Show of hands, how many have been around the block more than once? So, I'm really excited to see what's happening with the whole Q movement.  Yet, I keep hearing alt-news talk about how people are finally waking up, sheep no more, etc.   I think for many, if they were a bit skeptical (like myself), it came from years of seeing conspiracy theories thrown out with no supporting evidence, while truth was buried on page 6 with a couple things thrown in to confuse the issue.  And it was hard to fact check.  It took years of reading various sources to ferret out facts from fiction.  So you learned to take things with a large grain of salt, and waited to see a little meat on the table (as it were). I've traveled quite a bit, done work in a number of different states, talked to a lot of different people, etc.  I noticed, back in the 80's that the MSM had a tendency to talk in glowing terms about anyone they liked, and negative terms for anyone they didn't.  It was sometimes little words that could be argued were ambiguous, except that they knew how these words affected people.  You can shape a whole narrative by inserting the right words into the right places in a story to sow distrust.  I watched CNN and USA Today come onto the scene, initially mostly neutral, but as they gained viewership and acceptance, they slowly shifted to the left.  CNN quickly became the Clinton News Network, so that was almost abrupt, but USA Today was more gradual.  Now the reason why I point those out is that those were the 2 MSM outlets that travelers were constantly exposed to.  In the 80's many of us knew the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc) were left leaning, but CNN and USA Today were headline news channels that appealed to people who wanted to know what was going on, high level, with enough detail to be informed but without a lot of words.  Those became MSM fairly quickly. So, about some of the hicks I worked with.  Many of them were surprisingly well informed.  They read the news, they talked to their friends and coworkers, and if they were registered democrats, it often came from being progressive/mostly conservative, and/or, a family history of registered democrats.  Have to remember, the democrats of the 50's were a lot different.  And, as often as not, the people they voted for usually looked out for their constituents.  At least in the ways that mattered to them.  I can't blame anyone for looking out for their own families and friends, we all do that.  But probably the most interesting thing, to me, was to hear about the Clinton's in hushed terms.  No one knew how they could keep doing the things they did, and get away with it.  People knew stuff, because someone had family or friends who had a bad experience, and they talked quietly about it, and word got around.  .But they knew better than to make much noise about it. The '90s was an exciting time.  The internet was on the rise, and the boards I frequented tended towards conservative.  The best part was that the hobbies we were into attracted people from all across the country, and some from various places around the globe.  When news was happening, there was a fair chance it was happening in someone's neck of the woods, and they could offer unique insights.  Or the simple truth, since the MSM was mostly incompetent.  And while many didn't trust the MSM, too many of the alt-news sources weren't that good. Well, enough of that.  I only recently signed up here.  So if you don't mind my asking, how many here have seen a thing or two, knew things weren't as they seemed, hoped and prayed for men and women of integrity to take charge, and have been enjoying the show?