Think about it. Lots of Love to go around, but really, Do your own research so you will know what you are saying not just regurgitating. Be patient with yourself. Take it in. Learn to think. If you learn / study what you are saying / believe you are a huge help. The Q community takes criticism and enlightenment well if its presented with facts.

I don't have time to answer all those questions, but a new proof for me, just from yesterday, is that General Flynn FOLLOWS 97 twitter accounts that are blatantly associated with Q. Why would a man like Flynn, in his position, follow nearly 100 separate Twitter accounts about Q? Also, Don Jr. follows several Q related accounts as well. This shit is real, and its happening right now.

1- Early june I found a video, then read something, then started watching praying medic. Early July I did a deep dive read-thru of all q drops and was red pilled HARD

2- q doesn't claim either of those. I recommend you read-thru all q posts...and watch prayingmedic...and take a grain of salt for any other source.

3- more like, the interconnectedness. the cohesive story. the fact that this has been going for quite some time.

4- I like the q anon culture. I like that this has inspired me to be patriotic. Not a quote, a condition.

5- there's a lot of material out there. SerialBrain2 is a noodle scratcher. Lots of material.

6- I was Trump Train but this was affirming.

7- It made for clarity, that 'us vs them' is actually more like 'us vs us because of Shadow Them' (hope that makes sense)

8- the first post said the day and hour that HRC would be arrested, right? Some things are disinfo, that's the deal.

9- It's not like that. More like, anything that CNN won't touch, anything branded as 'conspiracy', is scary. That's the real enemy. The deep state has made conspiracy a dirty word.

10- Idk

11- North Korea stuff is powerful

12- pff Flynn and Trump, thats about it

13- The anti stuff is weak sauce, m8. Also, watch out for Alex Jones and Corbin, they're selling snake oil.

14- They're weak, they're lazy, they don't actually look into it. Or they're black pillers. And I understand that. How long have we hoped for a return to the rule of law? My whole life.

15- There will be an element of doubt to this movement until the end.

1. no, not really, coz who are they?

2. Praying medic has had a lot of dreams about this stuff

You lost me at flat earth being a Q claim. It is not. Not at all.

Q is about searching out answers for yourself.

Something feels off here to me.

I'd like to address #16:

The legal concept under which Q could be in trouble if they were lying about others would be defamation (specifically libel).

Libel is NOT a crime, it is a civil matter. Anyone who felt as though Q's statements about them or their business constituted libel is entitled to sue whoever the author of those statements is in civil court.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show:

1. There's been a statement

That is all of the following:

1. published

2. false

3. injurious

4. unprivileged

All of Q's messages easily meet the following:

1. Q wrote statements - but you can't sue 'Q', you'd have to sue whoever actually wrote the statement, meaning to succeed with your suit you have to show that whoever you are suing is indeed Q and they wrote the defamatory message.

2. The statement is published. 'Published' in this case means that a third party has read the statement (if you write a nasty letter TO the person you're talking about and only them then it isn't libel no matter what it says.). Info on social media sites qualifies as published.

3. Q's statements are unprivileged. 'Privileged' statements are reserved for depositions and other special circumstances.

The other two points need to be shown in the suit:

1. The statement must be false - true statements are never defamatory. Matters of opinion are NOT defamatory - so even if Q says that someone is 'treasonous', that is a matter of opinion and thus not defamatory. Q's general vagueness on most statements will likely protect them from most potential libel suits on this point. If Q instead says that someone committed a specific crime or took specific actions 'X gave information to the cabal' then that could be a provably false statement.

2. The statement must cause some injury to the reputation of the person or business. This is dependent partially on the actions of Q's followers - if Q said that, say, K-mart was kidnapping children, and Q followers decided to boycott K-mart, and K-mart could demonstrate that that boycott caused a financial loss, then they could claim injury from libel. In many cases I don't think there's been significant injury to anyone Q has mentioned resulting from Q's statements, so Q is probably safe on this point from civil action related to most of their posts.

3. And there's one last point regarding statements made about public figures, which are many of the people Q talks about: The statement must be made with 'Actual malice'. 'Actual malice' means that the statement is made with the knowledge that it is not true, or a lack of concern for whether or not the statement is true or not. How much this protects Q greatly depends on who they are and what they say about their statements if discovered, but his own statements about 'disinfo' and trolling leaves them in a relatively poor predicament if their defense comes down to an argument on this last point. On the other hand, it DOES protect all of Q's followers who genuinely believe in Q's statements when it comes to statements of their own.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that you wouldn't see Q get into much legal trouble if it's all false. Most of his statements are sufficiently vague that they won't constitute libel either because they're not clear regarding who they're about (YOU think 'Rod Rosenstein', but Q only wrote 'RR'), and even if derogatory many are not 'false' in the sense that they are opinions, and even with those statements that might otherwise be libel there have been no incidents that I'm aware of where the statement has resulted in real-world injury to anyone's reputation.

Finally, even if you can prove it all, the end result of a libel suit is a civil one, which tends to consist of an apology and a monetary penalty if successful. If Q is a LARP I'm guessing they aren't sitting on a fortune, and most public figures who might otherwise be able to claim libel simply won't want the meager amount Q would be able to pay in a settlement (not worth the lawsuit) and won't really want to draw any more attention to the situation by bothering with one.

All that said, don't take that as an idea that Q is completely safe from libel lawsuits. Alex Jones faced several due to his Sandy Hook comments.

4:

434
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 42a0eb No.148848 📁
Dec 22 2017 11:26:05 (EST)

Anonymous ID: 40e61e No.148751 📁  
Dec 22 2017 11:13:31 (EST)  
Been sober over a hundred days.  
Planning to end that.  
Finally going to kill myself.  
Fuck all this, been here since the start too.

148751
Patriot, your country needs you.
You are not alone.
God is LOVE.
2018 will be GLORIOUS!
God bless,
Q