- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
- Messages
- 16,097
Cool story and I think you're likely correct on the last part.
About 167 days and the UFO stuff will need to be discussed in depth. Until then get an ava.
-
Support our Community
We're proud to offer an ad-free experience and valuable content thanks to the support of our TFSF members. If you enjoy what we do and want to help us continue providing the best experience, consider joining our Patreon
For $15 a month, you can help us cover costs, support growth, and ensure we keep having fun!
Your support makes a difference. Thank you!
Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens
- Thread starter Bryan74b
- Start date
Master Threads
About 167 days and the UFO stuff will need to be discussed in depth. Until then get an ava.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 135
Suck it Mark!
Facebook sees $34 billion erased from market cap as Trump-ban fallout continues to spook tech investors
Start Trading >>
Plus500. 76.4% of retail CFD accounts lose money
Ben Winck
Jan. 11, 2021, 06:27 PM
FB
256.84
-10.73 (-4.01%)
Disclaimer
Get real-time FB charts here >>
Nick Wass/Associated Press
Facebook sank as much as 4.5% on Monday as investors continued to balk at the platform's ban of President Donald Trump.
- Facebook tumbled as much as 4.5% on Monday as the company's indefinite ban of President Trump continued to drive investors out of the stock.
- The plunge saw $33.6 billion erased from Facebook's market cap at intraday lows.
- CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the ban on Thursday, saying the president's role in the violent storming of the Capitol makes it too risky to keep him on the platform.
- Twitter, which permanently banned Trump on Friday, also underperformed amid the broad market slump.
- Watch Facebook trade live here.
The slide saw $33.6 billion erased from Facebook's market cap at intraday lows. Shares have since pared some losses and now trade about 2.6% lower.
The stock's decline comes as Wall Street reconciles with the president's role in encouraging supporters to storm the Capitol on Wednesday. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Thursday the company would ban Trump "indefinitely," adding the risks of allowing him to remain on the platform "are simply too great."
Read more: Goldman Sachs says to buy these 29 stocks poised to deliver the strongest sales growth through year-end
Twitter, which permanently banned Trump on Friday, also underperformed the broader market slump on Monday. The downturns saw the communications-services stocks drop more than any other S&P 500 sector.
While Facebook is far from the only platform to ban Trump, it is among the largest to do so. Investors likely fear that the move will lead pro-Trump users to boycott the website and congregate elsewhere. Right-wing social-media platform Parler was poised to take in such users until Amazon removed the website from its hosting service.
Additionally, CNN's Kevin Liptak reported on Monday that the president might retaliate against big tech companies in response to the bans. He signaled he may lash out through executive actions against the companies but it's unclear what those policies would look like, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.
Facebook traded at $259.78 as of 11:45 a.m. ET, down roughly 4% year-to-date. The company has 51 "buy" ratings, three "hold" ratings, and two "sell" ratings from analysts.
Imagine deciding to piss away $34 billion dollars just because you don't like someone. Fuck 'em.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 6,107
Wonder if he'll use the Vatican hologram machine?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
- Messages
- 45
As a WVU fan I’m upset with myself for never coming across this jewel. Hol-Lee-Fuk!
WilliamWallace
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2021
- Messages
- 23
WilliamWallace
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2021
- Messages
- 23
Agree
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 10,500
Why are they bringing in all the soldiers, erecting barricades and what not for an inauguration where the presumed president is taking the oath from his basement and all parades and parties have been cancelled? Seems like something else is in play...like riots, looting and mayhem.
BigtimeAub
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 27
Thought this was a pretty good lesson on propoganda... (2 posts)
The Most Successful Propaganda Techniques
A list of the most common, and successful, propaganda techniques currently in use. If you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar.
# 1. Guilt By Association: This is used to damage someone's reputation by associating them with an unattractive person or organization. It doesn't matter if there is an actual association or not.
# 2. Backstroke: Systematically belittling the goals of the subject of the article as the goals are being listed. For every step forward for the subject, the propagandist pulls the reader back.
Example: This year the political party's stated goal is to give the rally a warm atmosphere. We walked into the cave-like coliseum as the preparations for the rally were taking place. "We're trying to create a family atmosphere" said one representative of the party as he squinted into the harsh lights. "There are the children's rides" he said happily pointing to where union workmen smashed open wooden crates with iron crowbars.
