Other 'Q' conversations, including some Questions and Answers

[Jayke]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
You can download my books from the website link on my members profile page if you like Gracy. But don’t let my 2 decades of multiple systems of psychology training get in the way of your angry rants or anything. Feel free to stomp on toes all day long if you find it cathartic.

(aside)

If I'd written a paragraph like that, I might not be boasting about my two decades of psychology training.

Feel free to elaborate Bill, I do enjoy some juicy critiques.

[Gracy]

Posted by Jayke (here)
You can download my books from the website link on my members profile page if you like Gracy. But don’t let my 2 decades of multiple systems of psychology training get in the way of your angry rants or anything. Feel free to stomp on toes all day long if you find it cathartic.

Wow, so your "2 decades of multiple systems of psychology training", leads you to confidently misdiagnose my questions and observations of your opinions on these topics as being merely, "angry rants"?

Not having deep credentials in psychology, one might take that as deflection instead. Why don't we get back on subject, and you address my last post...

[Jayke]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
You can download my books from the website link on my members profile page if you like Gracy. But don’t let my 2 decades of multiple systems of psychology training get in the way of your angry rants or anything. Feel free to stomp on toes all day long if you find it cathartic.

Wow, so your "2 decades of multiple systems of psychology training", leads you to confidently misdiagnose my questions and observations of your opinions on these topics as being merely, "angry rants"?

Not having deep credentials in psychology, one might take that as deflection instead. Why don't we get back on subject, and you address my last post...

Which part of your last post did I not address with my previous posts?

[Gracy]

Never mind Jayke, we're spinning our wheels here now.

[Jayke]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Never mind Jayke, we're spinning our wheels here now.

Usually how these Q thread debates end up. And I was only joking with the ‘angry rant’ comment (hence the sticky out tongue at the end of that paragraph and the ‘seriously now’ to open the next). Obviously banter doesn’t come across well in written text, but ah well, tensions get flared in these backwaters of the Avalon forum for whatever reason.

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
In mgray's column today he asks some astute questions.

As a final wrap up to the House impeachment inquiry last week, I was scratching my head over the number of foreign-born participants in the hearing.

Lt. Col Alex Vindman, Fiona Hill and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch are all naturalized citizens. They were also the most vocal defenders of the Ukrainian status quo.

I have to question their allegiance since all of the witnesses questioned President Trump’s ability to conduct foreign policy, which was to counter long-standing operations towards Ukraine.

As I believe the House will more than likely vote to move the impeachment charges to the Senate for trial, I look forward to hearing more about the motives of these three individuals to fight investigations into corruption.

No question this time, just an observation.

While I have no problem what so ever in questioning the ultimate motives of people like this, I do find it troubling to start questioning their motives, even partially based, on whether they are naturalized citizens, or citizens from families with long standing history here. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen in the United States, period.

History dictates this type of suspicion has the potential to start turning dangerous given the right set of circumstances.

[Chester]

Posted by jcking (here)

We were discussing the Epstein issue over a year ago, because it was brought up in the Q posts.

It's only now breaking news for people not following Q.

Edina- You seriously believe only Q followers had heard of Epstein's case- you're talking about the notorious billionaire with the $56 million dollar mansion in the middle of the largest city in the States?
I realize a lot of Q followers are completely opposed to reading any kind of conventional news, but this guy has been infamous for decades. I mean, I remember when he got arrested the last time, 10 years ago, and he'd been a known danger for at least a decade at that point.

Oh, by the way, maybe you don't know this- one of the leads on the Epstein case is none other than James Comey's daughter.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/07/daught...n-case-report/
Does that square with the Q narrative?

I just read this post.

What edina said was... "talking about it" - yes, many of us knew all about Epstein and for years... but her point was that at the time she was referring to which was way before Epstein became "news" again was "being talked about" [in the present of that time] by the Q crowd.

That Comey's daughter was the "lead prosecutor" on the Epstein case actually could be interpreted as "squaring with the Q narrative." Consider "situation management" examples like when Lorreta Lynch (as "acting" lead attorney) instructed Comey to call the "Clinton e-mail issue a "matter" showing the importance of being "on top of" and in charge of "outcome management."

