TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -14-

a reply to: imthegoat

Agreed. The modern world of dating like Tindr is like the new Sears Christmas Wishbook Catalogue. Flip and pick.

a reply to: imthegoat

I'm 100% certain she did have a rendezvous with Trump, and I'm sure shes had them with many high profile people.

How can you be so sure about any of that? Were you there to witness it? I doubt Trump had an affair with her. Where's the evidence? As for her having rendezvous with "many high profile people", I wouldn't put it past her, sure.

I don't see the relevance of pointing out Stormy Daniels?

You trust the likes of porn star/gold digging Stormy Damniels (and her sleazy lawyer, Avenatti)?

Fine, so be it but, that's why I thought bringing her up was relevant to your subject matter. She and Avenatti appear to me to be untrustworthy, very likely they are liars/opportunists.

I could be wrong, however. You might be right.

As for your not being a fan of "secrecy behind celebrities and Hollywood in general", yes, neither am I.

Nor am I "a fan of secret societies" - whatever you mean by that.


If I were a member of a secret society, surely I'd know about it - and you wouldn't.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
Would the case be eligible for federal crimes?

No. According to this SCOTUS decision.

Held: In the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.

Do you think he knew what the age of consent was? Does he know the age of consent in every state he visits? IF he is aware of the age of consent -- could we assume hes looking for younger women, and playing the law to his advantage? How many celebrities are aware of the age of consent in any given state? I dont even know the age of consent in my own state, and that's because I don't go looking for younger women to put myself in a situation to where I would need to know. In fact, I stick with a 21+ policy, and verification of age. Not that I'm some man-whore running around, but the modern dating world is..different.

None of that matters, from a legal standpoint. Legal is legal even if someone is deliberately walking on the edge.

It doesnt matter that there could be multiple celebrities or those in power performing sexual acts on minors? Regardless of the law, kids are kids. Just because a law is on the books doesnt make it right, yeah?

If RBG got her way and consensual age was 12ish, would it still be okay just because its law? Alcohol isnt okay and it's legal. Cigarettes arent okay and they're legal. 98% of prescription medicine isnt okay, but they're legal. Killing someone isnt okay, yet legal under certain circumstances. Do you see where I'm going?

Who decides the age of consent? Why does it need to be different on a state by state basis? Who benefits from it aside from older people copulating with minors? Law is law though, no matter who designs it, right?

You're very short sighted when it comes to multiple things mentioned and discussed in these threads. Not everything should be taken at face value. I appreciate your side of the discussions most of the time, but you do come off as a little naive and/or ignorant at times just to seemingly be right. I mean no disrespect, but you cant possibly be so closed minded, can you?

originally posted by: CanadianMason
a reply to: imthegoat

I'm 100% certain she did have a rendezvous with Trump, and I'm sure shes had them with many high profile people.

How can you be so sure about any of that? Were you there to witness it? I doubt Trump had an affair with her. Where's the evidence? As for her having rendezvous with "many high profile people", I wouldn't put it past her, sure.

I don't see the relevance of pointing out Stormy Daniels?

You trust the likes of porn star/gold digging Stormy Damniels (and her sleazy lawyer, Avenatti)?

Fine, so be it but, that's why I thought bringing her up was relevant to your subject matter. She and Avenatti appear to me to be untrustworthy, very likely they are liars/opportunists.

I could be wrong, however. You might be right.

As for your not being a fan of "secrecy behind celebrities and Hollywood in general", yes, neither am I.

Nor am I "a fan of secret societies" - whatever you mean by that, winkwink.

I couldnt care any less about Stormy Daniel's, nor do I trust her or Avanetti. I just wouldnt put it past an opportunist (like daniels/avenatti) to have an affair with a high profile billionaire, nor would I put it past a high profile billionaire to not have sexual relations with someone of her caliber, or anyone they can, honestly. As far as infidelity goes, maybe he did cheat, maybe he didn't, it's not my business nor do I care, but again, I wouldnt put it past him, nor would I put it past the majority of men (or women).

originally posted by: PokeyJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: airforcerulessky

Is the Ruth Ginsburg part of this photo real?
mobile.twitter.com...

I believe the RGB part is photoshopped. She fell asleep like that during the last State of the Union address, I think.

Thanks for the input. I was thinking that it might be one of several photos taken, before the "right" shot was achieved.

Anyway, here's food for thought, right up our (Q) alley:

Given how far the far-left wing of the political apparatus was willing to go in their constructed attack against a prior Supreme Court nominee (Kavanaugh); in collaboration with the intelligence apparatus of the U.S. DOJ; one has to wonder if the same ideological forces are not hiding the actual inability of Ginsburg to act as a Supreme Court justice.

Excerpted from: theconservativetreehouse.com... -mind-and-body/#more-158582

Adam Schiff's friend and a Hillary/Dem donors.

Another Black Man Has Died in the Home of Democratic Donor Ed Buck

The body of another young black man has been found at the West Hollywood apartment of Ed Buck — a prominent Democratic donor who allegedly has a fetish for drugging sex workers — reports Wehoville.

Buck, a white man in his 60s, was investigated previously by authorities after the death of Gemmel Moore, who died of a methamphetamine overdose in Buck's home in July 2017. Since Moore's death was classified as an accidental overdose, numerous young black gay men have alleged that Buck has a fetish for shooting drugs into black men he picks up off the street or on hookup sites. Moore had written about Buck injecting him with dangerous drugs before his death.

link

Ed's donation list

Never confuse something being legal with being moral. Two disparate things.

