161
Comments (134)
sorted by:
34
catsfive [M] 34 points ago +34 / -0 stickied

Why is this stickied? Because this is a sincere question, and I'm sure our more senior frogs can help drive some good discussion with this one. FLAIR UP.

96
yudsfpbc 96 points ago +98 / -2

That was their plan - try to steal the election, get caught and stopped like in 2016, then sue the crap out of the US, meanwhile 24/7 riots, and tge great reset continues, blaming Trump for the disaster

They didn't expect Trump letting them steal it. That's why the put Biden Harris on the ticket - the two least popular dems.

Now that they have to pretend they won, they have to tell everyone with a straight face that elections are totally legit and the government is not a foreign occupation. And they have to be in charge while the economy crumbles. It was supposed ro be Trump governing while forced vax kills 1/2 the pop.

64
scurfie 64 points ago +64 / -0

Trump never conceded. I think that is more important than we realize.

14
Wtf_socialismreally 14 points ago +16 / -2

But I also think this point is over exaggerated, as you don't have to concede to lose.

Not conceding could matter in a situation where the winner is disqualified for, say, excessive fraud.

35
Space_Monkey 35 points ago +35 / -0

I'm no expert, but I think it matters because once you concede, you have agreed that you lost, and therefore lose any right to challenge the results legally. By not conceding, Trump can maintain the narrative that he indeed won, and the door for legal challenges stays open.

19
Rooks 19 points ago +19 / -0

This is correct. By not conceding, you leave the slim possibility that results may still yet be challenged.

5
Gaterop 5 points ago +6 / -1

The thing that kind of loses me here is say you concede because you felt you lost a fair election, then a few days later absolutely massive evidence comes out that your opponent cheated. "Sorry bro you conceded"? Of course this assumes that some action is taken to remedy the fraud, why would conceding matter at this point? You only conceded when you thought it was fair, the terms you conceded under did not exist in reality. Everybody here always says fraud vitiates everything, does it or does it not? Gotta pick one here. If it vitiates everything then conceding doesn't matter at all because the entire election is null and void anyways, the fact that you actually won doesn't matter. If it doesn't then once again conceding has absolutely no meaning because whether or not they cheated wouldn't change the outcome of the election, thus there would be no reason to ever contest it as there isn't anything to contest at that point, even if fraud is proven "so what? Done is done."

6
Rooks 6 points ago +6 / -0

See also my reply to u/AllowMeToExplain.

I have a memory from when I was in MN that there was a ballot stuffing incident. It was a local either in Minneapolis or LaCross, Wisconsin. This would be the late 70s, early 80s. Since I lived it I never recorded the incident specifically, didn't know I'd have to recount it decades later to some pede on the Internet. 😁

Anyways, IIRC it was election fraud, yes. The votes did not count and the cheating side then lost. This was after a concession from the true winner, and it took lawyers and judges to resolve.

I'm sure if we started digging through historical court rulings we'd find just and unjust rulings going both ways, however.

By and large, even with a concede I have an impression that stolen elections, once proved are overturned and 9/10 times the candidate or his family was involved and there was jail time. This is not a new thing to American history. However, fraud at the governor or federal level is so much more serious, and so much more rare (at least to the public eye), it is a bigger deal, and there really isn't precedence (legal term) on how to remedy it. Courts rely heavily on case history to make decisions. They don't like making decisions without reference at all as it creates new standing.

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +4 / -0

It is a lot simpler when this is actually during the election and/or the immediate aftermath before a candidate is seated. And it also heavily depends on what office this is for. When someone is holding office unlawfully - not elected, fraud, or some other illegal means - then you can file what is called "quo warranto" to have a judge remove them. However, you cannot quo warranto a congressman/senator/president/vice president. Because the constitution controls.

Art. I § 5 cl. 1 "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"

You're not going to find house or senate races where courts have unseated a sitting congressman because the congress itself deals with that. Likewise, with the electoral college/count/certification process, it is both houses of congress that deal with choosing the executive.

You can find cases dealing with recounts, or other impermissible acts before or during the election. But for the most part, all the cases where courts removed fraudulently elected officials are outside the bounds of congress or presidency.

Its a cluster. Our system is based on people doing the right thing. We know that isn't happening.

