Since when are we commanded by moderators to accept non-anons word as fact unless we can do an in-depth study of their current content?
Challenge accepted, I guess.
At 1:14 Juan makes a statement of fact, Trump can now be prosecuted because of paperwork he personally saw was "signed".
I'm sorry, but statements of fact like this with zero sauce are not valid. It's a major "trust me bro" statement that could have been elaborated on for so much more ...
What kind of document, filed where? Some Judge? What court or jurisdiction?
How does he have access to such a type of document?
Does he believe this because he saw it himself, or did someone tell him about it?
What is the agenda of the person who told them this?
Don't know. Sauce not provided.
If the answers to the above questions are "sorry that info is too secret and would get people in trouble", then he shouldn't have been stating it in the first place.
At 5:35 Juan states that FBI coordinated with Trump two weeks prior to him being raided, that Trump brought them in and showed them how everything was being stored at Mar a Lago.
What a major "trust me bro" statement of fact. Literally no one else I'm aware of has made such a statement? What is Juan's connection to Trump in that he's the only one in the world who was privy to such information?
How convenient for Juan that every statement of fact he makes is completely non-verifiable.
And here is where the danger comes in.
People who love Juan simply assume he's part of the Q team, because that's the only way he could know these things is if he has insider access. They assume he's the voice of Q because he's an insider and he's somehow been given permission to spill the beans on all this super-insider stuff.
People are well within their full rights to call Juan a larp, based on the above alone.
Now, why are mods stickying non-anons and demanding that we listen to them before we can criticize them? I already knew Juan makes wild statements of fact that are non-verifiable (by design). Why did I have to completely set aside all my prior well-informed opinion about Juan and listen to his current drivel in order to respond to him?
The Q movement is about information, not celebrity. Demanding we accept the word of a celebrity is the antithesis to the anon movement.
The last few days its been mostly mods pinning their own posts with a very select few daily posts peppered in. It could be argued they are steering the conversation(s). Now we're being told to not voice opposition.
Thank you Chron. Many of us detest unwaivering Paytriot cheerleading. It's good to know we have at least one mod who isn't drinking their kool aid and approaches the content with questions rather than blind acceptance.
How about anyone (Mods AND general Juan Supporters) posting his drivel be required to post sauce supporting the said content?
The problem is there would be no Juan posts.
Thinking strategically, IF in fact Juan has insider info…and IF he is on the Q team (or has ties to it) and he is out here telling us Patriots and any normie who’ll listen how the hotdogs are being made THEN that’s just a dumb plan.
Why on earth would you alert the enemy to your weaknesses and vulnerabilities?
And if he’s “leaking” this “real world info I know cuz I’m an insider bro” then he is in fact a traitor to the cause….and remind me never to include Juan in a bank robbing heist cuz he’d get us all caught.
What a major "trust me bro" statement of fact. Literally no one else I'm aware of has made such a statement? What is Juan's connection to Trump in that he's the only one in the world who was privy to such information?
Actually, on this point, DJT himself did explain that, as I think Kash did as well. However, in my recollection this was NOT simply 2 weeks prior, but months prior. JS's statement that this was 2 weeks prior raised a flag for me.
I would find it exceedingly hard to take seriously any anon or pede who think JS is part of Q operation.
Also, the lack of sauce and verifiable/deniable details I find rather ..... well, red-flaggish.
HOWEVER, I also agree with OP u/Qanaut assertion that he did NOT tell us to accept anything or such. He simply warned against lazy attacks, and exhorted us to make comments constructive and not low effort.
The things Juan says are 1) unverifiable, 2) only he's saying them, 3) implies that he's just as much of an insider as Q.
Take, for instance, that Juan states that the FBI visited Mar a Lago and Trump showed them where all the documents were and how they were being safely kept. Then the FBI says "not being kept safe enough" and gave Trump new locks to keep them safe.
Work out the hundreds of implications if what Juan is saying is real. It would mean he's an insider that is as close to Trump as Q. But there's no proof of any of it other than "trust me bro".
Can you even name some piece of information that Juan told anons that was
critical information that we needed to know
actually verifiable that it can be proven the prediction came true
represents one of his many "trust me bro" statements where he's the only one saying it?
To me it just seems like Juan presents himself like Q, but without the proofs.
I believe Anons fundamentally misunderstand the value of Juan and Nino's conversations.
It isn't about verifying information, or proving something 'correct' or 'incorrect', its about GAME THEORY, and learning how to analyze the moves and counter moves available to the Deep State and the Cabal on the great board of chess we are witnessing play out throughout the world.
