The problem here is the circularity of the entire phenomenon. In the beginning—as I said before and was derided for it—Qanon was very specific. He named the day and nearly the hour when Hillary would be arrested. He named the day when first Podesta and then Huma would be indicted. He spoke plainly and to the point.
But from a real-world, evidentiary POV, none of the predictions materialized. Not even one out of the three.
So now the argument becomes, the events *could* have happened, and we just don’t know about them. Either that, or we all need to admit Q is a larper who was just out to have fun and had it.
Assuming you reject the second option, what of the first? Again, there’s zero evidence that the things Q predicted actually happened. So what’s the argument for the, ‘It’s all top secret, hush-hush, under the radar,’ position?
It’s that Q predicted it.
Ok, so why should we believe something happened just bc Q predicted it?
(Q-believer) Because Q is an insider whose predictions pan out.
(Q-denier) But what about in the cases of Hillary, Podesta and Huma? Those predictions didn’t pan out.
(Q-believer) Yes they did.
(Q-denier) How do we know?
(Q-believer) Because Q predicted it.
And so on. It’s entirely circular, but if anybody says so, they’re labeled a troll. This is not the approach of those who have the truth. It’s an attempt to intimidate and manipulate anyone who questions the Q cult. The behavior of the true believers says it all.
*sigh*