Yes, it literally is a dialog. They make claims, I fact check them, they return with new claims. If you look at another comment chain in this thread, you'll find someone who tried to fact-check my 'tippy-top' comment, and couldn't substantiate it. It wasn't angry, and I'd be happy to hang out and talk with that pede again. Maybe in the future they will find their source and I will be proven wrong on that point.

Why do you think I'm not open minded? Do I have to pretend to not have an opinion? Can I not question their beliefs? Taking your own advise, you can't respond to me because you're challenging my beliefs. I think that's hogwash.

You keep making strange comparisons of my behavior. First I was jilted, then I was "extra into this", now I'm acting like a militant atheist. I'm just a dude hanging out with friends talking about a subject I don't agree on.

We all want to MAGA. We all support Trump. Being on the same side doesn't mean we can't challenge each other.

I just don't want them to be so separated, where Q believers and Q nonbelievers can't talk.

If you truly feel that way then just leave em alone

wut

I agree, it's mostly harmless. The endless arguments people get into about which political commentator they want to follow are amusing to me. I don't care for Ben Shapiro, but I don't mind Tim Pool.

I've always enjoyed listening to people I disagree with more than I enjoy listening to people I agree with, which is why I've spent a bit of time looking at Q. I never could believe that Trump, the world class negotiator, would depend on anonymous intel agents posting on 4chan to rally his troops. Trump loves his rallies.

There's room for a lot of ideas and disagreement in the MAGA movement. I just don't want them to be so separated, where Q believers and Q nonbelievers can't talk.

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it.

Could you give me a screenshot of the person who asked for tippy-top? I only saw tip-top and when I watched the video I only heard tippy-top. I never heard tip-top.

Exactly as requested would have been at the SoTU. But I understand its hard to get a speech changed at the last minute. Trump likes to stay on script.

Q says to do your own research.

I did. I do not believe in Q. I post what I find.

You respond negatively- and try to read my mind ("seem jilted").

What's the point of doing my own research if we can only come to his conclusion? He asked for it. They say that they want discussion, but every time there are people telling you not to post if you don't "just believe".

I don't post because I'm jilted. I post because nobody interrogates Q. Either they believe him or they ignore him. And that's no way to find truth.

Q supporters support Trump. I support Trump. We're on the same side. That doesn't mean that we can't have robust discussions.

In three days we'll both see. I'm right there with you, wishing for the best.

But I'm fairly sure in three days whoever is wrong will instead find a new excuse. Fans of Q will rely on the original March inauguration date for the new "it's happening!".

I'm just not sure how to prove my own position wrong, except for Trump himself to tell the world who Q is. And not in coy "I know things" wording. But a real verifiable name(s).

I spent a couple of hours over there a few days ago. The energy is great. I wish thedonald could get back to that energy. There are too many doomers here. I really admire it. There was a sticky welcoming new people with lots of questions and I enjoyed reading through them.

But that said, I still don't believe any of it. A video was shared with a lot of people saying it's what convinced them. The Easter video with 'tippy-top', if you know that one.

Here's why I don't like that as 'evidence'.

1. It was the wrong speech. (How many speeches would have qualified as a response?)
2. It was the wrong phrase. (tippy-top, not tip-top) (How far from tip-top would qualify? Top of the top? Tip of the top? top of the class?)
3. It was (in context) an entirely relevant phrase to use. Get things cleaned up, ready, well running? Tip-top shape.
4. It was two months later. In a casual, small venue. (how large of a gathering qualifies? Every press briefing? If the press secretary said it, would it count?)

I'm not saying that it couldn't have been a signal, but what I'm saying is that by random chance it could also happen. Buy a new car, see everyone driving it. Look for tip-top, find tip-top.

I don't begrudge anyone who believes in Q. I only do if they use Q to ignore reality. Trust Sessions is practically a meme now. And GA.win does discuss it. But the theories are completely opposite- some say Q lied as disinfo. Some say Sessions was good, but there just for Epstein. Some say 'sessions' actually meant sessions of congress.

But those explanations only come after Sessions was revealed to be a snake. Before? Questioning Sessions was WRONG. He was placed alongside Trump in confidence.

So Q doesn't provide me with comfort. It's just wishful thinking.

I can't agree with this enough. I'm absolutely religious.

There's a real debate of facts vs faith. You can't prove, with facts, that god exists. You have to believe it on faith.

But that morphs into people looking at coincidence, chance, or faulty logic and call it 'proof'. When questioned squarely, they accuse you of being anti-god. I won't believe something just because it somewhat matches my previous beliefs.

