Dear Q: We're Watching You

Took a peek at the “Q” issue and had the immediate sense of a dark alley I didn’t want to walk down.

Not from bias, though I am admittedly anti-Trump, but because it feels, well, dark.

Sorry. Twisty energy is twisty energy, and there is a lot of it there in my opinion.

Q doesn’t seem to be one person? Possibly a group? Or one Q and others who pretend to be Q?

Whether it is a “legit insider” or not, the Dark Side Vibe is one I avoid. This isn’t a white hat, so to speak. Not in my opinion. I appreciate that other people have a different sense, that it feels exciting and might prove their own worst ideas about “the other side” to be true.

But for me? This is like stumbling across horrible images when you do an innocent google search. So it’s a no-go for me.

a reply to: introvert

No.

First and foremost, ATS T&Cs tell us both not to discuss other ATSers. And since there are, in fact, Q supporters on ATS any such comments can and should be taken as about those ATSers. Not cool.

Second, I define the parameters of my OP within those ATS T&Cs. I choose which thoughts and ideas and events I will put into words -- and which words -- and in what order to make sentences and paragraphs to convey what I want to convey. Not you.

Say what you will... I will simply ignore any such comment and let the mods decide if it breaks the T&Cs.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Thanks for weighing in. It seems several of us have gotten/are getting some kind of negative gut reaction. I think we're all trying to make sense of it within our own frame of reference. Not much else we can do. Keep ourselves informed, keep an open mind -- in all directions, and stay on our toes.

And maybe buckle up!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: liveandlearn

Thank you for the link -- that's very interesting. Coincidence? Synchronicity? More? I'm not sure exactly what to make of it yet... but good to know!

Synchronicity on purpose, I believe. Think it was a CIA submitted article to out the person...notice the last line said "there may still be a leaker". This was likely in reference to original Q. Don't think original Q would continue to leak. Doesn't mean that one or more taking their place isn't legit with different methods. Just hard to know.

That said, I have looked through some of the ATS posts on the running thread and am impressed with their info gathering. Much more so than some I see elsewhere.

a reply to: Boadicea

First and foremost, ATS T&Cs tell us both not to discuss other ATSers. And since there are, in fact, Q supporters on ATS any such comments can and should be taken as about those ATSers. Not cool.

So if we follow that line, your own request is not something I can discuss, correct?

Another contradiction.

Second, I define the parameters of my OP within those ATS T&Cs. I choose which thoughts and ideas and events I will put into words -- and which words -- and in what order to make sentences and paragraphs to convey what I want to convey. Not you.

Of course you get to control what you put in to words on this thread. I am not trying to control that. But you are trying to control what I say, even though your have been so gracious to give me permission to discuss "Q", those he targets and how he is targeting those people.

It appears that you are trying to stifle opinions you do not like.

That being said, I stand by what I posted and it is more than on topic. Whether or not you like what I have to say is not my concern.

a reply to: liveandlearn

That said, I have looked through some of the ATS posts on the running thread and am impressed with their info gathering. Much more so than some I see elsewhere.

Definitely! It's only because of their due diligence that I give Q as much credibility as I do.

The index the OP posted in the beginning of the second thread is pretty darn impressive too, eh?

originally posted by: buddha
As I see it Q is playing a Game with us.
building up are hopes to stop us from despairing
and doing some thing for are selfs!
becouse They may work for the Evil ones!

people Think someing Is being done.
so WE dont all take to the streets in a BIG march.
several milliond people marching on the whithouse would not look good.
and They would have to Pretend to do some thing BIG time.

Interesting theory thought I would bump.

OP something you might want to do is check the frequency of Anonymous posts since Q has begun, if the number or frequency of Anonymous posts/videos has decreased there's a possibility it's the same group, or a splinter.

But there was always contention about Anonymous as well, that they were CIA dis-informants so it might not give you anything solid just more of a hunch direction.

a reply to: Boadicea

I am also glad to see a post that questions who/what 'Q' is...but I am also glad there are 'Q' threads intended to decipher 'Q' posts in the spirit of 'Q' being legitimate.

There's room for both on ATS.

I admit, at this point, I have serious doubts.

My worst fear is that 'Q' is an intentionally machinated catalyst that (further) marginalizes people who question government corruption and have political/government conspiracy theories.