4
SmolPedeBestPede 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don’t see anything in the constitution saying a new president can be sworn in without a concession. Just saying.

4
Rooks 4 points ago +4 / -0

Isn't needed, it's common sense. You don't hold up the whole country just because someone isn't willing to give up. That is, in part, why the Victor isn't sworn in immediately, to give a small window for evidence to shone.

4
AllowMeToExplain 4 points ago +4 / -0

No. It was not immediate because people had to travel from places like southern georgia to washington dc by horse. In the middle of winter.

2
r0g3rwilco 2 points ago +2 / -0

No but court precedence and case law suggest that a court would take a concession as evidence in a hearing. I think thats all that the concession would do, yet very important.

2
AllowMeToExplain 2 points ago +2 / -0

p̶r̶e̶c̶e̶d̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ precedent

It is inconsequential. Not conceding is so the media can't run clips of the concession and act like he's insane for disputing it after agreeing with it.

No court is dealing with this. Ever. They don't have purview in this realm. If it is ever dealt with, it will be done via congress. The judiciary is not involved in the selection of the executive.

2
Voltage 2 points ago +2 / -0

Except many local judges stepped out side their purview and changed election law unconstitutionally.

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't forget the reason they had the opportunity in the first place: Marc Elias. Over 360 lawsuits filed beginning in summer 2020. This guy gets scrutiny but not remotely close to the extent he should.

1
Sodium_miner 1 point ago +2 / -1

No but Killary never conceded either.

5
Analophigus 5 points ago +5 / -0

Dead people can’t concede 🙃

4
Asilimum 4 points ago +5 / -1

That's just wrong, she conceded before all the results were even in lol

Don't you remember she called Trump and did it?

3
Rooks 3 points ago +3 / -0

Conceding is bowing out, or quitting, regardless of reason, like saying "I'm done here" and walking away. Regardless of anything or any reason else, you've thrown in the towel, and are forfeiting further claim on victory, regardless of potential future outcomes.

There are several legal cases where a recount overturned a race, but the person who actually won had already conceded, so the court ruled the recount was moot. Conceding is dropping out.

3
AllowMeToExplain 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not saying you're wrong...there has been a court that has ruled something on just about anything. But I am deeply skeptical of that claim.

2
Rooks 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree with you, you shouldn't take random person on the Internets word for gospel, like ever.

See my reply to u/gaterop further down too.

My reference is personally seeing recounts from other elections I've lived through, so I don't have fast, easy references at my fingertips. When I was in Alaska there was a close race. Early on the count was ridiculously one sided, so the losing candidate conceded early to save face and throw support behind the opponent (either one was a good choice at the time). Later in the evening they released the updated count and he had actually pulled ahead. They kept counting as the news of the concession was late, and when they found out they announced they were taking back the concession and the counting should continue. The other side said no, you gave up already.

Went to court and it pretty much came out there that if you concede, the count doesn't really matter, at least not in that state because you gave up and quit.

I think it was mid/late 80s when it happened. Regardless, you are right, I'm sure if we researched it every state has those stories through history.

2
scurfie 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not conceding means he could be reinstated into office say by a military tribunal.

2
Wtf_socialismreally 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't believe that is a plausible remedy. A plausible remedy is a new election in that situation though.

7
ProudOfAmerica 7 points ago +7 / -0

After a (normal) election, the main importance of conceding is to tell your supporters to 'stop fighting, it's over, go home'.

Trump does not want Americans to stop fighting for their country.

2
scurfie 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes.

4
SoMuchWinning45 4 points ago +4 / -0

Stacy M1 Abrams didn't concede, did she?

2
NanaQ45 2 points ago +2 / -0

Under the military organization structure, if it is still being taught properly, the CIC, unless he concedes, remains the CIC because he may have been removed under duress. Technically, under the code as it used to function, Trump and his cabinet would be considered in exile, but he should Technically still be the CIC until he can concede without duress. That's my understanding fwiw.

2
scurfie 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unless I'm totally wrong, military tribunal is used during a constitutional crisis. Treason could be the trigger and we know there was foreign influence.

