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

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

The 7 hexagons picture comes from this article linked in my original post:


Two things stuck out to me in regards to it:

1) It reminds me of the symmetry of Israel's flag:


2) 7 x 6 = 42. POTUS42 = Bill Clinton

TO BE READ and FOLLOWED BY ALL:

After a long conversation and consensus among Staff including Mods, Super Mods, Admins and Owners, we are posting the following reminders:

We don't want to shut the thread down or stifle debate.

The T&C must be followed by everyone.

No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.

Forum gangs or the illusion of a special group will not be tolerated.
That includes "Q'ult" and Q team and similar references!!!

PG, walnut sauce and any other type of pedo talk will not be tolerated. Those topics belong in RATS.

External material must be sourced.
Please see the DMCA policy page

Members are always responsible for their own posts.

STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!

Members who repeatedly disregard the T&C may face temporary posting bans or permanent banning.





and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: bluesjr

except Democrats are not for open borders...

that is basic understanding

I am not dem but i can envision a future where borders and division is not a thing.

If all human interaction happens at a point of equal understanding and participation then many current constructs are not needed.

also before the law there was no sin.

I can also envision that future. I think we are hundreds of years away though. Once all countries get government corruption and crime under control (not even easy for the USA right now) and bring their citizens up to the quality of life that an average middle class American/European/Canadian/etc. has, then we can start looking at removing borders. Currently, we have the majority of the Central and South American regions run by drug cartels. And Africa is still mostly tribal gang wars.

We're not even close yet.

a reply to: queenofswords

Ok, sure, but no one has ever said they wanted Open Borders

a reply to: XAnarchistX

You sure about that? AOC and her buddies want to abolish ICE and CBP. No border enforcement = No border.

Potus in elpaso talkin about a gov shutdown and national emergency while beto and oprah announce that beto and shultz are teaming up for 2020. That would be a heck of a day.

I really can not get over the title of this thread. whitehouse insider postings....that sounds illegal. I do not think the nsa could be behind this legally and i feel that any reporter would not be in the know on most of the various issues and anyone in the cabinet would be derelict of duty with this unless it is an authorized propaganda exercise.

The title screams to me illegality unless not true.

Are you pro-propaganda?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

What about Beto and Shultz excites you? Give me specifics.

You can ask the Mods if you don't like the title.


It's your choice that you are here. What have you've found out that you didn't know prior to coming here?

Have you looked at all the threads prior to this?

Intersesting




(m)A.L.I.C.E. people figure it out... "maul woken chat." Comms.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

What about Beto and Shultz excites you? Give me specifics.

You can ask the Mods if you don't like the title.


It's your choice that you are here. What have you've found out that you didn't know prior to coming here?

Have you looked at all the threads prior to this?

You assume too much. I never said i do not like the title i said it seems to speak of illegality. I say that only in relation to figuring out who Q is. It seems that if he is an insider posting then he is part of some propaganda operation or a leaker breaking the law.

Shultz and Beto has the potential to get more votes than any other probable duo i can think of. People from the independent and the left outnumber the right greatly.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi

I would definitely not assume they're 'clean'. We're talking really BIG money here with massive deep pocket connections including Cancer research and Nanotechnology from the very young to the very old.

Three BIG donators stand out - [Hearst Corporation] (or Hearst Communications); Yes that Hearst! Yuuuge!!, Johnson&Johnson and Bayer. Many of the beauty care crap products for kids & adults are not safe.

a reply to: xuenchen

To build on your RBG finds, xuenchen, Q Post #2687 has 4 pictures in it.

The third is this:


It struck me that the placard the lady is holding uses odd colours:
UK = Red = R
Q = Black = B
Please = Green = G

So RBG!

I'm wondering now whether the colors from the other 3 pics are messages too:

#1 = Irish flag with black Q = Green White Black Orange = GWBO (George W Bush O?)
#2 = Finland = Black Blue White (following heart sequence) = BBW = Big Black Woman = Maxine Walters?
#4 = Scotland = Blue White = BW

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Since when is propaganda now against the Law? You can thank the previous President for that.

So you have no specifics on your running duo? I'm shocked.

There are more Independents and people on the right than their are people on the left.

Anyone who thinks Shultz and Beto aren't Democrats are sadly misinformed.

Let's have them and Bloomberg run. It will be fun, trust me.

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: xuenchen

To build on your RBG finds, xuenchen, Q Post #2687 has 4 pictures in it.

