Q

[RonD1120 62]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:59 AM, RonD1120 said:

But...

I'll be back!

Here is a Q post to contemplate, 10 Feb.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by RonD1120

[turtlespeed 226]

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Here is a Q post to contemplate, 10 Feb.

 

Only someone that has a deep seeded desire to believe this can do so.

Critical thinking debunks most of this out of hand.

[RonD1120 62]

21 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Only someone that has a deep seeded desire to believe this can do so.

Critical thinking debunks most of this out of hand.

I never heard the term critical thinking until I saw it here. It is used ad nauseam to put down another poster.

It seems there are many definitions over the last 2500 years. I conclude that it is a method of thinking that allows the thinker to simply disregard what he does not wish to consider.

"You see what you believe is there and you believe it is there because you want it there." ~Dr David Hawkins

I use this method quite often, I just don't feel the need to express it.

[jakee 1,559]

6 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I never heard the term critical thinking until I saw it here. It is used ad nauseam to put down another poster.

Right, as opposed to your ‘ego linear thinking’. Whenever you use that phrase it’s purely constructive I’m sure.

9 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

It seems there are many definitions over the last 2500 years. I conclude that it is a method of thinking that allows the thinker to simply disregard what he does not wish to consider.

It is the exact, precise opposite. Critical thinking is evaluating any given statement or situation on its merits, whether the conclusion ends up being what you wanted or not. It literally is thinking, not wishing.

 

12 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

"You see what you believe is there and you believe it is there because you want it there." ~Dr David Hawkins

I use this method quite often, I just don't feel the need to express it.

It’s not news to anyone here that you do that a lot. But what you don’t seem to realise is that it’s not a good thing. At least if you place any value at all on truth and reality. 

[turtlespeed 226]

49 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I never heard the term critical thinking until I saw it here. It is used ad nauseam to put down another poster.

It seems there are many definitions over the last 2500 years. I conclude that it is a method of thinking that allows the thinker to simply disregard what he does not wish to consider.

"You see what you believe is there and you believe it is there because you want it there." ~Dr David Hawkins

I use this method quite often, I just don't feel the need to express it.

Critical thinking is considering all aspects of the issue and using all tools available to come to a conclusion, without letting emotions, and faith interfere.

Desperately wanting something to be true, (although, I think I read that it is arguably affective, and effective, in the quantum realm) doesnt make things true.

Just because you believe they should be a certain way doesn't mean that they are.

[mbohu 77]

On 2/11/2020 at 8:20 AM, turtlespeed said:

Only someone that has a deep seeded desire to believe this can do so.

Critical thinking debunks most of this out of hand.

I'm impressed that you can even make sense of any of this. I don't even know what any of it means, so there is nothing to debunk. It reminds me of listening to some televangelists: Not a single sentence actually means anything. They simply throw some words and phrases around that seem to trigger certain emotions and images in their follower's minds. It seems like a programming language for certain minds.

Can anyone explain in plain terms what this means, for example (just picking any random lines):

"Sometimes allowing your enemies to [openly] attack... ... ...
Logical Thinking."

Huh???? Say this to your wife 3 times and ask her if she has any idea what you just said.

[billvon 3,064]

5 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

IIt seems there are many definitions over the last 2500 years. I conclude that it is a method of thinking that allows the thinker to simply disregard what he does not wish to consider.

It is a method that requires a thinker to consider all aspects of an argument, regardless of his ego, and choose the one that is the most accurate based on available information.  It is the opposite of belief or worship.  It requires a thinker to sometimes consider that an argument that he finds personally distasteful might actually be the stronger argument, based on the evidence.

[turtlespeed 226]

8 minutes ago, mbohu said:

I'm impressed that you can even make sense of any of this. I don't even know what any of it means, so there is nothing to debunk. It reminds me of listening to some televangelists: Not a single sentence actually means anything. They simply throw some words and phrases around that seem to trigger certain emotions and images in their follower's minds. It seems like a programming language for certain minds.

Can anyone explain in plain terms what this means, for example (just picking any random lines):

"Sometimes allowing your enemies to [openly] attack... ... ...
Logical Thinking."

