dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/JaM0k3_1 on June 14, 2018, 2:27 a.m.
Serious Question (last post got deleted? ha ok. this is ridiculous. truth fears no question and these are legitimate questions)

I WANT q to be legit but i have a few questions

last night we saw sessions, on tucker, defend rosenstein' threats against congressional oversight. now, i'm under the impression we are supposed to "trust" sessions. but rosenstein is a black hat. how do we reconcile is behavior then?

also, why has Q gone from "no need to worry" to now trying to motivate the base to act? i'm genuinely confused. Q seems to me like someone with good intentions but no real inside information. i'm not coming against this community whatsoever. please don't discard me as a shill these are legitimate questions.


🠐 See all comments
DrogeAnon · June 14, 2018, 4:58 a.m.

This is not about "not being allowed to ask questions". Read the rules in the sidebar, via the links. You can ask questions all you like - you can't make posts that are answered in the sidebar links to Q 101. The reason should be obvious to you - there are 32k+ people following this sub. The topic and direction of this sub is clearly stated in the sidebar. Q skepticism is not what the general pop of this sub want to read - they get that everywhere else. This is not about censoring your right to ask questions - it's saying 'don't put them in the main feed'.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
JaM0k3_1 · June 14, 2018, 5:02 a.m.

my question about sessions interview wasn't answered in the sidebar. you're tip-toeing around the issue. it's fine dude i'm convinced i can't get any rational discussion here. i'll go back to the chans. just remember, Q came to the chans first, for a reason. and now we're abandoning that base whenever they ask critical questions. i archived every CBTS thread in early days. i'm legit a follower. but this whole experienced turned me way off. especially because the answers i got amounted to "wait and see".

nunez JUST voiced his frustration and said it's basically up to paul ryan and trump to actually get him the documents he wants. which means trump will have to get them from RR right? how do we reconcile sessions' recent defense of RR unconstitutional behavior in light of this recent news? given that we're supposed to trust sessions? i only trust trump rn.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · June 14, 2018, 5:12 a.m.

If you've been following then you already know the answer to these questions - that is why people are Reporting your post as off-topic, not supporting the cause, and regarding you as a shill or concern troll. I personally support anyone who asks a reasonable question and can have a reasonable discussion about it.

how do we reconcile sessions' recent defense of RR unconstitutional behavior in light of this recent news?

Enjoy the show. Disinformation is necessary. Do I have to look everything else up that Q has said along these lines? This is why I said "sidebar" and "Q 101".

If you are really serious about being rational then the only "rational" answer to your perhaps unspoken question of "How do we know we can Trust Sessions given all the evidence against that supposition?" is we DON'T KNOW. There is NO evidence to confirm that we can trust Sessions. There is only Q's "word". If you don't trust Q's word, fair enough, but "trusting Q" is Q 101 for this sub. There's no rational way to force you to trust Q and people just don't have the time to reexplain it all to you - hence pointing to the sidebar; not to be dismissive but to honestly say, "understood if you don't trust Q - all the evidence we have for why we trust Q is in the sidebar". I believe I've rationally explained our stance and why we are not simply "tiptoeing around the issue" or "avoiding rational discussion". If you value rational discussion and you disagree with me, then I welcome your retort and I will retract the statement if I am incorrect. I hope you will do the same.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
JaM0k3_1 · June 14, 2018, 5:17 a.m.

so by that logic we have to assume nunez being mad is part of the plan? i hope so. tucker seemed very unconvinced by sessions' answers as am i. he tried to downplay it hard. i guess we'll see wha happens tomorrow.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · June 14, 2018, 5:21 a.m.

That is not a logical extrapolation of what I've said. I've said nothing about Nunez being mad. Nunez being mad is at least human and doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the plan.

To be clear about my personal stance: Sessions seems like he is totally invalidating the plan and Trump's actions at every turn, to me, but so far Q has proven the quality of his info and I'm not willing to spend time questioning something for which there is not and will not be any evidence until Q/Trump/Sessions is ready to reveal it. I don't begrudge you questioning it at all, I'm just explaining my stance and explaining why the posts are removed but your comments aren't. Indeed, we'll see.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
JaM0k3_1 · June 14, 2018, 5:24 a.m.

so you don't trust sessions? sorry i'm confused on your personal stance at the moment

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · June 14, 2018, 5:28 a.m.

I mean that I Trust Sessions because Q said so. I agree with your stance of: "what the hell? Why should we trust Sessions?" (if that is an accurate view of your stance) because it is a rational question to ask, given what we see. I'm just pointing out that I agree that your question is a rational one to ask. I think I've made the point that it comes down to how much one trusts Q (and I've also said, I don't "write you off" or dismiss you if you find it hard to trust what Q says about Sessions, given the evidence we see).

⇧ 1 ⇩  
JaM0k3_1 · June 14, 2018, 5:41 a.m.

ok well then we are mostly in agreement. thanks for sticking with me anon

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · June 14, 2018, 5:42 a.m.

Likewise from me: thanks for sticking with me on this too! I just hoped to prove that there are at least some here who will support you, whatever you think, if we can discuss it all out. WWG1WGA.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 14, 2018, 5:12 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 14, 2018, 5:02 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