Replies

Your post did not answer my key question. What happened to the promise to expose the democrats BEFORE the mid-term elections so as to render them un-electable so to speak? Trying to get them out after the fact seems like a much more difficult thing to achieve. You are not going to shame a democrat into resigning from office 99.9% of the time.

I am not here to disrupt, or join anything. I am here to get answers to my legitimate question. So far, only a few of you have provided one without insulting me or demeaning my patience level. Even you expressed your own impatience with me replying to your comment 291. You all need to unwind a bit and lighten up a little. Asking questions should not make me your red-headed step child.

I don't recall any promise to expose the DIMRATS before the mid-terms.

Q's drops tend to be fuzzy, on the whole--deliberately.

And, the Q team warned in the beginning that some of them would be disinformation for strategic reasons.

One would need to ask--which DIMS? All of them? Unlikely to virtually certain NOT--at this time.

How exposed? How convincingly? By whom? In what context? etc. etc. etc.

NONE of that was communicated in any Q-Drops I'm aware of.

8 chan anonymous commentary and decoding is just that--other anons speculating. That's NOT the same as Q-team's clear assertions--however rare that is.

Hmmm...I didn’t take any shots at you in #291. I didn’t express impatience with you, I was expressing some empathy because I’ve been impatient too. (as others will attest - uh oh).

I thought you’d be more offended by the Oddball quote in #278. Which was snarky - not insulting. ;)

****

Now, to directly address the question of exposure.

I’m reaching back in dusty mental archives, and a quick check on qmap.pub.

There are 21 drops with the term “midterms”. Most of them talked about the left’s (now failed) attempts to create a blue wave - censorship, impeachment, Kavanaugh, Mueller, etc.

The most notable one for me is #1357. Here Q is reinforcing Anon’s point that all the judicial and legal steps must be in place prior to any big takedown. Q says post-midterms, and that November 11 will be a marker. This drop is from May.

#2288 also emphazises Nov 11, and points out that the midterms are just days prior.

#1197 is a good one from April. “Yes, midterms are safe. Watch CA.”

****

Back to the dusty-brain archives, I can recollect no promise to expose the dems prior to the midterms. I know we all *wanted* that to happen starting last Spring, but the mechanisms weren’t in place to deliver justice.

Was that a Q promise, or Anon just expecting it to happen? Is there a source?

I do remember early on Q said that the evil ones would claim they were running for office so they could then deflect any accusations as ‘mud slinging’. There was strong implication to me that it also meant that prosecutors would start swinging after the elections.

This is also bolstered by many admonitions to ‘vote’.

Oh, also announced today that DOJ will have election observers in 19 states, and we’ve seen several announcements the past few days from DOJ and DHS about election integrity, hotlines, and see-something-say-something. I think this will be the most closely watched election by authorities in decades. That took a while to set up as well.

I’m happy to kick my feet up for another couple days, and cook up some salty, buttered popcorn. I might even watch some CNN and MSNBC tomorrow night just for the schadenfreude! kek

I hope this is a bit more satisfactory way to address your question.

I can’t find where the exposure would happen before midterms, so if you can help me out with a source on that I’d be obliged.