To: foldspace
To: All; Beowulf9
HAHA!
Quoting a Reuter Hit Piece from July 19, 2021 2:51 PM CDT?
EXTREMELY POOR CHOICE.
What the Reuters article actually refutes is the 2021 reinstatement-date claim and the most cartoonish public version of Anon lore.
It does not close the books on the Q corpus by quoting it.
Conflating those three things → Q text, Anon timetable, influencer marketing → is the article's central error. The Reuters piece is a short July 19, 2021 fact-check of a specific public claim (Trump will be "reinstated" on August 13, 2021).
That date claim failed.
Defending the Q posts themselves does not require pretending August 13 happened.
It requires separating (A) what Q actually wrote; (B) what later Anons, influencers, and reporters glued onto those posts; and (C) what Reuters then treated as one sealed "theory."
Below are the main errors and slippages in the article, itemized.
(1:) It treats a 2021 calendar rumor as if it were a Q drop
Q's last regular drops were in December 2020.
August 13, 2021 was circulated afterward by community accounts, Mike Lindell, and social media → not as a dated Q command.
Reuters still frames the date as stemming from "the QAnon conspiracy theory," then "debunks" that date.
That is a category error: a failed fan prediction is not the same object as the source posts.
(2:) "Widely debunked QAnon" is a slogan, not a citation of the posts
The article never quotes a Q drop that says "Trump is reinstated August 13."
It substitutes a media label for the corpus.
Q posts are mostly questions, fragments, timestamps, and "future proves past" rhetoric.
A blanket "debunked" verdict on that style of writing is not the same as showing a specific drop was false.
(3:) It collapses Q, Anons, Lindell, and Haberman into one speaker
The evidence chain in the piece is: Facebook/YouTube users → Lindell → a Maggie Haberman tweet that Trump told people he expected August reinstatement → "linked to QAnon."
That is association, not authorship.
Haberman's tweet is reporting of private talk plus her own "that isn't how it works."
It is not a Q text and not proof of what Q claimed.
(4:) The cabal paragraph is a press-pack summary, not Q's wording
Reuters writes that QAnon "espouses that former President Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of child-sex predators that includes prominent Democrats, Hollywood elites and 'deep state' allies."
That is the standard newsroom compression.
The posts themselves mix:
● elite trafficking / pedophilia claims
● FISA, intel, Clinton-email, and media-control themes
● military/intel framing
● a lot of riddles
Calling the compressed cartoon "the theory," then calling the cartoon "debunked," lets Reuters skip the actual text.
(5:) "Biden is not really president / the military is secretly in power" is mostly post-inauguration Anon inference
Those formulations exploded after January 20, 2021, when the visible transfer happened and the community had to reinterpret.
Treating that later coping lore as if it were the original thrust of the drops is backward.
Q's earlier framing was "information war," "the plan," and process → not a published legal memo that the 20th Amendment had been voided.
(6:) Failed community dates are used as if they were Q's official timetable
Reuters lists inauguration day and March 4 as unsuccessful "Trump would be back" dates.
March 4 in particular was a community date (old-inauguration / "original Constitution" lore), not a clean Q schedule.
Using Anon date-setting to refute "the posts" is like using every stock-tip comment under a Fed speech to refute the speech.
(7:) "The Storm / Great Awakening = mass arrests and executions on Jan. 20" is the loudest fan reading
Some Anons said that.
Reuters reports it as the content of the theory.
Q's "storm" language was cryptic and was repeatedly re-dated by followers.
A failed public spectacle on one day does not, by itself, refute the broader claim that elite networks, trafficking, or information operations exist.
(8:) "No evidence" is doing two different jobs
At the time of writing, "no evidence Trump will be reinstated on Aug. 13" is easy: no constitutional off-ramp was operating in public.
Reuters then treats that as a general refutation of the surrounding thesis (illegitimate process, hidden actors, military/intel track).
Absence of a televised reinstatement is not a proof that every claim in the drops about institutions or crime is false.
(9:) The constitutional paragraph is thinner than it pretends
Citing Article II, Electoral College totals (306-232), and January 20 noon is correct as a description of the official sequence.
It is not a complete answer to:
● contest procedures
● certification politics
● alleged irregularities
● extra-constitutional theories the article is trying to kill
"Must follow the democratic process protected by the Constitution" is a conclusion, not a demonstration that 2020's process was uncontested or unflawed.
(10:) Verdict scope is wider than the evidence
Headline and verdict: the August 13 reinstatement claim is false.
Fine.
Body: therefore the linked "conspiracy theory" is a debunked package.
That second step is the rhetorical move.
A date can be wrong while the underlying accusations (compromised institutions, elite abuse, information control) remain a separate empirical fight.
How this defends the thrust of the Q posts, not the August 13 rumor
The posts' recurring thrust, stripped of later calendars, is roughly:
● there is a coordinated institutional/media/intel opposition
● child exploitation among powerful people is real and protected
● politics is also an information war
● dates and "trust the plan" are process language, not a TV schedule
Epstein-class facts, later prosecutions, and ongoing fights over intel and media power are why people keep the theme even after specific Anon dates die.
What the Reuters article actually refutes is the 2021 reinstatement-date claim and the most cartoonish public version of Anon lore.
It does not close the books on the Q corpus by quoting it.
Conflating those three things → Q text, Anon timetable, influencer marketing → is the article's central error.
Research. It's what a body needs.
To: Beowulf9
Sorry but that q thing is ridiculous and makes you look so.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson