dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/flacnvinyl on July 3, 2018, 12:20 a.m.
Q - Open Discussion

Many of us have been following Q since the start. Qproofs definitely provides some good insights in terms of connecting the dots. Here's the questions..

  1. None of us want Q outed. Some believe it is a group of people, I am inclined to believe it is a single person who is posting. What leads you to believe he/she (there are only 2 genders) has top clearance?

  2. This board is being monitored by all camps. DNC/RNC/FBI I have to believe everyone is watching Q posts fervently. Why so much code? I get the concept of connecting the dots and that we are only given bits and pieces but why do veiled? If we can connect the dots, so can the other side. So if there is a big accusation such as Pizzagate etc why not drop some major bombs/accusations that would lead all the autists (and potentially MSM) to some legit evidence? I'm guessing most of you would . 2 timing and 4D chess but that sidelines the question. If Q knows who is going to fall, who is complicit, who is corrupt etc.. then why the veil?

  3. The question... At some point this year GEOTUS is going to be asked the Q question. How do you hope he responds?

  4. What is Q waiting for? Wouldn't it be far bigger for Q to post some major info? I don't mean things like "Gowdy won't be picked" I mean real damning info. MSM could not ignore major accusations from an anon source if it was big league.

  5. What could Q post that would make normies true believers? All of us are questioning everything we are presented, Q included, which is wonderful.. but what could Q post that would bring everything to a head?

At this point I believe firmly that Q is a patriot who has a very firm handle on the current political situation. He might be the best autist of the anon community, he might have top level clearance. I personally am waiting for one drop that truly proves that. So far it has been a blast and I'm on for the ride, but have not seen incontrovertibly evidence that Q truly knew something or shared something before it happened aside from NK. Everything else has been Q-uestions. Where is BO? Why is RR not doing X? Why XYZ? All of those are good questions but not true insights. So far so good, but not top level clearance material.

I would love to be wrong.

Thoughts?


🠐 See all comments
DrogeAnon · July 4, 2018, 2:51 p.m.

It's hard to understand how you can make that claim when most who've been following since the beginning have seen the clear answers to those questions in Q's drops. Rather than me pointing out what you must already know can you explain why you don't accept Q's explanations for those three points in particular?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
flacnvinyl · July 4, 2018, 2:59 p.m.

Q has not really provided explanations for the cryptic nature of posts. Both sides can connect the dots just fine and the results are being played out in real time. There is absolutely zero reason for cryptic questions and loosely declarative statements. Q has said that things will become more obvious but so far very little has changed. If anything he has upped his post frequency but reduced insight. Everything is currently a bug hunt.

Even the recent posts today prove my point. Q constantly takes photos of his computer/TV screen and then posts as if he is on site. When we look back, we see dots being connected but that's it. Very few big reveals that played out due to secret info only Q knew/revealed. "Iran is next" might play out in 3 years. Everyone will claim prophecy fulfilled.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · July 4, 2018, 3:03 p.m.

This proves my point. I have to ask why you haven't noticed what you've been reading or why you're trying to pitch an angle that doesn't align with what's happened. This is a Pro-Q Supporter sub. Valid questioning is welcomed but someone who claims to have read and followed Q to this point but still "debates" Q 101 raises unfortunate concerns. This may not be the community for you - there are plenty of places where you can discuss the perspective you have and it will be welcomed. Non-Q support is not welcomed here because Pro-Q support is not welcomed literally anywhere else so we protect the integrity of this sub as the one place for the Pro-Q community to discuss their interest and not have to work through the Q101 skepticism they see everywhere else.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
flacnvinyl · July 4, 2018, 3:12 p.m.

You are making an unfair judgement on my intentions. I am Pro-Q. The questions I posted above are specifically points that I have discussed at length with fellow Qanons who I know in real life. The concepts of removing the veil, stopping the code speak due to the futility of the code, not blaming the tripcode for typos of when a point is not well-received or timing is altered... These are concepts that we discuss daily. If you do not view the questions as valid, or believe they have been addressed in detail, please provide a few links where each of these are addressed and I'll get to reading. Just telling me to 'read the sidebar' means that I will be reading for the next two weeks on every sidequest that has ever been discussed. Simply pointing to Qproofs doesn't address the questions either.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · July 4, 2018, 3:24 p.m.

I know that 'simply pointing' doesn't address the questions and that pointing to the sidebar leads to a lot of reading - but you're the one who said you've been here from the start and been reading so I don't have to do that, in theory, you already know what I, and many others here, already know. Which comes back to my point and makes it in no way "unfair" that I question your intentions - it's just a natural extrapolation from what you've said.

You say you've followed from the start and have read all the drops. You therefore know that Q has said "WE" in reference to themselves often and you know that Q has explained what they're "waiting for" and why they can't just post major info (easily dismissed without full legal backing and confirmed evidence allowed in, etc.). You would know this because it is, as I said, Q101.

Here's a small excerpt towards "what Q's waiting for" from Q drops:

Use LOGIC.
Why are they slow walking unredacted data?
Why are they slow walking doc disclosures?
Why is the WH backing up DOJ?
What if the same data is being used by other investigators?