See, when it becomes clear that pawns like Epstein can, at any time, be deemed a liability (and certainly expendable), you look at the best ways to manage the situation. Put a trusted insider on the case to ensure achievement of the desired outcome - an arrest and isolation where he can be silenced... as he was. Notice also how quickly the FBI descended upon "Epstein Island" where it may not be too unreasonable to consider the goal would be to ensure certain evidences are "secured" such that if such evidence "points to matters you would rather not expose" you can bury it and, if you have to, "lose it" like has been recently admitted to by the Justice Department (the FBI's boss) with regards to all exculpatory evidence held by the FBI in January 2017 regarding Flynn.

[EDIT ADDED] - Brilliant point made by mgray (below)

Posted by mgray (here)

Posted by jcking (here)
This is what happens when people only get their news from anonymous 8chan posts.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...osecution-team

Maurene Comey, an assistant U.S. attorney, was named alongside Alex Rossmiller and Alison Moe as the prosecutors assisting Berman with the case. James Comey, who was fired as FBI director in 2017 by President Trump, had been a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York before he became deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush.

Both Comey and AG Alberto R. Gonzales had to sign off on Acost's plea agreement with Epstein. Surely a US Attorney in Miami could not have pulled the trigger on the deal without checking with DC.

[Chester]

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Quote from jcking:

Re: The 'censorship' discussion.
It's an incredible assumption on your part that others not following Q hadn't heard of billionaire Epstein, I'm using a similarly flippant assumption to show you how silly it looks to group together the other 7.5 billion people on Earth and their collective knowledge. Let me know when you find that source

.


I've been aware of Epstein for a long time, and it's obvious that Comey should recuse herself, due to the Clinton connection. Is the MSM calling for that?

Bingo - not at all a foolish thing to consider she is there for "situation management" purposes. Yet this is easy for me to say in the present as we know the perfect outcome [from "they're" POV] was achieved.

[Chester]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
I have been highly critical of any groups whose participants engage in belief that runs counter to evidence. I am very sorry if I have offended you -- and I mean that sincerely.

What can be considered "evidence" is most often circumstantial and thus subject to interpretation. What is sometimes, maybe rarely, but once is too often, presented as evidence is fraudulent.

What is often cited as fact (and thus considered "evidence") by much of the corporate controlled "mainstream media" later is exposed as false or significantly misleading. If retractions are published (or stated), they are usually buried as deep as possible. "They" know that the sensationalized "information" is much more greatly digested than any retraction.

Bias from either side (and all sides in between) should always be weighed by the observer (including their own, especially their own).

I know my biases. I am also fortunate enough to have been so incredibly wrong at times, that it doesn't bother me anymore to admit it when I learn that I have been. Not perfectly... but far better than my earlier days of this lifetime.

[Gracy]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Major General Paul E. Vallely’s describes Q anon as being ‘white hats’ from the ‘army of northern Virginia’:

https://mobile.twitter.com/QAnonNota...58218741932032

Paul Vellely would not be amongst my go to sources for accurate as possible information. Author of "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory"

A short clip from co-author Michael Aquino (Page 3). Yes, THAT Michael Aquino:

The advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurous, and nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire. Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/mindw...ael-aquino.pdf

[Jayke]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
Major General Paul E. Vallely’s describes Q anon as being ‘white hats’ from the ‘army of northern Virginia’:

https://mobile.twitter.com/QAnonNota...58218741932032

Paul Vellely would not be amongst my go to sources for accurate as possible information. Author of "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory"

A short clip from co-author Michael Aquino (Page 3). Yes, THAT Michael Aquino:

The advantage of MindWar is that it conducts wars in nonlethal, noninjurous, and nondestructive ways. Essentially you overwhelm your enemy with argument. You seize control of all of the means by which his government and populace process information to make up their minds, and you adjust it so that those minds are made up as you desire. Everyone is happy, no one gets hurt or killed, and nothing is destroyed.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/mk/mindw...ael-aquino.pdf

I’d agree! The main Q thread hasn’t been about finding pristine sources of solid gold. It’s more about grabbing a pan of dirt and sifting through all the variables until the specks of gold settle on the surface.