A year ago I found out that one of my sisters is really into end-times prophesy. So much so that she is getting scared and telling everyone else to prepare for the end of days. She is otherwise quite intelligent. But every time a new youtube idiot comes out and matches current events to the bible, she's on top of it. Trump won't survive the first year in office. Trump will resign and make Pence the president. Trump will be assassinated. Trump will serve two years, Pence two more, and then....

It's all so tiring. Once you disengage your brain, any halfwit can give you a story and you'll lap it up.

Could you find it on video by chance?

Here's why posting anti-Q stuff isn't bad.

Because Q has specifically and literally led us to 'trust' people who weren't on our side.

And the left doesn't attack Q because they are afraid, they attack Q because it's an easy target, like the proud boys. "4chan conspiracy" has zero credibility to 95% of the public. EVEN IF TRUE. That's why they have doctors tell you to wear a mask, EVEN IF WRONG. The source gives it credibility.

Depending on where you live, IBC containers (275 gallon - 300gallon usually) can be had for super cheap. I'm in Arkansas and food grade IBCs are sold for $50 used. Check Craigslist.

We have two that we raise fish in. We're going to get more for water storage as well.

Do you commonly eat shit when you're wrong about something?

Seems an odd custom.

I am not a fan of Dr. Shiva.

First, he invented a protocol LIKE what we used for E-mail, and called it email. He did not invent anything ever used. He's a victim of simultaneous invention at best. He was never a part of ARPANET. He was three years old when they began networking and sending packetized info between computers.

Second, he hangs his hat on something he says he did over 40 years ago. When he was 14.

Third, why has it taken him this long to decide to do anything about big tech? Why not back when he was running as a third party spoiler candidate against Elizabeth Warren in 2018?

Is there a higher res version than 360p?

360p is a ton easier to deepfake

But 360p compression (if done after the fact) also creates a lot of the artifacts we're seeing.

Hollywood logic.

Bad guys smoke cigars, Heroes are from small towns in Kansas, and bribes are paid in red envelopes at the scene of the crime.

Stupid. The envelope is nothing.

It's never been tried and challenged in court before so nobody -really- knows in the end. If Pence says Trump won, what can they do to stop it? Call the military and hope all of them agree?

To be honest, we're in territory where the rules have been broken at every level. Going forward, the rules are what we decide to uphold.

No. I watched his source video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5gzw9PEPBU and it makes no such claim. It's the Bobby Piton / Liz Harris work we've been watching.

This is a guy taking the kind of evidence we've seen daily here and concluding that Arizona was flipped. It wasn't. Maybe he's referring to it being flipped to Biden on election night?

My take:

Christmas just happened. People's attention is elsewhere. Without attention on the election fraud, we lose. We need to keep up pressure on our elected officials.

Solution: Say the most outrageous thing you know (or are pretty sure) to be true. Get attention. Get people to look at you.

Then tell them about what matters. Get them back on track.

Win the country back.

Yeah, except the average age of death is the same as our life expectancy. So most of them are on death's door anyway. So they would have... as soon as they caught a cold. Or the flu. Or any other survivable disease.

"Everyone knows that" isn't supported by the facts.

This is why.

Average age of Covid death is around the same as our average life expectancy. Even though we normally say someone "died of old age" they almost always have a cold, or a cough, or some minor illness before they die. Should we attribute all deaths of seniors with the cold? And then because we do, should we lockdown the country based on that data and never go outside again?

The problem isn't the number. It's the fact that we don't attribute old age deaths to the common cold, but we will attribute it to Covid. Every other illness is tracked based on primary cause of death. So comparing 10K Swine Flu deaths to 250K Covid deaths is apples (Primary cause deaths) to oranges (all deaths).

I dunno, it was the last big number I heard. I don't believe any of them, so I haven't paid attention. Do you have a more accurate count?

The difference is that now cases where death occurred while having Covid are being purely classified as a Covid death. Which is partially why the average death age is so high- old people die a lot. Swine Flu wasn't politicized, so they only classified deaths that were specifically from it as a death.

If we take the 250K and take away 96% (the ones who had major comorbidities or or other issues) and we are left with 10K deaths.

Sounds about right to me.

Seems like the story spread and morphed a lot. Who knows what the truth is.

I don't think it's true, but I don't think that the denials are evidence enough to dismiss it.

It did not have to happen in person. The court convenes on Zoom or whatever, and the aide merely listens outside the door of one of the justices. You can still yell over zoom.

Not debunked, just deflected. No denials, just a change of subject.