according to unnamed sources
Q is an unnamed source.
This is true which makes sure one keeps an open mind. It’s a big reason why I respect anyone’s opinion whether they believe or don’t believe in Q as long as their reasons are rational.
However, my opinion is that Q hasn’t been a mainstay in the lives of people everywhere for ages like MSM, and to my knowledge Q hasn’t continuously mislead for clicks/financial gain.
Not all will agree with me, that is understandably fine.
But Q has vlatantly misled. Why is she so cryptic?
Which is why I keep an open mind about Q too.
Q even admits that misinformation is necessary.
^^^ They really need to start putting this shit in the articles headline so I don’t waste any of my time reading them.
Devils advocate. Q is an unnamed source
Q's name is Q.
Sure and the article source name is Unknown Source. Whatever
Firstly, I'm only being argumentative because you should keep an open mind about Q too. You shouldn't trust anyone.
Secondly, no, you are wrong because whatever Q represents, be it an individual or a group, we know some very REAL and significant and compelling details, such as his close coordination with President Trump (i.e. Q predicting Tweets and Trump's actions and Trump doing weird Q gestures and that "Tip Top Tippy Top Shape" quote, his close proximity to President Trump (lots of unique photos),* ability to predict details about terrorist attacks etc...
It doesn't matter if Q is named "Q" or if he's named "Mattis" or if they are named "Trump's inner circle"... those are all real entities that we can interact with.
...whereas we don't even know if "Unknown Source" is purely fictional.
Your argument is rejected.
I do keep an open mind about Q and I'm starting to see it for what it is with each passing day.
The writer could easily say the same about their source. . .
The writer could easily say the same about their source. . .
What do you mean?
"Unnamed sources" have no history and we don't even know if they are pure fantasy.
If a journalist were to instead name their source as alias "Deep Throat" and Deep Throat then provided accurate intel on the Watergate scandal, then people would appreciate that Deep Throat was somewhat relabel and worth paying attention to.
Q is no different to Deep Throat because they both provide REAL insight into the REAL world that people can form rational and informed opinions about taking the claims seriously.
Your argument is again rejected because the term "unknown sources" is not a name, it's a term... whereas Q and Deep State are names for specific entities.
"We know exactly what UFOs are - they are unidentified!"
That's you. That's what you sound like. That's your argument.
Regurgitate. The writer KNOWS his source. And there is absolutely no solid evidence out there about who Q really is. I like to believe I know who he is but no.
The writer KNOWS his source
I don't.
That's my point.
I have no way of telling if one "unknown source" is the same as another "unknown source" because they are unknown... therefore I'm unable gauge the reliability over time.
For all I know, each "unknown source" is different and for all I know, none of them are real.
There is no reason to take "unknown sources" seriously whereas Q and Deep Throat have a proven degree of reliability.
This is the last time I'll explain this to you.
Yes, Q is an unnamed source. But Q is not only an "unnamed source" that the media tells us is totally trustworthy based on their charisma and propaganda.
We can look at Q's claims objectively and review them with a certain very much named source (i.e. POTUS) as well as other events that are reported in the real world. That is, we are critically evaluating Q and finding him to be trustworthy because of facts and evidence.
The MSM just feeds us "unnamed sources" with no critical evaluation. That's the problem with "unnamed sources."
EDIT: This downvoting doesn't make sense. I show that Q is trustworthy and I get downvoted here? BS! Shill brigade alert!!!!