Q Anon: 6/20/18 FRiendly FReeper Collaboration to understand Q drops

qanon.pub ^ | 6/20/2018 | FReepers, vanity

[ransomnote]

This thread is a friendly collaborative place for FReepers to analyze information and share opinons. FReepers have a wide variety of reasons for investigating Q Anon content; this is not the appropriate place to criticize or badger those who choose to use some of their time in this manner.

If you are new to Q Anon, the three links below provide overviews to help answer the questions, "Who is Q?" and "Why read Q drops?".

Is Trump Staging a Counter-Coup? [Q explained?]>
Note: The above thread has been locked for disruptive comments, but post #1 includes a strong, concise Who/What/Where overview.

Q Anon: A Freeper's post re the "new Parallel Construct that Trump has created"

First post to “Q” ping list. Please read and let me know if you want off or on it

You can locate Q Anon threads by searching the key word "Qanon" using the search window in the upper right of Free Republic's forum page.

If you haven't seen it yet, President John F. Kennedy's excellent speech regarding secret societies, as well as comments about the press, is located at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs

A helpful FReeper passed along the following Youtube link to a good source for concise reviewes of Q drops, Praying Medic:
https://www.youtube.com/user/prayingmedic/videos

Praying Medic also has a a Twitter account:
https://anonsw.github.io/qtmerge

Q "drops" (i.e., posts) can be read with their original formatting on various websites. Sometimes the Q drop websites come under cyber attack or stop updating. This week, I've been using the following link:
https://qanon.pub

QProofs provide evidence that Q Anon is a legitimate source of information, has access to President Trump, and is serving President Trump's agenda:
https://www.qproofs.com/home.html

Q drops (i.e., posts) often use unfamiliar acronyms. Swordmaker maintains a list of acronymsto help FReepers understand Q drop text. The master list of acronyms is stored on Swordmaker's profile page. It's really great to have a convenient place to find definitions and explanations of terms used in the drops. Here is the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~swordmaker/index

Within our threads, Swordmaker posts updates featuring the latest terms added to the lexicon - you can find his updates on threads by looking for this silver Q graphic:

SkyPilot has been collecting Q Anon information into one interesting, detailed, "story of Q" post which I'll place here:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3633313/posts?page=163#163

Here's a handy link for those who would like to read what people on Twitter are Tweeting about Q Anon:
Click to read what Tweeters are saying about Q Anon

For those who want a little uplifting video which outlines the big picture that we are now striving for, here's a video from 2016 in which candidate Donald Trump outlines what he wants for Americans and America and his promises if elected.
This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected

If you'd like to communicate your support for President Trump's efforts to "red-pill" Americans, you may want to use the link Hoosiermama posted which provides you with and email page - you can send the president an email. Here's the link:
Email support for President Trump

[philman_36]

(The signature move of the Conservative movement is losing gracefully, ala Mitt Romney and John McCain).

Why are you calling Progressive Republicans conservatives?

[CJ Wolf]

The concept is at least as old and Plato.

[CJ Wolf]

As Plato. Not “and Plato”. I think I will have a Plato of crabs now.

[Jack Black]

To answer you more directly...we're still a Constitutional Republic as the Constitution still exists, (doesn't it?) and it's still the law of the land (isn't it?).

No, I don't think we are still a Constitutional Republic, I think we are a post-Constitutional Republic. The Constitution is too routinely ignored by all levels of government to really be the "law of the land". The "law of the land" is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, what ever politicians can smash through, increasingly what administrative functionaries say it is.

I don't like that, at all, and I've argued against us treating it that way, but still, it seems to me that it's just inaccurate to claim it's still the highest law at this late date. Theoretically: yes. Practically: no.

I am sure you can cite the list of obnoxious violations to it as well as I can: Gay Marriage, Obamacare (reallly? seriously? where does it say "oh yeah, the Fed Gov can set up a retirement system and make everyone contribute to it).

So, that's why I say we have a post-constitutional behemoth.

This whole Deep State thing that Q is exposing is really proof of that.

If the people are able to wrest control of the Government back, roll back all (or most, or even a bunch of) the unconstititonal GUNK that has attached itself to the once glorious Republic -- then, I'd have to say I was wrong and the Constitution was stronger than the Usurpers.

But, even taking Q into consideration, I don't see much sign of that.

For instance: ending Social Security, ending Medicaid, ending Medicare, ending federal welfare programs, returning to a non-standing Army, etc.

Or, alternately passing Constitutional Amendments for all these accretions.