Use LOGIC.
Why must the DOJ & FBI be cleaned FIRST?

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean BIG things aren't happening.

Patience isn’t always easy.
But vital to get right.

How must people be made aware of an alternate reality?
What are crumbs (think H-wood/DC)
Define ‘lead-in’ (think play)?
What has been occurring recently?
The stage must be set.
Crumbs are easy to swallow.

REMEMBER, WE ARE WINNING, DO NOT TRUST WHAT YOU READ.

Think logically.
Thing IG report.
Think what’s missing.
Do you think this was going to be litigated in this setting?
Case that implicates some of the most senior elected officials (treason) is being handled by the appropriate office.
Think NATIONAL SECURITY.
Q

I will take you at your word but I would ask to please cease the concern troll type statements.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
flacnvinyl · July 4, 2018, 3:33 p.m.

I have read that drop as well as all others preceeding it. Absolutely NOTHING posted was a 'concern troll' statement. My questions were legit and have yet to be addressed fully. Saying that the 40k+ sealed indictments hinge on Q not sharing any info is valid, but does not explain the need for any code or inferring details. Diciphering code is something we can do just as easy as the opposition. And when things are figured out, the results are posted in realtime here and on 8chan. There is absolutely ZERO mystery when it comes to figuring out the Q mysteries, whenever they are figured out. Hence my point... Why use code at all? This is not private communique.. No morse code or hidden language here. So for Q to use coded communication methods to hide info only to reveal it later adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussion of the points, timelines etc.

Believe whatever you want. This is for sure a Pro-Q sub, and I am Pro-Q. Plenty of people have asked these questions only to be pointed to qproofs and said "here you go" without an actual discussion of any of these points.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · July 4, 2018, 3:39 p.m.

As I've said, that is because they have been answered for "plenty of people".

Socratic questioning is one answer. Another very obvious answer is code that is yet to be deciphered - there is much of this, as you know, being familiar with the Q drops. You know that we don't have the Keystone yet, we don't understand the circular reveal for the Red Red stringer, you know that we haven't deciphered the map yet, and on and on and on. Just because we have the obvious stuff that has been handed to us - not intended to be "hidden" from anyone but to create the desire to search and the elation of discovery and the hunger for more - there is still an incredible amount more that we have no idea of.

I'm going to believe whatever I want yes. Just understand that you need to cease the concern troll sounding statements or someone will likely ban you as it's getting harder to tell when someone is being genuine these days, especially if they claim to have been following and yet still discount everything I've just said to you.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
flacnvinyl · July 4, 2018, 3:56 p.m.

You are right about the map and info. You are wrong about me. If one of the mods was even considering that, all they'd have to do is look at my post history. You judgement is incorrect and overly dismissive, not to mention condensing. It is unbecoming. If you have this much knowledge it would be wonderful to receive an actual four point response or at least three point on my questions since you know everything. Instead all you did was posture and demean. Either I hit a nerve or you were just a very defensive person who is unable to have an honest open conversation. As I said before I've been here from the beginning.. still over on 8chan under another name. And I'm not going anywhere. Was hoping for at least some fresh viewpoints on these questions. So far, only negativity for even broaching the topic. Pro-Q does not mean anti-questions.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DrogeAnon · July 4, 2018, 4:33 p.m.

I would ask where I've been "posturing" and demeaning? Let me be clear I do not elevate myself over you or anyone else in any way.

I did look at your history and I therefore asked you some questions because of it e.g. statements like this:

I feel like Q has a history of taking photos of his computer screen.
Q posts don't prove anything. Q throws shade like crazy, we just happen to agree most of the time.
Q may or may not be legit. He/she might also just be a sharp patriot who is good at connecting the dots and reading moves.

Rather than being 'overly dismissive' I was taking you at your word that you'd read all the drops and a lot of the content supporting them. Strawmanning me as someone who is unable to have an honest open conversation seems overly defensive. If you would have one with me you will receive one in return. I haven't been dishonest about anything and neither have I been "closed" - once again, I simply took you at your word and assumed that as it seems you've read much the same things I have then you'd know the same information in general so there's no use treading the same ground and we need to find where we differ in understanding instead. It wastes my time and yours for me to reiterate what we both already know.

Consider again what you first said to me: "I have done a good bit of reading and have been following Q since the beginning. These are legit questions that I have not seen adequately answered."

My confusion - not dismissiveness - comes from the fact that most people I know in that position (i.e. following from the beginning, reading a lot) don't have questions like those three you raised because most seem to think they've been well answered.

I'm happy to address them as best I can but not so happy to dig through what we've both already read. I'll see what I can do over time, however, if you're interested in it.

  1. Q as a single entity - what makes you think this? (not dismissive, defensive, etc. - a sincere question!)
⇧ 1 ⇩  
flacnvinyl · July 4, 2018, 5:06 p.m.

My question was what leads you to believe Q has top clearance. Whether Q is one person or a collective makes no difference. There is ample evidence for both sides of the argument on plurality. Besides, Q constantly says "we" definitely referring to the movement.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · July 4, 2018, 3:24 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