My greatest hope is that 'Q' is legitimate and the collusion between the Democratic and Republican parties and their Fabian agenda is being exposed and criminals working in the federal government are going to be held accountable. For that to work, however, it would have to mean that Trump was ONCE fully on board with them and sometime in the last couple of years has flipped and has begun to work to expose something he was once a part of.

I just need some significant result to believe in 'Q', at this point. If Trump was ever 'one of them' then he would have enough info &evidence, at his fingertips, to bring someone very powerful down....like Obama or Hillary.

I enjoy the 'Q' threads and sometimes get very drawn in...but then nothing significant enough for me to believe ever happens.

It's not about p gate for me personally, though. It's about exposing a government that no longer works for the benefit of the people so that We, the People, can get started on tearing this one down and creating one that does work for the benefit of the People.

'Q' can wreak a lot of damage if not authentic. And I don't see any benefit if 'Q' is authentic.

If there is some beautiful storm underway...I just prefer find out by the reporting of facts and not the dropping of bread crumbs.

I'm an atheist. I am not giving my faith up to lovely ideas that are intended to seem convincing. I need evidence. However, I think I could properly be termed a 'Q' agnostic.

a reply to: TomLawless

I disagree. When/if some things people purport to be true from Q and can't/aren't verified, it could make all of us look stupid and not to be believed. It could actually be a huge setback for the truth getting out even further. A real truth teller could be ignored.

I hate being a downer because I want to believe so much i have to put a check on myself, thus a devil's advocate type.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea


I just need some significant result to believe in 'Q', at this point. If Trump was ever 'one of them' then he would have enough info &evidence, at his fingertips, to bring someone very powerful down....like Obama or Hillary.

IMO Hillary and Obama were nothing but extensions of Herbert Walker Bush's CIA empire that has ran this nation for the past 24 years.

Did you notice how fast the liberal media cozied up to Bush after The Harvest Festival massacre and how they used one of the liberal darlings Ellen Dengenres? Bush even appeared on her show, that would have been unthinkable if Hillary had won.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
OP something you might want to do is check the frequency of Anonymous posts since Q has begun, if the number or frequency of Anonymous posts/videos has decreased there's a possibility it's the same group, or a splinter.

But there was always contention about Anonymous as well, that they were CIA dis-informants so it might not give you anything solid just more of a hunch direction.

That's an interesting idea. I may have to figure out how to do that and see what I find... or someone else might want to take on the task?

But could that not also show that Anonymous is just following Q instead of posting their own stuff? Or they're busy trying to verify Q's information? Or Q's real ID? I'm not shooting the idea down -- at all! I'm just not sure what it would tell us. Am I missing something?

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
IMO Hillary and Obama were nothing but extensions of Herbert Walker Bush's CIA empire that has ran this nation for the past 24 years.

That's my opinion, too.

BUT, it's also my opinion that Trump ran interference for Obama in early 2011. I can't shake that and nothing Trump has done has changed my mind about it. And I do believe his friendship with the Clintons is meaningful, not meaningless.

So...for 'Q' to be correct and authentic...Trump would have had to switch sides, at some point. I do think the support he has gotten from his voters should be moving enough for him to want to do right by them.

And yet I see how he leaves them in a really sh*tty position to have to overlook or defend some crass and awful stuff that he says and does. When those incidents pop up (and it's often), I am left thinking he's making @sses of them.

a reply to: Boadicea

The thing is I was not aware or even moved when I first read about him here on one of some threads that got me a little disturbed, because I didn't really understood what this could be all meaning.

And as its more related to a internal government affairs and that I'm not politically interested , but did participate in one of the political threads that took place before the elections but more in a sense when al that stuff about the Jabba d Pizza hut starting to take place that gave me a more favorable position towards the now running president.

As I still see the top pages here constantly filled with allegations that more an more starting to direct into the ones that seemingly seem to be very accused for crimes in the past.

Now , as I'm not supposed to be rightfully the one who might say something about US politics and to say not more than I have to say . I think that mysterious Q thing is mind blowing in a sense that everthing it says seems to be played out on US politics.

I constantly ask myself what or where does it leads to and who or what is it?

