Posted on 01/25/2018 9:31:08 AM PST by ransomnote
Haha. You should ask JR for translation compensation around here. :)
Oh, I’ll translate for free. It’s fun.
Yay, what do I win? After all the money I spent today, I need that win! Please don’t let it be a date with Charlie sheen.
How bout a nice brunch date with Harvey Weinstein? He's on the market.
:)
If you ever accidentally ingest poison, you can choose between syrup of ipecac or watching Weinstein shower.
Haha. What always puzzled me about that story is why in the world would old Harvey EVER think that watching him shower would be something ANY human being would want to do, much less turn some chick on.
Insane in the membrane.
“I wonder if we should think outside the box on this.”
Why should we “think outside the box”?
He made a clear unmistakable prediction for an exact date. It can’t be 2018 because on 11/2/2017 he was saying “wait for tomorrow”. He was wrong. Game over.
“What about when you’re an enemy combatant?”
As we saw with Jose Padilla, if they are on US soil, they still have the full protection of the US legal system, like habeas corpus, right to counsel, right to trial by jury, etc. Hence the later use of renditions and foreign detentions to try and avoid all of those hassles.
Nice spreadsheet. Doesn’t change the fact that his prediction failed spectacularly. Q said there was going to be an “arrest announcement”, not a “sealed indictment”. It never happened. He predicted “public riots”. Didn’t happen. He predicted martial law. Didn’t happen. He predicted public announcements on the emergency broadcast system about all this. Didn’t happen.
A bunch of sealed indictments that you can’t even show are connected to anything he talks about are not going to change the fact that he’s already proven himself to be full of it.
The idea that several American citizens on American soil can secretly be declared enemy combatants, secretly be declared flight risks—or whatever criterion you prefer—and secretly fitted with secret ankle bracelets is simply not realistic. When you have to reach that far to believe a theory, it’s time to question the theory.
So you are envisioning a scenario in which the various players were given a choice: wear a standard ankle bracelet or wear one disguised as a boot? All this would be done in top secret proceedings without the hint of a leak?
This is magical thinking. It’s the willingness to believe anything, no matter how unrealistic, in order to preserve a theory. The irony being that we need to believe Q bc his predictions are accurate. But in order to make his predictions accurate, you have to twist your logic into an extra fancy pretzel. Facts and evidence don’t make the case, but flights of fancy do. I.e.: if you can imagine a scenario in which Q’s prediction ***could*** have been right, then that means it IS right.
With that as a metric, you can prove just about any proposition you can posit.
In a subsequent post Q specified the arrests would occur in Nov 17.
You can characterize it as “not realistic,” but that doesn’t carry any weight in a context of constitutional law.
Dealing with existential threats justifies a president declaring something to be classified, or secret. I don’t know if this is what happened, but it sure does refute your comment.
How far is it reaching when people conspire to assassinate a president? I don’t think you can reach any farther than that. And it should be met with the full weight of justice.
Jose Padilla didn’t conspire to assassinate a US president.
I don’t think we’ve seen the limits of what can be done about this sort of thing. Or the limits of force in the will of the American people.
What evidence do you have that these secret activities took place? Only Q. What is the issue with Q? In a nutshell:
The problem is the circularity of the Q phenomenon. In the beginning—as I said before and was derided for it—Qanon was very specific. He named the day and nearly the hour when Hillary would be arrested. He named the days when first Podesta and then Huma would be indicted/arrested. He named the day when Trump would use EMS nation-wide to sidestep Fake News. Q spoke plainly and to the point.
But from a real-world, evidentiary POV, none of the predictions materialized. Not even one out of the four.
So now the argument becomes, the events *could* have happened, and we just don’t know about them.
But again, there’s zero evidence that the things Q predicted actually happened. So what’s the argument for the, ‘It’s all top secret, hush-hush, under the radar,’ position?
It’s that Q predicted it.
Ok, so why should we believe something happened just bc Q predicted it?
(Q-believer) Because Q is an insider whose predictions pan out.
(Q-denier) But what about in the cases of Hillary, Podesta, Huma and the EMS? Those predictions didn’t pan out.
(Q-believer) Yes they did.
(Q-denier) How do we know?
(Q-believer) Because Q predicted it.
And so on. It’s entirely circular. The conclusion is used to prove the premise. Logically that is a big zero.
Any conspiracy to bring harm to the president should be met with devastating and overwhelming force in the process of eliminating the threat and dealing with individuals. This includes a wide array of tools, from the most effective kinds all the way down to things like ankle devices.
There is zero evidence that ankle bracelets have been used on Hillary, Huma, etc.
If individuals in the media or other so called “celebrities” have added to the dialogue of harming the president, they should suffer consequences of the most severe kind.
If any of them are affiliated in any way with secret agencies or groups connected with the government, the full scope of their illegal activities should be revealed to the public.
Is there any evidence that such individuals have suffered any consequences?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.