haha Thanks for the kind reply!

We'll disagree, which is of course OK.

I just do not see the need, benefit or value for the actions you are ascribing to Trump, and I'll reiterate, as I have in other comments in this post, that there is Q and there are anons, and there is a very important reason Q emphasized this when (they) did. Certain interpretations HAVE to be recognized as not being from Q but from anons. Unless this is acknowledged, you get the group think creeping back in.

Also, i'm still right: Why would trump lose this opportunity to send this comm when he was the one who decided to frame the sentence this way?

This is subjective reasoning, and at the end of the day, its a conclusion and a belief and an approach (of thought) that you've elected to adopt. Nothing wrong with that, unless one begins to confuse belief with fact, and then moves forward from that point.

And, I guess you and I see "Q proofs" very, very differently. Their purpose, value, time, etc.

I suspect that all these other examples you are referring to are not Q proofs, but are 'Pandamoon proofs'! Like this case, you interpret his words to be validating your beliefs around what Q is and what Q was, and what reality is. I think that's kinda the opposite of a Q proof.

In any case, see my comment to 2ndenthusiast, who, generally speaking, I find a lot of agreement with on many things.

https://greatawakening.win/p/1ARwe8ZV9Y/x/c/4eZDCQhcgeU

I guess there are some people who still think that REAL RAW NEWS was somehow a secret disclosure operation.... ???

Then, thanks for the advice, but as for battles, I'll call them as I see them.

It is a reach, and one that comes on the foundation of layers and layers and layers of interpretation that is NOT Q, but anon ideas and thoughts. If you create enough layers, the disconnect between the origins and the destination becomes invisible.

We see a very clearly example of this in the lunacy that the brainwashed radical leftists display. But it is also present in those that still adhere to the matrix framework as well. Assumptions being used as facts, beliefs being adopted as proofs of following beliefs.

In some cases, people simply exchange one matrix for another, repeating the same (thought) practices, but in a completely different context. The problem is not the matrix. The problem is the approach to thought that makes one a slave to, or resident in, it.

imo.

haha Thanks for the kind reply!

We'll disagree, which is of course OK.

I just do not see the need, benefit or value for the actions you are ascribing to Trump, and I'll reiterate, as I have in other comments in this post, that there is Q and there are anons, and there is a very important reason Q emphasized this when (they) did. Certain interpretations HAVE to be recognized as not being from Q but from anons. Unless this is acknowledged, you get the group think creeping back in.

Also, i'm still right: Why would trump lose this opportunity to send this comm when he was the one who decided to frame the sentence this way?

This is subjective reasoning, and at the end of the day, its a conclusion and a belief and an approach (of thought) that you've elected to adopt. Nothing wrong with that, unless one begins to confuse belief with fact, and then moves forward from that point.

And, I guess you and I see "Q proofs" very, very differently. Their purpose, value, time, etc.

I suspect that all these other examples you are referring to are not Q proofs, but are 'Pandamoon proofs'! Like this case, you interpret his words to be validating your beliefs around what Q is and what Q was, and what reality is. I think that's kinda the opposite of a Q proof.

In any case, see my comment to 2ndenthusiast, who, generally speaking, I find a lot of agreement with on many things.

https://greatawakening.win/p/1ARwe8ZV9Y/x/c/4eZDCQhcgeU

I guess there are some people who still think that REAL RAW NEWS was somehow a secret disclosure operation.... ???

Then, thanks for the advice, but as for battles, I'll call them as I see them.

It is a reach, and one that comes on the foundation of layers and layers and layers of interpretation that is NOT Q, but anon ideas and thoughts. If you create enough layers, the disconnect between the origins and the destination becomes invisible.

We see a very clearly example of this in the lunacy that the brainwashed radical leftists display. But it is also present in those that still adhere to the matrix framework as well.

In some cases, however, people simply exchange one matrix for another, repeating the same (thought) practices, but in a completely different context. The problem is not the matrix. The problem is the approach to thought that makes one a slave to it.

imo.