So legit question what proves that QAnon is actually real? I've not seen anything that Q has said come to pass. The month of the December will likely be no different. Or will it? Explain.
EDIT: Also, why are some of you saying there's no proof needed while others are trying your hardest to provide just that? Which is it?
The point of discussing that is to set forth a comparable example to my point so that I can demonstrate your unreasonable and invalid demands in your accusation which claims that we cannot prove Q is genuine.
The fact of the matter is very simply established in acknowledging that Q himself has admitted to being a source of disinformation sometimes. Given this, we cannot treat Q as a "knight who never lies." At best, Q is sometimes truthful and sometimes false. But that's true of any person we are talking to. Therefore, it is immaterial to use as a disproof. But it is a perfectly valid statement to reinforce an understanding of trustworthiness because it admits that Q is capable of "error."
Your unreasonable demand is that you are demanding that Q always present truth to be considered "authentic." This is impossible for any being with imperfect knowledge as Q logically seems to be. Therefore, the fact that Q sometimes doesn't pan out in predictions doesn't make Q false nor does it presume Q is truthful either.
What does commend Q as a truthful example is the fact that when we correlate the data that we have sanitized from Q's statements it corresponds to a valid picture of the events going on in the world. Therefore, it is a valid counterpresentation to a narrative given to us by the known "knights who lie to us nearly all the time" that we know the Mainstream Media to have become. Using imperfect to balance imperfect to create a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Just as one uses the left eye and the right eye to create a stereoscopic picture of the surrounding area.
Your assertion demands an impossibility: Proving someone who specifically said that some of their information was false is speaking truth sometimes. The burden of proof, therefore, should be flipped. We've demonstrated by our Q "breads" that Q has tangible data that is worthwhile for us. You, however, have not demonstrated that Q has no tangible data nor have you demonstrated why we should invalidate Q's tangible data that we have found. What motive have you to invalidate these "breads?"
Your mockery of Trump's attempt to demonstrate the election is invalid seems to give a motive for your activities. You seem rather enthusiastic about the possibility that Trump won't be able to win. Is that because you are against Trump?
We weren't given this information so there's no need to speculate. His doctors chose Remdesivir and Regeneron for whatever reason their medical expertise dictated. That doesn't prove or disprove anything about HCQ other than the fact Trump did not use it for himself.
With regards to HCQ, the issue isn't about Trump anyway. Trump may have informed us about it but this is something that we have done our own independent research about. (At least I know I and my friends have) As we have actively researched the claims about HCQ we found them to be quite promising. HCQ is a Zinc ionophore that disrupts the reproduction of viruses and coupled with Zinc it is one possible mechanism of disrupting Coronavirus.
The historical use of HCQ is demonstrable and backed up by many studies. Yet, the studies that suddenly have come out "debunking HCQ" all seem to have appeared QUITE recently and are almost always tied to some financial benefit from some institution we've traced to be likely involved in misinforming the public. HCQ has been used since the 1940s and it's got one of the best safety records out there. Before Corona hit, it was used to treat Lyme Disease and MS. But suddenly it's the worst drug ever according to the Big Pharma corporate science. Coincidence? Not really. Money talks bullshit walks. The fact of the matter is that it is an option in the arsenal of people trying to help themselves fight the virus. Why should it be such a bugbear? What's so dangerous about letting people do their own research and come to their own conclusions?
At any rate, our basic problem is this: Military hides truth. Government hides truth. Media hides truth. People hide truth from themselves. If you are looking to treat Q or Trump as "knights who never lie" then you're clearly ignorant of reality. You cannot handle Q like a logic puzzle where one contradiction is the end of the analysis. If you do that you're kind of dumb because NOBODY is perfectly consistent in life. That's just fact.
You seem to want to treat the universe like it's a grand accident that somehow generated a huge Sudoku puzzle for man to solve by the use of his almighty reason. From my perspective, that's what's baloney....
