The TRAP Is SET!---R.I.P. Democrat Party 2018

originally posted by: Saiker
The conspiracy theorist in me says its all planned and the American people are beingly intentionally led to one-party rule.
Admittedly, Im a Trump supporter and everything he has done so far is for the betterment of our country, but hidden in the statement
"You're going to be tired of winning" may bring upon us a time in the future where the party of war and fewer freedoms in the name of national defense becomes a clear and present danger. The alternative is to embrace a party that has gone over the cliffs of insanity and that's not an option.


Don't attack me its a conspiracy site and I didn't bad mouth trump.

I really don't want 1-party rule. You can see how it's worked in China, Cuba, and absolutely everywhere else it has existed.

But by now it is plain to see that the leaders of the Democratic Party do not love America, and are hell-bent on destroying it. That's why I'm hoping the Democratic Party splinters, with the more moderate members starting new parties.

a reply to: intrepid

That got a chuckle out of me

a reply to: six67seven

FINE, fine... it's linked to "Q" (I actually have no idea) There, now everyone can move on to discussing the theory itself and not it's origin FFS. Ya know... the meat and potatoes??!!

Sure.

SO.... I'm just dying to hear your thoughts on the theory

It's a theory concocted by some random dude on the internet that does not appear to based on any real factual evidence, but instead a conspiracy theory rooted in the postings of another anonymous person on the internet that has become known as "Q".

There are some sick people in this world, and some of those sick people have no shame in theorizing that their political enemies are engaging in disgusting acts with children. As if that somehow validated their own political ideologies.

I don't know who Q is. What it is or what was said. I'm sure I'm not alone in not giving a # about it. So why is this ridiculous argument going on?

a reply to: introvert

You said, you provided proof -

"I did. I provided a link to the "Q" thread in which the OP posted this "theory" and then deleted it to make it a thread of it's own."

So it seems like you are saying that because it was posted there first, it must be specific to Q. The Q drops cover many different conspiracy theories, should we not discuss any of them outside of that thread either?

Have you never read something in a thread that either
A)Was not relevant to the thread
B)Was interesting/thoughtful enough to deserve its own thread.

OK, you've moved the goal posts now, but that's fine I was waiting for that.

So now you are saying, that because it is related to human trafficking, rather than because he posted it there first, is why this is related to Q?

That's your "proof" now....

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't know who Q is. What it is or what was said. I'm sure I'm not alone in not giving a # about it. So why is this ridiculous argument going on?

Similar theories have been pushed by the "Q" cult for quite some time now.

The Democrats/Left have many in their ranks that are engaging in vile acts with children/trafficking. Ms-13 is also part of some of those "theories".

It's very similar to pizzagate, except they are being a bit smarter this time and trying to keep it under wraps a bit better so they can discuss it without being shut down.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I agree. Too much of anything is never good.

Honest opposition is always healthy.

Hopefully we get more of that in the future.

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

So it seems like you are saying that because it was posted there first, it must be specific to Q.

The "Storm" is a vital part of the "Q" theories. This thread seems to be a continuation of that. I've asked if the OP had other info in which they were informed on this topic, and the OP has never provided anything to suggest otherwise.

The Q drops cover many different conspiracy theories, should we not discuss any of them outside of that thread either?

That is your choice. I don't care and that's a rather ridiculous question to ask.

OK, you've moved the goal posts now, but that's fine I was waiting for that. So now you are saying, that because it is related to human trafficking, rather than because he posted it there first, is why this is related to Q? That's your "proof" now....

I said no such thing. You're not making much sense.

a reply to: intrepid

This argument is going on because people are using anything that could be tenuously related to Q as a way to discredit posters, their thoughts and the discussions of others.

I have seen threads shut down because it had Q mentioned in the last sentence, then be remade without the last sentence and left up - bloody absurd.

I have seen threads closed because they became about discussing Q (ironic, coming from me right now, I know, but this is the mudpit so f it) rather than the topic.

When I see a poster come into a thread that they don't agree with and IMMEDIATELY bring up Q, with no reason to do so, without making ANY effort at all to respond to the thread, I think it should be very obvious what they are trying to do.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't know who Q is. What it is or what was said. I'm sure I'm not alone in not giving a # about it. So why is this ridiculous argument going on?