# 3. Misinformation: This is a subtle technique, it involves reporting information in such a way that the final message of the story is not true, it's what the propagandist wants you to believe.
# 4. Over Humanization: It is a perfectly valid technique to tell a story by focusing on the real people who the story impacts. However, this is also an easy technique for manipulation when a propagandist tries to mask an issue by making anyone who has a valid disagreement look evil due to all the human suffering talked about in the story.
# 5. Name Calling: This is officially the oldest trick in the book. It is cheap and easy.
# 6. He Said, She Said: This is a technique whereby the author can say something they know isn't true, or isn't fair, but they want to say it anyway. Example: Project USA is a group which claims to support reasonable levels of immigration. They've put up billboards with Department of Statistics information which states that the US population will double within 50 years. The billboards have pictures of children of different races with the words "The population of the US will double within this child's lifetime. Stop it congress". Some people say this is hate speech. Note: a statistic (the fact that the US population will double at current levels of immigration) cannot be hateful. This is just a numerical fact, like saying water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The author knows this is an unfair statement, but wants to say it anyway. That's why she says "some people say", rather than "I say".
# 7. Unproven "Facts" This is when a (usually immature) "writer" is frantically trying to "prove" a position and they begin to quote "studies", "reports", and "experts" as "proving" this or that, but they never mention the study's name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific to the experiments. Example: Recent studies show that the media is right 99% of the time. Also, an expert from the University of Happiness was quoted as saying "People in the media work harder than anyone who thinks they have a real job".
# 8. Lying Sometimes complete lies are told. Example: An author in Arizona writes a report which states that the reason that a local mayor decided not to use the police to enforce immigration law was because protests by a certain ethnic group scared him away from it. In actual fact, as stated by the mayor himself, the reason the police weren't used was because no training program had been set up between the police and the INS. Any person who was a member of said ethnic group would gain from a report like this because, if people begin to hear that "that group is really aggressive and authorities do what they say" then the power of that group is enhanced, and everyone reading the "news" will begin thinking they should always let that group have what it wants. The fact that our police need special permission to enforce some laws and not others is a topic for another discussion.
# 9. Telling the Truth, For a While To throw people off the track, biased news services will give good accurate reporting for a while, usually when it no longer matters, then they will stick it to you the next time your guard is down. The best way to recognize this technique is to simply remember who the biggest transgressors are. You must understand that if someone lies or tries to manipulate a story once, they will do so again. They will never be non-biased. They will, however, say something fair from time to time. This is due to the fact that if they were biased every time they spoke, they would soon run out of credibility. Do not trust them twice. Would you buy a car from someone who cheated you on a previous purchase just because they say something you want to hear later?
# 10. Not Talking at all about Something Of course the biggest recent example of this are the Moslem riots in France. The fact that the rioters were still burning more than one hundred cars EACH NIGHT was suppressed and avoided, rather we were fed the line that the riots were over. The media went days and days not reporting on the riots which were revealing the complete failure of French social, economic, and immigration policy. However, France, being a socialist country, is favored by the socialist media, so the country's failings were not reported. When you're aware of a major issue underway, but see no coverage on it, then you can be sure the media is against the ideas which discussing that topic would raise.
# 11. Subtle Inaccuracies/Dismissive Tone Misstating a topic, often a serious one, and pretending any objecting or concerned view is silly, unrealistic, or just not necessary, you should be aware that in all probability the author doesn't fail to understand the seriousness of the issue, rather they may be trying to further an opposing agenda.
The Most Successful Propaganda Techniques
A list of the most common, and successful, propaganda techniques currently in use. If you spend any time at all consuming mass media, you will find these techniques familiar.
# 1. Guilt By Association: This is used to damage someone's reputation by associating them with an unattractive person or organization. It doesn't matter if there is an actual association or not.
# 2. Backstroke: Systematically belittling the goals of the subject of the article as the goals are being listed. For every step forward for the subject, the propagandist pulls the reader back.
Example: This year the political party's stated goal is to give the rally a warm atmosphere. We walked into the cave-like coliseum as the preparations for the rally were taking place. "We're trying to create a family atmosphere" said one representative of the party as he squinted into the harsh lights. "There are the children's rides" he said happily pointing to where union workmen smashed open wooden crates with iron crowbars.
# 3. Misinformation: This is a subtle technique, it involves reporting information in such a way that the final message of the story is not true, it's what the propagandist wants you to believe.