If Q is the source who lies occasionally, is that really a source then? It seems to me that if he admits upfront that he lies occasionally then that could potentially be something set up to cover him when he gets something wrong. I know people can't be right all the time, but that's pretty sketchy that he can just say "that was just disinformation" and people keep believing. You're saying balance the medias lies with Q's lies but that's not really happening because people who believe Q almost always say the media is lying (especially because the two conflict each other a lot). That's not really a balance.
I also don't know where to throw this but I find it particularly interesting that Q is a "government insider" who makes predictions about when John McCain is going to die (for example).
I know that Q could technically be truthful (even if that's an unlikelihood), but I'm taking the neutral position here. It's incorrect to assume I'm trying to disprove a claim that can't really be disproven. Q's information only makes sense when you remove most of what he says which is false, so that's not helpful at all.
I have no ulterior motive in pointing out Trump's legal failures over the election, but I equally have no appetite to indulge in a false reality. Based on what Trump's legal team has shown us thus far (and how the courts have reacted), he will not prevail in his election challenges.
I'm not saying that HCQ doesn't work, I'm saying it hasn't been proven to work. The Trump point was kind of just saying that if he advocated it so strongly why did he not take it. The debunking of HCQ was not of the drug itself but rather of the claims that it fights COVID, and I only ever remember reading stuff that said the claim was unproven but not false. It's in the interest of the government and researchers to debunk this claim because it could have unintended side effects. I don't think there's a media vendetta against it however- were that the case, why would they let Remdesivir and Regeneron be released?
If people can't be right all the time, it's obvious that any potential "source" would be susceptible to that problem wouldn't they? Unless you posit some kind of Divine revelation that was immune to that you'd have to conclude that there was no valid "source" at all. In which case why would you acknowledge anything as facts? Down that road lies the insanity of willful ignorance.
You act as if the only reason people oppose the MSM is Q. The MSM is falsely depicting all manner of things that can be seen even from people's lived experiences. Such as the lived experiences of workers who lost their jobs to Obama and Biden's economies exporting jobs to China.
Do you really think Q is the reason for all this? Really?
The MSM claims white people are racist beyond measure these days and the only cure is "checking privilege." Yet another data point they are blowing out their rectal holes. How about how bringing in migrants into Europe is "safe" and they don't murder people and commit rapes? Must I continue down the train of falsehoods that the MSM represents? And all of that doesn't rely one lick on Q's claims.
Q came into a fruitful environment where people already agree with 90% of what he says. It's merely a reinforcement of the existing rejection of the corporate globalist narrative by the people themselves who see it as a sack of shit.
Interesting you want to drag another discussion thread into this. Q was definitely talking smack about McCain but that obviously isn't a certain proof. It's a possible interpretation that MI was involved with some circumstantial evidence but no real proof. As most of this is, honestly.
And the assumption that this is just about the legal cases is also misplaced. Q opened the door to considering the possibility the Military might get involved at some point. The cases themselves reinforce this point as some of the witnesses and lawyers are directly tied to people Q already made us aware of like General Flynn and the Military Intelligence crowd. Not proof, but definitely an open possibility we consider that those who reject Q don't normally even consider an option and assume that Biden is just going to steal it all without consequences.
You keep going back to this proof thing as though it's something we can even hope to do in this environment. The corruption in this world has already set the system so that truth and falsehood are so impossible to discern that we have to resort to these mechanisms of imperfect analysis.
I can give a decent speculation given the data I have seen. Remdesivir is backed by one of their big people. (George Soros is an investor) People being encouraged to use it would benefit these backers. I found it rather unsettling Trump chose to use it but I perceived it as a convenient concession. What they don't cover are the drawbacks I've seen to Remdesivir. The omission is just as telling here as it was to HCQ. HCQ is not patented. Soros and his allies get nothing from it. And it's not just from this that I infer the pattern here. There's an article where a banking investor was quoted as saying "how can we make a profit from it" as well as a patter of Rockefeller suppression of alternative cures that demonstrate a degree of effectiveness.
