re: New York Times says thinks it has identified Q - a South African named Paul Furber and

quote:

---

Didn't know there were people still stupid enough to believe this

---

Me and Marjorie Taylor Greene are immunized from your negativity

quote:

---

Flexing on that HBO subscription, huh?

---

How delicious the irony that many of those truth warriors who seek to expose the supposed credulity of MAGA supporters very often simply regurgitate talking points from sources such as NyTi, WaPo, the Commie News Network, etc….

These media organizations have repeatedly been exposed as wholly owned subsidiaries for the most corrupted corporate entities in our nation — the medical and military industrial complex.

So Q posted this, 3 years ago on today's date:



Today also happens to be the day they begin a phased rollout of DJT's Truth Social platform as an alternative to Twitter (which DJT was purged from, Jan. 8, 2021).

Would any of our resident Q haters like to take a swing as how Ron Watkins (or Paul Furber for that instance) would be plugged in/prescient enough to post what they did in #2852, 3 years out?

Remember, at the time this drop was made, Trump was still 18 months out from even being asked by anyone in the MSM about Q, much less ambushed by Savanah Guthrie in that gotcha moment from the NBC town hall.

Why don’t you post whatever was linked in that post? If it is wildly unrelated, that will say something, as it would if it was undeniably related to the social media platform.

quote:

---

Why don’t you post whatever was linked in that post?

---

I would, but the account was suspended by Twitter for wrongthink, so the link is dead.

Whoever wrote that three years ago didn’t know anything about this Trump social media effort. You are searching for a coincidence that has no relation to anything known by whomever was posting that.

quote:

---

You are searching for a coincidence that has no relation to anything known by whomever was posting that.

---

I'm not making any assertions one way or another. The thread is about the NYT saying that Q's posts were made by Ron Watkins and/or Paul Furber.

My point is that whether or not the premise is true (hint: It's not), the "coincidence" is pretty remarkable that to my research, there's only two drops out of nearly 5,000 which have #truth in them, and only one from Q. (The other was Q responding to an anon who included #truth in their post - and that one was #2879, the next day on Feb 22, 2019). Mathematically, it a fun one to consider.

My question was if it *were* true, wouldn't it be an even more remote chance from a probability standpoint that someone like Watkins or Furber would have #Truth in the post 3 years to the day ahead of the release of Trump's social media platform of the same name than if Q is the insider that many believe?

So many of you want to sling mud at Q because you want some Magic 8-Ball where you're given permission to believe because the shot is called. (Not you, Decatur. You're liberal filth of the highest order and the swamp draining that Trump has promised is your worst nightmare. Cocoa, coloring books and a safe space for you). Q isn't about telling folks "This thing, X, is going to happen on MM-DD-YYY." That's not going to happen, for myriad reasons, not the least of which that we're in the midst of an information war. If we know what happens when, then THEY know what happens when, and the DS could/would respond accordingly.

The simple fact that not everyone can grasp this important distinction is a significant dividing line between those who consider Q's message and those who jeer from the peanut gallery.

A Q thread that is going 10 pages strong? Chicken must be asleep

People still clinging to Q in 2022.

#sheep