Thanks for posting about Bill Maher, @gamepwn. :-)
Question: Has Q ever called out a pedo that we didn't research here before? There are a bunch of v/pizzagate posts about Bill Maher, as early as 2017.
To me, it seems he is only recycling old Pizzagate research, which is fine to an extent, as it spreads some awareness, but I'd really LOVE to see him expose pedos that were not already discussed here.
Question: Has Q ever called out a pedo that we didn't research here before?
Yes. Q dropped the Anderson Cooper pictures that led to anons here and on 8chan to link our research into the Tony Podesta artist that paints the dead kids to the Biltmore hotel pool.
Also...
Everything on this board started with the Podesta emails leaked to Wikileaks. Steve Piescenik said in November or December 2016 a group of whitehats, including Assange are responsible for helping Donald Trump stop Clinton and the deepstate from completely overthrowing the Constitution. FBIAnon leaked the pedo symbols on the FBI Record Vault for us. A year later, Q showed up and said a group of whitehats are helping Trump overthrow the globalist cabal, and he was going to be giving crumbs to provide as much transparency as possible.
You can believe that's all a BS psyop and it's just spy vs. spy.
But it's somewhat of a stretch to think there are two totally different groups of whitehats working with Trump to drain the swamp. I'd bet a substantial sum of money that the group Piesczenik referred to and the Q team are one and the same. We're here because of the pre-election leaks that started that effort.
You can believe that's all a BS psyop and it's just spy vs. spy.
Well, yes, I think it is a psy-op, as you know. I don't think Trump is draining the swamp in an universal sense, otherwise Q would attack Republican pedos as well.
'Draining the swamp' here only means that one deep state faction is trying to take out the other one, imo.
I've really gotten tired of Q.
Imo what happened was that one guy in the GOP (forgot the name, unfortunately) called out Hillary for having had Alinsky as a mentor - he mentioned that Alinsky dedicated his 'Rules for radicals' to Lucifer. There was a big uproar (that was in June or July 2016 IIRC).
I think this was when they got the idea they might want to take this further, and expose HRC and buddies, and use it for winning the elections.
Q/Trump isn't hurting any Republican pedos, like he never hurt Jeffrey Epstein, before a father complained, and like he made Acosta Secretary of Labour, although he was involved in giving Epstein the lenient plea deal.
Well, Trump made Jeb into a laughingstock, and Q has repeatedly said the two-party system is an illusion and that many on both sides are compromised. And arrests of human traffickers have gone up exponentially under Trump. As far as Acosta goes, there's a good chance Trump put him in charge of human trafficking to turn up the heat on what went down with Epstein. That certainly fits Trump's past modus operendi.
You don't think it's possible Trump promoted him to put a target on his back? To create a feeding frenzy that would lure his enemies into exposing the Epstein fiasco in their attempts to take him down?
I do.
And I thought so long before Q brought it up this week. Trump has built a successful brand he is very proud of. He's no idiot. Under what other logic would he put a guy who let the most infamous sex trafficker in modern memory off the hook in charge of human trafficking? Especially when the press has been trying to tie him to Epstein's crimes since before the election.
Where's the logic in that? Trump did not build a $6 billion dollar business empire by not caring what his most important executives do. Nor did he do it by rewarding them for putting him in weaker position that threatened his brand. It makes no sense.
The logic is that he doesn't give a fuck what people think about him.
That's logic? How will he get re-elected, then?
I think highly of him, because he has gotten impressive results. He's fulfilled more of his campaign promises than any previous president in history, and he's not finished yet. I support him because he's the only "politician" I've ever seen who does what he says he's going to do. I also support him because the most evil power abusers in the world all hate his guts and he stands up to them. So, when I see something like the Acosta thing, I'm willing to wait and see what happens.