Similar theories have been pushed by the "Q" cult for quite some time now.

Not a direct theory, as you are claiming. So can we get on with this? Or is more character assassination in order for the OP?

a reply to: IAMTAT

^

I point out this trap...with full knowledge that the Left will only arrogantly return ridicule and denial.

well predicted sir!

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

When I see a poster come into a thread that they don't agree with and IMMEDIATELY bring up Q, with no reason to do so, without making ANY effort at all to respond to the thread, I think it should be very obvious what they are trying to do.

Come to find out, I was correct. It was a "Q" thing.

I even provided a link.

Seems to me that you guys are becoming embarrassed to be connected to the "Q" stuff.

Which is good.

That "Q" garbage is an embarrassment to ATS, the conspiracy community and decent people in general.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: underwerks
I’m just putting this out there, and I’m sure it’ll be roundly dismissed as crazy like most of my comments, but how about we stop looking to groups bigger than ourselves to define us as individuals?

Has this two party trash heap really led us down a better road? Ever? All I see is people being tricked into believing that other Americans are the enemy. The real winner of any civil conflict will undoubtedly be the state, that much you can be assured of.

So why fight your own countrymen just to further empower the state that you claim to be fighting against?

Absolutely. All politics are identity politics now. All the media needs to do with use certain keywords that trigger (in the actual sense of the term) appropriate reactions based on fake identities.

The majority of us who are not in the extremes need to stand up and stop this stupidity.

I’m probably going to catch some heat for this, but I heard Jordan Peterson say something the other day that stuck with me and is relevant for the conflict giddy members in this thread.

Paraphrased: “Realize you are capable of evil. You are capable of becoming a Nazi prison guard. Evil isn’t just something that exists in the people you disagree with politically.”

I think people need to take a step back and reevaluate what has led them up to the point of wanting war in this country over politics. It’s foolish. And only serves to give the real enemies of the American people more power over all of us.

Left or right, if you’re trying to control my life through government, you’re on the same side to me.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't know who Q is. What it is or what was said. I'm sure I'm not alone in not giving a # about it. So why is this ridiculous argument going on?

Similar theories have been pushed by the "Q" cult for quite some time now.

Not a direct theory, as you are claiming.

It's all connected. Child trafficking and such is a vital part of the "Q" "thing".

That is exactly what the "storm" is.

So can we get on with this?

Sure.

Or is more character assassination in order for the OP?

Someone that is willing to accuse others, or even propose theories about child trafficking and such without evidence deserves to get kicked in the balls.

They have their own thread to do such things where they are protected by the mods. Why bring that # out here?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner


That "Q" garbage is an embarrassment to ATS, the conspiracy community and decent people in general.

I dunno. I think it's more embarrassing to be seen as a self appointed gatekeeper of free expression.

I'm sure everyone here is really appreciative of your efforts to decide what they should be able to read and discuss.

a reply to: introvert

So your problem is with the staff then. Take it up with them.

And you are insulting people that read these theories. You know we have brains and can figure out what's what? I don't need you to tell me what I think about this.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner


That "Q" garbage is an embarrassment to ATS, the conspiracy community and decent people in general.

I dunno. I think it's more embarrassing to be seen as a self appointed gatekeeper of free expression.

I'm sure everyone here is really appreciative of your efforts to decide what they should be able to read and discuss.

You kidding me? You excuse the disgusting slandering going on in that thread for free speech?

We have had new members come in there and accuse the 3 amigos of horrific things and then do the same on their pathetic little twitter feeds with their warped immoral twitter friends

a reply to: loam

I dunno. I think it's more embarrassing to be seen as a self appointed gatekeeper of free expression. I'm sure everyone here is really appreciative of your efforts to decide what they should be able to read and discuss.

Where did I say people could not read or discuss what they want?

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Are we talking about THAT thread or THIS one?

a reply to: intrepid

So your problem is with the staff then. Take it up with them.

If they are the one's perpetuating theories about acts against children, I would gladly do so.

It appears that the members are doing that.

And you are insulting people that read these theories.

Where did I do that?

You know we have brains and can figure out what's what? I don't need you to tell me what I think about this.

I do not know what you think about this, nor did I tell you what to think.