Q Anon: (5/21/18) FRiendly Freeper Collaboration

qanon.pub ^ | 5/21/2018 | FReepers, vanity

[ransomnote]

This thread is a friendly collaborative place for FReepers to analyze information and share opinons. FReepers have a wide variety of reasons for investigating Q Anon content; this is not the appropriate place to criticize or badger those who choose to use some of their time in this manner.

If you are new to Q Anon, the three links below provide overviews to help answer the questions, "Who is Q?" and "Why read Q drops?".

Is Trump Staging a Counter-Coup? [Q explained?]>
Note: The above thread has been locked for disruptive comments, but post #1 includes a strong, concise Who/What/Where overview.

Q Anon: A Freeper's post re the "new Parallel Construct that Trump has created"

First post to “Q” ping list. Please read and let me know if you want off or on it

You can locate Q Anon threads by searching the key word "Qanon" using the search window in the upper right of Free Republic's forum page.

If you haven't seen it yet, President John F. Kennedy's excellent speech regarding secret societies, as well as comments about the press, is located at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs

A helpful FReeper passed along the following Youtube link to a good source for concise reviewes of Q drops, Praying Medic:
https://www.youtube.com/user/prayingmedic/videos

Praying Medic also has a a Twitter account:
https://anonsw.github.io/qtmerge

Q "drops" (i.e., posts) can be read with their original formatting on various websites. Sometimes the Q drop websites come under cyber attack or stop updating. This week, I've been using the following link:
https://qanon.pub

Q drops (i.e., posts) often use unfamiliar acronyms. Swordmaker maintains a list of acronymsto help FReepers understand Q drop text. The master list of acronyms is stored on Swordmaker's profile page. It's really great to have a convenient place to find definitions and explanations of terms used in the drops. Here is the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~swordmaker/index

Within our threads, Swordmaker posts updates featuring the latest terms added to the lexicon - you can find his updates on threads by looking for this silver Q graphic:

SkyPilot has been collecting Q Anon information into one interesting, detailed, "story of Q" post which I'll place here:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3633313/posts?page=163#163

Here's a handy link for those who would like to read what people on Twitter are Tweeting about Q Anon:
Click to read what Tweeters are saying about Q Anon

For those who want a little uplifting video which outlines the big picture that we are now striving for, here's a video from 2016 in which candidate Donald Trump outlines what he wants for Americans and America and his promises if elected.
This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected

If you'd like to communicate your support for President Trump's efforts to "red-pill" Americans, you may want to use the link Hoosiermama posted which provides you with and email page - you can send the president an email. Here's the link:
Email support for President Trump

[Cboldt]

-- The Hill, right now: The mess Rod Rosenstein made --

It's an opinion piece by Steven G. Calabresi. Worth reading, but no real "new" revelation.

-- Why Rudy suddenly amenable to a Mueller interview? --

The way I read it, it isn't that Rudy has changed his position as much as he is acquiescing to Trump's preference.

News lately is so remarkably different from "Trump is hallucinating that Obama bugged the campaign." Yet no reflection or correction from the #FakeNews. They move on as if nothing happened.

[Cboldt]

-- Can someone tell me in a sentence or 2 why Rudy couldn't fill one of those vacancies in FBI/DOJ? Is it the Congressional approval? Or does the position the President has placed Rudy in now prevent it? --

I know of no legal or constitutiuonal impediment.

He'd have exactly the same recusal baggage that Sessions has, both Rudy and Sessions being integral to the Trump campaign, and both of them "prejudging" Hillary as guilty.

I think he'd be confirmed by the Senate, but I doubt he is willing to go through the gauntlet.

[greeneyes]

I just sat down to take a break from chores. I’m only on post 200, and Had not intended to post anything until I caught up. However, Saw the Q Anon Hoax ping, so I’m gonna post a response now rather than later, and then I have to go do more chores.

Does anyone know who the heck this author Ruby Henley is? Other than anti - Q confirmation bias, what sort of resume and evidence does this person present?

Axenolith makes very good points.

For myself, I have said from the beginning that Q is a psyops. For what purpose, I don’t know, but supposed it was to allow time for investigations and grand jury indictments to proceed against criminals without Trumps base deserting him - sunshine patriots that some are and all.

I felt Q was beneficial from the stand point of people researching the various topics that came up to determine what the real hidden story and history of the USA has been.

Certainly, we have all learned a great deal of history that is indisputable - MK ULtra, Operation Paperclip, Operation North Woods, for example.

We have not all agreed on the lessons to be learned from that research, and have debated the conclusions drawn-sometimes perhaps a bit too heatedly, but we do know that the news as reported from “reliable” sources is often too shallow to give the full picture, and often FAKE NEWS.

I have also stated that I trust no one other than perhaps Trump. Q is still providing fascinating subjects for research, which I find interesting.

It is true that sometimes theories from the Anons are attributed to Q, and then used to discredit Q. Given that Q stated at the beginning that deception would be necessary, why would any one take a Q statement at face value? It’s always a possibility that Q is throwing out bait or cover for something else.

Doing your own research, and deciding whether there is any truth to a Q statement, what a Q statement means, or whether it’s a deception is up to each individual to do.

Once you have done your research, then you’ll know what the likely actual situation is no matter what narrative the MockingBird Media tries to pedal or any other alternative media puts forth.

I’m enjoying the show. Enjoying speculating on what is really going on behind the scenes. And I really enjoy the lesser Oracles daily summary.