My college motto:

Leges sine moribus vanae

"Laws without Morals are useless"

-Horace (Odes)

en.wikipedia.org...(Horace)

a reply to: imthegoat

Being 100% sure about something and not putting it past someone doing something many people consider to be illicit/slimy are two different things.

originally posted by: imthegoat
It doesnt matter that there could be multiple celebrities or those in power performing sexual acts on minors? Regardless of the law, kids are kids. Just because a law is on the books doesnt make it right, yeah?

Not from a legal standpoint.

If RBG got her way and consensual age was 12ish, would it still be okay just because its law? Alcohol isnt okay and it's legal. Cigarettes arent okay and they're legal. 98% of prescription medicine isnt okay, but they're legal. Killing someone isnt okay, yet legal under certain circumstances. Do you see where I'm going?

Sure, but that isn't the legal standpoint.

You're very short sighted when it comes to multiple things mentioned and discussed in these threads. Not everything should be taken at face value. I appreciate your side of the discussions most of the time, but you do come off as a little naive and/or ignorant at times just to seemingly be right. I mean no disrespect, but you cant possibly be so closed minded, can you?

It isn't naivete, I am well aware that certain things do happen. I just don't think they are all as big deal as some people make it out to be. That Drake video does not shock me at all. Not because I think it is fake or something along those lines but because I'm cool with it. We don't all share the same moral standards.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH gov. NIH = National Institutes of Health.

I couldn't find her ever connected to NIH.

There is a claim the address is a CIA cover link. Lot of dot connects at the link

a reply to: wanderingconfusion
Wasn’t Ed Buck connected with the Standard Hotel in some way?

Obama Sabotaged US Space Dominance - Q 437


Trump fixed that.

Time to celebrate, cautiously.

[CHINA THREAT.]

Celebration Time, come on!

Celebrating the whole 12-year Journey of New Horizons probe. This is Brian’s personal tribute to the on-going NASA New Horizons mission, which on New Years Day 2019 will achieve the most distant spacecraft flyby in history.

New Horizons











World War III?

Nah.

More like Lunar War 1 coming to a theater near you.

Someone on Twitter alluding that RBG clerks wrote her first drafts for her, and has been standing in for her.

Wouldn't this be great?

Mueller submits report to his DOJ boss.

DOJ restricts some/much/all of it from being made public.

Dims DEMAND that it be made public.

DOJ says, "OK... you asked for it!"

BOOM... Trump Cleared. Obama/Lynch/Comey/Hillary should be criminally investigated.

The Trump administration is hinting that it might keep some of Mueller's final report SECRET.
www.bloomberg.com...

I believe this is called trolling to set a trap, or something to that effect?

originally posted by: CanadianMason
a reply to: imthegoat

Being 100% sure about something and not putting it past someone doing something many people consider to be illicit/slimy are two different things.

Being 100% sure in my own opinion about not putting it past people, absolutely. My "100% sure" isnt fact, isnt even close to it and I never claimed so.

I dont even understand why you're on the Stormy Daniel's kick, big shoots. I don't like her, I don't like Avanetti, and while we're on the subject of not liking people, you can add Trump (for the most part) to my list.

I'm quite a bit behind on the thread guys so I don't know if this has already been posted here yet or not - if it has then just skim past this post .. .

World Bank President resigns . ..

www.nbcnews.com...

World Bank president resigns, paving the way for a Trump appointee at the helm of this global lender.

Kim was first tapped by former President Barack Obama to lead the World Bank in 2012.

Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, announced Monday he is resigning at the end of January.

The official announcement of his departure provided no reason for his sudden departure. It will give Trump the opportunity to nominate his choice to fill the World Bank post.

No reason provided for his resignation. Just left for another job.

I wonder what the reason is.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: wanderingconfusion
Wasn’t Ed Buck connected with the Standard Hotel in some way?

Yes. Ed Buck, Adam Schiff, Standard Hotel, Black (Male) sex slaves were all connected. Was discussed over several pages, way back in Q thread 3 or 4, I believe.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: imthegoat
It doesnt matter that there could be multiple celebrities or those in power performing sexual acts on minors? Regardless of the law, kids are kids. Just because a law is on the books doesnt make it right, yeah?

Not from a legal standpoint.

If RBG got her way and consensual age was 12ish, would it still be okay just because its law? Alcohol isnt okay and it's legal. Cigarettes arent okay and they're legal. 98% of prescription medicine isnt okay, but they're legal. Killing someone isnt okay, yet legal under certain circumstances. Do you see where I'm going?

Sure, but that isn't the legal standpoint.

You're very short sighted when it comes to multiple things mentioned and discussed in these threads. Not everything should be taken at face value. I appreciate your side of the discussions most of the time, but you do come off as a little naive and/or ignorant at times just to seemingly be right. I mean no disrespect, but you cant possibly be so closed minded, can you?

It isn't naivete, I am well aware that certain things do happen. I just don't think they are all as big deal as some people make it out to be. That Drake video does not shock me at all. Not because I think it is fake or something along those lines but because I'm cool with it. We don't all share the same moral standards.

I wouldn't expect everyone to have the same moral standards, or have a moral compass at all. My point was is that you've taken almost everything in these threads at face value. You don't have to believe Q is legit to recognize that there are some things that have deeper roots, and thus begs the question "why?"

Whether things are legal or not isn't the issue, neither is the legal standpoint. The issue is why.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Someone on Twitter alluding that RBG clerks wrote her first drafts for her, and has been standing in for her.

That's interesting! Where are the RULES that govern Supreme Court justices and court operations? Are there any in writing?