-@TH3WH17ERABB17-Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings- PART -sIx-

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

One of the the very first things that would need to be done (other than to have a Plan) to fix a broken and corrupt system is to remove the broken and corrupt parts.

Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Page, Baker, Rybicki, Yates, Laufman, McCord, Ohr, Kortan, Carlin; go look these names up and see what they all have in common. You might also want to take a look at the list of members of congress who are not going to be seeking reelection.

Next, how do you overcome that huge mental inertia I spoke about previously?

My question is, how do you keep corrupt figures like Comey, Strzok, McCabe, Page, Baker, Rybicki, Yates, Laufman, McCord, Ohr, Kortan, and Carlin from resuming the rolls they were removed from at a future date?

I said ealier that I'm running on a one-year time line to see indictments before I lose hope. If there are prosecutable crimes there, we need to see action.

The pendulum swung way to the right under GWB, then way to the left with BHO, now way back to the right with POTUS. The pendulum will swing back agian, and it's not enough to simply remove people from positions of power and hope for the best later on.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
I would say that 80% of followers are doing 20% searching and 80% parroting at present. Hence why it's good that not too many answers are being found before Future proves Past. People will evolve to looking for more themselves over time.

The longer it goes the more there is to search and the more reliant the many become on the few to single out the important drops.

That is already happening and Q bias (both ways) has some pointing out SA, NK, and the like and others pointing out no Hillary warrant/arrest/extradition, timelines/operators in NK, no O/AK47 pic.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for your post. I am getting a bit tired so i am going to take a break and think through your post, but I liked what you had to say. I have one simple question. I read the term autist on here. Can someone define autist? Is that the same as autistic or unrelated? Also no offense meant and i apologize if my question is stupid or offensive. Its not intentional. I googled the word and it said it related to autism. And i have nothing against people with Autism. One of my friends kids is autistic and i find him fascinating.

a reply to: Skyfloating

Not sure if you've seen this about John Legend lending his voice to Google Assistant?

originally posted by: CoramDeo
I said I didn't see them, not that they didn't exist.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or twist what I'm saying.

I wasn't talking about what you saw. I was talking about Q claiming there were many. They could not make that claim unless "they" had seen them.

I noticed that you ignored my refutation that Q said the whole net would be shut down.

I didn't, I said that since the pic never surfaced that not only was the net not down but nothing needed to be censored at all.

a reply to: MRinder

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Seems he's stepping off the train soon I guess?

a reply to: MRinder

In the context of the chans and for the purposes of this discussion, an autist is any anon who has the ability singularly focus on a task to the exclusion of all else. They also tend to focus on one particular area of subject matter. They are not necessarily autistic, though I suspect many are.

I have referred to myself as an autist as have others who post regularly.

It's really more chan lingo for a dedicated and determined poster than anything else.

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Gee, I wonder why John Legend is so worried about Kanye West supporting Trump.

all right, let me try that again.

you are presenting extremely flimsy circumstantial 'evidence' as if it is definitive proof of some sort of unsavory involvement in a pedo ring. i think that's extremely dangerous territory you're on with stuff like this.

if these kinds of associations were proof of anything, the chans would have been completely shut down by now for making pedobear jokes about any and everything under the sun.

i think you also have to consider what would be the mindset that leads to making jokes like that IF the person was actually involved in that kind of thing?

you're reading far too far into those inkblots, and with stuff like this you have the real potential to ruin lives with far-fetched accusations and witch hunt mentalities.

there, hopefully THAT would be considered 'on topic'.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CoramDeo
I said I didn't see them, not that they didn't exist.

Please don't put words in my mouth, or twist what I'm saying.

I wasn't talking about what you saw. I said that Q claiming there were many. They could not make that claim unless "they" had seen them.

I noticed that you ignored my refutation that Q said the whole net would be shut down.

I didn't, I said that since the pic never surfaced that not only was the net not down but nothing needed to be censored at all.

Point taken.

Maybe we'll both be surprised at a later date.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

We were talking about that specific picture that Q said was going to surface. It never surfaced so no censorship of it took place.

Censorship of other things related to Q is something else.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: Skyfloating
Gee, I wonder why John Legend is so worried about Kanye West supporting Trump.

all right, let me try that again.

you are presenting extremely flimsy circumstantial 'evidence' as if it is definitive proof of some sort of unsavory involvement in a pedo ring. i think that's extremely dangerous territory you're on with stuff like this.

if these kinds of associations were proof of anything, the chans would have been completely shut down by now for making pedobear jokes about any and everything under the sun.

i think you also have to consider what would be the mindset that leads to making jokes like that IF the person was actually involved in that kind of thing?

you're reading far too far into those inkblots, and with stuff like this you have the real potential to ruin lives with far-fetched accusations and witch hunt mentalities.

there, hopefully THAT would be considered 'on topic'.

Na fam... there’s something wrong with CT.

The law says that John Kerry cant negotiate with Iran while out of office. And yet he does.

The law says you cant imprison a person and deny them communication without a trial and conviction. And yet, with Julian Assange they do.

The law says that if the President orders the JFK Files released unredacted, you must follow his orders. And yet, you dont.

These three examples and thousands of others shown in these threads, prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Law no longer applies. We are being ruled by people who dont care about the law, much less the will of the people.

You will not stop us from investigating, reporting and exposing those who believe themselves to be above the law.

Your attempted derailments of our research will only make us more determined.

a reply to: daskakik

There is still time. Past,Present and Future.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Worth noting that Q chose the autists not only because they singularly focus but also because they do that UNTIL THE TASK IS COMPLETED.

They're a bit like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory when gf Amy deliberately won't let him complete a task and his eyes start twitcing.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

Would I be right in thinking that in the above instance we are meant to think "Federal vs. STATE"? If so what can we infer is different in the STATE criminal system?

The only advantage I can think of in birining state charges vs federal charges is that you are now prosecuting outside of the "corrupt" organizations that you are trying to prosecute. There would possibly be less bias in the prosecutorial and investigative process.

I don't know how much seperation there is, really. I'd think there is definitely an overlap of resources, especially forensic resources, like cracking a hard drive, etc.