>>10101054

Streaming has a high potential payout. You aren't selling a product. You only have to house data, not merchandise. You don't even need to house it on your own servers. You can have another company do that. Rent the rights to something and then stream. The more servers you rent out, the better deal you'll probably get. Then, hire out people from a "customer service" firm to take care of issues over chat or call. You could do something like Netflix and have virtually no employees of your own. You could literally hire out everything for other companies to do and just have a board of directors and people getting the rights to the movies/shows to stream. It could easily, easily be a front for any number of other things.

There's a growing number of people on social media claiming to have Q clearance or to know people who've had Q clearance.

I'm thinking this is one of those: "the first rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club…" sort of things. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If you have the most classified clearance there is, how could you talk about it openly? To anybody? Whether it's to family, friends, or strangers on the Internet? If you did talk about it, wouldn't that be considered a breach of confidentiality? Treason? Wouldn't you be scooped up and dragged off and tried for talking about it? But, if you're talking crap, that's not a breach of confidentiality, is it? It's not treason to bullshit, claiming you know things you don't know.

It's kind of like Q's recent post (#4622), where Q said: "Ask yourself a very simple question - Why is everything re: 'Q' being censored, banned, and attacked?"

Steinbart hasn't been censored, banned, or attacked in the way that Q and Anons have (on Twatter, especially).

These people are sloppy.