The only disappointment and embarrassment that I will have is if Trump is not trustworthy, because I have begun to trust him.

I’ll be following the Q thread till the Q drops stop. FreeQon and have a glorious time.

[RitaOK]

<< Uncomfortable for WHO, Kyle? >>

You got THAT right.

I heard Congressman Gowdy on Perino’s mid-day program FOX.

He was eloquent on the leaking, anti-Trump, impeachment motivated dems, who have never troubled themselves with open mindedness. He also said Republicans had been requesting this meeting but were not in charge of the “inviation list”. HAHA!

(He said it all.. far better than my meek paraphrasing.)

[txhurl]

I’ve been puzzling over the ‘common denominator’ of RM & RR: is it duress? Does CINC have to provide elaborate WITSEC protection to one hundred families to get them to co-operate? Kinda contradicts the NO DEALS doctrine, tho.

[SteveH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGxwbhkDjZM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctTzHyX4O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJYcSuJlhog

[Cboldt]

-- ... do you think there's any truth to the theory that zero's game-playing holdovers and their family are obligated by assassination threat if they fail to keep the President's ear, or fail at keeping him pinned down? --

Any threats from their own team, perceived or real, attach to ratting out. Code of Omerta sort of thing.

You don't take the hitman out for failing his mission. You take him out to prevent him from disclosing who hired him for the hit.

I think the holdovers are true believers. They'd act the same way against Trump even without a perceived threat. Nationalism is an existential threat to globalism, and these people are fully emotionally invested, for reasons that vary from "religious fervor" to pure crony capitalism.

[Wneighbor]

Rudy is his LAWYER.

Dang! Perfect one sentence sum.

I'm not blonde but should probably grab the bleach for missing that one. ThanQx

[RitaOK]

Amen, guys and gals.

Is the glass half empty, or is the glass half full?

Cut out the off topics, the 100/day “thank you’s”, LOLs and the “open to all ideas”, the several harrumphs back and forth, and you’ve got yourself a suggestion-free environment to focus.

Readers and lurkers can make up a LOT of time racing through less crap chat and toward the meat on the bone, via the intentions of the thread >> research, background, theory, and related breaking news that applies to it.

Glass half *full* the last couple of days, imo.

Well,... except for my post right here. :)

[Cboldt]

-- I've been puzzling over the `common denominator' of RM & RR: is it duress? --

I'm not sure what you are fishing for there. I think Q's point is that placement on a good faith vs. bad faith axis is going to be about the same for RR as it is for RM. The question of motive is interesting, but separate. It's likely the two of them have different motives, and just happen to share the preferred direction of the SC enterprise.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

“Why Rudy suddenly amenable to a Mueller interview?”

People often miss the point at which one force turns from defense to offense. The people who are wondering about this really haven’t thought about what has been happening the past 10 days. Trump has transitioned from defense to offense. He’s hitting them at their weak points and the blitz is on.

Mueller is in a weak position that is getting weaker by the day. Mueller is extreme jeopardy, his life could quickly become Hell if he doesn’t do the right thing right now, right here. Trump is giving him one path out of Hell. One line of retreat that can be cut off at any moment. Mueller can interview Trump and then openly exonerate him, or Mueller can forfeit the rest of his life. His choice is that stark as the blitzkreig rolls over his position.

This is the offensive people. It’s rolling.

[txhurl]

Q, we’re amassing some questions over here, if your schedule permits, thanks....

[txhurl]

What I’m fishing/casting is didn’t Q say something about failure to keep [ear]?

[Cboldt]

I think it's toying with Mueller.

I agree with you, Mueller's position is weak. Trump has bigger fish to fry, and wants this wound up yesterday. But it needs to wind up in such a way that it dies.

[xone]

McMasters

[RitaOK]

Awww. Too bad about those losers at the link. You know they probably couldn’t cut it to make the big board at QAnon. Except as trolls and disrupters.

More than one has been seen on video, grumbling about rejection for weeks, back since winter. The rejected are miffed.

We knew this was coming, didn’t we? We carry on. More incoming ahead.

[txhurl]

Trump has transitioned from defense to offense.

---

That transition was clearly demarcated with the Gowdy/Nunes frame-up that WAPO/NYT bit on last Friday: everything changed: CINC has them by the balls with that sting. I guess my question is does CINC have to provide WITSEC to everyone who wants to flip?

[SW6906]

People often miss the point at which one force turns from defense to offense. The people who are wondering about this really haven’t thought about what has been happening the past 10 days. Trump has transitioned from defense to offense. He’s hitting them at their weak points and the blitz is on.

Mueller is in a weak position that is getting weaker by the day. Mueller is extreme jeopardy, his life could quickly become Hell if he doesn’t do the right thing right now, right here. Trump is giving him one path out of Hell. One line of retreat that can be cut off at any moment. Mueller can interview Trump and then openly exonerate him, or Mueller can forfeit the rest of his life. His choice is that stark as the blitzkreig rolls over his position.

This is the offensive people. It’s rolling.

Spot on!

[txhurl]

SerialBrain2 RR sequel post just up at reddit. Stuff we’re puzzling over including a LL rule 11/16 on DOJ succession.

[Cboldt]

-- ... didn't Q say something about failure to keep [ear]? --

Not that I could find in a few minutes of searching the raw text of all Q drops. Perhaps you have a complete Q-drop. Date is a close enough pointer, but full text of post as it appears would be better.