You're getting ahead of yourself in your assumptions again.
I understand. Q is ostensibly an anti-pedophile group. If that's all Q was, then Q supporters would not be experiencing the drama we currently see around here. Hell, you'd have my support. IF that was all Q was.
But it's not. Never has been. That's been a part of it. The easiest part to digest. That's all.
The point of Q was not just to arrest Maxwell. There's supposed to be a LOT more going on here.
Which is why it surprises me that Maxwell being in jail is all it takes to convince you that Q is active and winning. If that really is your only cutoff.
But on the other hand, I suppose that makes the conflict you seem to believe in more tangible if you believe that what separates you from me is that you want Maxwell in jail, and nobody else wants that as much as you want that.
Q is not necessary for Maxwell to be in jail. Her being in jail doesn't confirm a thing about Q. It just means that the world is generally more anti-pedophilic than you seem to believe.
And if Maxwell being imprisoned is all it takes to convince you that Q is still active and successful, then it's no wonder you're so passionate about this. Your standard of victory is extremely low. It's something we both consider a victory, but you are trying to claim ownership over it.
So if the fraud is never vindicated, Q's Plan is still successful? If Trump never returns? If this Cabal is never exposed to the masses? If the vaccines are never revealed en masse to be killing people? You'll still be faithful to Q in twenty years so long as Maxwell is still in prison?
You still don't understand what arrests mean to people with influence. If you arrest a politician they must remain active so that enemy countries do not take advantage and vice versa. You have 0 concept of Military Deception of warfare.
I've been following this discussion with interest and this particular comment took my eye. Can you elaborate on just how this works, for say, Obama or Gates? If Obama were arrested, what does 'must remain active' mean? Are you saying Obama has been arrested but is being coerced into 'playing along' so as to prevent enemy countries from taking advantage? How about Gates? Are you suggesting they are being blackmailed?
This is an old post now, but I wanted to follow up and essentially re-ask my question. I asked this:
Can you elaborate on just how this works, for say, Obama or Gates? If Obama were arrested, what does 'must remain active' mean? Are you saying Obama has been arrested but is being coerced into 'playing along' so as to prevent enemy countries from taking advantage? How about Gates? Are you suggesting they are being blackmailed?
Today, I caught an ad on TV for an interview with Obama about his new presidential library / museum. So here we have a situation were Obama is going on mainstream TV (Good Morning America, I think it was) to talk about his library, his legacy, etc. Is this consistent with your idea of him being 'arrested'? To me, he's doing what any ex-president does - make appearances. He also spoke out in favor of Newsom as part of the California recall. These don't sound consistent to me with being 'arrested', even in an abstract sense.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not understanding. Are you saying that Obama himself was actually arrested, then ... what ... blackmailed while in custody (shown pictures/documents, etc), and then released into the wild again (so normies don't get concerned), with VERY specific instructions as to how he must behave ("do what we say or we'll release info ...")? So for example, Obama appeared in TV ads recently in support of Newsom in California, speaking aggressively against Trump and in support of Newsom. Was that 'allowed' under the terms of his arrest/release? Similarly, Bill Gates has appeared numerous times in the media, saying pretty much what he's always said about vaccines, viruses, etc.
So my general conclusion is, these people are 'doing what they've always done', and that doesn't seem to meet the definition for being 'arrested' or 'suppressed'.
You're getting ahead of yourself in your assumptions again.
I understand. Q is ostensibly an anti-pedophile group. If that's all Q was, then Q supporters would not be experiencing the drama we currently see around here. Hell, you'd have my support. IF that was all Q was.
But it's not. Never has been. That's been a part of it. The easiest part to digest. That's all.
The point of Q was not just to arrest Maxwell. There's supposed to be a LOT more going on here.
Which is why it surprises me that Maxwell being in jail is all it takes to convince you that Q is active and winning. If that really is your only cutoff.
But on the other hand, I suppose that makes the conflict you seem to believe in more tangible if you believe that what separates you from me is that you want Maxwell in jail, and nobody else wants that as much as you want that.
Q is not necessary for Maxwell to be in jail. Her being in jail doesn't confirm a thing about Q. It just means that the world is generally more anti-pedophilic than you seem to believe.
And if Maxwell being imprisoned is all it takes to convince you that Q is still active and successful, then it's no wonder you're so passionate about this. Your standard of victory is extremely low. It's something we both consider a victory, but you are trying to claim ownership over it.
So if the fraud is never vindicated, Q's Plan is still successful? If Trump never returns? If this Cabal is never exposed to the masses? If the vaccines are never revealed en masse to be killing people? You'll still be faithful to Q in twenty years so long as Maxwell is still in prison?
Thank you so much for articulating these terrific points. You have far more patience than I.
I've been following this discussion with interest and this particular comment took my eye. Can you elaborate on just how this works, for say, Obama or Gates? If Obama were arrested, what does 'must remain active' mean? Are you saying Obama has been arrested but is being coerced into 'playing along' so as to prevent enemy countries from taking advantage? How about Gates? Are you suggesting they are being blackmailed?
This is an old post now, but I wanted to follow up and essentially re-ask my question. I asked this:
Today, I caught an ad on TV for an interview with Obama about his new presidential library / museum. So here we have a situation were Obama is going on mainstream TV (Good Morning America, I think it was) to talk about his library, his legacy, etc. Is this consistent with your idea of him being 'arrested'? To me, he's doing what any ex-president does - make appearances. He also spoke out in favor of Newsom as part of the California recall. These don't sound consistent to me with being 'arrested', even in an abstract sense.
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still not understanding. Are you saying that Obama himself was actually arrested, then ... what ... blackmailed while in custody (shown pictures/documents, etc), and then released into the wild again (so normies don't get concerned), with VERY specific instructions as to how he must behave ("do what we say or we'll release info ...")? So for example, Obama appeared in TV ads recently in support of Newsom in California, speaking aggressively against Trump and in support of Newsom. Was that 'allowed' under the terms of his arrest/release? Similarly, Bill Gates has appeared numerous times in the media, saying pretty much what he's always said about vaccines, viruses, etc.
So my general conclusion is, these people are 'doing what they've always done', and that doesn't seem to meet the definition for being 'arrested' or 'suppressed'.