Q - TRUST Adm R. He played the game to remain in control.

https://qcodefag.github.io/ ^ | Q

[RoosterRedux]

This entire shutdown exercise was Schumers attempt to put Trump in his place. He failed spectacularly.

Jan 22 2018 14:16:08 Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd 127256

>>127246

Thank you for visiting the WH. FEAR.

Q

580

Jan 22 2018 14:13:04

Q

!UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd 127218

Private exchange [last].

Q

381

Jan 22 2018 14:05:49

Q

!UW.yye1fxo ID: f2d4bd

127154

:stay at home<

[-7]

DR_noon_clear_sky^

Safe comms_SAT-re_Bz985300^00

Q

Jan 21 2018

578

Jan 21 2018 22:32:11

Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: fe774d

121147

Every [3] letter is here.

You are in the middle of some

thing historic. Q

577

Jan 21 2018 22:20:15

Anonymous ID: c4d817

120926

GUYS- email was sent out by NSA before election with some plausible deniability attached to it so people could say "FAKE"! HOWEVER, the main audience wasn't normies, it was the black hats, a shot across the bow to say "WE HAVE IT ALL, YOUR'E RIGGING WON'T WORK". Q just brought it back up to speak directly to "THEM" again to show they are going to dump it all.

[Fantasywriter]

Your example only covers a single instance. My point is that over the course of ~two decades not a single warmest has accepted the denier debate challenge. The conclusion you cannot draw from one isolated example becomes clearer and clearer as the sample size grows into the thousands upon thousands. If the warmists had facts on their side at least *one* of their cabal would have stepped up to the plate by now. Monkton is just one of countless numbers of deniers who is itching—champing at the bit—to debate. Yet not a single warmist can be found to appear in a large-format venue to accept the challenge.

The idea that thousands could have the facts on their side yet to a man and to a woman refuse to debate is not reasonable. The refusal is bc they know they’d get their heads handed to them on a platter. That’s why the idea of reeducation camps holds such allure for them. Rather than having the embarrassment of being called cowards—or of being whipped in a debate—they could simply silence the dissenters in the good old facist way.

The idea that it’s impossible to discern what underlies that approach is not rational. It’s not at all difficult to figure out what’s going on—in fact, it’s a piece of cake.

[bagster]

You make a strong argument there. But there are a number of possible explanations for this. Keep your mind open to this. First let me explain. I am not the expert on Q. I came to this late in the game. But I have seen this argument before and the answers to it so I'll do my best.

You say if anybody, Podesta, Huma, Hillary, had been indicted then we would know about it. I believe the possibility exist that we do not necessarily know. For us to know,somebody would have illegally leaked the information or the "indictees" themselves would have to. They have every motivation not to leak on themselves (made a funny).

It is also possible that indictments and even arrests were planned when Q made his "prediction" and something happened to call them off. That is the possibility I would think more probable. Anyway. I will not discount the whole of Q based on one so called "debunked" statement in the face of so many bunked ones. And don't ask me to list them because, like I said, I am not the expert. Others can do that much better than I. What put me over the edge to one hundred percent belief was the video of the Donald's speech about "the coming storm" when he made a Q sign with his hand. Have you seen that?

I am not a Q scholar. I am a soldier. I handle comms and "troll" rasslin. We all do what we are best at in this cult, goodman.

I recommend you talk with Grey Whiskers for a good factual run down. He's a bit grumpy if approached wrong. Tell him I sen ya. Maybe a polite mail would be best? I also recommend Jocko Manning consultation in private. She is much more patient and might be the wiser choice. They are both warrior/priests in the cult and are very wise.

I would really like you on our side. Honestly. We need clever boys. And you ARE a clever boy.

[bagster]

I have to take issue with your premise finally. There are probably hundreds of debates on Warming. I've seen them. I've seen Congressional hearings on it. I've watched Monkton debate, give speeches, interviews. Of course they are scared of him. Of course Algore wont debate anybody because he's an idiot and he knows that. But I can't agree that NO debate has taken place.

Even after saying all that. And even IF I agreed with your premise, which I don't. I would STILL insist that yu can draw no conclusions from it as to the nature of the truth.

We know what the truth is because WE listen to the science. Not because they refuse to debate us. Do you see the difference?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it. By the way. I thought you were leaving. I'm pleased that you didn't, don't get me wrong.

I'm Doc Holliday. I can go all and and night and then some.

[Fantasywriter]

Who is the biggest name warmist who has debated the issue, and what was the forum/exposure? Are you talking little podunk events, or has there been something of note that I’m unaware of?

[demsux]

I wonder which counter-intel guy/gal at the FBIdiots is handling the Imran Awan/DWS spy ring???

I'm guessing Priestrop would be in charge of it, correct?

[Fantasywriter]

Two questions. One, what evidence is there that any secret Q-predicted indictments have occurred.

