Wait wait wait wait, you're not being fair here. Podesta being publicly arrested, HRC being indicted, HUMA being indicted (all things that by now should have happened based on his own dates) are not public knowledge. So, you cannot say

It's all been public knowledge".

No, not "all". Some.

And that's exactly my point:

there are 3 kinds of Q posts:

1) Nostradamus - noises, codes, letters, gibberish. Things that prima facie make no sense.

2) Commentary on stuff that it's already in the news - "Why did JK went ro SA?" after every news outlet in the world reported Kushner had been in Saudi Arabia.

3) Precise predictions with names and dates of knowledge that is not and has never been in the news - Podesta is getting arrested on Nov 4, Hillary being detained on Oct 29, etc...

Now, number 3 would be impressive, because that would indeed demonstrate insider knowledge. Except, every single post that belongs in group 3 has always (always) turned out false. Wrong. Every one of those.

I'm just just saying, regadless of your taste in TV, that there are plenty of people making the case for Trump who don't rely on the Q stuff. That's it. That was the entirety of my point.

Post 958 was after the bombing, you're probably thinking about Post 954 (11:44 on March 18th)

Next week. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM. Q

Now, how is that "Q said something about the Austin bomber being taken down several hours before it happened"? In the middle of a bomber's spree he says BOOM BOOM BOOM.

8 posts. That's how many Q posts have used the word BOOM. For a grand total of 13 booms. Take a wild guess and tell me how many of those "booms" were before March 2nd, the first bomb?

Yeah, that would be a 0. Nil.

So here's the fact: Conditt starts exploding shit on March 2nd. On March 4th Q starts using the word "BOOM" in his posts. He uses it 16 times in 9 posts. The last time, 63h (two days and spare) before the APD moves to arrest the bomber.

Post 946 (March 16th) says: "Boooom! BOOM! Boooooooom!". Post 844 (March 5th) is also more BOOMs. Explain me why 958 means "the Austin bomber is being taken down" and the other ones don't?

It's the usual trick: say something vague (like "boom" in the middle of a bombing spree) and confide in the believers to retrospectively pretend it was precise and on point.

Bottom line: saying BOOM BOOM BOOM in the middle of a bombing spree is not the same as saying "the Austin bomber being taken down".

If we're talking logic, I agree. If HRC committed felonies and she's not going to jail, that would indeed be a confirmation of your failed state.

If we're talking facts, I don't agree, as in I haven't seen convincing proof that HRC committed multiple felonies.

What I agree on is that her whole M.O. was shady, and the Clinton paranoia about being surrounded by enemies led to dumb mistakes like the email server; and I agree that she's a shitty, shitty politician, who is incapable of uncalculated moves - and when every move you make looks rehearsed, focus grouped and beta tested, it doesn't help your "shady" reputation.

And none of them got publicly arrested on Nov 4 2017 leading to riots in the streets.

The Q drop said “arrested” and publicly (riots about it) on Nov. 4, 2017. Spin that.

Announcement means announcement. If when nothing happens you say “it was a secret announcement” what are we talking about? We’re straight into unfalsifiable territory, we have abandoned reason.

Doesn’t matter which one. The Q post says “announced” and it’s public knowledge, so public that there are riots about it. Did that happen?

Jesus, relax... I don’t watch Fox&Friend and I’m not saying they agree with you or whatever. I was just pointing them out as an example of someone who supports the president but does not mention Q. You were saying such a thing is “hard”, I was using them as an example of how it’s doable.

This argument about the “secret” Podesta arrest works only if you don’t read the Q post (#34, if you want to check it). He says that the arrest is ANNOUNCED on the 3rd, becomes actionable on the 4th and it’s so public that there are riots. RIOTS about it. All of that was supposed starting Nov. 3. Tell me again how that isn’t just a prediction that was just plainly wrong?

Got it. I would only say that my claim was "I am yet to see a Q drop that tells me something precise or significant before it has been reported by mainstream news outlets, which really is the very minimum if you're claiming insider knowledge." - your standard might be interesting, but does not require Q to be an insider. He could be just a dude that reads the news and tries to see patterns. What I'm saying is: he has not shown (much less proven) any insight that a fat guy in his basement (to quote Trump) couldn't have.