The Q notables twitter page is about interesting tidbits. By itself it doesn’t mean much, but I found the mention of Virginia noteworthy due to a couple other random data points.

The State Senator of Virginia, General Richard Black, was the pentagon official who gave warning that MI6 was plotting a fake gas attack in Syria last year, and in doing so prevented the excuse for regime change. Senator Black works closely with the Schiller Institute and LaRouchePac, who are also based in Leesburg, Virginia.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3ivZKHE-STk

I signed up for a monthly donation to the Schiller Institute a couple years ago and was immediately followed on Twitter by several WWG1WGA characters (they’re literally my only followers on there since I never post or interact on twitter and only use it as a news feed). It was because of these connections I suggested Lyndon LaRouches people might have devised the Q plan back in 2018.

Posted by Jayke (here)
I found this interview with Lyndon LaRouche and Jesse Ventura recently. The interview is a few years old but LaRouche makes a couple very interesting statements, that could relate to this whole Q movement.

1. That Ronald Reagan created a new intelligence agency, specifically for LaRouche and the SDI (Star Wars) project he was working on.
2. That the LaRouche movement has a plan for getting the information out to the public, the information necessary to take down the cabal.

LaRouche has got to be the coolest 92 year old ever. The more I learn about him, the more I think he’s the real life Nick Fury from Marvels SHIELD comics.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZhAu1iZ8Q

Intelligence operatives connected—maybe even just loosely connected—to the LaRouche movement, are still my number 1 contenders for Q’s identity. Either that, or it’s just the greatest LARP concocted in a generation. I’m still enjoying the show, even though Q has been quiet for a while.

By itself, Gracy, Paul Vallely’s interview is pretty meaningless, but in the context of other data points, the mention of ‘the army of Virginia’ could have some significance as the bigger picture continues to emerge. I’m not saying it’s definitely relevant, just holding it as an interesting data point until greater context can be found.

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
Here's an open letter to the president, from Andrew Torba of GAB, that raises more Section 230 issues.

We are attacked by Big Tech because we stand for freedom and because we compete with their control over the flow of information online. We operate a social media site that has one core rule: political speech that is protected by the First Amendment is allowed on our site. We do not take sides.

Hey there edina, this offers me another opportunity to try and find clarification on an ongoing question of mine concerning the near and dear value of free speech:

After praising Julian Assange and Wikileaks throughout the 2016 election campaign, President Trump doesn't even seem to recall this issue any more, all while having unleashed the dogs of war against him.

How does this square with a President being a great activist for free speech? Bringing back around to topic, is there maybe a Q drop I've missed on this or something that can easily explain away an obvious concern?

[T Smith]

[QUOTE=Gracy May;1383803]

Posted by edina (here)
Here's an open letter to the president, from Andrew Torba of GAB, that raises more Section 230 issues.

Hey there edina, this offers me another opportunity to try and find clarification on an ongoing question of mine concerning the near and dear value of free speech:

After praising Julian Assange and Wikileaks throughout the 2016 election campaign, President Trump doesn't even seem to recall this issue any more, all while having unleashed the dogs of war against him.

How does this square with a President being a great activist for free speech? Bringing back around to topic, is there maybe a Q drop I've missed on this or something that can easily explain away an obvious concern?

How do you know? Wouldn't it be nice if we had honest press/moderators who would ask real questions about these things? Instead of whether he continually condemns White Supremacy, or how much he is leveraged, or whether he will condemn Qanon, or whatever disparaging narrative they can impose on his viewpoints? What I see is a non-polished articulating street-fighter on the defensive 24/7 against baseless, agenda-riden attacks; as such there is no room for real criticism. The question you raise, along with his comments in years past about Snowden, is real criticism. Not fabricated drivel by the Ministry of Truth meant to distract. I'd like to know. Maybe then I would change my own views.

