>>8329684 (pb)
>>8330029 (pb)
In response to first line… I never actually set out to "dox" Q myself. It hit me like lightning. In any case, after one brief post, I suspect Q team dissuaded me from saying anything more until POTUS "gave the go ahead" on Feb 14 2019. I might say more on that in next few days to give a more concrete feel.
As for second line, good question. The supposition is totally correct, as WE know. But that is because we know not only that "Q is real" but for complex reasons that Q and POTUS are on the side of good. Exactly how we know that might differ for each of us, I suppose.
But suppose you were a decent person, and pretty intelligent and sane, who believed POTUS unsuitable to be president. Such people exist. And suppose you had heard about "QAnon" and believed it to be total nonsense, and maybe "far right". And when the Fake News Media says "far right" they are insinuating something darkly evil… they are suggesting that the "far right" is itching to unleash genocide if only it were respectable… If you were such a person, and "sort of" trusted the media to pursue truth, wouldn't you expect that they would EXPOSE any "hidden channels" that the president had with his "evil" followers? "Evil" people who are being induced to believe TOTAL NONSENSE?
I think the key here is to draw a SHARP distinction between the Fake News Media and reasonably sane and decent people who oppose POTUS but still believe that the "media" is "supposed to be" on their side.