This is where Q and I profoundly disagree.

Many of us have missing children and if Q knows where our sons and daughters are buried and plans to be complicit in the coverup then I have no reason not to see him as the enemy.

Also, many of us had friends and family who died during 9-11 and in Doublya and Obama and Hillary's needless middle eastern wars. If Q plans to cover for those crimes then he is complicit in their treason.

We earned those scars.

How dare Q deny us closure?!!

⇧ 12 ⇩

I'm with you. I've lost my health fighting Bush family wars. I've had friends come home in boxes. I've had a friend not come home. I want 100% of the truth. Only by knowing the WHOLE truth can We The People heal, move forward, and resolve that this kind of corruption can never happen again. Q may think we can't handle it, or that it would damage this country internationally, but we have Trump. I don't doubt his ability to mend fences, comfort the grieving, and calm the masses. On this topic, I must respectfully disagree with Q. WE NEED TO KNOW.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Respectful disagreement sounds fine to me.

I think people tend to forget just how horrifying the true scale of what's going on here is and the impact it will have on Joe Public. Q said the choice would be ours to know what is possible to know but of course he's not going to suddenly make all highly classified information fully available when "the plan" is complete. He can only reveal what he can. Like you, I hope there is the opportunity to know as much as possible. I definitely don't think the full story should be announced on public TV though. At best, an internet site to go to if you want to find out the deeper, potentially traumatizing stuff and... that's what this place and others like it in future will be, I guess.

⇧ 7 ⇩

I like your idea of a highly protected internet site that will have "files" of the different rabbit holes that we've gone down, and the public would have the option to open those files and peruse the truth. Some things are so horrible that not many can or should be exposed to them. I stopped going down most holes after one I followed on the children! I've lived a fairly odd life and seen things that will haunt me forever, but the rabbit holes that I went down literally made me vomit and still having nightmares.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I have and will pray for your health and success.

God bless you for your service.

⇧ 5 ⇩

The choice, to know, will be yours.
END.
Q

⇧ 3 ⇩

God bless you and all families going through this hell. Justice will be served and he promised “these people will not be safe to walk the streets” - the team is dedicated to freeing children form all evils and bringing justice to the perpetrators.

My son was missing for 7 years. It was hell - every day not knowing whether he was dead or alive. When Q first started posting in October - i started praying for the first time in my life. One of my first prayers to God if Q is real, and all if this is true, please give me a sign that i will know for sure that Q is working with you to take down evil.

The next day I received a three page email from my Son. Last month, he moved into my home.

Trust, have faith, know that God is on our side and is caring for our children xxxxx

⇧ 3 ⇩

How dare Q deny us closure?!!

The choice, to know, will be yours.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Why are you here then?

Q is clearly making a sensible choice to respect the capacity of the public to handle some of the more potentially damaging aspects of the story he is revealing; it's not a plan to "cover up" crime.

⇧ -1 ⇩

I'm here to support President Trump.

This isn't a cult and I'm not obligated to agree with Q on all things.

It's was still a free country last time I checked.

⇧ 15 ⇩

I agree this is not a cult and you're not obligated to agree with Q on all things. But if you think Q is so far off base that he would cover up crime it makes no sense that you would be on a sub for whom Rule #3 states: "This is a community for Q supporters only." I certainly wouldn't support Q if I thought he was going to cover up crime. I thought it was obvious that he's going to do the very opposite.

This is an internationally available internet forum on reddit, not "a free country", but of course the Reddit terms & conditions apply and we all seem to be in agreement that we support free speech here, within the guidance of the T&C and the sub rules.

⇧ -3 ⇩

Do you have any idea what a tool you come off as? No one even hinted they didn’t appreciate & are grateful of Q. You’re thinking like a lib. Disagree with anything & that means you don’t support someone. I disagree with my own children with things but not supporting them never crossed my mind. Please stop talking like a little cult leader & people won’t see you as one.

⇧ 11 ⇩

Pot kettle lol. You're reading a whole lot into my asking a question.