The net picture seems to be: 1. Soros gets a cut, so Trump is allowed to use it without criticism. 2. The doctors are trained by that system. 3. The media won't suppress the info or create a buzz criticizing it.
This is the other thing you need to get. We're not playing a game of mere antagonism. We're seeing their rules confirmed in the world as we propose different "moves" and they show their "countermoves." If the move is one they seem to "like" it's one they "encourage." If the move is one they don't seem to "like" there is a clear pattern of discouragement. And the effects are eminently reproducible on multiple occasions. Trump chooses more often than not options that they "don't like" and we see a corresponding degree of animosity from the organs and instruments of this system in application.
What is being shown here is not, then, a single claim but a system of claims that correspond to an overall picture. The Deep State being invested in a grossly anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-human narrative that is based on Chinese style "corporate socialism."
I don't think it's far-fetched to say that a lot of what Q has said is either overtly vague and not worthwhile or false, so weighing him as an unreliable source is fair. Before we can even ascertain whether what he says is true or false though, he has not even provided reason to believe him in the first place. Credible sources establish credibility by being verified in what they are a source of.
I'm repeating what you are saying in that quote, not claiming that everyone who is skeptical of the MSM are Q followers. Nothing I said suggested that was the case, so that's an especially tangential argument. And while the MSM lies sometimes, it doesn't help to replace them with an alt-narrative: that's not thinking for yourself or rejecting the narrative, it's trading one narrative for another.
It's not that interesting that I want to use an example.
Seeing as Q is not a verified source in military intelligence, that doesn't seem a possibility at all. And of course people who don't believe Q wouldn't consider a military coup as an option. They especially wouldn't hold out hope for it, seeing as (I previously mentioned) Trump's legal team has failed time and again to procure evidence that the election was stolen. Screaming it from the rooftops does not make it so.
Then I guess the HCQ argument just comes down to whether you believe that Pharma companies and the government are credible or not. I still don't understand the argument though. If HCQ is profitable for businesses, why would they not try to get people on board with that?
Obviously businesses are trying to get profit from it, so again, if HCQ is unpatented, why are businesses not pouncing? If the FDA approves it, the media doesn't matter because public perception will flip immediately.
There's obviously a sort of aristocracy when it comes to the people at the top 1 percent, but I don't understand why you're trying to find Deep State in everything (based entirely on speculation). It seems like your default assumption is that the Deep State is involved when the opposite should be true
First of all, it's a bit disingenuous to assume the thing you intend to prove. That's called circular logic.
But what standard of reliability are you seeking here? I can exclude the obvious ones but what do you really expect out of Q? In my case, I don't think reliability involves the same things you do. Perhaps I just accept far more chaotic inputs than you do. Or perhaps I think I can sanitize information that you don't think you can. Or perhaps you are willfully choosing not to engage the information. Regardless.
The data that comes out of Q and what the "chans" dig up allows me a far broader perspective on information than willful ignorance of them permits. Nor am I compelled to blindly agree with them either. However, a mind that cannot accept perspectives different from one's own is closed and learns very little.
So, I weigh the value of Q or (more generally) the 'chans' is more in the diversity of opinion and providing potential interpretations that may correspond to reality. I don't think shutting down Nazis (and by God, there are actually Nazis there on those boards...) helps me understand why they think what they do or how anything they say might be meaningful to them. In understanding them I can choose to reject or accept what I find to be valid. So even the silly things people say can still be useful for making good, informed decisions. The problem with "cancel culture" is these varying opinions are shut out of the analysis and we're pigeonholed down one narrow corridor of thinking for our "overton window" analysis.
I don't learn from "clean room" perfectionism. I learn from reality which as not only 1s and 0s but also gradients, superpositions, entanglements, myths, legends, rumors and habits. Some more rational some less. All parts of a larger fractal of experience that I'm going to have to put into a coherent pattern but stuff I still need to be aware of when making such choices.
