0
13

[–] Baconmon 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Might as well be $25,000,000, because it can't be debunked..

0
1

[–] anonOpenPress 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's great there's a reward, which I guess is both great and legit, but we should be aware that the related site "pizzagate.com" has showed signs of monetizing with free and open ciziten journalism done for example here on Voat, and they haven't been exactly open about where the material is from. It is useful what they do in our point of view (for the awareness), but personally I would not use this for red pilling, because I don't find this site worth my support (and also that we have a lot of better content on telling people why pizzagate is important)

Someone called "John Smith" has also tried to sell the whole page via an internet auction https://archive.is/FCGHH - I don't know is this related to the person offering the reward, or only to the related site. It's just another sign of monetazing.

Read also https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1592743

0
10

[–] FckPizza3 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

^^This. I have been using this same argument with my red pilling tactics 😁 it works pretty well

6
-6

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] V____Z [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Personally I would rather focus on both terms, and relentlessly on pizzagate in particular. Pedogate could in some ways be considered a limited hangout, because it involves stuff we've known for years, all of it will never see a courtroom. We have an eye witness to George Soros at human hunting parties and life goes on as if he's just a nice old man. MSM lets stuff leak out after elites are safe, like after they die of natural causes. With pizzagate - defined by its ties to the Podesta emails and the current DC crowd, including George Soros in no small way - we have a case to at least demand a legit investigation. We have a good argument for the fact that something is awry. We have a FOIA request showing that the DC police actually lied about having conducted an investigation. Why would they do that? We have pictures of the DC police chief with a very powerful pizza man, and evidence he covers for pedophiles, having once charged an 11 year old rape victim rather than the perp. The time is now to hone in on this. I have been told by a lawyer that there is indeed enough circumstantial evidence to begin an investigation, and that includes the pizza man.

0
1

[–] sound_of_silence 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] dougG 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How do you debunk opinions?

0
3

[–] Laskar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Some people are saying that pizzagate is the American franchise of pedogate which is the world wide thing.

0
3

[–] Criticalthinker615 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

this should be stickied at the top of the page at all times

0
0

[–] V____Z [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

@wecanhelp what do you think of adding this somehow, where it might get more views?

1
-1

[–] wecanhelp [M] 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

0
3

[–] Cc1914 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I would surely rather have 25k than this be true .

6
-6

0
2

[–] rooting4redpillers 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Morality and duty have no value to anyone who ridicules pizzagate, without sourced explanation.

Morality and duty have no value to anyone who indignantly defends James #49 Alefantis, without explaining why this powerful businessman would have the time, or interest, to participate in making base-adolescent sexual jokes, or posting pics of other people's babies, on his public (now private) Instagram account.

3
-3

[–] Are_we_sure 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago  (edited ago)

How does your "morality and duty" framing actually help us determine what is true? How does it help us evaluate the evidence? You seem to putting a lot of weight on Alefantis being #49 as if that is somehow sinister or indicative of guilt. It's not. It has no relation. You do understand that yes, James Alefantis was listed as Washington's 49th most powerful person in a magazine article in 2012, but no, he was not actually Washington's 49th most powerful person. Right? Because that article was never meant to be taken literally. Think of it as a who's hot/who's not article and you'll understand it better.

Most folks understand this. It was simply a magazine article, not an actual listing of who holds power in Washington, DC. It was a fluffy list of profile pieces.

Because if you don't understand that, it begs the question, how much power do you think he held. Because this silly list had him above all 9 Supreme Court Justices, about 95 Senators, the mayor, the police chief, the heads of most departments and their seconds in charge and other genuinely powerful people. He was not the only "fluffy" choice on the list. Another restaurant owner appeared as did three party planners. A blogger was at #34. #38 was the Washington Post's weather team. #47 was a baseball player. It was never intended as an actual, literal list of people's power. Also his power was social power, he was listed as a restaurateur and a bon vivant, this doesn't give you more power than the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

There's absolutely nothing about being a powerful businessman running two restaurants that would prevent him from having the time or interest from messing around on Instagram. This is just an illogical argument. It's like saying why would a powerful businessman have the time or interest to watch every game played by his favorite food ball team? Also social media like instagram is an easy way to keep in touch with friends, when you don't really have time to get together.

Morality and Duty doesn't seem to me to make one a good investigator. It doesn't seem to me to help you understand what evidence is important and and what is not. Here's an example, if Alefantis being 49th on that list means he is likely to have committed this crimes, what about those weather bloggers? They are 38th on the list, are they more likely to traffick children because they are more powerful?

Here's that 2012 list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-top-10-of-gqs-50-most-powerful-in-washington/2012/01/18/gIQAE7sn7P_gallery.html?utm_term=.210072119044

0
0

[–] rooting4redpillers 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Skipping right past your plethora of silly (and insulting) assumptions... I'll just congratulate you for contributing the most indignant (and verbose) defense for James Alefantis' Instagram behavior I've seen yet.

0
2

[–] sound_of_silence 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

looks like it's been $50,000 for the past month... http://archive.is/RP3vF

THAT'S $50,000 BIG ONES, SHILLS./

0
1

[–] The_Crux 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Accusations are generally not debunkable. If you make an insane interpretation of an email about some woman sending her kids to a pool party to be raped by the Clinton campaign or a Scania assassination indicated in an email, I can put the letters in context and prove to rational people that those letters had nothing to do with those things, but the guy with the $25,000 doesn't have to acknowledge my reasonable explanations.

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)