No it's about optics. If President Trump starts arresting Dems for the crimes they've committed against our country, they will scream it's all political and they are being arrested as political opponents. He must have politicians from his side of the aisle arrested or investigated/brought to light too and in order to do that they have to be in positions of power such as Acosta. Since those in the mockingbird media hate anything or anyone they perceive President Trump to support, they will go after Acosta even though Acosta gave their buddy Epstein a sweet deal. Are catching my drift yet? This is more complicated than you think and what it looks like on the surface.
I'm not certain he wanted to be president in the first place. I am certain he wants to finish what he started, and that he does NOT want it undone by whomever else might win in 2020 -- which is exactly what would happen. Four years is not enough time to make the kinds of lasting changes he has been set on making.
I think he just thought people wouldn't care about the Acosta thing - and well, obviously his supporters don't.
That's a pretty arrogant assumption. I know several dozen Trump supporters, and ALL of them care about the Epstein situation and are scratching their heads about Acosta. If I didn't care about it, I wouldn't be talking about it, trying to be as informed as possible about it, or even having this conversation.
Accepting Trump's track record and being willing to wait for an explanation of an anomaly like Acosta does not equal not caring about whether a US Prosecutor was rewarded for letting a serial child rapist go free. Don't fall for the MSM/Shareblue meme that Trump supporters are just a cult of brainwashed, blind idiots.
Well, you might want to look into it a bit occasionally, if you should have the time.
He worked for George W. Bush in the WH, schemed the Iraq war with some other people, and always pushed for regime change in the same manner HRC later did.
TL;DR: He was a sinister George W. Bush cronie, and as much of a swamp creature as it can get.
view the rest of the comments →
think- ago
Thanks for posting about Bill Maher, @gamepwn. :-)
Question: Has Q ever called out a pedo that we didn't research here before? There are a bunch of v/pizzagate posts about Bill Maher, as early as 2017.
To me, it seems he is only recycling old Pizzagate research, which is fine to an extent, as it spreads some awareness, but I'd really LOVE to see him expose pedos that were not already discussed here.
Or did I miss something?
Vindicator ago
Yes. Q dropped the Anderson Cooper pictures that led to anons here and on 8chan to link our research into the Tony Podesta artist that paints the dead kids to the Biltmore hotel pool.
Also...
Everything on this board started with the Podesta emails leaked to Wikileaks. Steve Piescenik said in November or December 2016 a group of whitehats, including Assange are responsible for helping Donald Trump stop Clinton and the deepstate from completely overthrowing the Constitution. FBIAnon leaked the pedo symbols on the FBI Record Vault for us. A year later, Q showed up and said a group of whitehats are helping Trump overthrow the globalist cabal, and he was going to be giving crumbs to provide as much transparency as possible.
You can believe that's all a BS psyop and it's just spy vs. spy.
But it's somewhat of a stretch to think there are two totally different groups of whitehats working with Trump to drain the swamp. I'd bet a substantial sum of money that the group Piesczenik referred to and the Q team are one and the same. We're here because of the pre-election leaks that started that effort.
think- ago
Well, yes, I think it is a psy-op, as you know. I don't think Trump is draining the swamp in an universal sense, otherwise Q would attack Republican pedos as well.
'Draining the swamp' here only means that one deep state faction is trying to take out the other one, imo.
I've really gotten tired of Q.
Imo what happened was that one guy in the GOP (forgot the name, unfortunately) called out Hillary for having had Alinsky as a mentor - he mentioned that Alinsky dedicated his 'Rules for radicals' to Lucifer. There was a big uproar (that was in June or July 2016 IIRC).
I think this was when they got the idea they might want to take this further, and expose HRC and buddies, and use it for winning the elections.
Q/Trump isn't hurting any Republican pedos, like he never hurt Jeffrey Epstein, before a father complained, and like he made Acosta Secretary of Labour, although he was involved in giving Epstein the lenient plea deal.