Huh???? Say this to your wife 3 times and ask her if she has any idea what you just said.

I choose to read it like they are supposed to be thought evoking rhetorical questions.

"Did 'mueller' open the door to . . . "

Because mueller is in single quotes (I suppose it is quotes) It is likely referring to the report not the man.

It reminds me (vaguely) of a leetspeak. 

 

[mbohu 77]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I choose to read it like they are supposed to be thought evoking rhetorical questions.

"Did 'mueller' open the door to . . . "

Because mueller is in single quotes (I suppose it is quotes) It is likely referring to the report not the man.

It reminds me (vaguely) of a leetspeak. 

 

So: "Did Muller open the door to Ukraine"

Meaning: The Ukraine investigation? Meaning: To Ukraine influencing American Politics? To someone specific in the Ukraine? Open the door to WHAT???

The most logical interpretation would be "to the Ukraine investigation", but if that is meant, then what would the problem be? The Muller investigation opened the door to dozens of side investigations, many of which resulted in very real and valid convictions. It's very common that one investigation opens the door for others--in any area of law.

If something else is meant, WHAT specifically? Again, I think the words "Muller" and "Ukraine" are just there--connected with no particular meaningful words in between--to elicit certain emotional reactions that are already pre-programmed in the people that this is meant for.

(had to look up "leetspeak"   yes, that fits somewhat. Also, what is the meaning of the brackets? The traditional meaning would be that the rest of the text is a quote and the bracketed terms are added by an editor to make the quote more understandable--but that clearly isn't the case here.)

Edited February 12, 2020 by mbohu

[turtlespeed 226]

8 minutes ago, mbohu said:

So: "Did Muller open the door to Ukraine"

Meaning: The Ukraine investigation? Meaning: To Ukraine influencing American Politics? To someone specific in the Ukraine? Open the door to WHAT???

The most logical interpretation would be "to the Ukraine investigation", but if that is meant, then what would the problem be? The Muller investigation opened the door to dozens of side investigations, many of which resulted in very real and valid convictions. It's very common that one investigation opens the door for others--in any area of law.

If something else is meant, WHAT specifically? Again, I think the words "Muller" and "Ukraine" are just there--connected with no particular meaningful words in between--to elicit certain emotional reactions that are already pre-programmed in the people that this is meant for.

(had to look up "leetspeak"   yes, that fits somewhat. Also, what is the meaning of the brackets? The traditional meaning would be that the rest of the text is a quote and the bracketed terms are added by an editor to make the quote more understandable--but that clearly isn't the case here.)

RE: Meaning - Its vague on purpose.  It means any of those things, and all of them, or perhaps something else, like Maybe Mueller is going to travel to Ukraine and visit.

RE: Logic - It's quantum logic.

RE: Brackets - They may have contained a hyperlink to something.  

 

 

[mbohu 77]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

RE: Meaning - Its vague on purpose.  It means any of those things, and all of them, or perhaps something else, like Maybe Mueller is going to travel to Ukraine and visit.

RE: Logic - It's quantum logic.

RE: Brackets - They may have contained a hyperlink to something.  

 

 

Well, it does say "Logical Thinking." right there at the end, so that clearly makes it logical--just in case we weren't sure.

[Skwrl 56]

19 hours ago, mbohu said:

I'm impressed that you can even make sense of any of this. I don't even know what any of it means, so there is nothing to debunk. It reminds me of listening to some televangelists: Not a single sentence actually means anything. They simply throw some words and phrases around that seem to trigger certain emotions and images in their follower's minds. It seems like a programming language for certain minds.

Can anyone explain in plain terms what this means, for example (just picking any random lines):

"Sometimes allowing your enemies to [openly] attack... ... ...
Logical Thinking."

Huh???? Say this to your wife 3 times and ask her if she has any idea what you just said.

It's an old trick used by charlatans who want to pretend that they're able to predict something.  It's in a similar vein to Nostradamus - a bunch of mostly nonsense phrases that you can cobble together that can be interpreted in a bunch of ways; later on, you can look back and ascribe meaning to them in light of what actually happened and pretend you predicted.

