>>918819

you're thinking in binary terms of credibility/exposure, it's not so simple. Q's not trying to win the hears & minds of the nation in a straight line, that should be painfully obvious.

Why choose such a roundabout way as the chans if they cared about PR in such a simplistic matter?

Anons build up their own hype from one possible reading of Q crumbs, and then get mad at Q when it doesn't turn out how they thought it did? Much better for all if they leave, indeed.

Similar to the endless wasted posts of Q worship when he posts, or the gorillion dumb questions/comments that have often been answered already, even by Q itself, repeatedly. That is one of many reasons why the dreaded chans were chosen, so there wouldn't be so much of that that it becomes unmanageable…

>The end won't be for everyone.

>That choice, to know, will be yours.

>Q

>>918958

a few Qitties from

Qmemed >>198093 <<

https:// 8ch.net/qresearch/res/198093.html

>>919008

agree, just reposting some old ones to pitch in/follow the idea. Not enough Q in those, they're a bit too much on the surface

>>918992

very nice… are these to be found in the side-by-sides thread? or another dedicated thread for proofs?

i've been saving a lot of these as i see them pass by, but must have missed plenty

>>919041

>unless someone is collecting them

ok, i hope we've got good harvesters for that who do collect/repost…

the general's where the action is, but being that we're at 1142 and it falls off the board eventually, it's important to keep stuff somewhere where it can be found more easily - and that's one of those good ones, i'd say…

thanks again for your work, & Godspeed

>>919083

SPICY

>>919142

>Don't even bother giving him the views on his gay ass stunt video.

pretty much this. LAME-inem's alleged "freestyle" vid was already cringe enough, look how low he went now… ugh.

that's an awfully not

covfefe pot

>>919324

>>919322

Beautiful. Nice work, yesterday's Nasime trollbaker, our troops are sharp today

>>919359

salutations GMTmap anon! thankyou for your service, much appreciated

o7

>>919423

>https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

we were warned…

>Enjoy the show.

>Expect a lot more.

>Panic.

>Q

>"Conspiracy" label.

>Re_read crumbs re: "conspiracy" / MSM coverage.

>Who will be next?

>They are here.

>They will try to discredit.

>They are stupid.

>They bring more eyes.

>The 'proofs' are important.

>'Proofs' provide new 'eyes' ability to question.

>This board in the coming months will be spread & discussed across ALL PLATFORMS.

>Important to be prepared.

>We will help.

>TRUTH always wins.

>Q

>>919456

>https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/opinion/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

>" “You cannot possibly imagine the size of this,” said a Q dispatch last month. “Trust the plan. Trust there are more good than bad.” Q almost certainly doesn’t know any state secrets, but he, she, or they understand that some fervent Trump supporters require more reassurance than they’re willing to admit. Their desperate conviction that they will be proven right about Trump betrays a secret fear that they will be proven wrong."

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

"almost certainly doesn’t know any state secrets"…

"almost certainly"….

wew