I do know Trump was "negotiating" with Assange (don't necessarily agree with this tactic, but that's his MO) about pardoning him, in exchange for Assange disclosing his source on the leaks on the DNC scandal (Seth Rich), but Assange, to his credit, stuck to his journalistic principals. But this doesn't mean Trump doesn't agree with Assange and free speech--it only means Trump needs something in return, to boost his political stock, to take the unfathomable political risk of supporting him. Again--and emphatically--I don't personally agree with this, but that doesn't mean I don't understand it.

You might be surprised, Gracy, if Trump was ever given an honest platform to expound on his views about these things (but that will never happen), that he might just surprise you. But that might even make you come around and support him... gasp....

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by edina (here)
Here's an open letter to the president, from Andrew Torba of GAB, that raises more Section 230 issues.

We are attacked by Big Tech because we stand for freedom and because we compete with their control over the flow of information online. We operate a social media site that has one core rule: political speech that is protected by the First Amendment is allowed on our site. We do not take sides.

Hey there edina, this offers me another opportunity to try and find clarification on an ongoing question of mine concerning the near and dear value of free speech:

After praising Julian Assange and Wikileaks throughout the 2016 election campaign, President Trump doesn't even seem to recall this issue any more, all while having unleashed the dogs of war against him.

How does this square with a President being a great activist for free speech? Bringing back around to topic, is there maybe a Q drop I've missed on this or something that can easily explain away an obvious concern?

Great! Clarify away.

Let me know what you think.

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by edina (here)
Here's an open letter to the president, from Andrew Torba of GAB, that raises more Section 230 issues.

We are attacked by Big Tech because we stand for freedom and because we compete with their control over the flow of information online. We operate a social media site that has one core rule: political speech that is protected by the First Amendment is allowed on our site. We do not take sides.

Hey there edina, this offers me another opportunity to try and find clarification on an ongoing question of mine concerning the near and dear value of free speech:

After praising Julian Assange and Wikileaks throughout the 2016 election campaign, President Trump doesn't even seem to recall this issue any more, all while having unleashed the dogs of war against him.

How does this square with a President being a great activist for free speech? Bringing back around to topic, is there maybe a Q drop I've missed on this or something that can easily explain away an obvious concern?

Great! Clarify away.

Let me know what you think.

Well, I'm the one who's not clear on this, I was sort of hoping for some sort of clarification from you.

Posted by T Smith (here)
You might be surprised, Gracy, if Trump was ever given an honest platform to expound on his views about these things (but that will never happen), that he might just surprise you. But that might even make you come around and support him... gasp....

He has a daily platform to actually demonstrate what he's all about. That's what I look for even though I'm not from Missouri, don't tell me, show me.

Trump said a lot of things I liked in the lead up to the 2016 election, praising Julian Assange and Wikileaks being amongst them, but that ended when the voting ended.

Enter the big switcharoo just a few short months later, where Assange is suddenly no great hero of truth telling, but a "Hostile Intelligence Service":

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yn2qZzYQF8k

To me it looks in 20/20 hindsight that he was just using Assange as a useful tool for his populist message at the time, and once that tool was no longer of use, it was not only discarded, but gone after.

So this is the basis of my ongoing question. As you correctly say, Assange, as usual, has remained true to his principles, while Trump has done what in return? Where are his principles on this, beyond using Assange as a political football?

Until someone can point the way for a different way to view this situation, it rather irks me to see both Trump hailed as a champion of free speech, and Q dead silent on the matter. What say "the patriots" beyond excuse making?

But perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps I've missed something, that's why I'm here.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Until someone can point the way for a different way to view this situation, it rather irks me to see both Trump hailed as a champion of free speech, and Q dead silent on the matter. What say "the patriots" beyond excuse making?

I wish I could offer something substantive on Assange, but believe me even in the Q conspiratorium the Assange question circles and circles. It is a never ending point of controversy and discussion - as well as frustration.

There have been many drops that reference the Assange situation (he is abbreviated 'JA' in the drops), but there isn't much meat on them. The clearest indication of what the bottom line is came in drop #1968.



It's the general belief that so long as he is caged by the criminal British legal system - and why do you think he has been caged so long - there is little anyone, even so say white hats, can do. The moment he is extradited all that may (hopefully will) change.

