TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -12-

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: Quadrivium

If I am ever in any trouble, I sure do hope I get the chance for only 2 questions during a polygraph ..... I have never heard of such a thing! A two question polygraph?

And the handwritten note looks like it was written by a 4th grader.

Also make sure it is taken on the day your close relative dies , so you are an emotional zombie. I would think anyone could pass a polygraph after being emotionally drained like that.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
besides "q" having to change and alter their post after the news happens...

If this "Kavanaugh controversy" is "fake" like "q" allegedly states, has "q" ever said why they didn't do the same thing with Gorsuch?

Because Kavanaugh potentially alters the balance of power on the court.

For most of our lifetimes, the court has been a 4-4-1 set of votes, with four votes being understood as leftist, four votes being understood as more Constitutionalist, and one so-called "swing" vote.

When Scalia died and Gorsuch was put up to replace him, it was understood that the balance of the court would not likely be changing, same as when Kagan and Sotomayor were put up to replace their respective justices ... Roberts and Alito even went in.

Sure there was sturm and drang, but ultimately everyone knew things would stay the same.

But this time, Kennedy is a swing vote and everyone assumes that Trump will put someone more in the Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas mold up to replace him. If that pans out to be true, then the court ends up more 5-4 instead of 4-4-1. That's why they're doing this and going so far. They rely in part on legislating through the courts when the actual legislative branches don't work to their advantage understanding the very few cases make it to SCOTUS, and when those do, it's a 50/50 shot that they'll win a national precedent for every state because of the 4-4-1 structure of the justices' jurisprudence.

EDIT**

And if you think *this* is howling and unusually bad ... wait to see what it will look if Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies and Trump picks someone to replace her. Do you think he'll pick someone in her judicial philosophy? I'm guessing he's saving Amy Coney Barrett for that occasion.

a reply to: pavil

Well, not only that, but if she is in fact, afraid to fly - one would expect that some type of medication would be in order to assist with that.

Soo..... is it possible she was also under the influence of a calming medication?

a reply to: ketsuko

This is the best, and most articulated explanations I have read concerning the impact of this BK confirmation.

I shall steal it to give to friends and family ......

All kudos to you my friend

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yes, I agree and hope for the same.

Was watching the video from the lady that does the body languish analysis and agreed with her saying that the prosecutor gave her the rope needed.

I struggle to understand how she got to the location to have poly taken, when she was too afraid to fly for the hearing.

Also of suspect is the fact that there is very little coming out about ford, and little to be found on the social media type sites, that I am aware of anyways..... so with the idea that they had the letter in July, and it's now September, that is what.... 3 months that all things negative about their star accuser could be scrubbed from existence off the webz...

And you know that she was at least on stoogebook because didn't she say something about seeing her friend post something that gave her the 'whatever' to say something to her friend about her traumatic experience as a teen?

It is coming out. She is a C_A stooge. Connections between DF husband and Palo Alto. The ugly picture is forming... Ill see if I can link here

Added:
Here is one link conservativedailypost.com...

twitter.com...

www.spreely.com...-GFD6j38.facebook

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: pavil

Well, not only that, but if she is in fact, afraid to fly - one would expect that some type of medication would be in order to assist with that.

Soo..... is it possible she was also under the influence of a calming medication?

To me, it seems obvious from her testimony that she is medicated with some type of anti deppresents. The way she acted was identical to someone I know who takes anti depressents/ anti psychotics. The fog of those drugs on a person is hard to miss.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: pavil

And James Woods is still banned.

What did he say to get banned?

It was for a rather benign meme.

You can see it HERE.

That's it? For mocking Soy Boys. Good Lord.

But the left can stalk people in real life in the name of "Social Justice"?

They need to grow some balls and stop drinking the estrogen.

As you can guess, I don't post much on twitter. I just have an account to read things easier there.

From @Jack himself:

"We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially," he continued. "We do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology. In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform."

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Thanks for the links and the info, not through it all yet, but what strikes me is that I was immediately hit with the recollection of Q post 1630 regarding therapists.

Not sure why or what that connection might be, but it seems to be a screaming meany in my head right now

uhm, not sure what happened when trying to quote.... I shall try again......


Ketsuko said:

And if you think *this* is howling and unusually bad ... wait to see what it will look if Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies and Trump picks someone to replace her. Do you think he'll pick someone in her judicial philosophy? I'm guessing he's saving Amy Coney Barrett for that occasion.