Vindicator ago
Well, Trump made Jeb into a laughingstock, and Q has repeatedly said the two-party system is an illusion and that many on both sides are compromised. And arrests of human traffickers have gone up exponentially under Trump. As far as Acosta goes, there's a good chance Trump put him in charge of human trafficking to turn up the heat on what went down with Epstein. That certainly fits Trump's past modus operendi.
Q just commented about Acosta. He linked this tweet from the Associated Press and said,
Only time will tell.
think- ago
I don't think so. ;-)
Vindicator ago
You don't think it's possible Trump promoted him to put a target on his back? To create a feeding frenzy that would lure his enemies into exposing the Epstein fiasco in their attempts to take him down?
I do.
And I thought so long before Q brought it up this week. Trump has built a successful brand he is very proud of. He's no idiot. Under what other logic would he put a guy who let the most infamous sex trafficker in modern memory off the hook in charge of human trafficking? Especially when the press has been trying to tie him to Epstein's crimes since before the election.
think- ago
Because he doesn't care about what Acosta did, or, in a worst case scenario, wanted to reward Acosta.
Vindicator ago
Where's the logic in that? Trump did not build a $6 billion dollar business empire by not caring what his most important executives do. Nor did he do it by rewarding them for putting him in weaker position that threatened his brand. It makes no sense.
think- ago
The logic is that he doesn't give a fuck what people think about him.
And that you and other supporters still think highly of him despite choosing Acosta, proves it.
He even appointed one of the worst swamp creatures, John Bolton, as his NSA.
Vindicator ago
That's logic? How will he get re-elected, then?
I think highly of him, because he has gotten impressive results. He's fulfilled more of his campaign promises than any previous president in history, and he's not finished yet. I support him because he's the only "politician" I've ever seen who does what he says he's going to do. I also support him because the most evil power abusers in the world all hate his guts and he stands up to them. So, when I see something like the Acosta thing, I'm willing to wait and see what happens.
think- ago
Are you sure he wants to get re-elected?
I think he just thought people wouldn't care about the Acosta thing - and well, obviously his supporters don't.
angelCole ago
No it's about optics. If President Trump starts arresting Dems for the crimes they've committed against our country, they will scream it's all political and they are being arrested as political opponents. He must have politicians from his side of the aisle arrested or investigated/brought to light too and in order to do that they have to be in positions of power such as Acosta. Since those in the mockingbird media hate anything or anyone they perceive President Trump to support, they will go after Acosta even though Acosta gave their buddy Epstein a sweet deal. Are catching my drift yet? This is more complicated than you think and what it looks like on the surface.
Vindicator ago
I'm not certain he wanted to be president in the first place. I am certain he wants to finish what he started, and that he does NOT want it undone by whomever else might win in 2020 -- which is exactly what would happen. Four years is not enough time to make the kinds of lasting changes he has been set on making.
That's a pretty arrogant assumption. I know several dozen Trump supporters, and ALL of them care about the Epstein situation and are scratching their heads about Acosta. If I didn't care about it, I wouldn't be talking about it, trying to be as informed as possible about it, or even having this conversation.
Accepting Trump's track record and being willing to wait for an explanation of an anomaly like Acosta does not equal not caring about whether a US Prosecutor was rewarded for letting a serial child rapist go free. Don't fall for the MSM/Shareblue meme that Trump supporters are just a cult of brainwashed, blind idiots.
think- ago
Ok.
think- ago
Well, and what about John Bolton?
Vindicator ago
That's a topic I don't know enough about to comment on intelligently.
think- ago
Well, you might want to look into it a bit occasionally, if you should have the time.
He worked for George W. Bush in the WH, schemed the Iraq war with some other people, and always pushed for regime change in the same manner HRC later did.
TL;DR: He was a sinister George W. Bush cronie, and as much of a swamp creature as it can get.
Vindicator ago
Was there someone you think would be more effective that he should have picked, instead?
ESOTERICshade ago
Up vote for sanity. Thank you for being a sane person.
think- ago
FUCK OFF, DISGUSTING SHITBAG