Fine, but let me focus it this way. The MSM claims to be the source of truth who may determine what we're allowed to think and their "fact checkers" claim anything they don't want to agree with is false. They are gatekeepers.
I don't take kindly to gatekeepers of information. I am not stupid. I am capable of making up my own mind without their censors.
Q doesn't claim to be a gatekeeper of truth. He says things and lets you decide whether you accept them. I find, on net, the MSM is doing far more damage to the truth than anything Q might be doing here. Why would someone providing me another alternative interpretation of information constitute harm? All it does is inform my ability to come to my own conclusion without being pigeonholed into one "narrative" or another. I'll read any narrative I damn well choose and make my own conclusions. Why should I limit myself only to things that the MSM or people like you choose to limit themselves to? I can make my own mind up.
So, really... what is Q doing that's so bad that you must raise questions to people following them?
Cheerleading Trump? Well, you've said you aren't against him so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Claiming that the government is fighting against Trump? Really? You have a problem with THAT? 4 years of RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA built on a dossier demonstrably paid for by Hillary Rodham Clinton and somehow there's no Deep State fighting Trump? Please wake up.
Claiming that our systems are corrupted by globalist corporate interests? Really, you think Pharmaceuticals are all good? Have you looked at the fuckin' labels on those things for all the side-effects? And yet none of these "dark, suicidal thoughts" from SSRIs could possibly be involved in making kids into school shooters? Again, please wake up.
Claiming that a lot of these corporate interests are involved in dark practices? Do you really think there is no such thing as real Luciferianism or Satanism? I've seen plenty of evidence of dark practices like human trafficking and other evil occult behaviors that would make most people shudder. Oh, but just for a quick one: Tell me again why the Emmy awards run by an organization called the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. (hint: NATAS = Satan backwards) Tell me again how Epstein was totally unconnected to people like Bill Clinton. Tell me again how Joe Biden just totally randomly decided on the phone service number 30330 = 2020/666. From my perspective, you're just ignoring the pattern because it's not something they couldn't just deny plausibly as "chance."
[... and let me head off a potential argument: yes Trump was on the list. But one of these are not like the others. Bill visited multiple times and Epstein even had a picture of Bill in a blue dress... really saucy. Trump apparently only once had anything to do with Epstein and clearly developed a hostile impression toward him given Trump's current positions... fuck the MSM for trying to equivocate the two cases.]
Do you understand intellectual property? The entire point of patents is to give a monopoly to someone. No patent means no monopoly. You have to deal with competition and that means less profitability because you need to market and you have to deal with efficiency optimization as part of the costs. Soros is a big money manipulator. He's not looking for chump profits. This guy manipulated the Bank of England. He's not playing silly games that he thinks he'd lose out on.
No, the narrative is not just "The Deep State did it all." In fact, the concept of a Deep State itself is very nebulous. Which "deep state?" Even Trump has his internal supporters in Military and Industry. That's just a natural function of how special interests work. Academic, religious, social and political cliques of all kinds exist underneath the hood. But this so-called Deep State that we're fingering at is a very specific one. The globalist deep state which believes that nations are bad and that Chinese style socialism is the best system to manage the world. This is what is operating to subvert the American democracy/republic at this time.
Through corrupted politicians on both sides of the aisle: A so called "duopoly" or "purple party" which comprises both RINO Republicans and corrupt Democrats (and even some third party candidates) acting as the political tools for their ambitions to subjugate American interests to the Globalist program which is now being presented as the "Great Reset" after COVID prepared the way. We've built the webs of connections and the organs all sing the same tune whenever we look. The Globalist Deep State aligned with the Rothschild banking systems and the Clinton and Biden campaigns is indeed a system that exists. Whether or not you choose to believe in its existence is immaterial. Go ahead, deny it exists... but from my perspective it's like an ostrich burying its head in a sand to deny a reality that it doesn't like.