That is what Q is definitely hinting strongly about. I am not going to put it under a bushel basket and wink-wink about it. So sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but if we can't look at it, it will never be uncovered. That's what they are counting on happening. "Oh, my, it is so far beyond the pale, it can't possibly be true, so we can't talk about it. Don't even go there."
There's a hell of a lot of smoke here. . . and Q is talking about it. So we must.
For some, not a damn thing in the Q drops is verified or verifiable. . . and WHO told you we weren't supposed "to take Q drops as verified intel until they were (ahem) verified"? I haven't seen a set of rules handed down from on high.
I am all for talking about it; I even agree with you statement as PROBABLY true. But Q did NOT say it outright, as he seldom does. He asks questions and directs people to do research. He encourages.
I believe we need to play the game correctly: That Q is authentic, I have no doubt. But Q CANNOT just dump out the NSA files like a RAT would do. He/they encourage us to FIND OUT FOR OURSELVES.
So sorry if YOUR sensibilities are hurt, but Q is not a primary source, and that is by his/their own choice (except for generalities like: “We have it all.”)
I agree. Verifying Q drops is impossible. Believe it or not! It’s up to you.
Remember, this could all be a LARP.
But I don’t think so. YMMV
TRUCE, please.
I need to add to my last couple of posts that the only reason I am critiQuing one of your entries is due to respect and appreciation for your contribution.
You are making one of the most important continuous contributions, to one of the most important topics of our time (i.e., MAGA, Q, WWG1WGA), at one of the most important websites in the most important country, at a turning point in world history.
So, thanks. Hope you can accept my comments as intended to be constructive, and then do as you see fit.
Add “odds are” to your definition. That should do it.