2
Rooks 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes.

35
deleted 35 points ago +36 / -1
7
MoniQuesmith303 7 points ago +7 / -0

I feel like , maybe....Trump already stopped the worst of it? By winning 16, losing 20. And now we are reconstruction of the United States. That's why inflation is up, stock market down. Just a theory.

7
demonite10 7 points ago +7 / -0

To add on a little more, I can understand why Dem(on)s have been destroying the food processing facilities, but what if there's more to it? I wonder if white hats are rolling out an alternate method for providing food that isn't tainted by the satanists...after all, we know they grind up their human victims and add them to our meat

5
swimkin 5 points ago +5 / -0

Dang I handn't thought of that being a possibility. Plus let's not forget all the GMOs and chemicals they ingest into these animals before bringing them to market.

3
usernamenottaken 3 points ago +3 / -0

Same

2
MoniQuesmith303 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, I hadn't thought about that. Very possible!

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
solarsavior 1 point ago +2 / -1

controlled demolition

devolution

16
TeaPartySon 16 points ago +16 / -0

Nicely Concisely Done

2
Cuzzo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Respondent did a great job of parsing the questions assumption that Biden had always been the pick.

Trump beat them from the outside first time, remember?

13
photobuf 13 points ago +13 / -0

I also remember Killary telling Xiden the day after the election not to concede. The plan they had to scrap! Kek

6
MammasAlwaysRIGHT 6 points ago +6 / -0

I remember Barry saying, “you don’t have to do this, Joe” when he announced he was running

4
ceegeegee 4 points ago +4 / -0

Ah, so much was said in that one statement...

11
HelloDolly 11 points ago +11 / -0

Brilliant comment. I just had an AHA moment about the Q post too. Q team wanted them to think they had unrigged the election machines for 2020 just like they did in 2016. Not all Q posts are for us.

7
Razo 7 points ago +8 / -1

Q said the drops weren't just for anons. That the deep state read them too so this could have indeed tricked them

39
TSearch 39 points ago +39 / -0

Where does it say Biden will lose? It says Biden will not concede election night. He didn’t.

It says they will contest the election legally in battleground states. They did. They had legal teams there contesting everything Trump’s team was doing.

It says they will project doubt into the election results. Which, again, they did until enough ballots were dumped or scanned multiple times to claim Biden won.

It says they will organize massive riots. Do we know they didn’t? What was January 6th supposed to be? Wasn’t there rumors of riots in all 50 state capitals if Trump was elected?

But more than anything else this post was to let them know they were being watched.

5
swedy13 5 points ago +5 / -0

Right, that's what I'm seeing too, lol. Not sure where the op questions came from?

4
TSearch 4 points ago +4 / -0

The statement it will be contested does kind of make you think that means as losers. But even in claiming the victory the Dems were in court contesting Trump filed cases.

4
praying71 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is brilliant. Yes.

And add the following:

  • Q: Think mirror.

  • Q: Disinformation sometimes needed.

  • Trump setting up unit responsible for the election communication safety called ... NCSWIC - https://www.cisa.gov/safecom/NCSWIC

  • Trump's EO that defines what steps need to be taken when the election fraud happens.

It was all a trap for them and this post was to make them think Q is sure they're going to lose the election so that the swamp will try to cheat on so many levels and expose themselves.

It's like hunting:

  • first shot is to make the animal scared and ... visible, make them leave their safe area (e.g. birds flying out of the tree they've been sitting on)

  • next shots are the actual hunting

30
Cozette 30 points ago +30 / -0

My muse: Imo the key phrase is "Playbook known".

In fact, post election scenarios were war gamed in early 2020 by those who planned the coup. Podesta played Trump.

There were four scenarios that were war gamed. This was one of them. However, the coup plotters preferred scenario, per their color revolution playbook, was that President Trump, realizing that theyd rigged the election, refused to leave, triggering the need to remove him by force and sparking a civil war that would justify brutally crushing any MAGA resistance to their coup.

Hence the inorganic flood of " Cross the Rubicon, Don" memes that started on glowie controlled /pol/ and spread to MAGA internet community's prior to J6.

Hence the seething flood of anti Trump "he's a pUsSy" hate posts when Trump refused to take the bait and instead peacefully moved his headquarters from the DC White House to the Winter White House at Mar a Lago.

