In all honesty, I can not explain that. Is it persuasive circumstantial evidence? Absolutely. There are strong arguments on both sides. Unlike the Q antagonists, I remain open to being convinced either way.
My beef is with the notion of some existential "QAnon threat" being spewed by the administration and its dutiful corporate media mouthpieces.
In all honesty, I can not explain that. Is it persuasive circumstantial evidence? Absolutely. There are strong arguments on both sides. Unlike the Q antagonists, I remain open to being convinced either way.
It’s nice to converse with people who are open minded. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what good argument the other side has? Mostly I just hear a lot of complaining from them. As you called them the Q antagonists think Q is dropping names and dates. Uh, no. All names and dates are speculation by us.
There is only one explanation. He didn't (and doesn't) want it shut down. He had every opportunity up to being asked point blank in front of cameras (twice) about it.
Who among us believes he had no idea what the Q movement was? He knew what kind of people they were (the kind that liked him) but didn't know anything else about it? Really?
Funny thing is, he could STILL shut it down with a word, especially considering its being used as 'the big lie' in the derps' power schemes.
So there's that.