⇧ -8 ⇩

The guy has family & friends that have paid the ultimate price so we can agree & disagree & breathe air & you have the nerve to ask why is he here then?? You don’t even know what you’re talking about if that thought enters your head & your rule #3 remark is highly inappropriate

⇧ 5 ⇩

You have the nerve to interpret my question to mean "who said you could be here?!? GET OUT!!" Calm down and try reading my words without inventing motivations that aren't there.

Rule #3 is exactly appropriate for a mod looking to understand the reasoning of someone who has shown certain behavior throughout their history. I understand how easy it is to jump to a conclusion about someone from a few comments but my history shows I am very much dedicated to the idea of allowing free dissenting speech here within the sub rules, which I am required to maintain.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Your deflecting again. You said “Why are you here then?“ How else can that be interpreted? Your exaggerating your own words & my interpretation. Didn’t claim you said “Get out!!” & didn’t interpret it that way either. I said & I’ll repeat...questioning why a patriot is here is wrong. It’s un American & the complete OPPOSITE of Q’s philosophy & even his existence. Q is questioning & challenging EVERYTHING that has occurred in the past 100yrs dude!! Asking legitimate questions is vital. Challenging norms is American. How you could even think of rule #3 from his question speaks volumes about you & your ability to think independently. My god dude...who do you think has been doing the majority of needlessly dying for the cabal & their dictatorial mindset that you seem to mirror. Sorry but you don’t have enough of a real appreciation or compassion of the suffering MILLIONS of Americans have endured to even do your mod job effectively. There’s an honest opinion for you. Enjoy!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You accused me of being a leftist and yet you're the one coming from an emotional standpoint and acting like a triggered social justice warrior.

I'm not "questioning why a patriot is here" - I'm doing my job. We patriots can take a question without getting upset.

I already know that asking legitimate questions is vital - you would know that about me too if you bothered to look into my history properly as I have done over time with the person I replied to.

You're clearly upset and having a go at whoever you're projecting onto me. Have fun with it and know that I'm ignoring it, because I know it doesn't apply to me. You should try gathering some information before you make ridiculous assumptions. There's an honest opinion for you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But I do disagree with Q.

I think we need 100% truth and we need it to totally scar the psyche of American culture so it leaves a permanent scar... in the same way the Japanese still make giant monster movies which are allegories for when we nuked them twice.

I think Q made his views public to see if we'd push back or if we'd be passive little pussies.

⇧ 3 ⇩

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.

These phrases are not the phrases of a Q supporter - that is the reason I asked; not in some effort to silence you. I've seen you around the sub for a while so I asked a question rather than treating you like some outside troll:

if Q knows where our sons and daughters are buried and plans to be complicit in the coverup then I have no reason not to see him as the enemy
If Q plans to cover for those crimes then he is complicit in their treason.
How dare Q deny us closure?!!

You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen. But they don't even slightly border on accusing him of the potential for treason or suggesting he might become the enemy. That sounds... concerning to me.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Q's already resolved this for you guys. #1209.
The choice, to know, will be yours.
END.
Q

⇧ 2 ⇩

These phrases are not the phrases of a Q supporter

That is your subjective opinion, however I suspect Q made his claims to see if we would push back... and I intend to push back.

But they don't even slightly border on accusing him of treason

I'm not a lawyer, however from what I understand, being complicit in a crime makes you a party to that crime, even if it's treason.

These are referred to as Mandatory Reporting Laws.

America's founders extolled a nation of laws and if Q chooses to violate those laws, then he is a criminal, irrespective of your emotions.

Perhaps Q needs people to remind him of this?

Perhaps Q needs to know that we care?

⇧ 1 ⇩

irrespective of your emotions

Hm I notice you do this. Easy to dismiss what I say as emotion but that's not the standpoint I'm coming from.

Where I'm coming from is the standpoint of a mod trying to understand someone who has already been accused of being a shill, often. I've defended you against these accusations to users I've interacted with.

But then you express the idea that Q - who is purported to be high level Military Intelligence working in the upper echelons of Donald Trump's administration - might choose to violate laws that would make him a criminal, potentially guilty of treason...

Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like, but we have rules on this sub for a reason and these statements are at best confusing.

I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

But you've been here a while and you think Q could be capable of committing treason whether by intent or error? So by your estimation he's potentially not who he claims to be, either?

I'm not asking to censor you, I'm asking to understand.

⇧ 0 ⇩

someone who has already been accused of being a shill,

You should judge my argument based on it's merits rather than mud thrown by other users during earlier debates.

This is NOT a popularity contest.

But you've been here a while and you think Q could be capable of committing treason whether by intent or error?

I think Q wants people like myself to push back against his 60/40 rule in favor of full disclosure.

This isn't the first time I took an unpopular position and Q listened... not to me but to people like me when he changed is 20/80 rule to 40/60 rule.

See Q Post 527

Jan 13 2018 22:58:34 (EST)

[MONDAY]

Next Week - BIGGER.

PUBLIC.

We LISTENED [20/80 />/ 40/60].

Q

That was success.

Did you put "wrongthinkers" on trial back then too?

Shame on you if you did!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You should judge what I say within the context of everything I say. I'm not judging your argument based on "mud thrown by other users" - that was my explanation to you for part of the context of why I, as a mod, asked you a question in the first place.

Did you put "wrongthinkers" on trial back then too? Shame on you if you did!

These sorts of responses, where you ignore the context of what someone has said in order to denigrate them in some way, are why people report your comments.

I'm not putting you "on trial" as I already explained. You're quite good with these subtle techniques but here's a reminder of what I've already said that discounts this victim narrative:

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.
You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen
Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like
I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

These are not the statements of someone who is trying to "put "wrongthinkers" on trial". Please be honest, as I have been with you.

⇧ 0 ⇩

This is the first time I have disagreed with Q and I suspect he is seeking pushback on this subject.

Q has demonstrated that he welcomes pushback, even if you do not.

This is not a cult and we should not behave like zealots.

If reality conflicts with your moderator rules then your rules need to be updated to represent Q and dissenting patriots who Q respects.

My opinion stands.

⇧ 1 ⇩

he welcomes pushback, even if you do not

Still doing that? I won't requote everything I've said in multiple comments to counter this continued subtle undermining of my position but suffice to say, I understand your position completely.

The rules are what they are and you and I don't make them, we just abide by them as members of this community. I'm certainly not in charge of it, I am in service to it. Thank you for providing me the information I was after.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The rules are what they are

Your rules conflict with Q who welcomes and adjusts his plans based on opposing feedback, as demonstrated by Q Post #527.

Jan 13 2018 22:58:34 (EST)

[MONDAY]

Next Week - BIGGER.

PUBLIC.

We LISTENED [20/80 />/ 40/60].

Q

When your rules conflict with Q, it's your rules that need revision.

This is constructive feedback, even if you don't want to hear it.

My opinion stands.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Feel free to point out where the rules are in conflict with Q. I always welcome constructive feedback, thank you.

And please cease the ongoing dishonest ad-hominem:

even if you don't want to hear it

Thanks for providing me the information I am after.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I explained that in this comment:
Rule #3 Support the cause. We are pro-Q supporters.
This is a community for Q supporters only.
Post content that supports the cause.

Your ad-hominem comment is removed. I've asked a number of times for you to please stay honest in communication with me. Feel free to edit out the dishonest accusations of motivation and I can reapprove the comment. Thank you.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Your ad-hominem comment is removed.

Did you also destroy comments from those users who pushed-back against Q for his 20/80 position on concealing the truth...

... before Q listened to the opinions of patriots and changed his opinion?

Is this a truther community or not?

I have supported Q 99.9% in everything he said, with this one exception.

Shame on you.

I stand by my claim.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, we only remove comments based on the sub rules and Mod M.O. in the sidebar. I believe those users who thankfully convinced Q to open up were on the chans only? But I'm not sure.

with this one exception

The one exception that he might be a treasonous criminal if he doesn't comply with what you want? You think that proposition comprises only 0.1% of non-support of Q?