As Q has said repeatedly, "these people are stupid" so of course this move by Trump hadn't been anticipated or war gamed. Better yet, leaving peacefully allowed President Trump to turn the tables on those who pulled off the coup.

Ever since then, mad lad Trumps been using their own color revolution playbook to oust them. Legally. And they know it.

Without revealing everything, Q was letting the coup plotters and us, at least in retrospect, know that Trump and his team knew what the Swamp Demons were up to and weren't caught by surprise.

Remembering Q fragments: Moves and counter moves. It had to be this way. Be loud. Make your voices heard. Make the changes that need to be made now that you are precipice aware and motivated.

Trust the plan. In other words, trust Gods plan for us and have confidence that Trump and Q have a plan too.

WWG1WGA. Work together like the crew in the movie White Squall, when the storm hit, and we will survive this.

9
Wokism 9 points ago +9 / -0

Amen. Well said fren.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
I-AM-ANON 3 points ago +3 / -0

The thing is though, is that Trump did cross the Rubicon.

Historically speaking, Julius Caesar was one of the greatest military minds to ever be born. He began his career as a foot soldier and ended it as the Emperor.

When he crossed the Rubicon river, he actually marched past Rome in pursuit of Pompey, which was completely unexpected on part of the Senate which had harangued him for treason.

It actually took several years between the crossing of the Rubicon and when Caesar finally arrived in Rome, as he pursued Pompey all the way to Egypt, and was briefly distracted by an affair with Cleopatra.

All in all, this was the greatest head feint in all of human history, as Caesar temporarily allowed Rome to exist in near total anarchy without a government while he conclusively decided the civil war with Pompey.

The parallel with Trump and our modern times is nothing short of symphonic. We are seeing an almost perfect overture between the orchestra of history which played out in Rome, and the melody as it expresses itself again in our modern world.

After all, America is the spiritual and symbolic manifestation of Rome within the modern world. It's easy to see that had Trump initiated civil war, our entire society would have transitioned into an Imperial state, just as happened before. This time we may see something entirely new form instead: a worldwide Republic.

2
Cozette 2 points ago +2 / -0

I appreciate your accurate history take. Alot.

My "Cross the Rubicon" reference was to the popular culture understanding of that phrase. This understanding drove the pre J6 glowie memes urging Trump to trigger scenario #4 and justified post J20 glowie fuelled "Trumps a pUsSy" rage posts when he didnt take their violence bait.

Again, thanks. I really enjoyed reading what you took the time to compose and share. You reminded me to thank God thatTrump has an OG elite private military academy education and is a life long military history obsessive.

2
I-AM-ANON 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh the glowies were pushing open conflict no doubt, my comment was more for the 3rd party reader

2
335K 2 points ago +2 / -0

☝️👍

18
UglyTruths 18 points ago +22 / -4

If you take the awakening journey long enough and dig deep into rabbit holes, you eventually come to a place where you don't trust anyone except the Creator.

All sides are likely working for the same master.

"God wins" because no one else can clean up this mess.

13
Wokism 13 points ago +13 / -0

This describes my experience. After years of awakening I went from militant atheist, to agnostic, to having an unfathomable relationship with Jesus. God is the ultimate red-pill.

5
dty6 5 points ago +5 / -0

ain't that the truth

2
Cozette 2 points ago +2 / -0

"All sides are likely working for the same master". Yep. Like it or hate it, everyone serves God no matter how hard they try not to. Hence, " God wins". He won before the "game" started.

Imo life is our opportunity to decide our reaction to that victory. We become our choices. Invitation to the eternal celebration accepted or rejected? Joy full or hate full?

15
HaroldHolt 15 points ago +16 / -1

Q does not predict, they disclose bits of plans and intelligence.

Drop 4722 tells us about a playbook. it does not purport to predict an election.

9
JC77 9 points ago +13 / -4

Five possibilities:

  1. Q got it wrong.
  2. Q deceived us.
  3. Q/Trump etc. decided to change 'the plan' after this was posted.
  4. This post was meant to deceive the DS (DISINFO IS NECESSARY).
  5. It is referring to the 2022 election (or beyond).
4
Acala 4 points ago +5 / -1

Its referring to future elections. That seems pretty obvious to me tbh.

