>>1866857

Welcome normie. As a conspiracy theorist myself, what you're complaining about is trivial compared to the outrages conspiracy theorists have seen. The fact you're EVEN AWARE that the FBI rig and tamper with elections in even a major media outlet is explosive by itself.

Do you remember the days when CTers said computers were backdoored and most people pointed and laughed and said, who would invest that amount of resources? Who would want to know what boring dull life you live? Then Snowden happened, and those assholes have since shut their traps.

What you're talking about, publicly, is corruption that has remained hidden below the surface for years. I bet prior to Trump v Clinton, the idea of the FBI itself tampering an election wasn't something that had even crossed your mind. Meanwhile anyone serious within CT would have known of the FBI's rampant corruption (if you aren't sharp enough, you end up in jail on a technicality or dead).

Q's job is fundamental. You're thinking about the consequences. If punishing evil people is that easy, why haven't you already filed a civil suit against Hillary? Why would evil even thrive if it's as simple as 'throw them in jail with no trial'?

Q has to first win over public opinion to gain public support, which in turn supplies public resources to fight what is going to become a public war. Your biggest enemy are your own brainwashed bretheren being used against you.

The more people convinced and onboard, the less power the deepstate has. Imagine an RTS game, where establishing a running economy is vital prior.

Lets assume worst case, that no jailings happen. We get:

1) Disgruntled populace who know what corrupt politicians have done

2) A shift in discussion and direction

3) Boycotts (why are you still using twitter and youtube?), which in turn loses them money

4) New organised resistance

5) Organisations who find their tricks no longer effective

CNN control the airways, but that's all they control. And why throw money at a propaganda tool that stops working? If everyone knows CNN is bollocks, and CNN knows people know that it's bollocks, CNN has to close or run away.

Took goddamn years to formulate a crack this big for someone to get through.

>>1878365

Yeah, not Q/Trump related though. From my hardcore conspiracy theorist days I encounter skeptics and military shills alike who all just opted to stop replying because I often landslid evidence or very strong 'circumstantial' evidence at them.

Beat a white ivory intellectual in a debate over 9/11 when caught off-guard and unprepared. They refused to argue when I pointed out mass global surveillance was far bigger an operation to keep secret and organise than stealing four planes and spinning a story (if you played a reserved headcount, you could keep the number of actors as low as 100).

He had no rebuttal, just refused to debate. I didn't even get to the meat of the counterarguments (metal detectors, passports, jets, fire drill 2 weeks before, insider trading, etc), I just refuted his first premise it could even be kept secret (NSA shit was kept secret for 12 years since at least 2001).

He acted pretty immature after that.

>>1878365

Proof of success isn't necessarily in people switching sides, as a protip.

Signs you're winning:

1) Censored/banned/shadowbanned - means they can't refute your arguments, and they're so compelling they have to be hidden period. Shadowbanned just means they're too afraid you'd speak out or create a new account to get around it. I've seen my posts shadowbanned in a vaccine debate.

2) Ignored - usually, if banning is not an option (true free speech forum), being ignored classically means they have no rebuttal (alternatively, you could just be a time wasting troll but you'd know which based on post quality). This is usually the social 'faux pas', if they pretend you don't exist, you're not a problem.

If there's no counterargument, usually means they're 'sitting on the dough'. They might softly switch sides.

3) Verbal abuse - this one is a bit strange. You haven't won them over (they're angry) but you haven't lost the debate either - they have no retorts. Verbal abuse might be 'fuck you' or some such, not to be confused with…

4) False slandering ('Nazi bigot', 'racist', 'rapist', 'woman hater' etc). The people know the slander is false, they're just doing it to discredit you (because your arguments are so effective). They know the slander is false, but these people have a vendetta, an axe to grind. Classically when this gets discovered as false slander it backfires.

5) Threats. Usually means you're hitting the deepstate level. Should be taken seriously. Going silent won't solve the issue because they will cap you anyway.

6) Physical attacks. Hitting the deepstate again. Physical doesn't mean getting beaten up like street fighter (although hired thugs might play a part), but microwave weapons (heat burn, cancer), sound weapons (deafness, insomnia) and other so-called 'non-lethal' weaponry. Means you're really effective (EG making change).

7) Frame-up. Deepstate tactics, usually law enforcement or agency. Means your message is so effective they need to discredit it. Planting child porn, drugs or setting up a sting operation (remember the time the FBI 'caught' a kid with Downs? They swing low).

8) Murder. Happens. Usually coupled with frame-up (unarmed civilian supposedly with 'knife in hand' 'about to attack') or accident (car accident, plane accident). It means you're on the verge of exposing a dark secret so big (Dr David Kelly, Michael Hastings) you have to be killed to stop it.

The greater the resistance, the more effective you are.