# 4. Over Humanization: It is a perfectly valid technique to tell a story by focusing on the real people who the story impacts. However, this is also an easy technique for manipulation when a propagandist tries to mask an issue by making anyone who has a valid disagreement look evil due to all the human suffering talked about in the story.
# 5. Name Calling: This is officially the oldest trick in the book. It is cheap and easy.
# 6. He Said, She Said: This is a technique whereby the author can say something they know isn't true, or isn't fair, but they want to say it anyway. Example: Project USA is a group which claims to support reasonable levels of immigration. They've put up billboards with Department of Statistics information which states that the US population will double within 50 years. The billboards have pictures of children of different races with the words "The population of the US will double within this child's lifetime. Stop it congress". Some people say this is hate speech. Note: a statistic (the fact that the US population will double at current levels of immigration) cannot be hateful. This is just a numerical fact, like saying water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The author knows this is an unfair statement, but wants to say it anyway. That's why she says "some people say", rather than "I say".
# 7. Unproven "Facts" This is when a (usually immature) "writer" is frantically trying to "prove" a position and they begin to quote "studies", "reports", and "experts" as "proving" this or that, but they never mention the study's name, location, where copies can be found, or the conditions specific to the experiments. Example: Recent studies show that the media is right 99% of the time. Also, an expert from the University of Happiness was quoted as saying "People in the media work harder than anyone who thinks they have a real job".
# 8. Lying Sometimes complete lies are told. Example: An author in Arizona writes a report which states that the reason that a local mayor decided not to use the police to enforce immigration law was because protests by a certain ethnic group scared him away from it. In actual fact, as stated by the mayor himself, the reason the police weren't used was because no training program had been set up between the police and the INS. Any person who was a member of said ethnic group would gain from a report like this because, if people begin to hear that "that group is really aggressive and authorities do what they say" then the power of that group is enhanced, and everyone reading the "news" will begin thinking they should always let that group have what it wants. The fact that our police need special permission to enforce some laws and not others is a topic for another discussion.
# 9. Telling the Truth, For a While To throw people off the track, biased news services will give good accurate reporting for a while, usually when it no longer matters, then they will stick it to you the next time your guard is down. The best way to recognize this technique is to simply remember who the biggest transgressors are. You must understand that if someone lies or tries to manipulate a story once, they will do so again. They will never be non-biased. They will, however, say something fair from time to time. This is due to the fact that if they were biased every time they spoke, they would soon run out of credibility. Do not trust them twice. Would you buy a car from someone who cheated you on a previous purchase just because they say something you want to hear later?
# 10. Not Talking at all about Something Of course the biggest recent example of this are the Moslem riots in France. The fact that the rioters were still burning more than one hundred cars EACH NIGHT was suppressed and avoided, rather we were fed the line that the riots were over. The media went days and days not reporting on the riots which were revealing the complete failure of French social, economic, and immigration policy. However, France, being a socialist country, is favored by the socialist media, so the country's failings were not reported. When you're aware of a major issue underway, but see no coverage on it, then you can be sure the media is against the ideas which discussing that topic would raise.
# 11. Subtle Inaccuracies/Dismissive Tone Misstating a topic, often a serious one, and pretending any objecting or concerned view is silly, unrealistic, or just not necessary, you should be aware that in all probability the author doesn't fail to understand the seriousness of the issue, rather they may be trying to further an opposing agenda.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 6,107
We want Bama, We want Bama....
BigtimeAub
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 27
# 12. A One One Punch pretending to represent two sides, but one side gets a couple of great lines , the other side gets a lame line.
# 13. Volume This is related to Coordination, it is merely a deluge of the same story line everywhere, until it becomes dominant, and the media's view of it becomes the dominant view, If you pick a topic with a strong liberal attraction, you will often find that all the "news" stories about a given current event seem to draw a similar conclusion about it.
# 14. Coordination This occurs when a number of like minded journalists all report the same angle at about the same time. This really doesn't require a conspiracy, there are so few "journalists", and they can easily see what their buddies' takes are on issues, then parrot the same line.
# 15. Fogging an Issue/Total Nonsense Sometimes certain groups have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day. It doesn't take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say "I don't have the extra energy to decipher this!". The reader is correct, the fault is with the propagandist.
# 16. 2,3,4 Technique Mentioning only one side of an issue 2, 3, or 4 times in an article, each time pretending you are about to present the opposing side, but you never do. Then the article suddenly ends and the reader feels bombarded, outnumbered and alone. In reality the opposing view is by definition held by many people, the author merely refused to present the side of the argument he or she disagrees with.
