we've been lead to believe that there's fewer of us than there actually are. But I'm still surprised at how many I've found in my midst that are keeping on the DL as I am.
Actually, I'm quite ashamed at the disservice we're doing by allowing our leftist peers dominate tech culture. More of us need to reach positions of power and out ourselves.
Your second point (a psy-op would try to obscure, not bring to light, the sins of the elite class) seems the most compelling, to me. You could argue that the elite class is so confident in their hold on things that they don't perceive any real threat to having the light shone on their dealings, but it'd still be a move that carries some risks with negligible benefit, i.e. render slightly more complacent what still amounts to a fringe minority of the population.
The rest, I think, you could argue against to greater degrees of success.
Against the first point: I don't believe you can reach DS status without being a clinically diagnosable psychopath. There's no way you could live with yourself, regardless of the material benefit, if you have any semblance of a conscience. In which case, most of the big players are probably already faking all of their emotions already.
Against the third point: We've seen deals broken and made in a single term. Things rapidly created can be rapidly undone, and vice versa. It'd take negligible work to undue everything Trump has done with full control of all of our branches of government. If the bulk of the swamp is drained, of course, our government's structure will yield Trump's changes much more resilient.
Against the fourth point: Yes, Trump is a billionaire. But Bezos is still worth over 60x what Trump's worth. Which means the DS could increase Trump's net worth by an order of magnitude and he still wouldn't be close to the richest. I'm not saying Trump is driven by money, but if he was, I don't doubt that he could be compensated enough to make it worth his time.
Against the fifth point: You already covered the primary objection. However, I, like you, tend to believe the Trump-humanizing under reported stories. Actually, if those stories were fake, I think the MSM would want to control the narrative surrounding those by shining a light on them and discrediting them, vs. ignoring them altogether.
This one is actually a pretty compelling one to me, too. I was just talking to my wife today, who is not at all versed in Q but knows that I'm starting to dig; I made the point to her that these stories make no sense apart from the view that a large part of Trump's public persona is fabricated. As far as I'm aware, Q is the only systemic belief structure that posits that a lot of what we see of Trump is 'part of the show'.
When I saw the clip of Trump in church humbling himself before getting ready to give a donation, I felt very deep in my gut that I'd just learned exactly who the real Trump was. That's not a rational justification for anything, but I'm just pointing out that the clip was very compelling to me.
Against the sixth: Skipping over this, since it involves a personal revelatory experience. How you view this will depend on the specific religious views you hold, e.g. what kind of things, and to what degree of specificity, you believe that God will reveal things to you in prayer, discerning responses to prayer vs. your own thoughts, etc.
A final point: This isn't an argument for or against Q per say, but to me, a gauge in trying to decide who's on the side of good and who's on the side of evil. I don't believe that genuine prayer -- sincere prayer that aims to humble the self and seek the will of God -- can be faked. We've seen what prayers from players in each side of this game, and I think we can all draw our own conclusions from that.
What, the "trail of blood"? With all due respect, friend, that's revisionist apologetic trying to manufacture some air of legitimacy that simply doesn't exist. The theory didn't even originate until the 20th century. It's a LARP. The idea that anything aside from a sacramental conferral of holy orders via the physical 'laying of hands' in an unbroken succession tracing back to the original apostles provides a legitimate share in the authority and ministry uniquely appointed to the apostles (as opposed to, say, any layman Christian) by Christ would be entirely foreign to the earliest Christians -- this is evidenced by extra-biblical writings of the early Church dating back as early as the first and second century.
And again, I sincerely say this with all due respect and with love for you as a fellow brother in Christ. Obviously you disagree, or you wouldn't be a Baptist (are you a Baptist?), and I respect that.
Grace opened my heart to be receptive to the reality that God exists. Philosophy quelled the intellectual pride that was blocking me from allowing myself to believe in something I can't empirically test. The historical circumstances surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ proved to me that Christ alone is the Lord above any other god that people profess belief in. And, finally, history -- Christian belief expressed in continuous extra-Biblical writings from the first century until now -- have led me to the conclusion that the fullest expression of Christianity is found in the doctrine and sacraments of the Catholic church.
Truth be told, if I was picking a theology purely on what I'd want to be true, I'd probably be a Wesleyan or Anglican. The last thing I'd pick is Catholicism. But, any time I've been tempted to leave the Catholic church, I can't, because I haven't been able to convince myself that it's not the 'real deal'.
Catholic here. (Also just getting started dipping my feet in the Q scene.)
I'm a convert to Catholicism. I went into it with no illusions about the corruption in the hierarchy. There's been bad hombres in the Church even at the highest level all throughout history.
The retort Catholics tell each other with regards to this is that we don't abandon Peter because of the sins of Judas. Of course, there's a lot to unpack with that.
What keeps me in the Church is a belief in His real presence in the Eucharist, a belief in the doctrinal integrity of the Church, and a belief that Jesus intended the preservation and administration of these only via valid Apostolic Succession. None of these are dependent on the personal holiness of any individual in the hierarchy. Since I believe that only the Orthodox and Catholic churches hold valid Apostolic Succession, realistically, these are the only viable choices for me.
Obviously, I pray that if I'm wrong, that God lead me to the truth. And I'll continue seeking it as best as I can, hoping for the Lord's mercy if I've made the wrong choice.
Sorry about that! I completely understand.
Oh, completely missed the sidebar in the mobile interface. I feel stupid. Thanks.
On a side note, I've been using DuckDuckGo for a few years now, as soon as I saw that one of my coworkers got different search results than me from the same search terms, lol.
Pede a few months away from finishing a Ph.D. in computer science, here. I felt like jumping in to point out two interesting consequences of if this were true:
Not so great consequence: The un-crackability of pretty much all modern encryption algorithms depends on prime factorization being in NP (hasn't been officially proven NP-hard or NP-complete, but it's presumed to not be in P). A quantum computer being able to bypass that means that any kind of computer security, as we know it, would be rendered useless. No more online banking, secure digital communications, etc. We're not prepared as a society for such an overnight-rendered impotency of all such systems.
A maybe good, maybe bad consequence: The automated theorem proving problem is co-NP-complete. The problem essentially boils down to this: given a set of axioms and a proposition, generate a proof for the proposition from those axioms (or conclude that it's impossible).A quantum computer, again being able to bypass that, could in theory be able to discover everything that's discoverable from what's already been discovered.
So, step 1: feed the quantum computer all human knowledge. Step 2: ask it any question. If it's possible at all to answer that question from all existing knowledge, it'll answer it (with a proof, to boot!).
That second consequence would enable the scenario put forth by the OP.