Two, if circumstances changed, why would Q not have made some allusion to this? It’s pertinent. Q made three very high profile predictions. None were fulfilled. Why would Q act as if the predictions had never been made? You know how good he is with veiled hints. Why not *something,* as opposed to nothing?

If I made three big, bold predictions to you, and all three fell through, would that be the end of it? Or would you ask me what happened? Wouldn’t you ask why at least *one* of the predictions didn’t pan out?

I have no patience with irrationality. It’s irrational to imagine Hillary was arrested and no one had a clue. It’s also irrational to posit that Q is on the up and up, but he couldn’t give even the vaguest clue why his predictions failed. Once it gets into irrational territory, I am unable in good faith to buy it.

[bagster]

The idea that it’s impossible to discern what underlies that approach is not rational. It’s not at all difficult to figure out what’s going on—in fact, it’s a piece of cake.

Let me try another approach. Let's set aside your theory of disproving our Q theory based on our so called "refusal to debate."

Imagine this if you will. A roomful of people that are discussing a questionable issue. They are all in general but varied levels of belief in that issue. They are discussing it and trying to learn as much as they can about it because it is potentially VERY important.

During the discussions, people who have no idea what is going on but are curious, enter the room. They begin peppering the "cult members" with accusatory questions. They call them cult members koo koo birds, larpers, goofballs, conspiracy theorists, etc. You get my point.

It isn't just one guy. It's a long line of them. Some downright hostile. Then along comes little old fantasywriter. Acting just as they do. How do you think you should be received? Politely? Offered a cup of tea? To sit in my favorite chair? I would say to you. Dude. Do what I did.

Read along, study up. Look at the things offered to you. Then make up your own mind. Either buy into it, or don't. If you buy into it,then by all means, pull up a chair. If you don't be on your way, and leave the cultists to their insane business. They aren't bothering anyone.

But you say you have done that. You have done your research and you have made up your mind. You find it bunk, hogwash, a larp, a cult, a bunch of doody head meanies.

So what do you do about it? You lean up against a wall and shoot spitwads at everybody and try to convince them they are idiots.

I don't see the logic in that. Can you explain? Are you hear to convince or be convinced. Those are the only valid reasons to be here that I can see.

Did you like my LARP?

Mom says I'm the best LARPER ever.

MOM! MEATLOAF!!

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

What was your previous screen name?"

I've had several lol. Not all under this account. I think my very 1st one was OB1, in mid-1998. After that, my actual name. After that...another...on this account, I was Cruz2Victory, but begged them to let me change it when Cruz went too far off the deep end, to this one as soon as it popped out of the stinky pantsuit's pie hole. Was here for it all...Quidam...dejavous.

[bagster]

One, what evidence is there that any secret Q-predicted indictments have occurred.

None that I'm aware of. See my above post for possible alternative explanations.

Two, if circumstances changed, why would Q not have made some allusion to this?

I would have to be Q to answer that. I am not Q. Or am I?

Why would Q act as if the predictions had never been made?

What evidence do you have that I, I mean he "acted as if...?"

Why not *something,* as opposed to nothing?

It's none of your business?

Wouldn’t you ask why at least *one* of the predictions didn’t pan out?

No. I would call you a LARPER and make fun of you till you cried. OR I would make no assumptions and look at the preponderance of ALL the evidence and evaluate THAT and take everything on balance and use my big, giant Bagster brain and reach whatever conclusion I reached. I would most DEF not judge the entirety of information on ONE piece of information. THAT is illogical.

I have no patience with irrationality.

You gotta do you, goodman.

It’s irrational to imagine Hillary was arrested and no one had a clue.

Remember. Indictment is not arrest so stop saying that. You are overstating your argument. See also my previous alternative possibilities.

It’s also irrational to posit that Q is on the up and up, but he couldn’t give even the vaguest clue why his predictions failed.

Disagree. There can be many rational explanations for this point. You refuse to consider them.

Once it gets into irrational territory, I am unable in good faith to buy it.

Consider that you may be wrong. Consider there are things you aren't seeing or haven't seen. Consider the totality of the evidence. Consider that I'm just like you and I believe. How can that be possible. Of course I'm not JUST like you, you will say. But I believe in a general sense, that I am. What could possibly convince someone who thinks like you (maybe skosh better :) ) to believe something you consider irrational.

Consider all this. And then reevaluate. The possibility exists that, if you give it a fair look, you will change your position.

I reiterate that I'm a poor choice to lay out the evidence for you. I wish I was better. I just KNOW I could convince you. This is the best I got. Come on dude. Make me a winner. I can win a cruise.

[Fantasywriter]

It’s true that I’ve followed Q from the beginning. Most of the Q threads I read are on The_Donald. The vast majority of pedes have given Q pretty short shrift. For example, a true believer will post a thread detailing the latest proof of Q’s authenticity. Not half a dozen posts into the thread I watch said proof get purely annihilated. It blows up real good.