But, honestly, looking at where we are the entire government has totally ignored the Constitution for almost 90 years.

Russia and China have both had very nice sounding Constitutions throughout their period of Communist rule, but I would not credit them with being "Constitutional Republics".

The next atrocity against the Constitution will be invalidating the Electoral College without amending the Constitution to eliminate it. That process is well underway. National Popular Vote

[philman_36]

I speak American English, so when I say "Republic" I mean one with a Constitution.

Then why can't you simply say "Constitutional Republic" instead of expecting someone to guess at what you mean? Wouldn't that cause less confusion?
It's a cat versus it's a black cat or even it's a black tom cat. See how the words I used narrowed things down substantially? You prefer to generalize, which is a form of deception in and of itself.

...it's not redundant and calls out the truly unique thing about the USA: the 50 States, which is quite different from all other (true) Republics that I am aware of.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA You're a true idiot if you think "the 50 States" (which didn't exist when the Constitution was written) is what makes America unique!
The thing that made America unique, and still does, is its Constitution. No other nation in the world had one like it and no other nation has anything close to America's Constitution, even in our modern era .
Thanks for the laugh.
The rest of your reply isn't even worthy of a response.

[Jack Black]

Why are you calling Progressive Republicans conservatives?

Well your terminology for them is interesting, and possibly more accurate, but not used by anyone else. I'm calling them what they called themselves, and what most people claimed about them at the time of the election.

With Romney there was a fair bit of push-back from the Right that he was a RINO, and it never really let up so, yeah, he got tagged with that.

Still: they ran as Conservatives, as the standard bearer of the nominally conservative party, the Republicans. They were supported by most of the leading Conservative groups and thinkers and magazines at that time. Their opponents detracted them for being conservatives.

Which major party nominee or even major candidate since Reagan would you say was an *actual* conservative?

Ironically much of the Conservative movement (Weekly Standard, National Review, George Will) think Trump's not a conservative because he's not pro Free Trade and Open Borders and other things.

So, clearly, the Conservative movement has factions that don't agree on basic propositions, and has had them for a long time.

Trump, in his positions, is more like Pat Buchanan than he is the long string of Nominees and wanna-bes the GOP put up as candidates.

A lot of people, including a *lot* of people here on Free Republic (the home of True Conservatism) have never liked Buchanan and claim he's not a "True Conservative" because he opposes Free Trade, supports tariffs, didn't support the War in Iraq, etc.

I've always considered his PaleoCon version of Conservatism more True Conservatism than what the vast majority of the GOP has been promoting for 50 years. Maybe Reagan didn't promote it, but he didn't stop much of it (the March of the Liberal Behemoth) either.

[philman_36]

No, I don't think we are still a Constitutional Republic, I think we are a post-Constitutional Republic.

You can think what you want, but it doesn't alter reality which is that the Constitution is still preeminent despite how far we've moved from the FF intent.
The mission of Americans should be to return to a more concise following of the original.
Repeal 16th and 17th, eliminate unconstitutional agencies, judicial activism, limiting the role of the Fed...
Yeah, we both know where it's gone wrong, but for you to deny that we're a Constitutional Republic...I'll call anybody out on it until the Constitution is gone.
Returning to its base precepts is the best hope America has...IMO.

[Jack Black]

You know damn well that the "Republic of Republics" was set up to devolve power to States (which numbered 13 at the time of the Revolutionary War, and which eventually all signed onto the compact, Vermont being the last I belive) and that now number 50. Your "AH HA" stuff is silly.

You don't seem to be able to discuss things without breaking out into insults ("you're stupid" "you're an idiot") ever other post. Come on man, you can do better!

The thing that makes the United States Constitution unique, I would claim are the "Republic of Republics" structure and the Bill of Rights.

Although there are quite a few later Constitutions that copy the later. For instance the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines has a Bill of Rights. WHat it doesn't have is an enumerated powers section.

And that, of course, is that part of our Constitution that has been flagrantly violated since (at least) FDR, and make me disagree with the idea that we are still a Constitutional Republic in any meaningful sense.

We are a CRINO: Constitutional Republic In Name Only.

[Jack Black]

Returning to its base precepts is the best hope America has...IMO.

I used to think that was possible. I no longer do.

It's gone way to far. Look at California, for instance. It's not even recognizably America, in terms of the people who live there. English isn't spoken in the majority of homes any longer, schools are packed full of people speaking a tower of babel of languages, all being taught Progressive Heresy as fact.