3
ArcaneSlang 3 points ago +3 / -0

Think mirror. If one allows yourself to think for one second without screaming shill or doomer at anyone who questions the Q narrative, it’s quite possible that this was a psyop. Because in order to reconcile the false rules information they throw in’ disinfo is necessary’ or invent ‘deltas’; hypothesize time traveling and if you don’t believe it, you’re a normie The Bible says the end will be like the days of Noah, notice there wasn’t a revolution in righteousness brought to us by the MIL before the rains came down.

1
JohnBrowning 1 point ago +1 / -0

The only interpretation here that is logically consistent is assuming that it is referring to future elections. So, I guess we are at Trump 2024 now…

5
Evearte 5 points ago +5 / -0

If you know the enemy is watching you (watching Q) and you put out a statement like this that basically says Trump will win and we know that you'll throw a fit but we know and you'll still lose anyway. What action might that invoke in your enemy?Cheat harder. To me in looking in retrospect this was bait for them to do it. Do It Harder! I think we can see now that letting them steal the election openly was the plan. Gotta catch them in the act.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
Acala 2 points ago +3 / -1

Bingo. Or 2024.

1
Kekeveli777 1 point ago +1 / -0

And we know now the playbook thanks to what we saw in 2020

5
_Donald-Trump_ 5 points ago +5 / -0

Q sometimes contradicted himself in posts. Q frequently discussed setting traps and using bait. Q also frequently discussed how easy it was to mess with the enemy, and laughed about it. Q discussed using misdirection to bait the enemy into making major mistakes. Much of what Q did was, in fact, to taunt the enemy, make them panic, and make them do exactly what Q ultimately wanted by reverse psychology. Pretend one thing so that you make the enemy do the opposite.

In this case, much of the Q-posts were taunting the enemy about what would happen during the next election. Talking about how they couldnt win even if they cheated, etc etc, with the intent of insuring that they would do everything they could and more to try to steal the election. And it worked. Q knew they would steal the election. Q also likely knew that they would not be stopping it this time, like it was supposedly stopped in 2016.

The only question now is, how do we fix this? It looks like we are going to have to wait until at least after the midterm elections, maybe even all the way through bidets full 4 years. The midterms will give a good indication of what we can expect in the future however.

4
ReturnToTheHolyOne 4 points ago +4 / -0

If they knew the playbook, would they not do a feint? Biden has blown the democrat's support. You cannot rule over a population that hates you with a grumble.

4
pedewithweed 4 points ago +4 / -0

They didnt?.....

4
SuckaFree 4 points ago +4 / -0

[they] didn't expect Trump to step down and step aside like he did. [they] always planned on cheating and had calculated the odds on whether the populace would believe the accusations, and figured [they]'d need to orchestrate a "revolution" to cover it all up.

But, what [they] didn't expect was the "silent majority" to sit back under Q/Q+'s orders and just let it all go down like it did. [they] underestimated our ability to pass the msg along. [they] underestimated how many people have awakened (Q followers and anons along with non-Q followers). [they]'ve underestimated how many people are actually following Q or the overall message (hint; no one even knows, so this will always be underestimated). Lastly, [they] overestimated what the Clowns, Tarrio/the Proud Boys and Rhodes/the Oath Keepers were actually capable of re: their abilities to agitiate the populace. (Since no one even knows how many people are actually 'hard core' members of those two groups, we see the results, and they have been judged lacking.) [they] also didn't expect the truth about these Clowns to come out like it did. [they] also didn't expect for us to "have the receipts," either.

Imo, Trump stepping aside like he did saved this country. Possibly more than anything else could ever do. All it would've taken was him deciding to contest everything and refuse to leave office, and we would be going into Year 3 of the 2nd American (un)Civil War/American "revolution." As a result, things would be 200% worse than they are right now. (Thank God, Trump, Q, and US for that!)

So now [they]'re stuck doing everything possible to protect the lies, cheating, and the truth about EVERYTHING from going "mainstream."

But, we all know how this plays out, don't we?

"The ending will not be for everyone."

NCSWIC

4
Lawjic 4 points ago +4 / -0

Look at the refrain: "Make no mistake." It looks like a mistake, though, right? Maybe yes, but it's emphatically not a mistake. I think a huge number of Q posts are to misdirect and confuse the enemy. Expend their resources. Make bad planning decisions. Keep them awake at night.

