Ok, so I went and listened to your link for as long as I could stand. He jas an annoying voice, poor delivery, but most importantly, all he’s doing is editorializing. He has nothing to offer but his opinion.
Q doesn’t editorialize. He teaches a person how to handle a shovel, and then analyze what’s in the shovel. He may toss out some hints, maybe some guidance. He continually has to prove himself because there are still doubts about his legitimacy, as well as teaching newbies that he is for real.
Editorials are a dime a dozen. Blessed are true teachers who teach you how to think for yourself.
Even Trump tosses out Q crumbs, and he’s even more subtle than Q.
Steyn is more of an analyst than an editorialist.
He certainly has more thoughtful and cogent and complete content than Q.
Q is obtuse and incomplete.
Plus mostly speculation qabout current events rather than iminent events that never seem to be accurately loged and measured for prediction skill.
The two are really very different, but Steyn clearly has orders of magnitude more content.
Q mostly comments on the current situation and isn’t very predictive.
Steyn’s predictions cover much longer projection periods and are way more general, but he does have a more than fair predictive capability.
For instance, when is Huber going to accomplish anything?
I think Steyn has already written Huber off.
Funny.
Q has never taught me about the different ends of a shovel. I certainly know what I am "shoveling", especially with the Q crumbs that need but a small spatula to move.