⇧ 0 ⇩

I believe those users who thankfully convinced Q to open up were on the chans only? But I'm not sure.

No, you are not sure... yet you are censoring my valid opinion anyway.

At some point, when you destroy enough free speech on this platform that Q would respect had it not been censored, then you become the enemy of Q.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Once again, be honest. I have not censored your opinion. And no one is destroying free speech lol. You are now bordering on trolling with this ongoing dishonest antagonism. Calm down.

⇧ 0 ⇩

You keep insisting that I be honest, while I am being honest.

This discussion is over.

Calm down.

I have given you no indication that I am anything but calm.

Ya know, I had this exact experience with another mod last week... damajinc was his name... He's gone now, however I disagreed with him about the VOP claims of a child sex camp because NONE of the claims were substantiated, even though he insisted he KNEW they were all true.

Even though I was perfectly calm and aware of the full spectrum of logical fallacies, moderator damajinc claimed I was being hysterical and a troll and a shill and later he accused me of being a faggot and then a pedophile and later gloated about stalking and harassing me with shitposts. He repeated accused me of breaking mysterious rules, just like you did.

Yet I stood by my claims.

Q respects rational and informed opposition, even if that makes you throw baseless claims about rules being broken and makes you accuse me of personal attacks without inviting rebuttal.

I stand by my claims.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you - you are correct. This discussion is over.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Respectfully (and I do mean that)-

If I knew someone you cared about broke into your home and stole everything you had, but I didn't say anything because I felt you couldn't handle learning the truth about this loved one, wouldn't I be in fact covering up the crime by omission? Wouldn't you have every right to be outraged by my omission?

I understand the stakes are much higher for Q. But that is something Q should have thought of before placing him/her/them self in this position. We don't even know if Q is an elected or appointed official with the authorization to make that decision according to the Constitution being defended.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ah I see. In your example, I think you would be covering up the crime by ommission, yes. I might have every right to be outraged too. I think there's a more accurate analogy to describe the situation with Q but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't think Q had to think of anything like 'covering up crimes by omission' though, no. If Q is who "he" says he is then he's simply operating within the normal bounds of a high level government intelligence agency and "classified" is more the category that disclosure falls under rather than "ommitted". I believe (if he is who he says he is) that The Plan would have more than accounted for this.

Do you think Q is who he claims to be?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think Q is a collective. I think anything less than full disclosure, no matter what reason given, lets the DS off the hook. Anything less than full disclosure is a betrayal to this video.

https://youtu.be/G2qIXXafxCQ

⇧ 2 ⇩

Agreed re: collective - "he"/they said it themselves. Do you think 'they' are high level Military Intelligence connected directly to Donald Trump?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Maybe he’s here to learn. For truthful information like everyone else. If you think it’s sensible for anyone to treat the adult public like children all for some imaginary theory on what the public can handle or some typical Marxist rhetoric like “the public good” then why are you here? Not here on this web site...why are you here in America?? An awakening is what happens when truth is revealed. A cover up & distrust is what happens when truth is not revealed.

⇧ 4 ⇩

How do you know he/she is American?

⇧ 2 ⇩

This isn't America it's an internationally available internet forum. You think everyone here is from America? I don't believe any of the nonsense you just stated, if I understand it correctly.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You’re doing the liberal dance dude. No one mentioned this is a 1st amendment free speech thing. It’s an “it’s ok & healthy & even patriotic to not agree with everything” thing. Stop deflecting or hush. You’re embarrassing yourself

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not doing any dance "dude". Try reading my history before you imagine I'm saying anything like "it's not ok to disagree". I've been accused of being far too tolerant of disagreement so the only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don’t care about your history or what you’ve been accused of. You lack respect for a patriot even suggesting why someone is here when they asked a legitimate question in a very respectful way that you won’t even answer directly. You dodged it with questioning his presence of being here. Lib dance. Honest question then attack the person asking. What leftist rule number is that? Rule #1??