Do you think that California will ever vote for a Constitutional Conservative candidate? Or even a RINO?

Demographics is destiny. In 1980 it was still possible to return to the Constitution, in 2018 it's a pipe dream.

Texas will go blue by 2024 many political analysts say, at which point the Tards will have a lock on the executive branch. Unlike the GOP, they know how to use it.

I'm expecting the National Aassault Weapon Ban by then, at which point we'll find if anyone really means what they say, of if we will meekly agree to the final denouement of the Republic, as we have to all the transgressions up till now. Meekly, with a few squeaky complaints that amount to nothing.

Sorry, that's not a very positive view of "We can restore America and return to our Constitutional Government". I just don't believe that.

I hope I'm wrong, but see little sign of it.

[Conservative Gato]

20 years here and he's still calling America a democracy instead of the Constitutional Republic it is. That tells a lot about JB, CG.

I have battled a lot of liberals/leftists over the years and I can tell you this is a very common theme among them thinking we are a democracy. It's probably wishful thinking on the elites part and these liberals/leftist learn it through the indoctrination process. Mob rule is really what the elites want in order to help destroy this Constitutional Republic which is totally opposite of how our government is/was set up.

You wouldn't believe just how many of these liberals I had to inform them to go look up on how this country was set up. Even my uber leftist state rep got caught with her pants down when she tried to push the "we are a democracy" garbage on me.

Once they realize Constitutional Republic is correct, then it's so predictable where they nuance the h*ll (or as I like to say, baffle us with BS) on what a democracy/republic is. They are SO predictable.

CGato

[philman_36]

Well your terminology for them is interesting, and possibly more accurate, but not used by anyone else.
bwahahahahahahaha

John McCain progressive republican February 12, 2010

McCain Buries His Progressive Past
McCain was best described as a progressive - like Teddy Roosevelt, whom he cited constantly.

Progressive wing

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity Talk ‘Progressive Republicans’ and the Big Ideas That Could Save the Country Dec 2, 2013

Cure your ignorance.
progressive republicans
About 13,400,000 results

[philman_36]

...("you're stupid" "you're an idiot") ever (sic) other post.

You don't know how to edit/preview your own replies either (a repetitive error of yours that I may as well call you on while we're at it).

[CJ Wolf]

I believe that there is a bit of a media blackout on Iran, as well as the oig report.

[CJ Wolf]

Btw. You have a closing ) but no opening one... winky face. Now I do too.

[philman_36]

Do you think that California will ever vote for a Constitutional Conservative candidate? Or even a RINO?

Did you know that California elected Ronald Reagan to the office of governor in that State?
Oh my...here is your answer...

Or did you mean ever vote for a Constitutional Conservative candidate again?

After decades of Republican victories, here’s how California became a blue state again
California hasn’t always been a lock for the Democratic presidential nominee. Republicans won the state in nearly every presidential election between 1952 and 1988.

[Jack Black]

Cure your ignorance. progressive republicans About 13,400,000 results

Google searches like that only show that both terms appeared in the same document. If you do the search properly the results are three orders of magnitude smaller.

Cure your rudeness and undeserved arrogance.

[philman_36]

In 1432? I count 3 sets of two there.

I've never claimed to be perfect, but I do try to go back and correct myself where applicable.

Never been too proud to admit an error or make a correction.

[philman_36]

Cure your rudeness and undeserved arrogance.

Will do, just as soon as you quit being a douche!

[Jack Black]

Oh Please! Stop playing ridiculous word games and answer the damn question.

FYI: "will ever" does not include the past. And even if it did it's utterly obvious what I was asking.

You know I've paid you the courtesy of responding to each of your questions sincerely, and in a lot of detail. For several hours now, And you have not repaid that in kind, you are just playing silly games, tossing out personal insults and ad hominem arguments, and ignoring any thing I ask you.

That's so pathetic. How are we going to restore the Constitutional Republic if the adherents have such a low level of personal decorum and refuse to engage in discussions in an ethical manner?

It's not just the politicians who have brought us to this, it's our own low level of discourse and sincerity.

Really sad.

Now please, try to (for once this afternoon) answer a simple question: Do you honestly think that a Conservative can win California in the rest of our years (say 2050 to pick a nice round number by which year I will likely be just a memory).

[philman_36]

But...but...you said nobody uses that term.
...not used by anyone else.

"progressive republicans" About 76,500 results
Yet they do, no matter the search technique!

Yeah, I know that trick too.