For example, imagine that one month ago, "Q" (on in this case, "S" - my super secret top clearance that nobody knows existed and totally not just a random letter I picked to make myself seem cool) wrote:  

Red beats Blue
1+1 = disaster
Empty fish

They're all non-sense, right? (They are because I just asked my daughter to come up with three non-sense phrases without any idea what I was writing about and she came up with those three.)  Except later on, you apply your "future proves past" (one of their dumb catch phrases) decoder ring.

Then you go back and use all sorts of crazy "logic" to try to ascribe meaning to them.  Maybe 1+1 = disaster is "Kobe Bryant (1) and his daughter (1) died in a helicopter crash". (Ignoring, you know, the other folks on the crash.) Or maybe they'd say that Bernie won 1 primary and Buttigieg (I can never remember how to spell his name without looking it up) won 1 caucus.  (Even though Pete didn't - the Qultists are notorious for getting actual facts wrong, too.)  Maybe "empty fish" means (I just Googled "fish"), yesterday they just found the world's largest fish in an (empty) cave in India!   Or maybe it means the fish markets in China are empty due to coronavirus.  Maybe they'd say "red beats blue" means that the 49ers (from a blue state) lose to the Chiefs (from a Red state).  Or whatever other meaning you want to ascribe to it.  It's a classic psychological trick called "confirmation bias" - you see what you want to see.

The trick is that you make it vague enough that it could mean anything.  Then you can try to ascribe meaning to it.  Sometimes, they'll ascribe actual history to one part, and then use that "actual history" to "prove" the rest.  (It's not real proof, though, at least not in the English language sense.)   So, in my example, you might say, "red beats blue means the Chiefs win, and they did, so therefore the 1+1 means that the Deep State killed Kobe Bryant.  Of course! 

Even when you get it wrong, you can use one of their other arguments: "disinformation is necessary" (in other words, there *have* to be errors in the Q drops because...  well, nobody can explain why).  If it was a military mission, you wouldn't publish any details (they hang you for that!).  If Ron can read the Q drops, so can Hillary.  You wouldn't announce your actions.

When Q *does* make predictions, they are either stuff from the headlines that any reasonable person would probably know (which for some gives the prediction more credibility, even though any idiot could say it) or they're hilariously wrong.  Because Q's posts involve things that are either currently in the news or frequently in the news, there is a high probability that something will happen involving those things in the very near future. For example, there is a scandal within the Catholic Church every other month; if somebody predicts that there will be a scandal in the Catholic Church within the next month or two, there is an extremely high probability that this prediction will come true.  That's not predictive, that's just obvious.

But Q almost always gets it wrong.  Hillary is in prison, arrested by the "white hats", her passport revoked, etc. was one of their earliest.  I just Googled her and she seems to be floating around the country and the world just fine.  (On that one, they sometimes say the person out there now is a paid actor or - my personal favorite because it shows how little they understand science - a clone.)  Leaving one to wonder why they'd want the actor running around doing the exact same things that Hillary does...   Martial law imposed with a long since past deadline is another. The predictions on the Nunes memo completely wrong.  The list of their blown predictions spans multiple pages, which is why Q tries to be a little more cryptic these days, so they can mean anything.

Here, I'll make my own Q drop.   We can come back next month and talk about how I must be privy to some secret information:

Rockets [red] glare
The Old man falls down
Follow the money
Brave and boisterous 
Rocket man at the bank

Come back in one month and you'll see how I predicted everything of importance in the next month.

Maybe I'll get Ron posting about my posts when I get some of these write.  Maybe *I* am the one, true Q. 
 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Skwrl

[turtlespeed 226]

2 hours ago, Skwrl said:

It's an old trick used by charlatans who want to pretend that they're able to predict something.  It's in a similar vein to Nostradamus - a bunch of mostly nonsense phrases that you can cobble together that can be interpreted in a bunch of ways; later on, you can look back and ascribe meaning to them in light of what actually happened and pretend you predicted.

