Archived Wonder if this has anything to do with Q's latest post (defensenews.com)
submitted ago by dirtyh0rhay
Posted by: dirtyh0rhay
Posting time: 2.2 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 1/1/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 211
SCP: 7
7 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Wonder if this has anything to do with Q's latest post (defensenews.com)
submitted ago by dirtyh0rhay
Sort: Top
[–] Quinceberry 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
No coincidences, right? Maybe it reflects the loyalties that existed a year ago and will present themselves once again for the vote. Q presents info that reflects multiple layers oftentimes
[–] Ricky1974 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
It could be that there is something in the article that is prudent to today. It talks about the vote, and basically talks about those how voted for and against. Perhaps that is of some importance? Five Democrats voted for it (Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, Nelson, and Warner), while 4 Republicans against it (Paul, Heller, Lee, Young).
[–] lastcallhall 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Nice catch! Im sure many are hoping for the Senate vote, which it still may be, but It seemed too on the nose to accurately call before it happened. If this were even one off on either side, people would be calling for Q to be discredited. It's too much of a risk, IMO.
[–] Qrusader 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
HINT: breaking-news/2017/06/13/
[–] dirtyh0rhay [S] ago (edited ago)
For those that say this does not mean anything, that this story is old. i think it gives a clue. I think what this shows is that these could be the number of a Senate Confirmation vote. Wonder if this will be Judge Kavanaugh's Confirmation vote totals
[–] Questioning001 ago
Unlikely... The story over a year old.
[–] Deplorable18 ago
Hmm, hope not. Was hoping it was Q prediction on Kav's senate vote.