[–] 25689267? ago (edited ago)
Depends on how things end up.
If the cops do a long investigation of a criminal organization in order to map the organization for the purpose of bringing it all down, do you say they're complicit because "they haven't arrested anyone yet"?
Not if they end up taking the organization down you don't.
Regarding antifa specifically, if nothing ultimately happens then yeah that would mean they've done nothing. But see, they've already arrested a bunch of them. They're arresting these assholes like every day now. Do you read news ever? Because this is well known shit and it's really not hard to find.
You're either just a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, or you're just moving the goalposts wherever you think it bolsters your preferred narrative.
[–] 25689431? ago
You believe in Q don’t you?
[–] 25689525? ago (edited ago)
Well, I believe that Q is someone with inside information. That much is obvious to anyone who has paid attention to it. Too many very specific. precognitive declarations which came true for that not to be the case.
So in that sense, yeah.
Whether or not Q is actually some sort of mil Intel op or has the agenda he/she professes, I'm unsure of at this juncture.
But the larger question is what the fuck does Q even have to do with this current discussion in the first place? Answer: absolutely nothing.
You've either shifted the goalpost or changed the subject every time someone challenges you, proves your point wrong, or asks you a tough question.
You do realize that we can all see the things you've written in chronological order, right? I mean, your little technique isn't going unnoticed. Also, it's not very effective.
And so right now, you were hoping I'd say "hell yeah I believe in Q and am a fan etc." so that you could then say "well if you believe in Q then you're stupid and everything you have to say is therefore discredited by default."
Or perhaps not. But to be honest, you're pretty transparent in your "debating" technique.
So why don't you stick to the discussion at hand and deal with the arguments presented regarding that discussion.
So for instance, you implied that nothing is being done about antifa so therefore TRUMP/DOJ is complicit.
Then I pointed out that they're arresting these people everyday.
So then you gloss over that and change the subject.
If you are incapable of having a real discussion because the ADD is just too strong, then I feel for you.
Short of that, you're just kind of a shitty debater, or a shill.
Take your pick. Which is it?