For example, imagine that one month ago, "Q" (on in this case, "S" - my super secret top clearance that nobody knows existed and totally not just a random letter I picked to make myself seem cool) wrote:  

Red beats Blue
1+1 = disaster
Empty fish

They're all non-sense, right? (They are because I just asked my daughter to come up with three non-sense phrases without any idea what I was writing about and she came up with those three.)  Except later on, you apply your "future proves past" (one of their dumb catch phrases) decoder ring.

Then you go back and use all sorts of crazy "logic" to try to ascribe meaning to them.  Maybe 1+1 = disaster is "Kobe Bryant (1) and his daughter (1) died in a helicopter crash". (Ignoring, you know, the other folks on the crash.) Or maybe they'd say that Bernie won 1 primary and Buttigieg (I can never remember how to spell his name without looking it up) won 1 caucus.  (Even though Pete didn't - the Qultists are notorious for getting actual facts wrong, too.)  Maybe "empty fish" means (I just Googled "fish"), yesterday they just found the world's largest fish in an (empty) cave in India!   Or maybe it means the fish markets in China are empty due to coronavirus.  Maybe they'd say "red beats blue" means that the 49ers (from a blue state) lose to the Chiefs (from a Red state).  Or whatever other meaning you want to ascribe to it.  It's a classic psychological trick called "confirmation bias" - you see what you want to see.

The trick is that you make it vague enough that it could mean anything.  Then you can try to ascribe meaning to it.  Sometimes, they'll ascribe actual history to one part, and then use that "actual history" to "prove" the rest.  (It's not real proof, though, at least not in the English language sense.)   So, in my example, you might say, "red beats blue means the Chiefs win, and they did, so therefore the 1+1 means that the Deep State killed Kobe Bryant.  Of course! 

Even when you get it wrong, you can use one of their other arguments: "disinformation is necessary" (in other words, there *have* to be errors in the Q drops because...  well, nobody can explain why).  If it was a military mission, you wouldn't publish any details (they hang you for that!).  If Ron can read the Q drops, so can Hillary.  You wouldn't announce your actions.

When Q *does* make predictions, they are either stuff from the headlines that any reasonable person would probably know (which for some gives the prediction more credibility, even though any idiot could say it) or they're hilariously wrong.  Because Q's posts involve things that are either currently in the news or frequently in the news, there is a high probability that something will happen involving those things in the very near future. For example, there is a scandal within the Catholic Church every other month; if somebody predicts that there will be a scandal in the Catholic Church within the next month or two, there is an extremely high probability that this prediction will come true.  That's not predictive, that's just obvious.

But Q almost always gets it wrong.  Hillary is in prison, arrested by the "white hats", her passport revoked, etc. was one of their earliest.  I just Googled her and she seems to be floating around the country and the world just fine.  (On that one, they sometimes say the person out there now is a paid actor or - my personal favorite because it shows how little they understand science - a clone.)  Leaving one to wonder why they'd want the actor running around doing the exact same things that Hillary does...   Martial law imposed with a long since past deadline is another. The predictions on the Nunes memo completely wrong.  The list of their blown predictions spans multiple pages, which is why Q tries to be a little more cryptic these days, so they can mean anything.

Here, I'll make my own Q drop.   We can come back next month and talk about how I must be privy to some secret information:

Rockets [red] glare
The Old man falls down
Follow the money
Brave and boisterous 
Rocket man at the bank

Come back in one month and you'll see how I predicted everything of importance in the next month.

Maybe I'll get Ron posting about my posts when I get some of these write.  Maybe *I* am the one, true Q. 
 

You ARE?!

 

[yoink 321]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You ARE?!

 

No! I'm Q! And so's my wife!

 

Can't ever turn down a good Life of Brian quote.

Edited February 13, 2020 by yoink

[mbohu 77]

16 hours ago, Skwrl said:

It's an old trick used by charlatans who want to pretend that they're able to predict something.  It's in a similar vein to Nostradamus - a bunch of mostly nonsense phrases that you can cobble together that can be interpreted in a bunch of ways; later on, you can look back and ascribe meaning to them in light of what actually happened and pretend you predicted.