The third is this:


It struck me that the placard the lady is holding uses odd colours:
UK = Red = R
Q = Black = B
Please = Green = G

So RBG!

I'm wondering now whether the colors from the other 3 pics are messages too:

#1 = Irish flag with black Q = Green White Black Orange = GWBO (George W Bush O?)
#2 = Finland = Black Blue White (following heart sequence) = BBW = Big Black Woman = Maxine Walters?
#4 = Scotland = Blue White = BW

The only flag I can find with RBG top to bottom in that order is Libya.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Since when is propaganda now against the Law? You can thank the previous President for that.

So you have no specifics on your running duo? I'm shocked.

There are more Independents and people on the right than their are people on the left.

Anyone who thinks Shultz and Beto aren't Democrats are sadly misinformed.

Let's have them and Bloomberg run. It will be fun, trust me.

I can also thank the current potus for every stinking policy he puts up with that should not be.

Specifics on duo? wtf are you on about?

Beto is a democrat and Shultz is an independent i will not run you in the ground for being misinformed though.

Be more clear about your bloomburg statement pretty please.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I really can not get over the title of this thread. whitehouse insider postings....that sounds illegal. I do not think the nsa could be behind this legally and i feel that any reporter would not be in the know on most of the various issues and anyone in the cabinet would be derelict of duty with this unless it is an authorized propaganda exercise. 

The title screams to me illegality unless not true. 

Are you pro-propaganda?

If you define propaganda as something that only comes from a government mouthpiece, you're not being realistic.

I don't think anyone would claim to be pro-propaganda, but when 90% of the propaganda in the U.S. is coming from an establishment that's unelected and NOT in the White House anymore, I'd say its ok to have the other 10% come from the administration that the people voted into power.

Turn on MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc. Do they all tell the same story?

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Who's views get censored? Who's get celebrated?

Watch the Oscars, Grammy awards, every late night talk show, every day time talk show. All of them overstepping their roles in entertainment in order to push propaganda.

And isn't it funny that from the moment the Q movement started with propaganda from the other side, it gained a massive following.

You're here, posting daily aren't you? 🤔

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Really, because Bush is the one that created ICE, so was there no border before the creation of ICE?

I think maybe if you actually researched and didn't spend your time talking about propaganda you would see that Democrats and even the DemSocs have called for Border security, even a "Smart Wall"

destroying the department of ICE is not the same thing as saying Destroy the border

but you know that

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Forget about it, you were the one to mention it. I figured you would actually have some reasoning for you mentioning that.I stand corrected. My apologies.

I'm for as many people running as they can afford. People need a choice, do they not?

Shultz is an Independent?

Sure.........

a reply to: XAnarchistX

National Security issues became a bigger concern after 9/11. Do you not get that? Are you old enough to remember 9/11?

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Shultz is an Independent in name only. In any other time in American politics he would be a staunch Democrat. Its just that they've gone so crazy lately that anyone not for total communist is seen as a centrist.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

I really can not get over the title of this thread. whitehouse insider postings....that sounds illegal. I do not think the nsa could be behind this legally and i feel that any reporter would not be in the know on most of the various issues and anyone in the cabinet would be derelict of duty with this unless it is an authorized propaganda exercise. 

The title screams to me illegality unless not true. 

Are you pro-propaganda?

If you define propaganda as something that only comes from a government mouthpiece, you're not being realistic.

I don't think anyone would claim to be pro-propaganda, but when 90% of the propaganda in the U.S. is coming from an establishment that's unelected and NOT in the White House anymore, I'd say its ok to have the other 10% come from the administration that the people voted into power.

Turn on MSNBC, CBS, CNN, etc. Do they all tell the same story?

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Who's views get censored? Who's get celebrated?

Watch the Oscars, Grammy awards, every late night talk show, every day time talk show. All of them overstepping their roles in entertainment in order to push propaganda.

And isn't it funny that from the moment the Q movement started with propaganda from the other side, it gained a massive following.

You're here, posting daily aren't you? 🤔

I am not really an external source since i am a member...

If what you say has any truth in it then for the record i am 100% against it. Government intervention or propaganda in the case of combating such sites is not something i am for. If they are breaking the law then bring them to justice or if they are breaking regulations get them into the boundaries. Let the free market work it out.


No the whitehouse supporting Q would not be something i am in favor of it it goes beyond legality.