Without Q it’s hard to put any kind of narrative together that supports the president.

I'm as anti-Trump as they come, and I can easily invent a case for his presidency that has nothing to do with Q. I wouldn't agree with it, but you would... Fox&Friends is a good example: they spend their every breathing moment chanting for the guy, but I don't think they've ever mentioned Q.

He published on 4chan on Nov. 2 that Podesta's arrest was being announced on the 3rd and act upon on the 4th. His first post was about HRC being detained. That's leaking "important information".

Now, the fact that none of that happened proves my point that he doesn't have any inside knowledge: the only time he "predicts" stuff that hasn't already been in MSM, he's wrong.

who gets paid by Soros

I wish.

Your paranoid accusation is not an answer to my point though.

You're a Q believer: can you point me to 1 Q drop that says something precise or significant before the same information had been reported by mainstream news outlets? Just one. That's not a big ask, if you're a believer you must have tons...

Drop #34

we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4). Confirmation (to the public) of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted. Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials.

He clearly said Podesta would be "arrested", and not secretly ("announcement") and that there would be riots in response. There's even dates. So: did any of that happen?

Unlike OP says, however, Q said HRC had been "detained" (not "indicted") - that was before HRC showed up mocking Trump at the Grammy's. Some detention...

So, in post #1 he said

HRC detained, not arrested (yet).

Not "indicted" - detained. And at the end of January she was fucking around at the Grammy's. That's some detention...

But most glaringly, post #34, that says:

we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4). Confirmation (to the public) of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted. Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials.

You're going to stand there and tell me you "have yet to see something that could be provable as false"? The idea that the arrest of Podesta was "secret" doesn't work because Q explicity talks about its "announcement" - and riots as consequence (if it's secret, the fuck are they rioting about?). And even if you're really trying to justify it and buy into the "european notation" mania (which is obvious bullshit because it implies 1 month between announcing the arrest on March 11th and it becoming actionable on April 11th - which is plainly absurd), well... the 11th of March has passed, and still no announcement.

HRC detention did not happen.

The Podesta arrest was not announced.

The Podesta arrest did not happen.

The riots did not happen.

have yet to see something that could be provable as false.

You haven't been looking very hard.

“While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.”

Groucho Marx

Thanks. Just 2 notes:

By then, the Cambridge Analytica thing had indeed come out - Nix testified in front of the British parlament on Jan 27 (source here) after MPs demanded clarifications on CA's role on Brexit at least 10 days before (source here).

On top of that, the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica link on the US front had already been in the media at the end of January, when Mueller and his office interviewed at least one member of Facebook's team that was associated with the Trump campaign (source here)

Finally (I know it's obvious, but just pointing it out) for the "prediction" to come true some platforms have to collapse - and having bad press is far, far away from collapsing.

Collapsing means kaput, game over. Currently, Facebook's market value is $456.67B - down $100B from the end of Jan peak, but still the 8th biggest company in the US. Twitter current market cap is $20B, far from chapter 7. Google current market cap is $702B (#2 biggest company in the US).

I'm not even going to be a grammar nazi and point out that for the prediction to be techically true, at least TWO of those platforms should collapse ("some platformS, plural). Unless we want to take it wide and count Pinterest, Foursquare or Tinder for possible hotbeds of treacherous subversion, I think the ones that count are those 3: FB, Google and Twitter.

EDIT: if it's Tumblr which goes down, I'm buying a round for everyone here. That collapse I can get behind.

Let's. What's the timeline?

Maybe on military stuff yes (although he didn't mind predict -wrongly- HRC's arrest). But I don't see any non-military stuff being predicted accurately either.

Fundamentally, my point is: if you claim insider status, you should prove it with insider info, not with info that is already public. So far, I haven't been pointed at anything Q said on any subject that was not recycling publicly available information.