4
BerlinWallCrosser 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why do you interpret this as Biden losing? Fact: They stole the election. Fact: Trump has never conceded. Fact: Election results were contested in the courts in battleground states. This helped show us who was corrupt. Fact: Many resources have cast doubts on the election results and more will come. Fact: Riots are being organized as we speak. Look at what they are doing now as the Roe decision was leaked. What do you think will happen if key state election results are decertified or 11.3 & 11.4 goes into action.

3
GreenLivesMatter 3 points ago +6 / -3

It’s things like this that make me think Q was someone like Scavino and was created to let Anons know the truth with plausible deniability, and also give Anons a sense Trump was doing a lot behind the scenes to help with re-election. Once the election was stolen and certified and nobody did shit about it, Q wasn’t needed anymore.

8
Acala 8 points ago +9 / -1

No this is referring to future elections. Q is far from being not needed. We haven't even finished deciphering his most critical content. The next 4+ years are going to be extremely dangerous and insane. For instance it's obvious to me now one of the most important messages he's trying to tell us has to do with extreme genetic modification. It's integral to the great reset. It's why they're destroying our legacy food stuffs. I would have never have seen this if it wasn't for recent Q research. No my good sir we haven't even scratched the surface of Q yet. The best and most shocking is yet to come.

7
HelloDolly 7 points ago +7 / -0

"The next 4+ years are going to be extremely dangerous and insane." Early on I thought like many did, that something dramatic like HRC's arrest would be a pivotal moment. After 5 years of tic tock and BOOM! and "in two weeks", I have come to believe that there will be a little bit of a lot of crazy, for years to come.

That's not meant to be a doom. I think this was always a long term plan but if we had been told at the outset to "buckle up" for 10 years of crazy shit, we might not have been able to stay on the plan. The goal was always to avoid a civil war IMO. It's like when you take a 1000 mile road trip with your parents and you keep saying "are we almost there" and they keep saying, "almost."

EDIT: Couldn't stop thinking about how no matter how far we had to go my Mom would say "200 miles." It dIdn't matter if it was 1000 or 10 - we could be 10 miles from the hotel/motel (that had to have a pool!). She was the AAA road map planner lady every year God Bless her. Don't know why I think that's so funny today. Maybe because it's so much like the "in two weeks" thing.

5
Acala 5 points ago +5 / -0

Im fairly certain entire sectors of society are going to fail this winter. There's a good chance people are going to starve. Maybe even in the states. Q has been trying to prepare us for what's to come. People simply underestimated the scale of this war while constantly date fagging. Qs true purpose is coming up. The next four years will put any doubts you have to rest while you scramble to survive.

2
Miztivin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know Ive been stockpiling supplies long before Biden was even considered a candidate, and anyone who's been following Q has probably done the same.

Thats long before our frens at TD.Win probably started prepping.

2
Acala 2 points ago +2 / -0

You got a couple million calories in dry goods?

2
Miztivin 2 points ago +2 / -0

I got a whole wall stacked with mres and dry beans in my shed lol. And a 5 year old garden, fruitrees, livestock, ammunition and a stocked forest out back that I never hunt with a creek running through it.

Its not perfect. There are 100 more things id like to do. But money and time is a factor. Ill keep working on it till I can't anymore. Weve come a long way tho, and Im glad I started early.

2
Acala 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good work. Most think a dozen cans and a few MREs are gonna cover it but don't account for actual calories needed for a family of four or the slew of other family members that didn't listen and didn't prepare at all. Most are not ready for a year long siege.

3
Cozette 3 points ago +3 / -0

As Q said repeatedly, "You have more than you know". My personal fact check rates this as VERY true.

Examples:

The 'Hunt for Red October' movie scene, "Combat tactics, Mr Ryan' inspired my understanding of Trumps messaging around Operation Warp Speed that still triggers rEEEEEEeeeees.

The Promontory music video from the movie " Last of the Mohicans" reminds me to keep fighting rather than giving up hope because I don't believe help is on its way. Btw, thanks Q. 😘

2
Acala 2 points ago +3 / -1

Q has been referring to future events from day one. He's talking about a future election. 2024 maybe. Q has proven himself. If you think he's wrong there is a good chance you're misinterpreting.