There is no right or wrong in a game of chess, there are only possibilities for the next move. The only ultimatum in a game of chess is when a check mate has occurred. Before the checkmate, it is a delicate dance of moves and counter moves. The Cabal may take a Rook, the Q team may take a Bishop, on and on the game will go; piece after piece being removed until only a few are left.
Juan presents possible moves on the chess board. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because a move is available to a master chess player, doesn't mean that move will be taken immediately, or even at all. Sometimes an available move is not taken in favor of a more favorable move. Sometimes the Game Theory demands that a player deliberately not act on a favorable move in order to gain an advantage at a later point in the game.
Anons have this notion that people like Juan should be held up to Godlike standards, and that their predictions must come true, or else they are larpers, or con artists. Anons need to shoulder the burden of analysis in these matters. In the same breath Anons ridicule Juan for not giving them clear answers, and then lambast him when the moves and counter moves he theorized about haven't come to pass.
For a more in depth discussion on Game Theory, see my post titled:
Ok, let's talk about game theory. What advantage is gained by telling the Q community "I'm the only one who is sharing this information, Trump may or may not be arrested soon."
Thus far, we've been told we're watching a movie and that patriots are in control. We've been told by Q that Trump is safe. Anons have also speculated that Trump is also currently (secretly) still the president.
The idea that Trump can be arrested negates all three above points. Patriots would not be in control, Trump is not safe, and a sitting president cannot be arrested so he must not be the president.
Unless the plan is to have Trump arrested. But, if that's the case, even then Juan is still incorrect, because he's presenting the cabal as being in power enough to arrest Trump, but in reality it would be Trump allowing himself to be arrested as part of the plan.
I contend that if Trump is arrested
the foreknowledge of the arrest has no value
that Juan isn't shown to be having any particular insight, because he stated it might or might not happen covering every possible outcome
that the reasoning behind the arrest would be different than Juan suggests, as Juan suggests its because the cabal is wielding power, whereas the real reason is that it's a feature of the plan to move people closer to the precipice
Since when are we commanded by moderators to accept non-anons word as fact unless we can do an in-depth study of their current content?
Challenge accepted, I guess.
At 1:14 Juan makes a statement of fact, Trump can now be prosecuted because of paperwork he personally saw was "signed".
I'm sorry, but statements of fact like this with zero sauce are not valid. It's a major "trust me bro" statement that could have been elaborated on for so much more ...
Don't know. Sauce not provided.
If the answers to the above questions are "sorry that info is too secret and would get people in trouble", then he shouldn't have been stating it in the first place.
At 5:35 Juan states that FBI coordinated with Trump two weeks prior to him being raided, that Trump brought them in and showed them how everything was being stored at Mar a Lago.
What a major "trust me bro" statement of fact. Literally no one else I'm aware of has made such a statement? What is Juan's connection to Trump in that he's the only one in the world who was privy to such information?
How convenient for Juan that every statement of fact he makes is completely non-verifiable.
And here is where the danger comes in.
People who love Juan simply assume he's part of the Q team, because that's the only way he could know these things is if he has insider access. They assume he's the voice of Q because he's an insider and he's somehow been given permission to spill the beans on all this super-insider stuff.
People are well within their full rights to call Juan a larp, based on the above alone.
Now, why are mods stickying non-anons and demanding that we listen to them before we can criticize them? I already knew Juan makes wild statements of fact that are non-verifiable (by design). Why did I have to completely set aside all my prior well-informed opinion about Juan and listen to his current drivel in order to respond to him?
The Q movement is about information, not celebrity. Demanding we accept the word of a celebrity is the antithesis to the anon movement.
The last few days its been mostly mods pinning their own posts with a very select few daily posts peppered in. It could be argued they are steering the conversation(s). Now we're being told to not voice opposition.
I agree, that's bullshit. I take plenty of hits when I post opposing opinions.
I'll fight to the death for you guys in modchat on this one.
I couldnt agree with you more, magavoices.
Thank you Chron. Many of us detest unwaivering Paytriot cheerleading. It's good to know we have at least one mod who isn't drinking their kool aid and approaches the content with questions rather than blind acceptance.
That is NOT what I wrote.
Open your eyes, and read very slowly next time.
I asked for HIGH EFFORT, and CONSTRUCTIVE discussion. No Mod will ever tell you that you have to believe anything, or accept anything at face value.
Uh oh, Critical Thinking in the House!
EVERYTHING Juan says is sauceless.
How about a reverse challenge???