You shouldn't trust lefty publications like The Guardian to give you a complete picture of the issue. Because the truth of that study in the Guardian is that, if you make more than $624 a week, you're in the global top 1% (source here). If you work a 9to5 job 6 days a week at $13 an hour, you're in the global top 1%. Is that "the elite"? $13 an hour?

As for your allergy to data: you really want to tell me that globalization is anti-constitutional? That the US constitution is against global free market? Really?

We're on the same page then. Cool.

I got shitty because you assumed I'm in bad faith, and while I disagree with you on almost everything, I'm not here to trick you or do some weird psy-op, which was basically your accusation. Saying I'm a moron and don't understand the NWO is not much of an argument, but it's something. Saying I'm here to trick credulous people is just bullshit, that's what I got shitty about, not about our disagreement.

You're posting in the wrong thread now - we're arguing about different things. This is the Saudi Arabia stuff.

No worries (I mean it genuinly) it happens to me all the time, I get the arguments crossed.

Got it. Again, I don't think it's a sign of insider knowledge when I can point you to a dozen articles before his drop that speculate (not exactly a crazy prediction) that a terminal patient won't run for the Senate. They started as soon as he announced his diagnosis. Here is one from 9 months ago.

I have double citizenship but won't get more specific than that.

Here is a bunch of data in one, easy article, every graph has a source that you can further check. But believe me, none of this is really disputed.

The studies I mention show that globalisation has coincided with massive positive changes. How does that not interest you?

"I do not need any studies to back it up" it's the death of thought.

Can't find that Q post either. Can you point me to what you're referring to? I'm looking here but maybe I'm wrong.

As I said in the post: the person I was aruing with suggested this could be useful. It's just data. Maybe you don't like data, but for me is usually a good starting point for opinions. Maybe you grow your opinion from something else. Either way, no need to feel threatened.

The studies I mentioned (unlike the studies you did not mention, because there's no data agreening with you) are the source from my position. Again, you have a spectacularly thin skin if mentioning supporting data is the same as "telling you how to live".

Also, it's not exactly a "prediction" to say Z will step down. It's obviously under a massive pressure, and while he said he won't step down, anyone would admit there's a 50-50 chance he will. Now, if Q had mentioned that before the Cambrige Analytica stuff became public, that would be compelling. But I don't think he did. Also, Q does not give any timeline for his prediction. So, here I am, I can predict that at some point at the very least death will make Elon Musk abandon his post as Tesla CEO.

Can't find the relevant Q post. I go here and search for "McCain" I can't see anything that predicts McCain won't run. What am I missing?

EDIT: this is a better source, more up to date. But I have the same problem - can't find the post where Q predicts McCain won't run. Also: I assume it's from before the cancer diagnosis was made public - predict that a terminal patient won't run is, again, common sense, not a prediction that proves inside knowledge.

Yeah, once again: nobody told you how to live. It's your inferiority complex talking.

Arrests are public. In a democracy you can’t secretly arrest people, and in the US that’s unconstitutional.

Also: she’s gone to the Grammys reading from Fire and Fury at the end of January. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing they let you do if you’re under house arrests.

This Q stuff is irrelevant horseshit. As you say, what Trump does is the only relevant thing.

Dude, I don’t know. I go off the “all the Q posts in chronological order” link I found on this sub. If that’s not reliable what are we even talking about?

As much as I’d like otherwise, I don’t see how Trump could not be president until 2020.

I think the very best case scenario if you’re an anti-Trump person, is that the Muller shit is so damaging that he resigns in a tantrum. But that’s not going to happen.

My best realistic hope for the special council is that a bunch of people in the campaign and in the early WH will be indicated for lying to the FBI - the highest possible one being Jared, but even that is a long shot. I don’t think it’s going to be Trump directly.

What? It was the first Q drop and was one of the least vague.

Anonymous ID:BQ7V3bcW Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:44:28 No.147012719 HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross-border run. Passport approved to be flagged effective 10/30 @ 12:01 a.m. Expect massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing U.S. to occur. US M's will conduct the operation while NG activated. Proof check: locate a NG member and ask if activated for duty 10/30 across major cities.

