I did a post reply to one of the more antagonistic responders at the Q is a hoax thread. I thought you might enjoy it. Oh, I forwarded it to Bagster and Ransomnote.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
You seem to have a propensity for jumping to conclusions here:
{The problem is that, regardless of your stance on the issue, many of Trump’s base are falling for this crap. It is dividing his base. That will have a very bad result during the midterms}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People who are following the stream of information provided by Q are either Republicans and will vote for President Trump and in the midterms will vote for those who will further the Presidents agenda. If they are Dem’s who are infiltrators they would vote Dem regardless.
____________________________________________________________________________________
{-IF those who believe this “QAnon” bullsh*t choose to not be active in getting out the vote, because they think some “white hat” is going to march on the scene and “fix” everything w/o we voters lifting a finger in support of Trump.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am gathering, from this run on sentence, that you are trying to say individuals who follow Q don’t support President Trump?
How does trying to look for evidence for one’s self imply not supporting Republican’s in the midterms? When Q makes his comments, the anons and FreeQs do real time research to find the insideous dark side of Dem’s ultimate goal; to overthrow our great country. This information may be very useful at the right time.
____________________________________________________________________________________
{Do you understand the problem?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only problem I can see here is that there are people who jump to wild conclusions. You need to have supportable premises of your argument to reach a valid conclusion. Regretfully, that is missing. Instead what I see is an angry person venting without even knowing what he’s really angry about.
- Unless there is an ulterior motive to your rant?
The investigation that was ostensibly initiated to ascertain if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the 2016 election has been ongoing for twenty-seven months. Seventeen months of which have been in the hands of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Democrat phalanx of investigators and prosecutors spending in excess of $1.4 million a month.) This prolonged inquisition has produced no evidence or indictments supporting the collusion allegation. Yet the investigation marches on with no end in sight.But is there, in fact, an end game? Is that end game waiting until late October to impact an election in order to switch control of Congress to the Democrats? Is it to make certain Trump cannot run for re-election in 2020? Or is it both?
The upcoming mid-term election is perhaps the most consequential since 1932 when the Democrats won 97 House and 12 Senate seats, setting in motion the big-government agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt as well as nearly 62 years of Democrat dominance of Congress. Were the current iteration of the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress, the impeachment of Donald Trump would be inevitable. Further, there would be a cessation, perhaps permanently, of any effort to undo the damage inflicted on the nation by Barack Obama and todays unabashedly socialist Democratic Party now steeped in cultural Marxism.
In 1992 a special prosecutor also investigating alleged collusion with a foreign nation by another presidential administration took it upon himself to deliberately impact an election in the last week of a campaign thus assuring the election of Bill Clinton.
...
In late October 1992 the polls were tightening dramatically pointing to a Bush victory despite the presence of Ross Perot. In a suspicious turn of events, on October 28th, Bill Clinton reversed his campaign tactics and began to aggressively accuse George Bush of being an inveterate liar and maliciously untrustworthy. Not coincidentally, two days later the reindictment of Weinberger and the fleeting mention of Bush in his diary was made public.
That same evening during a live appearance on Larry King’s show Bush was confronted with the Weinberger reindictment reference and his supposed prevarications as King had pre-arranged for George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s communications director, to call into the show. Thus, the story was national front-page news the next day.
I don't know how likely this is. Walsh was highly criticized for it, to the point that today the only thing his entire witch hunt is known for is "trying to throw the election". And then, we have the more recent example of Comey's on-again, off-again investigations of Hillary in the last few weeks of the campaign, which left him with egg on his face.
So, I'd like to think that Mueller is too jealous of his reputation to throw it away on a cheap stunt like Walsh did, but then his entire investigation is an agenda driven farce. If he's really there to do political damage, first and foremost, and to protect the deep state, an October surprise seems likely.