re: Does anyone here actually believe this “Q” bullshite

There's no real point in discussing the "Q" thing because the people who believe it will always find a reason why all the reasons that it's ridiculous are fake. When it's built into your theory that the deep state is going to try and discredit your theory, all contrary evidence is just a deep state plant or something.

quote:

---

So because some of us classify it as a conspiracy theory

---

So you are conspiracy theorists?
Such a strange twist. Earlier, that label was being tossed around and then articles claiming conspiracy theorists live in fantasy land were posted.
I'm not asking you to defend yourself, just pointing out others would think that of you.

I'm saying there is no "theory" and I don't know what crimes Q might have committed...maybe harassing Michael Avenati?
Leaking classifieds? Maybe?
There are claims, and many stateside claims have been false. Then again, many of the foreign claims, BUT notably ambiguous, have occurred. I'm not making any claims, I just follow it.

I'm more than willing to discuss any of it.
I think the Q clock is fantastical, but some posts line up with each other...
Some of the memes are reaching, but several subjects are very real, the DoJ did have to hire hundreds more US Attorneys and the PACER program is being heavily populated.

I'm saying that whether or not I think it's a conspiracy theory is irrelevant to the facts and I'm not sure why you're so hung up on it. It certainly doesn't prevent discussion.

quote:

---

It certainly doesn't prevent discussion

---

Well let's get on with the topics/subjects!

quote:

---

Well let's get on with the topics/subjects!

---

That's what I've been saying repeatedly.

quote:

---

I'm fully aware that IceTiger is not going to change his mind regardless of the facts presented

---

What fact? That Q has made claims and they didn't occur?

I concede that.

My mind isn't set on anything, there are things that actually happen that Q posts about...then other things he says are ambiguous, yet others false.

He posts a bunch of articles.

The Joe Friday stuff.

quote:

---

First of all, there are and always have been pedofile rings for the elite. The current revolutions in the UK prove that without any doubt, Sandusky was running one at Penn State, too (Search my old post about the topic if you want more info)

---

Exactly. That is part of what makes Q believable.

quote:

---

And the (((Rothchilds))) are the inspiration for every story you probably have heard about the Illuminati.

---

A lot of them because they have been in power for hundreds of years, it is part of what makes Q believable.

quote:

---

Also, this narrative about conspiracies being almost impossible to pull off and exist is total bullshite or “fake news” for your trumpers.

---

Agreed, they are not that hard to pull off and do exist and is part of what makes Q believable.

quote:

---

But, Tom Hanks and all our current living presidents being part of a global pedofile ring that runs the deep state and is being outing by some insider called “ Q” that is going to be wiped out by Trump?

---

No I don't think Tom Hanks and President Trump are members of a pedophile group and that Trump is going to wipe himself out.

quote:

---

I mean there is better evidence HRC is a reptilian alien.

---

Link?

quote:

---

My mind isn't set on anything, there are things that actually happen that Q posts about...then other things he says are ambiguous, yet others false.

---

Ok, well this has bothered me for half the thread. You've admitted repeatedly that Q is wrong as often as he's right, his postings are ambiguous and can be applied to multiple situations. When pressed for an example of his accuracy you chose a "prediction" which you yourself admitted was "super vague"(Flood is coming).

So, believing all that, why do you lend any credibility to Q at all. Do you just "want to believe"? Or are you just waffling when your "evidence" is refuted?

quote:

---

Or are you just waffling when your "evidence" is refuted?

---

I picked the vague things to point out the "prediction" aspect that people on the outside looking in is there, but it's vague.
That's not what people following Q focus on, though. It doesn't even matter who Q is. That's also not what people focus on.

People that follow Q are watching crimes unfold and be addressed.

The "flood is coming" isnt disproven...it's just not super specific...
It could lead one to believe Q knew about the FBI email titled "flood is coming" before the email was released to the public...
The subject is referring to a media blast against Trump.
Qs post is referring to FBI corruption.

So, it's not right or wrong, just ambiguous.

quote:

---

The "flood is coming" isnt disproven...it's just not super specific...

---

This is the kind of thing Pecker was referring to. If the prediction is so vague that it can apply to almost anything, it isn't worth a damn.