# 17. Preemptive Strike This is when the writer "attacks" the reader viciously at the very outset of the article with the "acceptable" view of the topic. The writer tries to "beat it into" the reader.
# 18. Framing the Debate Setting an argument around two "alternatives" which you would prefer, rather than the true alternatives.
# 19. Token Equal Time Sometimes a weak, tiny understatement is added to a propaganda piece, apparently so the writer can pretend they had been fair. This technique is quite common, it consists of an article written with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement from the opposing view is printed, it is immediately refuted, then the article either ends or continues on with the preferred point of view.
# 20. "Interpreting" A Statement Have you ever seen a writer say that someone said something, then what the person said followed, but it didn't look anything like what the writer claimed was meant? Example: The official said that they didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible for the loss. "I think we should just focus on the future" said the official. (note: he didn't say he didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible, he said we should focus on the future. See the difference?)
# 21. Withholding Information Is it the same as lying? Some in the media might not want to answer that question. Recently a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles was portrayed as a "jubilant son of an immigrant" in an article. What the article didn't mention was that he also once said "Prop 187 is the last gasp of white America in California", he belongs to, or once belonged to, a racist separatist organization which plans to takeover the American south west for Mexico to rule, and at a recent ceremony honoring early black leaders he called one of the early union members a n***** in front of 400 black leaders. 100 people walked out of the meeting room, though it was reported as 25% in order to diminish the effect. None of this was included in the article about the "jubilant son of an immigrant" More recently there is the example of multiple murders on private land in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant. In actual fact, of the six people murdered all but one were unarmed, one was a woman, shell casings were found all around the area, meaning the murderer chased his unarmed victims all around to try and kill them. The story as reported called all the victims "hunters" to conjure up the image of tough armed men in a fair fight, even though the victims weren't "hunting" at all but were warning the killer to stay off of their private land, hence he murdered them. The upsetting details only came out long after the story was initially reported. Are the authors of these articles lying to the public by not presenting all of the information about the stories, or are the authors so incompetent and clueless that they aren't even aware of these major points even though they are supposed to be writing about these important stories? The authors are either liars or morons.
# 22. Distracting or Absurd Metrics With this technique, the writer attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind and must hurry to destroy correct understanding of events. Example: During the French riots many writers began arguing about the number of cars burned and whether the number still "indicated" riot levels. In other words, let's argue about what a riot is, and when you have enough destroyed cars, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you're discussing burnt cars and not the ongoing riots.
# 13. Volume This is related to Coordination, it is merely a deluge of the same story line everywhere, until it becomes dominant, and the media's view of it becomes the dominant view, If you pick a topic with a strong liberal attraction, you will often find that all the "news" stories about a given current event seem to draw a similar conclusion about it.
# 14. Coordination This occurs when a number of like minded journalists all report the same angle at about the same time. This really doesn't require a conspiracy, there are so few "journalists", and they can easily see what their buddies' takes are on issues, then parrot the same line.
# 15. Fogging an Issue/Total Nonsense Sometimes certain groups have an interest in making sure that as few people pay attention to an issue as possible. A good propagandist can write a long, nonsensical article for the purpose of confusing the majority of readers, who themselves work hard all day. It doesn't take much for them to see a catchy headline, then begin to dig into a long rambling article, then throw their hands up and say "I don't have the extra energy to decipher this!". The reader is correct, the fault is with the propagandist.
# 16. 2,3,4 Technique Mentioning only one side of an issue 2, 3, or 4 times in an article, each time pretending you are about to present the opposing side, but you never do. Then the article suddenly ends and the reader feels bombarded, outnumbered and alone. In reality the opposing view is by definition held by many people, the author merely refused to present the side of the argument he or she disagrees with.
# 17. Preemptive Strike This is when the writer "attacks" the reader viciously at the very outset of the article with the "acceptable" view of the topic. The writer tries to "beat it into" the reader.
# 18. Framing the Debate Setting an argument around two "alternatives" which you would prefer, rather than the true alternatives.
# 19. Token Equal Time Sometimes a weak, tiny understatement is added to a propaganda piece, apparently so the writer can pretend they had been fair. This technique is quite common, it consists of an article written with entirely one point of view, then at the end a meager statement from the opposing view is printed, it is immediately refuted, then the article either ends or continues on with the preferred point of view.
