Aidan spewing more lies and bullshit 😂 and his cult do not even question such a bullshit narrative. Botox isnt cheap. No reputable company is going to just take someone's word for it if they show up saying "heyyy I won a raffle years ago... im here now to get my freebie!" 🤣😂🤣 NONE. NO ONE. EVER. Maybe Meredith redeemed it because she DID pay for it and is the one with the PHYSICAL raffle ticket that won it? Also, he is lying claiming he got an email in December and she redeemed it the next day. That is also a lie. We all rememeber when it was... it was March. 😂 These people are all IDIOTS. My gawd!

Mr Libby may or may not be getting a certified letter.

🚨🚨 BREAKING: YBE, the insect looking character that describes herself as trans autistic queer, has some explaining to do about her pregnancy claims. Here’s the timeline, using her own posts: ☑️ 8/8/2026: Claims to have an IUD and says she’ll never have children. ☑️ 29/9/2026: Just seven weeks later, claims to be 18 weeks pregnant. ☑️ 17/10/2026: Less than three weeks later, claims to be four months pregnant (16 weeks). Apparently, the self-proclaimed STEM graduate student has discovered a revolutionary new approach to mathematics: pregnancy that goes backward in time. Eighteen weeks on September 29 should put her at approximately 20½ weeks by October 17, not 16. I’d like to take a moment to explain why economics, at any level, is not STEM. The mathematics involved in most economics programs is hardly the kind that defines a rigorous mathematical or scientific discipline. Introductory calculus, applied statistics, and off-the-shelf regression models are hardly the intellectual frontier. Yet economics PhD students routinely parade these techniques around as evidence of mathematical sophistication, apparently unaware that knowing how to apply a mathematical tool is not the same as understanding, developing, or advancing the mathematics behind it. Much of this material is so elementary that children can learn its basic applications long before reaching high school. Machine learning is no more convincing as an argument. Applying existing algorithms to economic datasets does not make someone a mathematician any more than using statistical software makes someone a statistician. There is a rather embarrassing difference between using quantitative methods and contributing to the mathematical foundations that make them possible. Confusing the two is an elementary category error. Attempting to borrow the prestige of STEM by dressing an applied social science in quantitative terminology only makes the insecurity behind the argument more conspicuous.