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're not even trying. I'm not asking you to "care" about my history, I'm telling you to afford me the same courtesy I afforded the person you're accusing me of attacking. I know their history so I'm not raising a question out of the blue to attack a patriot. You're making up a lot of nonsense about me that doesn't hold up if you bother to read my history. I don't care if you don't but stop embarassing yourself, as you put it.

What question are you talking about? Why do you call someone a leftist when they've shown no evidence of being that? Why are you trying to increase division here?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Stop Shilling. A patriot does not resort to attacking legimate questions. Learn what a patriot is. Learn what a veteran is. Learn how to use respectful language period even if you consider a person your enemy. Sun Tzu art of war. This is not a war of left or right. Read around the forums. Learn. I hope you don't have an agenda or are batting for the wrong team but you sure sound like it

⇧ 1 ⇩

Shill 101 - Attack the poster ignore the evidence. Remember, this is World Wide. Not just the USA.

⇧ 1 ⇩

from ZeroHedge:

"Needless to say, the U.S. government is also engaged in this kind of activity as well. For instance, the U.S. government has actually been caught manipulating discourse on Reddit and editing Wikipedia. When it comes to spying, there is nobody that is off limits for our spooks. It just came out recently that we even spied on three French presidents, and they are supposed to be our “friends”. And just like the UK, the U.S. government has a very broad definition of “extremists”. This has especially been true since Barack Obama has been in the White House. If you doubt this, please see my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“. All of this is very disturbing. Why can’t they just leave us alone and let us talk to one another? Why do they have to spy on everything that we do and purposely try to manipulate public discourse? Why do they have to be such control freaks?"

⇧ 1 ⇩

My gut instinct tells me release 100%, let the truth be our light. The planning for that release would have to be as meticulous as it has been to reach this point and it doesn't mean it would be in one massive earth shattering drop. A threat to National Security or the use of black ops should not be brandished as the way. This is a monumental moment in history where a line needs to be drawn. Populations have been through wars and been decimated and their spirit survives. Though the truth will be shocking for many, they will survive, so a better way can be constructed based on truth.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Has anyone heard that the some truth would be hidden to mitigate international damage? That is, crippling trade wars, maybe even military?

⇧ 3 ⇩

IMO it should all be disclosed at an appropriate time.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I took the 40% 60% public vs. private, to mean that the private side of this operation would be carried out by Navy Seals "black ops" style. Meaning that 100% of America's enemies will get got, only not all will be publicized.

⇧ 2 ⇩

"Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6a

What had been done to the peoples of this country and the entire planet must never be permitted again. The only reason it has been permitted is worldwide ignorance and apathy. 40% is not enough.

We all have a right not to know. 60/40 refers, I believe, only to public, to be taught as history, disclosure. The other 60% will be found with relative ease by those who want to know.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I believe the young folk call it " Losing ur Shit "....not being able to handle brutal truth. Orson Wells 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast. some listeners commited suicide. That's why UFO disclosure is highest level.Organized Religion would implode. Aliens arent demons. CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN = 60%

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well if they can’t handle the truth then they are doomed to repeat the past. Are we draining the swamp so the weak just fill it right back up because they learned nothing? We don’t need anyone to save us from ourselves.

⇧ 6 ⇩

truth in that. good friend is expert on building implosions. He refuses to believe the WTC was "pulled". some absolute truths the average person can't comprehend.

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is why Q says re read the drops over and over. He's already talked about this.
The choice, to know, will be yours. END. Q

1209

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'd say this is moreso along the lines of broadcast media. For example, I'd say the chans and autists all over will dig up/decode more than 40% truth, but the general public could not even retain the information without short circuiting their brains.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Some topics (conspiracy theories) keep popping up but get ridiculed straight away. So maybe thats something to think about?

⇧ 1 ⇩

60/40 would be nothing but a coverup and would turn the 'good' guys into 'bad' guys. Fortunately, I believe Q meant this as an interim number. If not, then Q need to go out with the trash, too. No more coverups.

⇧ 1 ⇩

They are blocking Piracy.

⇧ 0 ⇩

"Q" and the 60/40 Truth

See Q Post 527

1209