# 20. "Interpreting" A Statement Have you ever seen a writer say that someone said something, then what the person said followed, but it didn't look anything like what the writer claimed was meant? Example: The official said that they didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible for the loss. "I think we should just focus on the future" said the official. (note: he didn't say he didn't hold anyone from the previous administration responsible, he said we should focus on the future. See the difference?)
# 21. Withholding Information Is it the same as lying? Some in the media might not want to answer that question. Recently a candidate for mayor of Los Angeles was portrayed as a "jubilant son of an immigrant" in an article. What the article didn't mention was that he also once said "Prop 187 is the last gasp of white America in California", he belongs to, or once belonged to, a racist separatist organization which plans to takeover the American south west for Mexico to rule, and at a recent ceremony honoring early black leaders he called one of the early union members a n***** in front of 400 black leaders. 100 people walked out of the meeting room, though it was reported as 25% in order to diminish the effect. None of this was included in the article about the "jubilant son of an immigrant" More recently there is the example of multiple murders on private land in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant. In actual fact, of the six people murdered all but one were unarmed, one was a woman, shell casings were found all around the area, meaning the murderer chased his unarmed victims all around to try and kill them. The story as reported called all the victims "hunters" to conjure up the image of tough armed men in a fair fight, even though the victims weren't "hunting" at all but were warning the killer to stay off of their private land, hence he murdered them. The upsetting details only came out long after the story was initially reported. Are the authors of these articles lying to the public by not presenting all of the information about the stories, or are the authors so incompetent and clueless that they aren't even aware of these major points even though they are supposed to be writing about these important stories? The authors are either liars or morons.
# 22. Distracting or Absurd Metrics With this technique, the writer attempts to drag the reader into a debate about what the reader is even seeing. This is usually used when the propagandist is falling behind and must hurry to destroy correct understanding of events. Example: During the French riots many writers began arguing about the number of cars burned and whether the number still "indicated" riot levels. In other words, let's argue about what a riot is, and when you have enough destroyed cars, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you're discussing burnt cars and not the ongoing riots.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 120
I think the dem’s want a civil war. They think they can win. I have my moments where I think that if war breaks out, that they will win. I know that we should be able to handle the left without breaking a sweat, but I fear that we have a bunch of people who would rather live under socialism/communism than die trying to defend what we have now. There are going to be people who just lay down and give up but the ultimate question is, how many?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2021
- Messages
- 1,062
Blackshirt_4
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 17
Yes, and they will all be blamed on angry Trump supporters. It’s so predictable.
What I want to know, if the capitol siege was planned by the Dems, why would Pelosi be “freaking out” about her laptop being stolen? Why would she leave it in her office if she knew what was going to happen?
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 6,107
Why would you give these fucks the time of day?
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 50
They will likely be the ones calling for martial law once all power is in their hands. A complete lock down
KendallCat
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 71
They want a civil war because they control all 3 - Prez, house and Senate. Plus they have the media and social media as well so they control messaging. They used their power to rig the election against Trump despite his winning every bellweather state and county and huge turnout. If they control the votes what chance do we have to turn it around?
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 138
The who
..the whole time line of events kills the libs BS narrative..u know actual facts? Lol
.unless maga supporters have time machines and teleportation devices...
It was Antifa...plus we already have vids posted that show Antifa playing dress up in maga stuff causing trouble, and actual maga peeps stopping them...ije dude trying to shatter a window gets thrown down by a maga person....I mean it doesn't look suspicious at all that the person trying to shatter the glass has a Trump sticker on the back of their helmet to make it easily identifiable wink wink that they are supposedly maga for all the cameras.
Timeline link:
..the whole time line of events kills the libs BS narrative..u know actual facts? Lol
.unless maga supporters have time machines and teleportation devices...
It was Antifa...plus we already have vids posted that show Antifa playing dress up in maga stuff causing trouble, and actual maga peeps stopping them...ije dude trying to shatter a window gets thrown down by a maga person....I mean it doesn't look suspicious at all that the person trying to shatter the glass has a Trump sticker on the back of their helmet to make it easily identifiable wink wink that they are supposedly maga for all the cameras.
Timeline link:
Maroon Mudbug
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 52
I keep saying this and will continue. We are now Mirroring the run up to the Spanish Civil War. If this continues the sides will break differently than people would expect. Most people will be caught in the middle and have feelings for both sides.