I started to look into the letter Q and meanings as that it was the 17 letter of the alphabet . And it all started in 2017 but also the letter Q seems not presented within the fifty states of the US .

In numerology 17 this number represents

The number 17 is responsible for, Insight, responsibility, self-discipline, strength, compassion, spiritual consciousness, and wisdom, a desire for peace and love for all of humanity.

Does it mean something ? I don't know but Q sure stirs the world at this moment.

Also the Letter Q seems to have ancient roots that go back until the Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Now when I started to go deeper looking for this Q thing I found a youtube that seemed to have some kind of information about this Q thing that redirected the watchers to these pages.

Q 1

Q 2

Q 3

But I think those who follow this already read these statements from this Q thing.

So what do I think , I really don't know but we sure live in strange times

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

I am also glad to see a post that questions who/what 'Q' is...but I am also glad there are 'Q' threads intended to decipher 'Q' posts in the spirit of 'Q' being legitimate.

There's room for both on ATS.

I agree -- I'm glad you appreciate the difference and each thread for its own inherent worth.

I admit, at this point, I have serious doubts.

My worst fear is that 'Q' is an intentionally machinated catalyst that (further) marginalizes people who question government corruption... My greatest hope is that 'Q' is real and the collusion between the Democratic and Republican parties and their Fabian agenda is being exposed and criminals working in the federal government are going to be held accountable.

My bolding -- because this is key. The crime and corruption and the rot is across the political spectrum, and any real investigation would implicate members of both parties... so any focus on the crimes and corruption of one party's members and not BOTH parties' members is automatically suspect to me. Perhaps that's just a clash of Q's personal confirmation bias with my personal confirmation bias though...

For that to work, however, it would have to mean that Trump was ONCE fully on board with them and sometime in the last couple of years has flipped and has begun to work to expose something he was once a part of.

And that's entirely possible. I constantly keep in mind that the Trumps and Clintons were once friends... at the very least frenemies. And Chelsea and Ivanka are close personal friends. And then there's that phone call from Bill telling Trump to run. Why??? What else did they talk about? What arrangement could they have made? I have long suspected that Hillary struck a deal with Trump. I never said it, but I've always figured Bill was her partner in crime, so whatever Bill did was with Hillary's knowledge and consent.

If Trump was ever 'one of them' then he would have enough info &evidence, at his fingertips, to bring someone very powerful down....like Obama or Hillary.

And he should especially have that power if he and Hillary were working together.

'Q' can wreak a lot of damage if not authentic. And I don't see any benefit if 'Q' is authentic.

I don't see any benefit for the people either. The only real benefit I can see is if he's not really talking to the people, or even to Trump supporters, but to known tried and true allies... to benefit The Purge. I would understand if they had to develop unconventional ways to communicate. And I also have to believe that these Q has the administration's blessing -- if not Trump himself -- or they would have tracked down who had the opportunity to take the pics Q posted, and most likely tracked down Q himself.

If there is some beautiful storm underway...I just prefer find out by the reporting of facts and not the dropping of bread crumbs.

I'm an atheist. I am not giving my faith up to lovely ideas that are intended to seem convincing. I need evidence. However, I think I could properly be termed a 'Q' agnostic.

Hahaha! Fair enough -- I like that. I'm a person of faith -- but I'm still a 'Q' agnostic too!

a reply to: 0bserver1

Looking at your first link I see the name Brenden Dilly and people giving him a lot of credibility. I wasn't familiar with him so looked him up and still am not sure why. Granted he is running for Congress in Az and looks like a good guy, but why so many thinking he has inside info or credible. He isn't exactly an insider as far as I can tell

a reply to: 0bserver1

Thank you for the numerology links to "17" -- very interesting. I'm always fascinated by the seeming synchronicity of seemingly unrelated -- but related -- events and things.

I'll read more when I have a chance!

WE'RE

C'mon....it's we're...

But I agree with this post!!

a reply to: baddmove

If you look (^) at the title in thread, it reads correctly. For some reason, punctuation marks don't display on the recent activity list for threads.

originally posted by: baddmove
WE'RE

C'mon....it's we're...

But I agree with this post!!

Apostrophes don't show up in the thread titles unless you click on them and open them.

OP has an apostrophe in her thread title.