There's the possibility also that his isolation is/was for his own protection. But that doesn't make much sense given the brutal conditions he's been subjected to - if those reports are true. I just don't know. All I do know is, powerful deep state forces want him gone, and have long wanted him gone. Remember Hillary joked about drone-striking the Ecuadorian embassy. She definitely wanted him gone.


(bottom of page 20) https://foia.state.gov/Search/Result...-2016-07895_47

Oh and there also this little conspiracy within a coincidence within a conspiracy type thing to chew on. Disregard or not. As with everything the choice is individual.

(implication being a blood relation)

[Gracy]

Posted by Chester (here)
When I see folks expressing selective outrage instead of being honest and consistent, then I find myself wondering what may be the truer motivations for individuals who cherry pick "the bad" and/or "the ugly" and yet never, seem to balance any of that against the obvious good.

Chester, check yourself man you're better than this. I've not questioned anyone's motivations here, and I expect the same in return.

I'm thinking to where this kind of reaction can be the unintended recoil of automatically cataloguing differing opinions, or challenging questions, into the same section as someone coming from outrage or cancel culture.

Where do you see "outrage" in anything I'm saying here, thus apparently causing me to be neither "honest" or "consistent"? I'm asking a simple question, and judging from some other responses from thread regulars, I'm not the only one wondering.

Now one more thing. What you see as "selective outrage" and "cherry picking", I see as trying to keep something simple. I have a legitimate question and concern about Trump's values on free speech, Q's seeming indifference to it, and nobody seeming to care.

I could easily go off on other criticisms of this administration like war, sanctions, coups, arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth, Wall Street freebies, violently crushing a peaceful protest for a Bible photo op, etc., but where is that going to get us?

I'm not here to disrupt this thread by taking it a bunch of different directions at once, I'm here to try and figure out one slice of the pie and that's it for now.

Posted by Chester (here)
Where's your typing "voice" with regards to this looming tragedy which will eliminate forever any hope for the masses of humanity? Without it... bantering about Assange rings truly hollow.

Well I certainly see your disgust, and that seems to happen when people question this subject or material. Poor thing she just doesn't know any better, hasn't been doing her homework, is blinded by her outrage, etc.

But anyway, so far as I'm concerned this whole Marxist thing is way overblown, and if we're just not going to be concerned about free speech or freedom of the press any more, that combination package could be a nice substitute for a Marxist takeover.

You may not see the 1ST Amendment as a big deal, but so far as I'm concerned without it, there's nothing left to talk about anyway. Assange is the poster child for this concern, and prying into the issue you deem to to be merely hollow bantering?

Wow...

Thanks to those who gave some positive feedback on this, it IS nice to at least know I'm not the only crazy one in the room who looks at Assange rotting away inside the bowels of Belmarsh, and wonders about the disconnect from words to actions of the President. The buck does stop with him after all, and we certainly can't blame the Brits for this, they're just doing Uncle Sam's bidding.

[PurpleLama]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by Chester (here)
When I see folks expressing selective outrage instead of being honest and consistent, then I find myself wondering what may be the truer motivations for individuals who cherry pick "the bad" and/or "the ugly" and yet never, seem to balance any of that against the obvious good.

Chester, check yourself man you're better than this. I've not questioned anyone's motivations here, and I expect the same in return.

I'm thinking to where this kind of reaction can be the unintended recoil of automatically cataloguing differing opinions, or challenging questions, into the same section as someone coming from outrage or cancel culture.

Where do you see "outrage" in anything I'm saying here, thus apparently causing me to be neither "honest" or "consistent"? I'm asking a simple question, and judging from some other responses from thread regulars, I'm not the only one wondering.

Now one more thing. What you see as "selective outrage" and "cherry picking", I see as trying to keep something simple. I have a legitimate question and concern about Trump's values on free speech, Q's seeming indifference to it, and nobody seeming to care.

I could easily go off on other criticisms of this administration like war, sanctions, coups, arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth, Wall Street freebies, violently crushing a peaceful protest for a Bible photo op, etc., but where is that going to get us?

