That's all good. I appreciate your vigilance and testing your thinking even if the approach is a tad aggressive. ;) Putting things to the test is what makes here good.
Honestly, I can't answer that question with any kind of definitive answer. I don't know.
All I can tell you is I bank on Trump. He's the only one I bank on. I can't bank on Q because I cannot anchor it / him / them to anything tangible apart from coincidence and mystique, that's not to say Q is bullshit, merely you cannot govern people outwardly behind anonymity - Q is not a figurehead. I don't bank on 11th hour heroes. I believe there is a plan and any plan has a figurehead. We all know who the figurehead is. The man who runs the show is the man worth watching.
Every day I have a simple question, it goes unanswered. What's Trump doing today? I have a suspicion that a daily answer to that would reveal the juiciest meat we'd all be happy about. One has to wonder what the MSM reluctance to find out is.
EDIT: No idea about the legal counsel, always possible, but I feel an HBO special runs contrarian to any kind of gag order. Unless it is some piece where he denounces it in some way. But that's pure speculation too.
EDIT: No idea about the legal counsel, always possible, but I feel an HBO special runs contrarian to any kind of gag order. Unless it is some piece where he denounces it in some way. But that's pure speculation too.
I suppose it's possible if there was a gag order that it expired. That's entirely possible right?
I, too, agree that banking on Trump is for the wise. He could not have lived and thrived where he has for all of this time without not just assessing the landscape - but coming up with out-of-the-box scenarios and thinking to deal with the landscape. An example is how Trump literally took New York City and New York State to the bench in regards to getting tax waivers to develop. This wasn't supposed to be possible, in any stretch of the imagination, but Trump was able to accomplish a tax exemption in a scenario where both sides even got what they wanted. It was a brilliant example of his capacity to deal.
I would cite the Abraham Accords as the other. I was freaking out, personally, at the fact Kared Kushner had Henry Kissinger meeting him at the White House. "Red Flag" kept popping up in my mind. Now - what it seems like, and correct me if I am wrong - Kushner literally took Kissinger for a ride and walked out later on with the Abraham Accords. The scale of that agreement and political maneuvering was historical.
In regards to Jim and Ron Watkins - a close eye is wise. If we are here under the premise Q existed, posted on 4chan/8chan/8kun - we can assume a few things.
CloudFlare handled most web traffic for a long period of time. This, in theory, means they had access to the raw traffic that Q was using to post to 8chan. Again we can't know this for certain as we do not have access to the topology.
Jim and Ron Watkins had Root access to 8chan and 8kun. This we know for certain. The only way they don't know a great deal about the origin for the posts is impossible. Most of us that are wise access the entirety of the internet using safety protocols involving VPNs. I would imagine Q has been posting from various VPN / VLAN / etc the entire time.
CloudFlare was stress tested during the Q Q&A sessions. These were insane if you were present at the time. The load was absolutely nuts. CloudFlare literally folded. Their infrastructure literally fell over at the time and the load of 8chan took down other clients of CloudFlare. CloudFlare responded by de-platforming 8chan. 8chan went offline for quite some time and then we had vanwa.tech pop up - and able to handle the mitigation.
As previously noted here: Jim Watkins was called to DC to testify, behind closed doors, to Congress. I find it extremely hard to think that not only did Jim walk away from this scenario with his freedom - nobody said anything. He walked into the Swamp, stared them in the eye, and walked away. This seems extremely consequential and the entire scenario has been downplayed ever since by all media and politicians. I mean wouldn't they be virtue signalling "We spoke with the mandman about 8chan and yada yada yada"? Wouldn't that be optics they would want? Instead it was "HIDE".
That's all good. I appreciate your vigilance and testing your thinking even if the approach is a tad aggressive. ;) Putting things to the test is what makes here good.
Honestly, I can't answer that question with any kind of definitive answer. I don't know.
All I can tell you is I bank on Trump. He's the only one I bank on. I can't bank on Q because I cannot anchor it / him / them to anything tangible apart from coincidence and mystique, that's not to say Q is bullshit, merely you cannot govern people outwardly behind anonymity - Q is not a figurehead. I don't bank on 11th hour heroes. I believe there is a plan and any plan has a figurehead. We all know who the figurehead is. The man who runs the show is the man worth watching.
Every day I have a simple question, it goes unanswered. What's Trump doing today? I have a suspicion that a daily answer to that would reveal the juiciest meat we'd all be happy about. One has to wonder what the MSM reluctance to find out is.
EDIT: No idea about the legal counsel, always possible, but I feel an HBO special runs contrarian to any kind of gag order. Unless it is some piece where he denounces it in some way. But that's pure speculation too.
I suppose it's possible if there was a gag order that it expired. That's entirely possible right?
I, too, agree that banking on Trump is for the wise. He could not have lived and thrived where he has for all of this time without not just assessing the landscape - but coming up with out-of-the-box scenarios and thinking to deal with the landscape. An example is how Trump literally took New York City and New York State to the bench in regards to getting tax waivers to develop. This wasn't supposed to be possible, in any stretch of the imagination, but Trump was able to accomplish a tax exemption in a scenario where both sides even got what they wanted. It was a brilliant example of his capacity to deal.
I would cite the Abraham Accords as the other. I was freaking out, personally, at the fact Kared Kushner had Henry Kissinger meeting him at the White House. "Red Flag" kept popping up in my mind. Now - what it seems like, and correct me if I am wrong - Kushner literally took Kissinger for a ride and walked out later on with the Abraham Accords. The scale of that agreement and political maneuvering was historical.
In regards to Jim and Ron Watkins - a close eye is wise. If we are here under the premise Q existed, posted on 4chan/8chan/8kun - we can assume a few things.
CloudFlare handled most web traffic for a long period of time. This, in theory, means they had access to the raw traffic that Q was using to post to 8chan. Again we can't know this for certain as we do not have access to the topology.
Jim and Ron Watkins had Root access to 8chan and 8kun. This we know for certain. The only way they don't know a great deal about the origin for the posts is impossible. Most of us that are wise access the entirety of the internet using safety protocols involving VPNs. I would imagine Q has been posting from various VPN / VLAN / etc the entire time.
CloudFlare was stress tested during the Q Q&A sessions. These were insane if you were present at the time. The load was absolutely nuts. CloudFlare literally folded. Their infrastructure literally fell over at the time and the load of 8chan took down other clients of CloudFlare. CloudFlare responded by de-platforming 8chan. 8chan went offline for quite some time and then we had vanwa.tech pop up - and able to handle the mitigation.
As previously noted here: Jim Watkins was called to DC to testify, behind closed doors, to Congress. I find it extremely hard to think that not only did Jim walk away from this scenario with his freedom - nobody said anything. He walked into the Swamp, stared them in the eye, and walked away. This seems extremely consequential and the entire scenario has been downplayed ever since by all media and politicians. I mean wouldn't they be virtue signalling "We spoke with the mandman about 8chan and yada yada yada"? Wouldn't that be optics they would want? Instead it was "HIDE".