I know LS does not follow Q, and has said some disparaging things.
On the other hand, his information on the election is still outstanding—the very best I know as a matter of fact, since no one is giving me access to the Trump campaign’s internal analysis (even Q!).
Regarding Q: It seems to me like those who are professional political writers and pundits—as in writing articles or books for money—have to make a decision about Q.
Since Q gets the lion’s share of “News” way before any “journalist”, no matter how well-connected and diligent, if they overtly key on Q, they may think they lose their own panache.
Incidentally, I do not intend to psychologize LS or anyone else ... just utilizing some empathy to understand their position.
I think you’re exactly right about pundits vs. Q (although I hesitate to use the term “professional” to describe most of them). There’s nothing wrong with citizen journalism, and much to admire and like, but let’s just keep it real. The majority of them get their information from the same places the rest of us do, open public sources. The rest is their opinion, their translation of facts into a story that they believe to be true. LS is as fine a writer of history books as I’ve read, based on the fact that he’s sold a lot of them and that I read them by choice rather than because I had to, but when it comes to predicting the future he’s no better than I am, or anyone else.
I’ve seen examples of other amateur pundits who clearly see Q as a threat. As you say, this is understandable, but each of us can choose whether we wish to hear their opinions, or not. If you monitor most of them over time there is a common preoccupation with the number of followers they have, and that’s something that isn’t even a part of what Q is all about. Whenever someone worries about their own popularity, I start to smell barnyard aromas...