For example, imagine that one month ago, "Q" (on in this case, "S" - my super secret top clearance that nobody knows existed and totally not just a random letter I picked to make myself seem cool) wrote:  

Red beats Blue
1+1 = disaster
Empty fish

They're all non-sense, right? (They are because I just asked my daughter to come up with three non-sense phrases without any idea what I was writing about and she came up with those three.)  Except later on, you apply your "future proves past" (one of their dumb catch phrases) decoder ring.

Then you go back and use all sorts of crazy "logic" to try to ascribe meaning to them.  Maybe 1+1 = disaster is "Kobe Bryant (1) and his daughter (1) died in a helicopter crash". (Ignoring, you know, the other folks on the crash.) Or maybe they'd say that Bernie won 1 primary and Buttigieg (I can never remember how to spell his name without looking it up) won 1 caucus.  (Even though Pete didn't - the Qultists are notorious for getting actual facts wrong, too.)  Maybe "empty fish" means (I just Googled "fish"), yesterday they just found the world's largest fish in an (empty) cave in India!   Or maybe it means the fish markets in China are empty due to coronavirus.  Maybe they'd say "red beats blue" means that the 49ers (from a blue state) lose to the Chiefs (from a Red state).  Or whatever other meaning you want to ascribe to it.  It's a classic psychological trick called "confirmation bias" - you see what you want to see.

The trick is that you make it vague enough that it could mean anything.  Then you can try to ascribe meaning to it.  Sometimes, they'll ascribe actual history to one part, and then use that "actual history" to "prove" the rest.  (It's not real proof, though, at least not in the English language sense.)   So, in my example, you might say, "red beats blue means the Chiefs win, and they did, so therefore the 1+1 means that the Deep State killed Kobe Bryant.  Of course! 

Even when you get it wrong, you can use one of their other arguments: "disinformation is necessary" (in other words, there *have* to be errors in the Q drops because...  well, nobody can explain why).  If it was a military mission, you wouldn't publish any details (they hang you for that!).  If Ron can read the Q drops, so can Hillary.  You wouldn't announce your actions.

When Q *does* make predictions, they are either stuff from the headlines that any reasonable person would probably know (which for some gives the prediction more credibility, even though any idiot could say it) or they're hilariously wrong.  Because Q's posts involve things that are either currently in the news or frequently in the news, there is a high probability that something will happen involving those things in the very near future. For example, there is a scandal within the Catholic Church every other month; if somebody predicts that there will be a scandal in the Catholic Church within the next month or two, there is an extremely high probability that this prediction will come true.  That's not predictive, that's just obvious.

But Q almost always gets it wrong.  Hillary is in prison, arrested by the "white hats", her passport revoked, etc. was one of their earliest.  I just Googled her and she seems to be floating around the country and the world just fine.  (On that one, they sometimes say the person out there now is a paid actor or - my personal favorite because it shows how little they understand science - a clone.)  Leaving one to wonder why they'd want the actor running around doing the exact same things that Hillary does...   Martial law imposed with a long since past deadline is another. The predictions on the Nunes memo completely wrong.  The list of their blown predictions spans multiple pages, which is why Q tries to be a little more cryptic these days, so they can mean anything.

Here, I'll make my own Q drop.   We can come back next month and talk about how I must be privy to some secret information:

Rockets [red] glare
The Old man falls down
Follow the money
Brave and boisterous 
Rocket man at the bank

Come back in one month and you'll see how I predicted everything of importance in the next month.

Maybe I'll get Ron posting about my posts when I get some of these write.  Maybe *I* am the one, true Q. 
 

Nice explanation. And I would just add that the entire purpose of the Q posts is not just to make predictions  (as in Nostradamus' case) BUT to push a certain political agenda and stoke strong emotions into a very specific direction.
So, in addition to being vague and non-sensical, they have to include certain keywords or phrases that have emotional meaning, while not tying them down to any specifics.

So there will be lots of "Hillary" and "the Media" and "Kabal" and "child pornography" (what better topic to stir the emotions?) and, of course referring to Obama as "Hussein"--an absolute classic: Makes your blood boil by just seeing the name--if you are of the right persuasion. Everything else after that just HAS to be true, since at that point your frontal lobe has shut down and the limbic system is in overdrive.