I'm not here to disrupt this thread by taking it a bunch of different directions at once, I'm here to try and figure out one slice of the pie and that's it for now.

Posted by Chester (here)
Where's your typing "voice" with regards to this looming tragedy which will eliminate forever any hope for the masses of humanity? Without it... bantering about Assange rings truly hollow.

Well I certainly see your disgust, and that seems to happen when people question this subject or material. Poor thing she just doesn't know any better, hasn't been doing her homework, is blinded by her outrage, etc.

But anyway, so far as I'm concerned this whole Marxist thing is way overblown, and if we're just not going to be concerned about free speech or freedom of the press any more, that combination package could be a nice substitute for a Marxist takeover.

You may not see the 1ST Amendment as a big deal, but so far as I'm concerned without it, there's nothing left to talk about anyway. Assange is the poster child for this concern, and prying into the issue you deem to to be merely hollow bantering?

Wow...

Thanks to those who gave some positive feedback on this, it IS nice to at least know I'm not the only crazy one in the room who looks at Assange rotting away inside the bowels of Belmarsh, and wonders about the disconnect from words to actions of the President. The buck does stop with him after all, and we certainly can't blame the Brits for this, they're just doing Uncle Sam's bidding.

In reference to the bolded portion, all I can say is, methinks you are not casting your net wide enough. If you stand by such a supposition, I can only surmise that you are neglecting a very large portion of the Big Picture. I invited you to look further when we interacted on the critical theory or blm or biden thread ( I forget which) but if you really think the ideological assault being foisted on the young and impressionable is overblown, then either you are not paying attention or you are being willfully obtuse. I say this in the same sense of "check yourself" and not in the sense of "questioning motive" as you applied to Sam.

Critical Theory is being taught and applied to students in public schools across the country. There is a war going on, and it is cultural in part, and marxist in part, but it is 100% anti-human in that it wants everyone and everything in their neat little compartments and to have everyone absolutely opposed to anything outside of their little box.

The question is not if racism exists in a given situation, but how it exists in every situation. If you have an interaction with anyone not of your specific racial type, then it can only be transactional, you can not be "friends" with a person of another race, and if you think so, well that is your inherent racism showing. This is not my supposition, this comes straight from Kendi and DiAngelo.

Now, back to the topic at hand. I fully appreciate the contention that Q or Trump don't appear to be on the side of Assange. That sticks in my own craw, quite a bit. It is a hot button issue with me as well. But, that said:

Trump has mostly been focused on the economy. That was a huge chunk of the platform he ran on, and he has had some success in that department. Would I be happy if he pardoned Assange, too? You bet. Does the Assange issue take away from the effort to build the economy? Not a bit. Does that view make me a bad person? Maybe you think so, but I don't expect praise for thinking that it appears Trump did not at least make some effort toward fulfilling his populist message. Do I think he wants a great economy so people can afford to stay at his 5 star hotel? You bet. But I got a few extra dollars in my pocket and I don't care about his hotel.

The signal that went out with Trump banning CRT from any Fed (or Fed contractor) training program is HUGE, and might ultimately have a far greater impact on what you are allowed to say (or dare I say, think) in the future, than any of the events surrounding WikiLeaks. And I say this realizing full well how much implication the Assange case has for the press. But, the first amendment is not a protection of journalists, freedom of the press was the freedom to share information, as back then anyone (who could afford it or could build one) who had a printing press could share their ideas far and wide. It was an individual freedom, not something reserved for media companies.

I get it, for all I have said, the case can easily be made that it was all a show to keep the base in line, but if so, is it not a reverse of how the Dems give promises to the black community while never delivering, or the Repubs always talking fiscal responsibility while delivering record debts while selling our jobs to China? As far as politics go, take what you can get. Don't trust what they say, see what they do. Did Trump do anything he said he would do? Did Obama? Bush? Clinton? Bush? Reagan? Carter? And so on and so forth, politics is a club and we are not in it.

