The Danger of "Q" - Several Reasons

Twitter ^ | September 14, 2018 | Carpe Donktum

[JME_FAN]

Why is QAnon a danger to the Trump Presidency? Here are six well-reasoned points, provided by the meme blogger known as Carpe Donktum ...

1. With introduction of the Secret Plan and the "Kabuki Theater" that is required to believe in the plan, Q has placed himself in a position to "interpret" Trump. This undermines the power of the President's words and allows Q to change the message.

2. The net effect of "The plan" is a calming effect on MAGA people who SHOULD BE mad as hell about the lack of support the President is getting from his AG. It also numbs many to legitimate danger that the Mueller Investigation poses, especially if November goes poorly for MAGA

3. Q at it's very core lies about who he/it is, we do not know or understand the motives for this lie. Therefore we cannot predict how the lie could evolve and where the liar at the center of it might lead his followers.

4. Q has red pilled many about certain information that was already known to many of us. That's good. What is not good however is the rampant and reckless conspiracy theories that have been spawned after people with a little bit of knowledge but not much judgement, run with it.

5. Q has brought out the very worst in some it's followers, prompting them to attack any non-believers viciously. It has fed paranoia that many people that have played a vital role in maga have been deep state plants, simply because they do not believe Q is real.

6. Q has given hope to those who do not yet deserve it. Q says, trust the plan, watch the show, it's all taken care of. There is no hope without hard work and sacrifice. We need every single person to be on the front line fighting, not sitting back waiting for a savior.

[nopardons]

"Y'all" is NOT "modern English" at all; it is, in point of fact, a many centuries old contraction of you all...and a patois of English.

Please just give up and slink away; you came to this "fight" not just unarmed, but hobbled.

[Jamestown1630]

I think the proper pronunciation in this subgroup of Anatidae is more like ‘waaQ’...

[Revel]

Well for me the term “Lot” in this context would mean more than one. Because if you are referring to only one person then why not just say “You”. Neither “You Lot” or “You all” make any sense in the singular form because they are redundant words. To me it is like hearing someone say “You ain’t never”. It sounds just as bad as using double negatives.

[Revel]

Oh come on you totally ignore everything else I said. The fact that it is a contraction of “you all” is clearly stated. You just can’t comprehend it.

[nopardons]

You tell him! :-)

Unfortunately, some here will post about things they don't know nor understand and then take umbrage with those who do. It's a sorry situation all around!

[nopardons]

LOL...good one!

[Jamestown1630]

Nopardons explained it correctly when she likened it to 'your ilk'.

From Merriam Webster:

"The Old English pronoun ilca is the predecessor of the modern noun ilk, but by way of a pronoun ilk that does not exist in most dialects of modern English.

That ilk is synonymous with same, and persists in Scots where it's used in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." It is used chiefly in reference to the names of land-owning families and their eponymous estates, as in "the Guthries of that ilk," which means "the Guthries of Guthrie."

Centuries ago a misunderstanding arose concerning the Scots phrase: it was interpreted as meaning "of that kind or sort," a usage that found its way into modern English. Ilk has been established in English with its current meaning and part of speech since the late 18th century."

[Revel]

By the way. Northerner’s generally say “You All” and many southerner’s from places like Texas say “Y’all”. But, only people who learned British English say “you lot”. And in the last case there are not many left in America. And that is just the way it is.

[nopardons]

Nothing was "clearly stated" ( SIC); you should have used the word inferred or implied.

OTOH...you lot is plural and was used as such; but then, your reading comprehension skills are not even at the minimal level.

Not only have I not ignored anything you somehow managed to post, I replied, refuted, and basted you at every turn; which you are far too blind to see, accept, and understand. Now run away, it's the only thing left for someone such as you to do.

[Jamestown1630]

It certainly is!

I have to go now; husband has ‘Red’ on the movie machine, and I love the Mary-Louise Parker role in this movie...

[Revel]

So you are saying that when No Pardons first said it then she was insulting my Family that she does not even know? How low can you get.

The meanings of words obviously change. That is why the King James first re-translated. Because it became to hard to understand. If we are going to communicate in a meaningful form then we need to do so in a way that everyone can understand.

[Revel]

Oh No, you just said that Q is a God. LOL

[Jamestown1630]

You missed the part where MW explained the evolution of the term to a more general meaning of “of that kind or sort”. Learn to read more proficiently.

If we all would strive to became more knowledgeable and stopped assuming that what we know is all there is to know, we’d probably communicate a lot better.

G’Nite!

[Revel]

“OTOH...you lot is plural and was used as such; but then, your reading comprehension skills are not even at the minimal level. “

I said it should be plural. No one is better at reading something and getting the meaning completely reversed than you are. Wow.

[nopardons]

Northerners don't EVER say "YOU ALL"; it is a Southern conceit.

Nor is "y'all" a usual term in Texas, but a transplanted one from other Southern states situated along the Atlantic coast above what is now the state of Florida.

The more you post, the more you expose yourself as someone whose education was not only subpar, but as one who never bothered to learn much of anything at all, after one's formal schooling had ended.

Should you persist in replying to me, you shall only make sure that more and more people know what a fool you are; not to mention a low class one.

[Jamestown1630]

That was a phonetic representation, not the capitalized name of a ‘god’.

G’NITE!

[nopardons]

Enjoy your movie...I’m off to watch on too; though a different one.

[Revel]

“It is used chiefly in reference to the names of land-owning families and their eponymous estates, as in “the Guthries of that ilk,” which means “the Guthries of Guthrie.”

So it does not mean what is above? I cannot pick the “chief” definition.

So one just picks the part of an extensive definition that one wants a word to mean, and then expects the reader to pick the same meaning.

Good nite.

[nopardons]

Your projection complex is beyond the terminal stage.

You never said any such think; you claimed that I had used it in the singular case, which is not just impossible to do, but which I did not do!

You had and still have less than NO idea what you're talking about; NONE!

You blither on, posting calumnies, specious garbage, excuses, and worse...your own misunderstanding of simple, common usage of basic English words and phrases, which until now, you were utterly ignorant of and are now confused by.

[nopardons]

Words have many different meanings and you’re the one who chose to accept only ONE such and to ignore the rest of the explanation; the one which became the common usage of the phrase “you lot”, derived from the word “ilk” which is also a plural term and not a singular one. Put simply, ilk and lot refers to a group, which is singular in only one respect...meaning one kind, one group, one entity composed of more than one person and not necessarily a familial one.