[RonD1120 62]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:15 AM, Skwrl said:

It's an old trick used by charlatans who want to pretend that they're able to predict something.  It's in a similar vein to Nostradamus - a bunch of mostly nonsense phrases that you can cobble together that can be interpreted in a bunch of ways; later on, you can look back and ascribe meaning to them in light of what actually happened and pretend you predicted.

For example, imagine that one month ago, "Q" (on in this case, "S" - my super secret top clearance that nobody knows existed and totally not just a random letter I picked to make myself seem cool) wrote:  

Red beats Blue
1+1 = disaster
Empty fish

They're all non-sense, right? (They are because I just asked my daughter to come up with three non-sense phrases without any idea what I was writing about and she came up with those three.)  Except later on, you apply your "future proves past" (one of their dumb catch phrases) decoder ring.

Then you go back and use all sorts of crazy "logic" to try to ascribe meaning to them.  Maybe 1+1 = disaster is "Kobe Bryant (1) and his daughter (1) died in a helicopter crash". (Ignoring, you know, the other folks on the crash.) Or maybe they'd say that Bernie won 1 primary and Buttigieg (I can never remember how to spell his name without looking it up) won 1 caucus.  (Even though Pete didn't - the Qultists are notorious for getting actual facts wrong, too.)  Maybe "empty fish" means (I just Googled "fish"), yesterday they just found the world's largest fish in an (empty) cave in India!   Or maybe it means the fish markets in China are empty due to coronavirus.  Maybe they'd say "red beats blue" means that the 49ers (from a blue state) lose to the Chiefs (from a Red state).  Or whatever other meaning you want to ascribe to it.  It's a classic psychological trick called "confirmation bias" - you see what you want to see.

The trick is that you make it vague enough that it could mean anything.  Then you can try to ascribe meaning to it.  Sometimes, they'll ascribe actual history to one part, and then use that "actual history" to "prove" the rest.  (It's not real proof, though, at least not in the English language sense.)   So, in my example, you might say, "red beats blue means the Chiefs win, and they did, so therefore the 1+1 means that the Deep State killed Kobe Bryant.  Of course! 

Even when you get it wrong, you can use one of their other arguments: "disinformation is necessary" (in other words, there *have* to be errors in the Q drops because...  well, nobody can explain why).  If it was a military mission, you wouldn't publish any details (they hang you for that!).  If Ron can read the Q drops, so can Hillary.  You wouldn't announce your actions.

When Q *does* make predictions, they are either stuff from the headlines that any reasonable person would probably know (which for some gives the prediction more credibility, even though any idiot could say it) or they're hilariously wrong.  Because Q's posts involve things that are either currently in the news or frequently in the news, there is a high probability that something will happen involving those things in the very near future. For example, there is a scandal within the Catholic Church every other month; if somebody predicts that there will be a scandal in the Catholic Church within the next month or two, there is an extremely high probability that this prediction will come true.  That's not predictive, that's just obvious.

But Q almost always gets it wrong.  Hillary is in prison, arrested by the "white hats", her passport revoked, etc. was one of their earliest.  I just Googled her and she seems to be floating around the country and the world just fine.  (On that one, they sometimes say the person out there now is a paid actor or - my personal favorite because it shows how little they understand science - a clone.)  Leaving one to wonder why they'd want the actor running around doing the exact same things that Hillary does...   Martial law imposed with a long since past deadline is another. The predictions on the Nunes memo completely wrong.  The list of their blown predictions spans multiple pages, which is why Q tries to be a little more cryptic these days, so they can mean anything.

Here, I'll make my own Q drop.   We can come back next month and talk about how I must be privy to some secret information:

Rockets [red] glare
The Old man falls down
Follow the money
Brave and boisterous 
Rocket man at the bank

Come back in one month and you'll see how I predicted everything of importance in the next month.

Maybe I'll get Ron posting about my posts when I get some of these write.  Maybe *I* am the one, true Q. 
 

I am impressed!

[RonD1120 62]

10 hours ago, mbohu said:

Nice explanation. And I would just add that the entire purpose of the Q posts is not just to make predictions  (as in Nostradamus' case) BUT to push a certain political agenda and stoke strong emotions into a very specific direction.
So, in addition to being vague and non-sensical, they have to include certain keywords or phrases that have emotional meaning, while not tying them down to any specifics.

