If this were ACTUALLY a psyop and Trump were a turn coat, they would've just rammed through everything they've wanted to do in the senate with the help of the RINOs to overcome Manchin and Sinema. Literally 2 people basically control the Senate, and by extension the entire federal government.
Think about that. It's not hard to overcome the 2 person vote when you account for the RINOs. Romney, McConnell, Murkowski, Graham. Right there, with just those 4 high profile RINOs you have double the vote needed to overcome Manchin and Sinema and ram through every single corrupt bill they wanted.
The fact that they're all being leashed and forced to vote on party lines on the majority of the big bills that would destroy the US or change it permanently tells you they're not in control.
Your entire argument is based on your own hypothetical. It's just your opinion.
You are saying essentially, "What if hypothetically the white hats are telling people that they have to resign, support our plan... would that hypothetically be different than the Derp State blackmail?"
I'd still say yes even in your imagined scenario, but I don't agree with your imagined scenario. For one thing it leaves out people like Admiral Mike Rogers and Mike Flynn who fooled the Derp State and got into powerful positions within the Obama Administration. They might have looked like black hats, but they were white hats. We don't actually know those who have only been pretending to be black hats, but were white hats all along.
Q said "There are more good than bad" implying that white hats may be more numerous than we realize.
We also don't know if the Derp State is forcing out some of these out because they suspect they talked. Too many unknowns.
I disagree.
Trump was very clear that they are the party of law and order. Q went to great lengths to do the posts in a way that followed Natsec guidelines. Following the law seemed an absolute necessity to Q so I don't agree with your speculation. Whatever is going on with the white hats side is 100% by the law in my opinion.
But like you, I'm just speculating.
?????
Speculation? Wow, are you triggered or what?
I gave you two scenario' s. These scenario' s are real live scenario' s. As a matter of fact, Q mentioned that deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut.
Within this context, my scenario' s are playing out.
For you well educated common core smarties out here: goto qagg.news and enter in the search bar the word: deal. You will find 95 posts containing this phrase.
Q 2565 dated 12/10/18 and Q15 dated 10/31/17. The latter is first in line and details deals have to be made because of the level of corruption. Even reaching out to certain players have been done. The former post is the final no deals posts. The door is shut.
So, now you are starting to see what I wrote?
Be that as it may, my question was not about whether or not it happens. My question is: what is the difference?
It is a logical response to your exclamation claim:
Really? The process is exactly the same. In both cases a deal is proposed. A deal is commerce requiring both side to assess the advantage of the deal, to assess the value of the equity in question depending on the position of power they occupy in the, I almost would have said negotiation, but that would presuppose a negative state of being, so. ... I' ll maintain the idea of haggling to set terms to be agreed to.
Your disagreement is duly noted, yet totally unfounded.
O and one more thing: speculation. To speculate requires a tangible form from observation. Otherwise it is nothing than being an air-guitarist. Entertaining, but hardly substantial. As the Latin goes:
"Speculation? Wow, are you triggered or what?
Lol. Predictable. You immediately resort to try to make things emotional. If you can't win in ideas you resort to trying to get things emotional.
In what Q posts was it said word for word "Deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut." That was never said. You are taking out one phrase "No deals" and trying to wildly twist it to your own wild speculations and then claim those as facts.
Also you gave me two hypotheticals that you can't prove are facts, but you want to insist are the truth. Then you were like "See?! In my imagined scenarios that I can't prove I'm right."
Nope. Not even in your imagined scenarios are you right. But keep on imagining ~
No, it's not. You need to check what logic is. A logical response to the question "2 + 2 =?" is "4", not "blue is my favorite color!" or "You're trIGgeReD by me."
Nothing logical about your need to use personal attacks when you can't make your case.
Blackmail is not haggling. Black hats using blackmail and coercion is not them "haggling".
If you think White Hats are "haggling" then you already just proved the difference between the two. Well done.
"Your disagreement is duly noted, yet totally unfounded."
That's fine. I think your speculations are flawed. Let's agree to disagree.
You better read my post dispassionately. You are asking for the clear states road.
Hence, the rest of your peculiar reasoning falls apart as it is bases on a wrong premise.
Again, dispassionately. So before you respond. Think again. Do not use your kneejerk trigger
All I've been saying is I disagree with your premise and you resort to attacks.
Make a case for your theory or pack it up.