I don't think it's far-fetched to say that a lot of what Q has said is either overtly vague and not worthwhile or false, so weighing him as an unreliable source is fair. Before we can even ascertain whether what he says is true or false though, he has not even provided reason to believe him in the first place. Credible sources establish credibility by being verified in what they are a source of.
I'm repeating what you are saying in that quote, not claiming that everyone who is skeptical of the MSM are Q followers. Nothing I said suggested that was the case, so that's an especially tangential argument. And while the MSM lies sometimes, it doesn't help to replace them with an alt-narrative: that's not thinking for yourself or rejecting the narrative, it's trading one narrative for another.
It's not that interesting that I want to use an example.
Seeing as Q is not a verified source in military intelligence, that doesn't seem a possibility at all. And of course people who don't believe Q wouldn't consider a military coup as an option. They especially wouldn't hold out hope for it, seeing as (I previously mentioned) Trump's legal team has failed time and again to procure evidence that the election was stolen. Screaming it from the rooftops does not make it so.
Then I guess the HCQ argument just comes down to whether you believe that Pharma companies and the government are credible or not. I still don't understand the argument though. If HCQ is profitable for businesses, why would they not try to get people on board with that?
Obviously businesses are trying to get profit from it, so again, if HCQ is unpatented, why are businesses not pouncing? If the FDA approves it, the media doesn't matter because public perception will flip immediately.
There's obviously a sort of aristocracy when it comes to the people at the top 1 percent, but I don't understand why you're trying to find Deep State in everything (based entirely on speculation). It seems like your default assumption is that the Deep State is involved when the opposite should be true
I would say that it's risen concern to rampant pedophilia, human trafficking, etc. but it's not aimed in the right directions. The outrage towards these subjects is just pointed at Democrats and liberal media/celebrities (which is not to say there aren't some of them who've been involved in some of this stuff but it looks far more like a witch hunt when masses of people accuse only these people and a wide array of them based on little or no actual evidence).
Q, I think, is vague because he doesn't have to make as many bold claims and can just leave things open to interpretation (to keep what he's saying as still technically true and retain his audience).
The movement hasn't exposed any legitimate corruption or pedophilia rings to my knowledge. It's encouraged isolated incidents of violence and crimes. I think it remains to be seen if Q followers become more violent or not. I don't think the majority of Q followers are violent, though they are certainly misinformed and unable to digest any form of news outside of the most conservative media (can't even stomach Fox). If anything it's just served to increase demonization and divides in America today.
If Q is the source who lies occasionally, is that really a source then? It seems to me that if he admits upfront that he lies occasionally then that could potentially be something set up to cover him when he gets something wrong. I know people can't be right all the time, but that's pretty sketchy that he can just say "that was just disinformation" and people keep believing. You're saying balance the medias lies with Q's lies but that's not really happening because people who believe Q almost always say the media is lying (especially because the two conflict each other a lot). That's not really a balance.
I also don't know where to throw this but I find it particularly interesting that Q is a "government insider" who makes predictions about when John McCain is going to die (for example).
I know that Q could technically be truthful (even if that's an unlikelihood), but I'm taking the neutral position here. It's incorrect to assume I'm trying to disprove a claim that can't really be disproven. Q's information only makes sense when you remove most of what he says which is false, so that's not helpful at all.
I have no ulterior motive in pointing out Trump's legal failures over the election, but I equally have no appetite to indulge in a false reality. Based on what Trump's legal team has shown us thus far (and how the courts have reacted), he will not prevail in his election challenges.
I'm not saying that HCQ doesn't work, I'm saying it hasn't been proven to work. The Trump point was kind of just saying that if he advocated it so strongly why did he not take it. The debunking of HCQ was not of the drug itself but rather of the claims that it fights COVID, and I only ever remember reading stuff that said the claim was unproven but not false. It's in the interest of the government and researchers to debunk this claim because it could have unintended side effects. I don't think there's a media vendetta against it however- were that the case, why would they let Remdesivir and Regeneron be released?
That's intriguing but that doesn't mean a whole lot. First of all, Parscale (Trump's campaign manager) admitted that they would monitor sites like r/The_Donald for content to tweet and view so they could remain in touch with their base. That could mean that Trump was simply tweeting something similar so that he could keep his base invested (he knows of QAnon, despite what he claims, and he actively fans its flames because they love him).
In any case, were the tweets verbatim or did they have "keywords"? Because if they just had "keywords" that's kind of pointless, might as well break out the red arrows and circles and start taping newspapers to your wall then.
Yes, and it seems violent sermons at that. Which might say something about your character.
Also, that's from Acts, not Psalms. God is telling Peter to eat animals, which is why it says eat (I would hope the Bible was not advocating cannablism). Simon Peter wasn't even in the Old Testament, and being someone who has "sermons prepared", I expect you would've known that.
It would be illegal to just say things outright, but wouldn't it be equally concerning if someone was leaking information that led people to the same conclusions? And if Q's posts don't do that, literally what is the point? Like I said, you don't have to be a Q follower to know that not everything the media says is true.
The "disinformation was necessary" honestly just seems like an attempt to cover his ass. Which is more likely: that Q is a government insider who's trying to keep a supposedly all-powerful government off him while trying to leak information (via clues) to the public or that Q is a liar, not a government insider, and he's just saying that to stop people from saying he was lying (because he was)?
I meant "real" as in "true." I don't just believe anything, especially if it collapses under the a bit of scrutiny.