This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys thought AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys though AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t mind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative. Observe:
“Look, you guys though AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t kind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country (this country being the USA). Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative.
“Look, you guys though AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t kind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)
This is an assumption ogre. I'm personally of the opinion that Q team is benevolent, but I'm entirely open to the possibility that it's a trap designed to ensnare well meaning patriots.
Yes, but it’s an assumption you are still saying you largely agree with. The Q team are the good guys. Perhaps you personally are willing to entertain doubts, but are you suggesting this board puts a lot of research effort into proving those doubts, as hard as they try to prove false flags?
Doesn’t this typically just get dismissed as “dooming”?
I'm sure some are natural events free from federal agent intervention, but many of them are not.
Can I ask the basis of this belief? I have met more than enough violent and unstable people in my life that I don’t find it hard to account for school shootings in the 300,000,000 million people that live in this country. Is it a general doubt, or have you sustained it through examination of these specific shootings?
What on earth is the "Q narrative"?
Remember that when you’re talking to a non-Q person, you don’t have to play as coy. There is a reason that there are almost no Q supporters who are liberals. Because the world that Q says Trump is protecting, and the one that Q seems to care about, is that one that prioritizes conservative values.
There is a reason that “LARP” is the bread-and-butter insult for Q people. Because to a nonbeliever, Q posts read like Donald Trump fan-fiction.
So, can we agree that with some in-group variance, we can still consider Q largely a force for Trump-oriented conservative values?
And how would false flags be used to advance it?
The same way it’s used to push any narrative.
“Look, you guys though AR-15’s were scary, but this dude sprayed a crowd with it and hit nobody. And the good guy with a gun killed him. So tell me, was the AR-15 a bigger problem than the pistol was, and did the bad guy do more damage with it before a good guy stopped him? And wouldn’t that mean that more guns could have stopped the Uvalde shooting?”
There. Easy narrative. Q people are welcome to use it, as long as you don’t kind liberal conspiracy theorists calling you sheep for believing the news narrative and not seeing the obvious murderous fuckery by a conservative Cabal undermining the Biden administration.
Right?
If I come off as aggressive or snappy, please don’t intend it as hostile. Tone isn’t easy to read on text, and I always do enjoy speaking with you. It’s a… nice change. :)