Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.

You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool. Couldn’t happen, right?

Has anyone considered that Q, the obvious cinephile who posts about movies constantly and whose narrative seems ripped out of a spy thriller, might have told you guys that “you’re watching a movie” as a clue that he was playing with you?

Maybe he was describing a reality based off his movies, and then told you so with double-speak? Just to see if anyone here was smart enough to catch that he was fucking with them?

If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.

You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool. Couldn’t happen, right?

Has anyone considered that Q, the obvious cinephile who posts about movies constantly and whose narrative seems ripped out of a spy thriller, might have told you guys that “you’re watching a movie” a clue that he was playing with you? That he was describing a reality based off his movies and directly telling you that, to see if you’d catch it?

If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.

You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool. Couldn’t happen, right?

If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you. Therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. It would just mean that both Trump and Q get some sort of fuzzy feeling out of telling people that they’re Great Warriors in a cool secret war that nobody can actually see or prove exists.

You know. Like a movie. As if a reality television star and a rando on the internet might potentially misrepresent reality to make themselves look cool.

If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where Black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator as the only means (“no outside comms”) of communicating with his followers.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof. That requires proof of individual corruption of hundreds of thousands of people, by name.

I think it’s completely possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument. Or ruled against it. Or in other words disagreed with your evidence without corruption being an issue.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence of this corruption? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose*, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof.

I think it’s also possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument.

My experience has been that apparently every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion, you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve appeared to lose*, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed? How would you know when you see it?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff, then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself. If the Cabal doesn’t exist in the form implied by Q and Trump in the first place, then all of a sudden, Q’s actions take on a completely different color, don’t they?

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

“The Plan is taking a long time, therefore, the enemy must be huge. We lose every court case on election fraud, therefore, the courts are corrupt. Our leaders deny Q or bicker with each other, so it must be optics. This Big Event with Proof was disappointing and wasn’t a BQQM, so therefore, it must have been to confuse the Deep State.”

No other reason why reality seems to reject the Q narrative every time it’s tested in an obvious, non-coded way?

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof.

I think it’s also possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument.

My experience has been that every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion,* you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve lost your case against the government, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself.

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.

Sorry, need to do this on mobile, so it may be a bit abbreviated, but didn’t want to abandon this without response.

There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you of anything.

Completely untrue. :) I am very convincible under falsifiable and testable circumstances. I have absolutely zero faith in Q, but am not threatened by Q, so I feel I can be more objective on it than I’m given credit for.

My stance in recent days is to only provide you an explanation for WHY so many people resonate with the message Q was trying to send and the methods he used to get a desired result.

And I appreciate it, truly. I’m not necessarily convinced that Q’s motivations or desired results were the ones you believe, but I also don’t ask just for myself. I am hoping more non-believers than me can at least understand where you’re coming from, because right or wrong, it’s important that we understand each other’s positions if we’re going to figure out the truth of it.

Summarily, if Q WERE part of a crowd-sourced attempt at instilling patriotic sentiment and hope among a wildly demoralized populous, Q would operate no different than he had.

You think so?

I have a number of suggestions that would have drastically improved Q’s ability to do this job. A big one would have been not using a website that Q apparently couldn’t protect from its own administrator.

I can understand the narrative explaining why Q might have taken the actions he did, but I hardly see any way of proving that this is the BEST possible way of carrying out this plan. It seems more like retroactive justification.

That is an conclusion built on assumptions, sure, but in the case of Q, where the Government is completely compromised head to toe except by a fringe minority of specialists trying to avoid getting singled out by the corruption, then would they even be able to do anything other than what Q did?

Well, see my point here from earlier?

I don’t think anyone here has hard proof that the government, from head to toe, is completely compromised. That’s an enormous accusation that requires enormous proof.

I think it’s also possible that an uncorrupt judge could look at a voter fraud case, decide justifiably that it didn’t come close to a good standard for evidence, and toss it out because it wasn’t a good argument.

My experience has been that every judge that rules against Q is corrupt, every mass shooting is a false flag, every Republican who denounces Trump is a Deep State plant, and mainstream scientist is lying for money in Q World.

But the evidence? By and large, because “they” rule against “evidence” that you see as too strong to deny. And therefore, based on the conclusion,* you seem to assume that if everyone is telling you you’re wrong, then everyone must be corrupt. Because you assume you are right.

You see how that looks to somebody from the outside? It’s circular. You are right, and therefore, you can sniff out corruption by identifying everyone who says you are wrong. Because they must be lying, because you are right.

I’m not denying that there are individual cases we can debate, but at the end of the day, nobody here has proved that “the entire government, head to toe,” is corrupt. That’s the assumption based on how many times you’ve lost your case against the government, because without that assumption, then there is an equal possibility that you are wrong, because perhaps you’re the one being lied to by the people you trust.

Sun Tzu stuff:

Okay, I guess I should be clearer, since just about any military strategy is justifiable under a Sun Tzu quote.

I play a lot of chess, and watch a lot of chess, and do you know why I almost never see?

A chess game where black sacrificed all his pawns, his queen, both bishops, both rooks, and a knight to White without White appearing to lose almost any significant pieces, and still win the game.

Do you know why appearing weak works? Because 99.999% of the time that someone appears weak, it’s because they’re weak.

And at a certain point, it doesn’t matter if you are “pretending” to be weak. When you’ve lost enough pieces on the board, the game is going to be over against anyone who knows how to play even a little.

At what point does the weakness stop being “optics” and start being a sign that maybe this Q Plan isn’t coming together with the infallible strategy that most here assume is required to be worth what you’ve sacrificed?

There is no alternative to fighting an insurgency this size and this old than to use a COIN blueprint.

And again, I feel that you are making an estimation on what kind of battle is being fought based on how much corruption there seems to be, and you decide how much corruption there is by how many people are telling you that you are wrong and Trump is wrong.

If Trump and Q are the main liars in this particular narrative about, say, election stuff then it would mean that you are believing evidence that is being misrepresented to you, and therefore, you are not being told that you are wrong because everyone is corrupt or aligned in a secret war against you. It would just mean you were tricked into believing something untrue.

Which means Q wouldn’t be necessary, because Q supported a lie about the problem itself.

We both agree there are corruption problems to deal with in the government, but using “do they support Trump?” as a measure of corruption seems absolutely designed to trick you into seeing everyone who disagrees with you as malevolently gaslighting you.

Here is my rhetorical question: if Trump is just a liar and a conman who fibs about how powerful his invisible enemies must be solely to make excuses for why he doesn’t always appear to be winning or a genius, exactly what would he be doing differently?

If Q was wrong or lying about all of this, and Biden was legitimately elected, what would look different than it does now, for certain? Specifically, how will you know if Q has lied to you about the Plan?

I appreciate your answers to the questions.