My natural tendency would be to just throw the whole thing over and ignore it. But then I keep thinking there MUST be something I’ve missed. There simply has to be some insight or prediction that slipped passed me. Otherwise, why the near-religious devotion of an ever growing number of people?

So I come onto one of these threads—which I typically avoid—and try to elicit information.

Then the insults, lies and smears fly. Additionally, people relentlessly order me to get off the thread. I get reported as a troll. And of course, there’s the aforementioned condemnation to hell.

I still don’t understand it. Why is it so offensive to merely inquire as to the most convincing information Q has revealed? You’d think his more enthusiastic fans would be brimming over with the desire to list Q’s most momentous reveals. Instead, I get flipped a figurative middle finger.

I will always be open to compelling evidence. But it’s got to actually mean something. I don’t need to be taught to think for myself, which someone said was Q’s mission. I need something that I wouldn’t otherwise know. Some piece of insider information that actually amounts to something. So far, I haven’t seen anything close.

[bagster]

Who is the biggest name warmist

I have no idea. I binged on Monkton videos on youtube. He was all over the place debating people I think I remember him going in front of the American Congress and embarrassing them. He was all over England at symposiums and what not. I think he spoke to the UN general assembly. I really can't remember it all.

Look him up on youtube. I'm really not a climate change expert either. The dude is a genius and knows his stuff better than ANY fraud climate "scienties". I love watching him smash the dirty hippies.

I'm really not a climate change expert either and I really don't want to debate Global warming. It bores me and the science is settled, as far as I'm concerned.

It was brought up as an example of your argument argument. You already lost that one. I wrote it in my book already. Can you please move on from that?

[Fantasywriter]

‘Remember. Indictment is not arrest so stop saying that. You are overstating your argument.’

I posted Q’s exact quote. He said “arrested,” not indicted. He gave the day and nearly the hour. Nothing happened.

Q never alluded to his failed predictions. That is the evidence that he acted as if nothing had happened. Why should anyone trust him after that?

[Fantasywriter]

Whatever. I just hope I don’t slip up sometime and say ‘warmists,’ instead of ‘Q-ists.’ The two groups have a lot in common.

[Triple]

Why not just stay off the Q threads, if you think it is bunk?

[bagster]

why the near-religious devotion

Now that's just koo koo talk. And damn near as insulting as calling it a cult, or telling you that you demand proof of God's existence which you STILL won't let go of. I will forgive you because I get what you're TRYING to say and don't have the energy to throw a fake hissy like you did.

It’s true that I’ve followed Q from the beginning. Most of the Q threads I read are on The_Donald.

Well there's a new fact. You have never said that, that I'm aware of. Then you have seen more facts than I have. I give your opinion more respect now. I still wonder how I can be so religiously fanatical in my cult like belief and you are not, given my lesser knowledge. It's a puzzlement. If all his Q claims were instantly debunked at the source, which is 8chan, not The Donald. They are different things right? I'm a terrible internetter, I admit. If they were instantly debunked in real time, why does everybody still believe it. Is everybody stupid? All the nerds on 8chan are idiots?

But then I keep thinking there MUST be something I’ve missed. There simply has to be some insight or prediction that slipped passed me.

Then the proper place for you to discover if you missed anything would be at the source. Not here. Go to the site where the Q discussion originally takes place. I forget the name of it. G something I think. Others can tell you. I get it all from here. Bad internetter, remember? Go dabble amongst the weaponized autists. That's all I can tell ya. to tell the ruth, people here are several light years behind them nerds.

Why is it so offensive to merely inquire as to the most convincing information Q has revealed?

Honestly. It's your approach. Also, you are lumped in with the herd of other aggressive, hostile deniers. Maybe through no fault of your own. Just human nature. I'm telling you. Get Jocko one on one if she will have you. She will give you good info. Better yet, if you can get Ransomnote, our cult leader, to give you a few minutes, she may be best of all. But she is extremely busy doing what she does. And that's a lot. If you mail her politely, she may help you. I hope you're being sincere. Try everybody I pinged, Maybe you'll get a nibble.

Question.

Are you trying to wear me down? Can't. I'm the lovin man. I can go all day and all night and then some.

[bagster]

warmists,’ instead of ‘Q-ists.

Well look at you. And as hard as I'm trying to be nice and not come at you ugly.

Cpme on, bro. I'm answering you as politely as I can. I can do ugly if you prefer it.

[little jeremiah]

You have the patience of Job and then some.

[bagster]

Q never alluded to his failed predictions. That is the evidence that he acted as if nothing had happened. Why should anyone trust him after that?

Asked and answered. You are being repetive now. Scroll up for my responses (more than one) to that.

[tomkat]

             

[bagster]

Haha. I know Jeremiah. It's a challenge at this point. I will recruit this hardhead if it kills me. I just wish I had a firmer grasp on the facts. I'm using all I got.

Plus, I never sleep.

Plus, I love to argue.