You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
People attempting to forum slide and disrupt this board in contravention of Q's call for unity through patriotism may be banned
What is Q related? Anything involving Trump. Politics, Fake news, Censorship, Pizzagate, lluminati, New World Order, Secret Societies, Mk-Ultra, False Flags, Q proofs, etc...
Also, corruption in the following areas...
Government, Entertainment industry, celebrities, charities, corporations, etc...
No Pornographic Material Allowed
Continually harassing users can get your post/comment removed and you possibly banned. Threats of violence against other users or their family members are not allowed on v/GreatAwakening
Those belong in the comment section. If you need help, you can ping a mod, or PM us.
Posts need to be Q related. Not for attacking other users.
GAM is the new place for all things drama/mods/other users pertaining to v/GreatAwakening.
No usernames imitating mods
Misc reasons
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
well, supposedly (based on precedence) if POTUS goes with a nominee to SCOTUS from the Senate then can forego all the tedious confirmation hearings and just go straight to a Senate vote on the nominee
Not to shit on the parade but Ruth voted against citizens united. That was a good vote in my opinion. Does anyone have any examples of the positive votes she cast. Maybe direct me to a website that breaks it down. Everything I have read on here is con dam nation of her. Maybe there was some positives? Or maybe I should shut my goat mouth?
Sort: Top
[–] Yunoichi 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Claim it's in her honor for extra salt
[–] pizzaequalspedo 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
42 hours
[–] PacaGoat 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
New appointee approved in 39-40 days? Puts it at exactly the time of the first Q post.
[–] Christosgnosis 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
well, supposedly (based on precedence) if POTUS goes with a nominee to SCOTUS from the Senate then can forego all the tedious confirmation hearings and just go straight to a Senate vote on the nominee
[–] PhilKDick 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Thanks, Tom Fitton, for pointing that out
[–] Leveraction 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This needs to be repeated over and over and over!!!!
[–] Bushtaco321 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Not to shit on the parade but Ruth voted against citizens united. That was a good vote in my opinion. Does anyone have any examples of the positive votes she cast. Maybe direct me to a website that breaks it down. Everything I have read on here is con dam nation of her. Maybe there was some positives? Or maybe I should shut my goat mouth?
[–] jack-in-the-crack ago
Condemnation* lol
[–] BarbaricHamSammy ago
Unless they’ve already got someone that was already vetted through a confirmation process....like Coney-Barret?
[–] soccer17 ago
Stephanie Davis was approved work a verbal vote last year and looks like a good nominee. It will be interesting to see who POTUS nominates