This is the last thing we should ever want. I do feel far left radical elements are dreaming this without thinking.
Blackshirt_4
Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 17
I’m embarassed to say this has never even crossed my mind.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 39
Lots of good hunting on the screaming eagles land in Fort Campbell
In for the 101st vets.
guts and guns
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 120
The only way to turn it around is by force. How many Americans value what we have now enough to lay down their life for it? That’s the 80 million dollar question. They think they will win a war or they wouldn’t be so brazen about what they are doing. I truly believe that if enough of us are truly pissed and don’t want socialism/communism that they will regret what they have brought to their doorstep.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 21,190
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 221
just watch....
they will only arrest and prosecute the true trump supporters while letting others go. That dude that was antifa that filmed the shooting (like why would he be there and in the Capitol filming right?) interested to see what happens to him.
Also think this is going to be funny when they start showing all the video of them being let into the Capitol. How are they actually going to get prosecuted (minus the folks that showed up carrying podiums LOL)?
they will only arrest and prosecute the true trump supporters while letting others go. That dude that was antifa that filmed the shooting (like why would he be there and in the Capitol filming right?) interested to see what happens to him.
Also think this is going to be funny when they start showing all the video of them being let into the Capitol. How are they actually going to get prosecuted (minus the folks that showed up carrying podiums LOL)?
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
- Messages
- 1,468
Fully expecting things to get weird and potentially dangerous soon.
Be careful Patriots!
Be careful Patriots!
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 21,190
It will come down to who is more aggressive. Lets face it, neither side is ready for a civil war, once blood would start to spill whoever wins early would have the other side ready to quit. A small percentage on each side would be willing to go toe to toe, but by the far the majority would say stop it.
Dolphincock
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 552
I want to wipe out these Antifa mother fuckers. I believe if Trump supporters are united and have a plan we can not be defeated
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,099
The marches on the state Capitols are going to be very violent. It will be Antifa folks dressed as us. Since the press knows this is coming, I, expect lots of theatrics, lots of violence, and lots of Main Street media to tell us how awful it was.
Dolphincock
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 552
you might be right but we cant stop or we will lose this country
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 5,095
Certainly possible. However, if his conclusions are even remotely true, then the amount of misdirection involved in the Q posts while still educating the general public is staggering. We have often said, “Well if we can figure it out, then so can the Swamp.” It’s quite possible the drops were meant as much or more for the Swamp than us. They may have been chasing shadows for four years while what Trump has accomplished and what may be about to happen and revealed was carried out in the most elaborate operation of all time. But as people say, we are running out of time to find out. Even with all of this “coming down to the wire,” I can’t imagine part of The Plan is to actually seat Joe Fvcking Biden as President.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,013
i didn’t think a town could be worse than Killeen Texas, until I’d been in Brownsville. Whoa was I wrong.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 138
Actually to be fair, I believe 2 of the three thought the net would go down Wed of this week. One of them thought yesterday so they just went w that person's narrative for the purposes of the discussion thry were having.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 14,043
Yeah I had some memories of it as well. Watching it now is like reliving an acid trip
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 5,095
Covered Russia, China, et al., already. Now covering Iran. Who is still remaining on the hit list before the “countdown” starts?
Barnzamus
Poster
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
- Messages
- 30
He said some things about the quantum computer being used that I think is a real possibility. Hate to bring him up, but I did watch a lot of Austin Steinbart's youtube videos knowing full well he was a fake. I'm convinced that he was the CIA plant trying to replicate Q. Although his whole facade was complete BS, I think he did sprinkle in some truths, like the use of the quantum computers and Q. Just my 2 cents.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
- Messages
- 24
Quantum computers can’t see into the future. They can run all sorts of simulations and run a different scenario for every action, but the simulation is only as good as the person who wrote the formula. This guys is getting more nuts as he goes. His update on the 10th seemed pretty believable, but his stuff about China and the Three Gorges Dam and now today’s update have gone past believable into crazy town. I know something is coming, I can feel it in my gut. Simon is a larp.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2020
- Messages
- 656
Dems are simply representing an agenda of global elites. They don’t want a civil war. They want to crush this country and then “build back better” which is the global reset. They’ve been able to accelerate this movement at warp speed and if the plan doesn’t come to fruition it’s all over. These people have told us exactly what their agenda is and with control of Congress and the President there would be no stopping them. We have to win.
Similar threads