So where are the criticisms for the Biden voters? A third party is not viable (lets hope for 2024), so surely your sword is set to cut both ways? Politics in this country is a vast machinery, and I never expected anyone to turn something around in 4 years that was 200 years in the making.

The real question, to me, is how are we going to bring all kinds of people, all races, different ideologies, of every type imaginable, how are we going to bring them together under any commom banner? Without some common ground, all is lost, and if the overblown marxists get their way, there won't be any common ground. Without some belief in the ideals that this country used to stand for, where is the population left, except to be at each others throats?

While I am no MAGA Trumpian, I also look at the alternatives. If you have something better, and also viable, than Trump or the (political? AI?) Machine, then I am all ears.

I will, one more time, implore you to give due diligence to critical theory, postmodernism, and modern marxist ideologies, in order to properly critique our criticism of these things which have wide and subtle impacts on the path our culture both here in the US and in the western world will take.

Again, I am keenly aware of the implication of the Assange case, but how many irons are even in this fire? Pardon me for being concerned for losing my job for wrongthink as much as I am for the implications for journalists who mostly scoff at me from their ivory towers (not Assange but the industry who welcomes his demise, yet will be most impacted).

No good deed goes unpunished, as the saying goes.

[Gracy]

Posted by samildamach (here)
Can i gently remind people that there are many qanon threads on this forum looking at the validity of qanon.
And so as not to bog down this thread in tedium and bury current drops,would they mind posting on the alternative threads.
Is it me or does it seem that as this has gone public the attacks have increased

Q is not exactly dropping bombshells lately, and there is plenty of other commentary here other than just strictly following his drops. This thread has been pretty much hands off to outsiders for a long time now, with scant few interruptions, but it doesn't come with the same sanctity for instance as say, an ancient indian burial ground.

Something was posted heralding Trump as a great champion of free speech, and I questioned it, that does not constitute sacrilege or knife wielding attack.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
But anyway, so far as I'm concerned this whole Marxist thing is way overblown, and if we're just not going to be concerned about free speech or freedom of the press any more, that combination package could be a nice substitute for a Marxist takeover.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
In reference to the bolded portion, all I can say is, methinks you are not casting your net wide enough. If you stand by such a supposition, I can only surmise that you are neglecting a very large portion of the Big Picture. I invited you to look further when we interacted on the critical theory or blm or biden thread ( I forget which) but if you really think the ideological assault being foisted on the young and impressionable is overblown, then either you are not paying attention or you are being willfully obtuse.

Well again, it's often insinuated in this movement that anyone in disagreement is generally speaking just plain old ignorant of basic facts, or worse. But fair enough okay, I know the waters I'm swimming in here.

Trump wants to counter that by doubling down on the indoctrination of the patriotic American Exceptionalism wet dream, I think both extremes are dangerous and I choose neither.

All I can say is that I follow all pertinent threads concerning these issues on the forum, and I listen to at least a good chunk of Glenn Beck every day with the constant barbarians at the gate thing; so we can certainly agree to disagree on this, but my lack of basic knowledge, or unwillingness to even engage in such, would not be the cause.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Now, back to the topic at hand. I fully appreciate the contention that Q or Trump don't appear to be on the side of Assange. That sticks in my own craw, quite a bit. It is a hot button issue with me as well.

Well I'm glad to hear that's a sticking point with you as well. I think there's a lot of undercurrent here to excuse or explain away this and other issues, but I'm at least glad to see it's not going totally unnoticed.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
But, that said:

Trump has mostly been focused on the economy. That was a huge chunk of the platform he ran on, and he has had some success in that department.

He also ran on praise for Wikileaks:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xnEoVzLKNPw

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
So where are the criticisms for the Biden voters? A third party is not viable (lets hope for 2024), so surely your sword is set to cut both ways? Politics in this country is a vast machinery, and I never expected anyone to turn something around in 4 years that was 200 years in the making.

I try to make clear every now and then that my sword does indeed swing both ways, but with the tsunami of Trump/Q support and dissection of the Bidens and the dems, what's the use in piling onto the scrum? For the record, I think Biden is every bit a corrupt politician as any of the others. It would be like asking me to pick up a turd by it's clean end, to ask me to describe the good side of Joe Biden's dismal record, or possible presidency.