How about anyone (Mods AND general Juan Supporters) posting his drivel be required to post sauce supporting the said content?
The problem is there would be no Juan posts.
Thinking strategically, IF in fact Juan has insider info…and IF he is on the Q team (or has ties to it) and he is out here telling us Patriots and any normie who’ll listen how the hotdogs are being made THEN that’s just a dumb plan.
Why on earth would you alert the enemy to your weaknesses and vulnerabilities?
And if he’s “leaking” this “real world info I know cuz I’m an insider bro” then he is in fact a traitor to the cause….and remind me never to include Juan in a bank robbing heist cuz he’d get us all caught.
Anyway, just my two shekels.
Magavoices, You earned my Updoot Fren!
Seems we shouldn't accept anyone's word as fact unless they have supporting proof.
Actually, on this point, DJT himself did explain that, as I think Kash did as well. However, in my recollection this was NOT simply 2 weeks prior, but months prior. JS's statement that this was 2 weeks prior raised a flag for me.
I would find it exceedingly hard to take seriously any anon or pede who think JS is part of Q operation.
Also, the lack of sauce and verifiable/deniable details I find rather ..... well, red-flaggish.
HOWEVER, I also agree with OP u/Qanaut assertion that he did NOT tell us to accept anything or such. He simply warned against lazy attacks, and exhorted us to make comments constructive and not low effort.
Since when did any moderator command you to accept anything?
I requested HIGH EFFORT, and CONSTRUCTIVE discussion.
I swear, some of our Anons are as bad as liberals when it comes to seeking out things to be offended by that do not exist.
Shouldn't you respond to the criticism though?
The things Juan says are 1) unverifiable, 2) only he's saying them, 3) implies that he's just as much of an insider as Q.
Take, for instance, that Juan states that the FBI visited Mar a Lago and Trump showed them where all the documents were and how they were being safely kept. Then the FBI says "not being kept safe enough" and gave Trump new locks to keep them safe.
Work out the hundreds of implications if what Juan is saying is real. It would mean he's an insider that is as close to Trump as Q. But there's no proof of any of it other than "trust me bro".
Can you even name some piece of information that Juan told anons that was
To me it just seems like Juan presents himself like Q, but without the proofs.
I believe Anons fundamentally misunderstand the value of Juan and Nino's conversations.
It isn't about verifying information, or proving something 'correct' or 'incorrect', its about GAME THEORY, and learning how to analyze the moves and counter moves available to the Deep State and the Cabal on the great board of chess we are witnessing play out throughout the world.
There is no right or wrong in a game of chess, there are only possibilities for the next move. The only ultimatum in a game of chess is when a check mate has occurred. Before the checkmate, it is a delicate dance of moves and counter moves. The Cabal may take a Rook, the Q team may take a Bishop, on and on the game will go; piece after piece being removed until only a few are left.
Juan presents possible moves on the chess board. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because a move is available to a master chess player, doesn't mean that move will be taken immediately, or even at all. Sometimes an available move is not taken in favor of a more favorable move. Sometimes the Game Theory demands that a player deliberately not act on a favorable move in order to gain an advantage at a later point in the game.
Anons have this notion that people like Juan should be held up to Godlike standards, and that their predictions must come true, or else they are larpers, or con artists. Anons need to shoulder the burden of analysis in these matters. In the same breath Anons ridicule Juan for not giving them clear answers, and then lambast him when the moves and counter moves he theorized about haven't come to pass.
For a more in depth discussion on Game Theory, see my post titled:
“Do emotions affect critical thinking?,” — “Do not let personal desires take over,” — “Emotions cloud judgement,” — “Emotions cloud logic,” “Events > Dates,” — “Logical thinking and strategy should always be applied,” "Game theory," — “Moves and countermoves,” — “Future proves past.”
Ok, let's talk about game theory. What advantage is gained by telling the Q community "I'm the only one who is sharing this information, Trump may or may not be arrested soon."
Thus far, we've been told we're watching a movie and that patriots are in control. We've been told by Q that Trump is safe. Anons have also speculated that Trump is also currently (secretly) still the president.
The idea that Trump can be arrested negates all three above points. Patriots would not be in control, Trump is not safe, and a sitting president cannot be arrested so he must not be the president.
Unless the plan is to have Trump arrested. But, if that's the case, even then Juan is still incorrect, because he's presenting the cabal as being in power enough to arrest Trump, but in reality it would be Trump allowing himself to be arrested as part of the plan.
I contend that if Trump is arrested
Otherwise, Juan is negating Q.
u/#q661
THIS! 👆