2
SemperSupra 2 points ago +2 / -0

1.) They will not concede on Election Night (TRUE -- Trump won decisively. They spent weeks "finding" ballots to reverse it)

2.) They will contest this legally in battleground states. (TRUE -- They spent weeks using their corrupt judges and control of secretary of states to "contest" and argue that they could keep counting ballots mailed in days after the deadline or "discovering" new ballots). The definition of "legal" is relative. You can be legal, but still be using a bastardization of the law and justice system.

3.) They will project doubt in the election results. (TRUE -- Trump won election night and they have been trying to cast doubt ever since and claim that Biden didn't cheat to steal it when everyone can see they spent weeks "finding" ballots to overturn the results).

4.) They will organize massive rights and attempt anarchy-99 (TRUE -- or as the news media called it "Mostly peaceful protests").

Q's prediction was spot on.

Trump was the clear victor on election night. It took Biden weeks to "steal" it. They had to find and print enough ballots to overcome a million vote lead in Pennsylvania.

Trump would win on election night and Biden would lose. That is exactly what happened. They would refuse to accept it and try to spend the weeks after overturning the election. That is exactly what happened.

It looks like Q was very accurate to me.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

Look at the date it was released and "Think mirror". This was released right after the results of the Transition Integrity Project (the DNC's election war games) were made public.

Read the "Make no mistake" in a Democrat's voice. These 4 sentences are from the DNC's perspective.

This is what the Democrats were projecting as the most likely thing Trump would do once they stole the election. It was the primary scenario considered in the TIP. This is what the DNC was prepared for, and what they tried to turn Jan. 6 into. The were going to incite anarchy whether Trump did or not. Trump really screwed them up by simply walking away. He left them all dressed up with nowhere to go.

The final line "Playbook known" is Q again saying we would not fall into that trap. The fact that they published the results of the TIP shows just how arrogant and stupid they were.

2
Monomial 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Make no mistake" is also a favorite line of Hillary.

2
jules1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Didn't there used to be an old saying...."Sometimes you have to let the child touch the hot kettle briefly to show them that they should not touch the stove?"

I believe they are letting the child touch the kettle. Show them what it is to win everything they thought they wanted. Give it to 'em. Before they touch the stove.

(A few years from now it would have been the stove, and we would have not survived it. Any of us.)

2
Fefifofumdrum 2 points ago +3 / -1

Perhaps Q is referring to the next presidential election.

2
theist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Q posts were as much dis-info to the other side. Maybe.

Think mirror.

The "playbook" known is maybe a clue too, and if you play along with their playbook, then how can they not guess exactly what you are doing?

If their playbook is to cheat, then play along with the cheating.

You are mirroring them, another kind of "mirror".

So Trump did not concede. He took it to the courts. He projected doubt on the election results.

He spearheaded their own plan designed to take him out, against them. Playing them at their own game.

2
VulgarProfit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Remember we've been way off on the time frames so far. This is what they're going to do in the midterms or 2024. I'm thinking midterms.

3
Cozette 3 points ago +3 / -0

"We've been way off on time frames".

Fortunately, I haven't been " way off". Why not? Because I don't make guesses. Instead I prefer to generate questions then, like President Trump, my curiousity inspires me to stay tuned to the "movie" to "see what happens".

Meanwhile, as Q urged, I remain actively engaged in my own role in this 24/7 interactive reality "movie"

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
1
Cozette 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Two more years".

Take things " one day at a time".

This present may be your last. Tick Tock. 😘

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
ThePowerOfPrayer -1 points ago +1 / -2

Think mirror.

2
335K 2 points ago +2 / -0

Y'all watched the "inauguration", right?

🍿

2
JackieDaytona74 2 points ago +2 / -0

Game Theory means assessing all of your opponents moves and countermoves, then having your own plans at the ready for each of their possible maneuvers. So it's possible that the Cabal did changed their tactics, necessitating a countermove by the patriots.

Other possibilities for this drop:

-"Playbook known". This strikes me as a direct attempt to goad the Cabal into changing their tactics.