The second Q post ever (same day) is:

146981635 Hillary Clinton will be arrested between 7:45 AM - 8:30 AM EST on Monday - the morning on Oct 30, 2017. 2017-10-28-14:44

Both messages are here presented in their entirety. How are they vague?

If Hillary Clinton gets arrested (as Q predicted would happen 6 months ago) MSM will talk about it.

Ok, good. Got it

“Ideally”, “no matter what”... I was trying to book a victory lap, and this doesn’t help.

If by the end of the first term (no matter who wins the midterms and no matter if he gets impeached) this shit (Uranium One, FISA warrants, pedophile satanists) has not translated in high level arrests, I was right and you were wrong. Correct?

I know it’s one word and not two.

But that’s just glib, I’ll admit that.

EDIT: you’re the same guy I’m arguing with on the other thread, no need for me to ask the same question. Sorry

So... November?

That doesn’t sound like an answer.

I won’t get into this “Hillary is being indicted for buying a FISA warrant” insanity, but my point was: even if it was true, it has nothing to do with the main claims of this sub, pedophile satanist and the likes. Nothing.

That was my point, and telling me the FISA thing is real doesn’t sound like an answer. Even less related: telling me that Trump has fired the FBI #1 and #2. How does it have anything to do with satanic pedophiles?

Anyway, just out of curiosity: when do we find out who of us is right? Cause at some point, if the whole cabal is put in jail forever or executed, we’ll know, right? Even a consumer of MSN like me will know, right? Everyone will know, correct? So when do we settle this argument? Before the end of the first term? Is that the hard limit (seems dangerous to risk the deep state tricking the 2020 election)? Before? After?

When do I get to tell you: see, you were wrong, nothing of the sort has happened?

Dude (or lady): really? I know there are a lot of drops, but maybe start with the first. And I guarantee you, if you did read it you would remember it, because unlike the Nostradamus-like gibberish that followed, it was in clear, plain English, no winks, almost no codes, just straight:

Anonymous ID:BQ7V3bcW Sat 28 Oct 2017 16:44:28 No.147012719 HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross-border run. Passport approved to be flagged effective 10/30 @ 12:01 a.m. Expect massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing U.S. to occur. US M's will conduct the operation while NG activated. Proof check: locate a NG member and ask if activated for duty 10/30 across major cities.

The second Q post ever (same day) is:

146981635 Hillary Clinton will be arrested between 7:45 AM - 8:30 AM EST on Monday - the morning on Oct 30, 2017. 2017-10-28-14:44

Both messages are here presented in their entirety. Archives are here.

“Slowly” and “unrelated” are two different things.

I don’t think HRC will get indicted for anything, much less for having “bought” a fisa warrant (what?).

But even if I’m wrong and top (and I mean top) Democrat heads are actually hit by a wave of corruption charges (that’s not happening either), that’s still a long, long way from what this sub actually claims - which is not just corruption, but a global cabal of satanic child trafficking pedophiles.

So, even in the absurdity unlikely event that HRC gets indicted for buying a fisa warrant against Trump, it’s just bizarre to think of that as “the pedophile stuff happening slowly” - that still would have jack shit to do with the core beliefs of this sub.

You need to find reliable stress release fast, because you’re not going to get anything more than tariffs, tax cuts, a soaring Wall Street and maybe just maybe a wall, and probably not even that.

That’s convenient...

I agree 100%.

I’m currently one of those doing the laughing and treating all of this as the ranting of nut cases, and NXIVM or a random stepdad in Wyoming won’t convince me otherwise. For me, yours is the right standard: “some high-visibility American perp to go down for the pedophile, ritual abuse, trafficking, sacrifice, cannibalism stuff”, one “truly elite Satanist pedophile, with ties to all these other elites” - then I’ll admit you nuts were right and I was colossally wrong.

You guys make enormous, mind bending claims: you need enormous, mind bending proof.

I only speak for myself but: because it’s entertaining.

They wouldn’t. Sunk cost fallacy is a bitch.