Primaries

As much crap as Barns has talked about me, and been utterly wrong on, I find it impossible to be unbias so I give this to the anons for analysis. I always attempt to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ok bot.

About you? Do you mean Q? I don't think Q was legitimate. I'm not convinced it was Ron Watkins behind it all all along, but it was a form of conforming political dissent and weaponising hope while focusing these energies on while goose chases. The concept from the very beginning was always extremely dubious, because there was always this sort of plausible deniability and the entire thing was based on you projecting your own political aspirations. It is also exceedingly clear that Trump is not your friend, even if he is by far the less shittiest of the shit sandwiches from the cynical electoral dichotomies we were presented with. Whether it was sheer naïvety, gross incompetence or conspiratorial malice, Trump was far from being the new JFK or even Reagan (they too had their own shortcomings but they were earnest and sincere and did their best).

As for Barnes, just to reiterate, I don't think he is malicious. That is not the feeling I get from him. I do think that he massively overestimates the value of his input on these matters. And while he was and is right about bad actors such as Powell or Wood from a purely judicial standpoint, from their character to the impossibility to even try such a case, he was obviously wrong about discarding the entire legal hypothesis altogether. Barnes also has the unfortunate lawyer trait of thinking that he can debate his way out of anything, and this usually ends up with him shooting himself in the foot like what happened during the Fuentes debate (I'm not a Fuentes apologist by any means). So, I don't think that Barnes is worthless or anything, I just think he should be understood a bit more critically and that anons should try to look beyond some of his confidence tricks.

>normalcy
normalcy isn't a word in the english language you lemming NPC fuck. Stop giving these retards legitimacy in your mind.

You're talking the same bull Barns is spewing like a NPC just repeating the same nonsense talking points which proves the thoughts aren't your own.
I know full well what I "Q, Qanon" whatever you want to call me was or wasn't and sure wasn't that nonsense.

>Barns
Islamofascism, real Americans suck Israel's cock

Also, the question wasn't about Barns in case you didn't get the point of this board, as is very apparent.

He's a zionist kys

I'm not a native English speaker. But I don't see what the problem with that word is.

I don't even listen to Barnes all that often. And my post hardly reads as an endorsement of his views.

>About you? Do you mean Q? I don't think Q was legitimate. I'm not convinced it was Ron Watkins behind it all all along, but it was a form of conforming political dissent and weaponising hope while focusing these energies on while goose chases. The concept from the very beginning was always extremely dubious, because there was always this sort of plausible deniability and the entire thing was based on you projecting your own political aspirations
Word per Word Barns, who I'm also sure Didn't come up with that on his own either.

Whatever the case may be, those are my own thoughts on the matter. I'm unconcerned about your perceived genealogy of my opinions. It's futile to argue that point. Unless your intention is merely to troll.