-Simple disinfo to mess with the Cabal.

As Q reminded us regularly: Moves and countermoves. A ton of shit went down between that drop and election night.

1
ravonaf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe he isn't talking about the 2020 election.

1
shitpost881 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes. Playbook known. They actually had a handbook talking about the legal strategy that circulated from about August 2020. If we believe this is an operation then Trump, white hats, whoever, led them into it. Had Trump been allowed to win it would have been investigation after investigation, impeachments, backstabbing by the rinos. Trump knew he had to let them steal it. Something spooked obama and they decided that they could not take a risk just suing and hobbling Trump. They had to steal it outright. Notice at the fake inauguration filmed a day before, how they all looked nervous like they were expecting the military to come and arrest them? The first few weeks they looked like they were worried about tripwires at the white house. They are comfortable now thinking they have won. We will see.

2
Pbman2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Very true it was obvious they had no plan,to govern.

1
shitpost881 1 point ago +1 / -0

The dog that catches the car....

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
_Donald-Trump_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well the question is, which team is biden, whoever he is, now working for?

1
GRETAWAKENINGM 1 point ago +1 / -0

From my perspective. I don't think that the Q team actually thought that Trump would lose 2020 but had fail safes to ensure the plan would continue. This shows a hypothetical if Trump had won the election. Q isn't about making predictions. It's intelligence warfare. You win some, you lose some. It could also be a reference to 2024. Who knows. Q is very cryptic in his/her posts. Don't take what you see as predictions. Also could be misinformation. If the enemy thinks that the Trump administration has grown arrogant, they can rig the election easy. For all we know, part of the "plan" was to let the clowns steal the election. I think I'm right when I say this wasn't part of the plan as Trump started to prep for a Biden take over.

1
welldamn 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think because sometimes disinformation is necessary and also to keep patriot morale up.

1
DontTreadOnIT 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good question, and great discussion material. Well-deserved sticky.

1
VetforTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Talking about 2024

1
Drawdraw45 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's subtle nuance here. This is saying what would have happened if Trump won. That was what the left was planning for, to run another color revolution. It is just stating that their playbook is known. So instead of running into the deep states plans, they did what the cabal players probably never saw coming. They surrendered the white house and allowed the deep state to expend great resources in taking back control of it.

1
throwawayforyou 1 point ago +1 / -0

They had to give "every best effort" to maintain election integrity to allow these 20000 mules etc to work overtime. It all has to be organic looking for public consumption and awakening.

1
Taran77 1 point ago +1 / -0

Could also be talking about what is to come. Midterms or 2024.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TNBanjoMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Care to provide a link or Q drop # please?

2
7
Mr_A 7 points ago +7 / -0

This explains what would've happened if Trump did not step away. Explains the chaos that the country avoided by Trump stepping aside.

3
TNBanjoMan 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hummmm.... well thanks for the link, but I fail to see any "prediction" in there about Biden losing etc. Even reading between the lines, I don't see any implied prediction either.

1
Kampfer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who is the "they" that was mentioned?

1
Sumsuch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Understand what language is, and how it is used. It is not, and can never be, an exact representation of truth. Language is used to create an approximate representation of ideas so they can be communicated to other people. It is an artificial system created by man, and therefore it is inherently flawed. If you understand that nature you can both mitigate the problems it's flaws create, and also take advantage of them to communicate in ways that are not apparent at face value. The puppet masters make heavy use of this in their communication while binding the rest of us by the letter of the law, and so if you hope to engage with them on equal footing you will also need to understand the deeper complexities of communication.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
jimmerjam 1 point ago +1 / -0

In the above post insert "the MAGA faithful" for "THEY" and it almost works until the "anarchy-99" .......unless, of course, you are on the Jan6 comittee.

-2
maxpain -2 points ago +1 / -3

Because Q is a psyop

2
Cozette 2 points ago +2 / -0

How are you defining a psyop? Are you injecting a subjective pejorative spin to a water is wet observation?

Why post a duh?

Also noticing reductionism which tends to limit insight.

-5
SherryLusk -5 points ago +1 / -6

Probably because he didn't know how massively they would cheat. ?

1
Cozette 1 point ago +2 / -1

Perhaps use "possibly" rather than "probably"?