The MSM has been so worried about Q and the "anon" movement. Wonder why there has been so little attempts to identify who Q is? Wonder if many know, but don't want it revealed?
Can't believe all these "journalists" aren't curious.
Thoughts?
The MSM has been so worried about Q and the "anon" movement. Wonder why there has been so little attempts to identify who Q is? Wonder if many know, but don't want it revealed?
Can't believe all these "journalists" aren't curious.
Thoughts?
So you are quite comfortable accepting an argument that says, basically, 'When I'm right I'm right, and when I'm wrong, it's because 'disinformation is necessary' - so I'm always right!
In other words, I can say "we will invade China tomorrow at 9am ET". If it happens - boom - proof of my amazing knowledge. And if it doesn't happen, 'disinformation is necessary'. I mean, it's super cool because it means you can never be wrong, but it doesn't stand up to the most basic of analysis.