What seems to me to weigh against 4 is that Q seems so damned amateurish. Of course, a psyops campaign might be designed intentionally so as to appear so amateurish (misdirection so that no one would think of professional Deep Staters), but could “they” really count on gullible fools to swallow it?? And if they wanted it to be a highly successful psyops campaign to help the Deep Staters, wouldn’t they want it to be as convincing as possible?
Just some musings.... It still strikes me that “Q” is an individual motivated to try to launch an idiosyncratic “movement” in support of POTUS Trump and against the “Deep State” .... but Q is quirky, somewhat unhinged (just who from Washington, DC is getting shipped to Gitmo this week?), not too knowledgeable beyond what he happens to read this week on the web, etc.
Not casting aspersions on those who follow Q, but counting on gullible fools is a gimme. It doesn't matter what your angle is. Does FoxNews count on gullible fools? CNN?
I think you are as much into "over-analysis" as Q-followers are.
‘What seems to me to weigh against 4 is that Q seems so damned amateurish.’
Right—but until you weighed in I didn’t know Q was amateurish. Right now my concept of Q is fluid. I’m back to thinking it’s Steve Bannon. There have been a slew of indicators that he’s the guy. I don’t have time to list them all, but I’m currently leaning in that direction.
Thanks again for your input. It was excellent.