There simply isn't one. Hopefully we can put that lil doggy to bed now.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
While I am no MAGA Trumpian, I also look at the alternatives. If you have something better, and also viable, than Trump or the (political? AI?) Machine, then I am all ears.

It doesn't even matter, no third options are allowed by the two party duopoly who both pretty much agree on love of Wall Street, war, and maintaining power at the behest of their donors.

Of course we could go further on up the totem pole, but hopefully that's clear from a low level approach anyway.

[samildamach]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by samildamach (here)
Can i gently remind people that there are many qanon threads on this forum looking at the validity of qanon.
And so as not to bog down this thread in tedium and bury current drops,would they mind posting on the alternative threads.
Is it me or does it seem that as this has gone public the attacks have increased

Q is not exactly dropping bombshells lately, and there is plenty of other commentary here other than just strictly following his drops. This thread has been pretty much hands off to outsiders for a long time now, with scant few interruptions, but it doesn't come with the same sanctity for instance as say, an ancient indian burial ground.

Something was posted heralding Trump as a great champion of free speech, and I questioned it, that does not constitute sacrilege or knife wielding attack.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
But anyway, so far as I'm concerned this whole Marxist thing is way overblown, and if we're just not going to be concerned about free speech or freedom of the press any more, that combination package could be a nice substitute for a Marxist takeover.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
In reference to the bolded portion, all I can say is, methinks you are not casting your net wide enough. If you stand by such a supposition, I can only surmise that you are neglecting a very large portion of the Big Picture. I invited you to look further when we interacted on the critical theory or blm or biden thread ( I forget which) but if you really think the ideological assault being foisted on the young and impressionable is overblown, then either you are not paying attention or you are being willfully obtuse.

Well again, it's often insinuated in this movement that anyone in disagreement is generally speaking just plain old ignorant of basic facts, or worse. But fair enough okay, I know the waters I'm swimming in here.

All I can say is that I follow all pertinent threads concerning these issues on the forum, and I listen to at least a good chunk of Glenn Beck every day with the constant barbarians at the gate thing; so we can certainly agree to disagree on this, but my lack of basic knowledge, or unwillingness to even engage in such, would not be the cause.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
Now, back to the topic at hand. I fully appreciate the contention that Q or Trump don't appear to be on the side of Assange. That sticks in my own craw, quite a bit. It is a hot button issue with me as well.

Well I'm glad to hear that's a sticking point with you as well. I think there's a lot of undercurrent here to excuse or explain away this and other issues, but I'm at least glad to see it's not going totally unnoticed.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
But, that said:

Trump has mostly been focused on the economy. That was a huge chunk of the platform he ran on, and he has had some success in that department.

He also ran on praise for Wikileaks:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xnEoVzLKNPw

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
So where are the criticisms for the Biden voters? A third party is not viable (lets hope for 2024), so surely your sword is set to cut both ways? Politics in this country is a vast machinery, and I never expected anyone to turn something around in 4 years that was 200 years in the making.

I try to make clear every now and then that my sword does indeed swing both ways, but with the tsunami of Trump/Q support and dissection of the Bidens and the dems, what's the use in piling onto the scrum? For the record, I think Biden is every bit a corrupt politician as any of the others. It would be like asking me to pick up a turd by it's clean end, to ask me to describe the good side of Joe Biden's dismal record, or possible presidency.

There simply isn't one. Hopefully we can put that lil doggy to bed now.

Posted by PurpleLama (here)
While I am no MAGA Trumpian, I also look at the alternatives. If you have something better, and also viable, than Trump or the (political? AI?) Machine, then I am all ears.

It doesn't even matter, no third options are allowed by the two party duopoly who both pretty much agree on love of Wall Street, war, and maintaining power at the behest of their donors.

Of course we could go further on up the totem pole, but hopefully that's clear from a low level approach anyway.

so that request fell on deaf ears
You were never mentioned by name yet thought a polite request needed challenge and correction.
You could have just as easily have moved your question to the appropriate anti trump/q thread