So there will be lots of "Hillary" and "the Media" and "Kabal" and "child pornography" (what better topic to stir the emotions?) and, of course referring to Obama as "Hussein"--an absolute classic: Makes your blood boil by just seeing the name--if you are of the right persuasion. Everything else after that just HAS to be true, since at that point your frontal lobe has shut down and the limbic system is in overdrive.

Also good!

[normiss 848]

I'm curious how this Q nonsense will report more failed Trump disinformation efforts.

DOJ drops case against former FBI Acting Director

He didn't do anything wrong, nothing to investigate, wasted 2 years.

I hope his lawsuit against the government for fucking up his retirement pension is VERY successful.

[JerryBaumchen 1,429]

3 hours ago, normiss said:

I hope his lawsuit against the government for fucking up his retirement pension is VERY successful.

Hi Mark,

I doubt it will ever see the inside of a courtroom.  They'll do some type of 'reconsider' and give him his full pension.

I've seen the feds do this many times.

Jerry Baumchen

Edited February 14, 2020 by JerryBaumchen

[RonD1120 62]

52 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mark,

I doubt it will ever see the inside of a courtroom.  They do so type of 'reconsider' and give him his full pension.

I've seen the feds do this many times.

Jerry Baumchen

In return for full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 

Patriots in control

[billvon 3,064]

2 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

In return for full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 

The LAST thing any Trump supporter wants is full cooperation in any investigation.

[normiss 848]

7 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

In return for full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 

Patriots in control

The "investigation" is over, there is no there there.

As usual with Trump's insane attempts at false accusations.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

7 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

In return for full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 

Patriots in control

What 'ongoing investigation' would that be, Ron?

McCabe was fired 2 days before becoming eligible for his pension.

After getting fired, The Mango Mussolini tweeted numerous attacks and lies about him.
It was abundantly clear that the firing and subsequent threats of prosecution for 'leaking' were nothing more than Trump's attempts at revenge. 

[billvon 3,064]

7 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

 

The Q conspiracy took a huge blow today from the unpleasant world of reality.  The conspiracy has long held that there is a vast deep state that is making people gay, forcing gas to be expensive and making white supremacists look racist.  And certainly, holding back stable patriot geniuses like Trump from making America great again.  Now that Trump is in control, his justice department (so Q claims) will take Hillary's passport and arrest her, expose the evil deep state and put all those people in prison where they belong.

None of that happening has, of course, been a big blow to begin with.  An even bigger blow came in December, when the Trump justice department released a 500-page report on the things that Trump said were driven by the deep state - things like the investigation into his collusion with Russia to swing the election.  And Trump's justice department concluded that . . . there was no wrongdoing.  In fact they faulted the FBI for not investigating more than it did.

The report said that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” to start a “sensitive investigative matter.” The FBI’s use of confidential sources was appropriate, and there is no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” played a role in the case.

Dang.  That was pretty much Q's entire claim.  And this isn't some liberal organization all hung up on justice and rights - this was Trump's justice department.

But until today, they had hopes that they could lynch Andrew McCabe, one of the people Q claimed was one of the ringleaders of the deep state.  And again - the Trump justice department dropped the investigation, claiming that "the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against  . . .Andrew G. McCabe.  Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the Government at this time, we consider the matter closed."

So no jail time.  They couldn't even get an _indictment_ much less a guilty plea.  And again, this isn't Planned Parenthood or a Tesla-driving granola muncher.  This is the Trump justice department who couldn't even find anything to charge McCabe with.

This leaves Q in a difficult position.  Does that nutcase now decide that the Trump justice department is part of the Deep State?  Or that the Deep State just plain won?  Or that TRUMP is part of the Deep State?  

It's a bad day to be a Qer.

[yoink 321]

It’s all a smokescreen to protect the REAL Q channels. They’ve deliberately sacrificed their own in order to beat the deep state. 
 

It’s all part of the plan... that will be described later... IF you can understand the drops. And have the secret decoder ring.

You’d understand that if you were a patriot, Bill.