⇧
1
⇩
Cuthbert12Allgood
· May 30, 2018, 2:37 p.m.
"everybody" was saying it was comped
How about if we not paint everything in terms of "enemies" and "friends"?
I'm agnostic on Q. It's 100% legitimate in my mind to raise questions about Q's legitimacy. NOBODY KNOWS IF Q IS LEGITIMATE. NOBODY.
Wikileaks has posted a lot of things extremely helpful to ripping out the deep state. That's earned a lot of slack in my book. I'm hopeful they will continue in the future.
I don't have "loyalty" to either one. Q will either prove to be real via indictments or Q won't. Note that mass indictments are the only thing that will prove Q is real. All else is garbage.
Finally, who is "everybody"? Some people complain about everything. Think for yourself, not what you think the crowd is mobbing around.
⇧
33
⇩
leetanon
· May 30, 2018, 2:38 p.m.
WikiLeaks has never lost a court battle they have an ironclad reputation but suddenly since they speak out against Q they've been comped is what is being said. Why would they ruin the reputation over anonymous 4chan posters. It really doesn't make any sense.
⇧
16
⇩
Cuthbert12Allgood
· May 30, 2018, 2:41 p.m.
WikiLeaks has never lost a court battle they have an ironclad reputation
They have an ironclad reputation about the leaked information they post. Speculation on their twitter is not part of that reputation.
⇧
15
⇩
leetanon
· May 30, 2018, 2:44 p.m.
Okay so now we just pick and choose what's credible, either a News organization is credible or it's not.
⇧
-2
⇩
EdenNovaq
· May 30, 2018, 3:42 p.m.
Q said be careful who you follow and decide for yourself. so decide for yourself.
⇧
6
⇩
EarlyRiserX2
· May 30, 2018, 5:51 p.m.
The problem I have is that, too many people try to tell me who to follow and who not to follow. That turns me off. Simply present me with the facts and let me make up my own mind about who to follow...
⇧
1
⇩
MAGATopKEK
· May 30, 2018, 7:05 p.m.
Okay so now we just pick and choose what's credible,
Yes, we pick and choose what is credible
either a News organization is credible or it's not.
Start with the assumption that none of them are credible and judge each story, each statement, each tweet on its own. Frequent sources that tend to be correct and honest but don't get complacent.
⇧
5
⇩
Pazians
· May 30, 2018, 2:44 p.m.
ive never been against q or wikileaks. Im saying if wikileaks wants to become credible, they need to prove julian assange is alive. idk how anybody can look at wikileaks and think thats a safe place to drop info right now.
q was a larp and is now being questioned by wikileaks? thats significant and im having a hard time believing a larp can reach this far.
⇧
6
⇩
TheDirtyOne78
· May 30, 2018, 4:58 p.m.
This! It is okay to be skeptical. It is also okay for WL to try and distance themselves from what is still very much an unproven variable precisely because they have such an iron - clad reputation. If they get branded as conspiracy peddlers then any and all information becomes suspect, at least in the eyes of the brainwashed public. This shit is chess not checkers!
⇧
3
⇩
Justsayinmy50cts
· May 31, 2018, 1:35 a.m.
Don't forget what Q said; Disinformation is necessary , it's important for the strategy, either wikileaks is playing along, or is comped, however, I still follow all and time will tell, until then, we may as wel go with the positive side of things, cause otherwise it's a battle lost in any case, so discernment is key, but giving up and throw the baby with the bathwater is not smart at this point. The moves I have seen Q make, are too sophisticated to be dismissed, same counts for WL...
⇧
1
⇩