>>14055132 (lb)

I think dropping notables would help.

I don't think there were notables when Q started posting as an anon on 4-chan. It was the grass roots style preference cascade that pushed the request that Q get a trip code.

If you ask me, any Q level poster now would get chewed up by maligned bots and baker wars.

Best to go back to what worked and simplify the bread making process. Too much unproductive notables gathering and baker wars going on at this point. If a gov retooling ever arrives the board needs to be back to lean and mean mode.

Makes sense to me that Q will post when the retooling starts. The small change bitching on the board is just a microcosm of the undercurrent in the general population itself. It needs to be righted here to indicate that the point has been reached to start a managed resurgence of productive minds to provide the blueprint for a non-violent reclaiming of the people's voice as the driving force.

>>14055311

Have to figure out who ordered the outing at this time. I think it was good guys softening the battlefield, not bad guys trying to front run the MSM's burying of the shooting issue

Big news leading in was Pelosi picking Cheney for the Jan 6 commission. I think it's the commissio'sn gearing up that is driving this news now.

POTUS asking on SM and at the rally about Ashli Babbit's killer leads me to believe it's designed to fuck up the commission before it leaves the gate.

Say Pelosi ordered the hit. POTUS is basically telling her to bring it by asking about the killer. Message is if you want answers, we'll give you answers.

Might be tied in with Rudy being cut off and the Trump Org, getting a proctal in NY, too. Need those two discredited before the commission kicks in. I think POTUS parried the roundhouse here and has moved in to straighten them up with jabs before the knockout punch comes.

Anyone voluntarily signing on to any Pelosi bullshit at this point needs their head examined.

>>14055359

>Many Anons like the Notables as-is because it's their #1 source for News.

Agree with your points. Issue is not cut and dry.

IIRC, notables came about as some anons posted, during the bread, posts they found interesting.

There could also be a separate notables board.

Don't go to half much, but when they have big stuff breaking all the energy goes into the dig. Notables aren't necessary.

Again, Q rose because enough anons felt the posts were so important that they felt Q needed to protect his identity. No one needed to lead them by the nose by putting a notables section in between the hive mind consensus and the realization that there was a notable poster on the board.

So, that said, personally don't really care about shills who have to screech that they're important to get any attention. It's not a concern for me if they bitch or not. They can go make their own board with their own notables. It's always been that way. It's what Q did.

>>14055507

>I wonder if the left is framing a FF attempt with Babbit's shooter?

Yeah. That's the difficult part.

Thing that makes me think it's the good guys blowing up Pelosi's commission before it get off the ground is that I don't think the bad guys would offer up a black guy as a scapegoat. They're leading with a weak jaw.

Say a "crazed" Trump supporter kills the black guy. That puts more focus (Streisand effect) on the fact that he shot Babbit and it was covered up. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have had to say anything.

Elephant waiting in the closet here is that someone tasked the black guy to shoot a protestor. Good guys know who the taskmaster is. I believe.

Still say anyone hitching on to Pelosi's commission at this point is crazy. I think Trump is aiming his remarks at Cheney here. Something wrong with her, maybe, and good guys are ready to pounce.

>>14055563

>Q finally stepped in and said put it back like it was.

True that.

Have to think it's possible that at that time, when Q needed to post stuff, it wasn't worth the pissing contest that develop to squawk incessantly about something like notables. Q needed thenew board up and running, and anons would straighten things up on their own when the right time came later.

Now, when Q isn't posting, is the time to revisit the issue. Still think Q will post when it's go time, so the board has to decide, on it's own, what fat needs to be cut out during the lull.

Keeping everybody happy isn't an option, IMO.

>>14055596

I think it would raise too many questions about him being the shooter and who told him to do it. He's been covered up for so far, why? That's trump's point. Trump knows why.

>>14055644

>Sometimes the best move is to let things play out even when you have a solid plan that is prolly better than the status quo.

Agree completely.

Anons will sort it out in their own way. No screeching, it just gets done somehow. Just thinking the best time is during this lull, so I'm kind of expecting something.