>>513138

My recommendation is to start with factual questions that force the reader to recognize the real conspiracies.

Start with:

"Q asks questions that we need to have answered. " Examples:

"Why is the life span of Americans going down?"

"McCain makes ~$250000/year as a senator. He has 7 homes with a total value of $13 million. (According to Obama!) Where did the money come from?"

Bottom line is hook your viewers with facts and introduce Q as knowing where to look for answers, not providing the answers.

It worked on us….it can work on your targets.

>>529270

>>513138

Those points need to be directed to the anon doing the work. He specifically was trying to

explain Q in a few sentences, hence my mentioning of Q.

As far as the work I do, I fully agree that if facts don't work, then mentioning Q is only going to make the situation worse.

Questions never asked or answered:

1) If foreign ownership of any and all of our media corporations is allowed, what prevents foreign influence of US politicians and candidates? (How many politicians get elected without media coverage?)

2) Why is ever single person involved with the mishandling of the FISA process totally ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN?

3) What is the relationship between Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s brother and Seth Rich’s murder investigation? (or the Imran Awan case?)

4) Why did Chuck Schumer insert the “Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations” section into the “Justice Against Sponsers of Terrorism Act”? (Simpler Version-Why did Chuck side with Saudia Arabia and against his own states’ constituents?) (Simplest Version-Why is Saudia Arabia paying lobbyists to donate to Chuck’s campaign?)

5) Why are Adam Lanza’s medical records kept secret? (Related Question-What does a drug company call a outburst of extreme violence resulting in murders and deaths in the drug effectiveness studies of someone on that drug?)

6) If we do not need a Wall, why do we need border checkpoints?

7) Can a lifeboat (of democracy) be overloaded and sunk?

>>559715

The trick is to learn and adapt from previous failures. Take a step back and evaluate the following:

1) Go to the WH petition site. Notice that the petitions CLEANLY divide into two groups. Those that have well over 100,000 signatures and those that are under 12,000. That huge gap between the two groups clearly shows something robotic or automatic is getting 100k petitions in 60 days. One thing is sure, this is not a distribution of how humans behave.

2) Notice the petitions that have over 100k signatures. For example, "CONDEMN India's Denial of Justice to the Victims of November 1984 Sikh Genocide". Where did all those

signatures come from in 60 days? It's not like this was a US topic of immense emotion. It certainly has one heck of a lot less engagement than the US population wanting the

internet to not be controlled by a repressive authority.

3) What does it take for one person, group, or organization to fake a huge number of "signatures"? It looks pretty easy for a dedicated few to become a hundred thousand.

4) Connect the dots.

Once the emotion is removed, the mathematics and logic indicate we are fighting an uphill battle….due to our honesty. I have no desire to advocate trickery.

Now to look at the future:

1) What results from a petition being successful in getting the required number of signatures? Most likely, a low level staffer passes on the result to a higher level staffer. At

that point, it might reach someone close to the President.

2) Then what? The President is not the legislative branch and this petition is for legislative action. Is the WH the right target? If Q is onboard with a free internet, does that

not indicate the President is already there?

3) The real Bill Of Rights is entirely focused on LIMITING GOVERNMENT. Many versions of the "IBOR" are not doing that.

4) There is no question that a massive problem needs to be solved, but success here just seems to be making a green bar fill up an oval on a WH web site.

5) If we succeed in filling the green bar, then what? Go home, have a beer and pick the next petition?

Is there a more productive focus for the talent here? The shill leadership is probably thrilled to have us bang our heads on the "green bar".

>>560683

I agree with the planning vs. no planning part.

I disagree with the planning being "honest". If

I can sign multiple times, then anyone can.

>>560804

Let me ask an honest question:

What are we trying to accomplish?

Possible answers are:

1) Get a WH petition past the 100k mark?

2) Amend the US Constitution?

3) What?

I honestly that a Q-Research War Room would

be tackling in-depth Q identified money trails,

world event interrelationships, etc.

>>560902

Thanks, I consider that a well articulated post. So here are my responses to selected aspects:

1) Fully agree that Meme warfare is critical. But folks who have been mislead for decades will not be undone without sustained

work. It is that long term undoing that I focus upon.

2) Simplifying the internet troublemakers to "big tech" shoots the innocent and guilty. It is the clear identification of predatory corporate behaviors that should be identified, not company names, location, size, business types, etc.

3) I fully agree that asserting our rights is critical. But what defines a right? I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but

the problem is our "rights" are spelled out in the Constitution…and the Constitution considers rights to be limitations on

Government power. Most of the problems you are describing is Corporate power abuse. Petitioning the Government for

"rights" from corporations is actually an issue of laws, not rights. What we work for must fit with our present legal framework.

4) So I think it productive to figure out what Constitutional rights are missing and what corporate laws are missing. For

example, I think the Constitution is missing an explicit "Right to Privacy". Correspondingly, some corporate laws missing are those

protecting free speech on public platforms owned by private companies. For example, deleting conservative postings on

G, FB, TWTR, etc. has a lot of idiots claiming private companies can do that, but what if it was some minority group postings

being censored? The idiots would reverse course fast. We can make a solid case that the internet is a public asset covered

by the existing Bill Of Rights…and corporate laws are needed.

5) So in summary, I agree with action, it is just that trying to get a lot of sigs for a petition is a so-so goal (not a worthless goal).

I think there might be more worth in exposing explicitly all the (secret) corporate abuses needing present laws to be enforced

(such as collecting personal information on medical illnesses) and showing the masses all the bad things that can happen

with the information controlled and/or collected on innocent citizens. This is the head start Q has given us and can be exploited.

>>561053

I like and agree. Been here for a month. This has been drinking from a fire hydrant of gold and garbage till it the time came

to jump into the fray.

>>561053

Arrggh. See my post above meant for you.