Chatter is that the dems already have a play against her.... my understanding is that they have a play against all of the picks on POTUS list for SC.

Maybe he should go off script and pick someone they are not expecting and that they haven't had time to plan against.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: imthegoat

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Skyfloating

You cant be an athiest and satanist at the same time. Athiests believe in no god.

Not all satanists worship satan and a deity. So why not? Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s).

Atheism is the belief that there is no higher power.

That doesn't exclude a "lower" power.

Atheim is the disbalief or lack belief in a God or gods. That's the definition. Deities are gods/goddesses. Again, not all satanists worship satan as a deity. It might be on a technicality, but you surely could be an atheist and satanist at the same time.

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: doobydoll

That IS an interesting theory. And I sure do hope it plays out.

I have had the thought from the beginning that POTUS knew about this play before choosing BK, and that he chose him specifically to bring something to light.

I just don't know what exactly what that would be, and cringe at the thought of how utterly shameful this whole confirmation has been.

'Trust the Plan'

All this is in the Plan.

a reply to: pavil
She was very strange indeed, I couldn't watch her testimony.... the voice just grated on me.... for me, it completely destroyed any credibility she may have had .....

and the fact that now idiotstreammedia is saying BK is a rapist because he was "scary" when he fought back against the allegations against him are just ludicrous! I would have been very confused and questioned more if he had NOT fought back as he did....

and if they think his "speech" was scary, I sure hope none of them are ever around when I get angry or defensive. Dude was super mild mannered in my eyes.

a reply to: Jusvistn

Not sure why or what that connection might be, but it seems to be a screaming meany in my head right now

pando.com...

www.theguardian.com...

theintercept.com...

The "devil" made them do it...

Kennedy was right in destroying the C-A

originally posted by: doobydoll
Interesting theory/idea . ..

We can dream!
But hey, Trump has been VERY calm through all of this.......
Then again so have the black hats.
Not much chatter from Killery and Obama either.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yea, but I keep going back to the idea that THIS particular "Dr." is somehow something more than a stunted traumatized adult..... and that the Qpost is related .... But I can't get my head around how.

I do believe at some point in her childhood Mrs. Ford may have been sexually assaulted.

Is it possible it was by another person?

Brett and Mark are very common names. With all the holes in her memory it is possible, when introduced, they only gave first names?

Did they ever release the names of the other two guys that came forward, the ones that said they were in the room with her?

Brett and Mark?

I wonder why nothing was ever said about them?

Perhaps they were holding their information back until an FBI investigation gets started just to make the Dems look even more foolish?

OR

Just to keep the Dems asking for an investigation that they knew wouldn't find anything on Kavanaugh but would find a load of dirt on the Dems?

I honestly believe she read Mark's memoirs and lifted the bit about him working at Safeway to get the date, 1982. I don't think she ever saw him there.

I really want to believe she was a victim of something, by someone, because I hate thinking people could or would be so vile as to ruin a mans life the way she has.

Facts are facts though, she can not remember any major parts of her story and as I said she may have lifted the date from the memoirs.

I don't know......
Just thinking out loud so to speak.

a reply to: doobydoll

More to the point, why would the question be "is your statement false" rather than just ask her about the underlying facts of the event? LIke, "have you ever been in the same room as Kav?" or "Did Kav ever touch your on your b#?"

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Jusvistn
a reply to: Quadrivium

If I am ever in any trouble, I sure do hope I get the chance for only 2 questions during a polygraph ..... I have never heard of such a thing! A two question polygraph?

And the handwritten note looks like it was written by a 4th grader.

Also make sure it is taken on the day your close relative dies , so you are an emotional zombie. I would think anyone could pass a polygraph after being emotionally drained like that.

Offering up an excuse, unsolicited, to me is an indicator that the person knows the results aren't favorable. Like complaining you hurt your elbow to your friends before you tee off on a round of golf, making excuses just in case.

a reply to: doobydoll

Strange she didn't use her last name "Ford" when signing that.

Hmmmm

She must have "forgot".

💥💯💥

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
a reply to: doobydoll

More to the point, why would the question be "is your statement false" rather than just ask her about the underlying facts of the event? LIke, "have you ever been in the same room as Kav?" or "Did Kav ever touch your on your b#?"

To me, that doesn't make any sense.

What if the statement they asked her about wasn't the statement we are seeing?

What if her statement was something like:
"My cat has whiskers".

"Is any part of your statement false?" No

"Did you make up any part of your statement?" No