Hope this is allowed! I've browsed on this site for a while, even had another username where I engaged in some fairly civil debates with other users before I was banned due to not being a Q follower.
Interested in having a friendly discussion with anyone who's up for it!
A bit about me:
I'm a mechanical engineer working in product marketing I live in a major city, Chicago, and have pretty much only voted democrat I am a homeowner I have followed conspiracies for a while based solely on my own curiosity, and by and large found that a lot of the major ones (pizzagate, Q) don't make a ton of sense, but I'm not here to argue that. I think we're just gonna have different opinions on it.
All said, happy to have a casual AMA! Not interested in flamebaiting or arguing
Mkay.
So here are the facts. You were very gung-ho about the fact that Biden himself admitted to this blackmailing and that was the jumping off point to your research, as I understand.
So, to me, if I were in your shoes and wanted to do my due diligence on learning what is the meaning behind Biden sharing this, I would first look at the basic facts, to answer the question, “is what Biden just said true?” As a matter of fact, no! According to events that actually happened, including time where Biden was in Ukraine vs the time when the prosecutor was fired (7 months later) vs when the money was paid, the very basis of the argument, Biden’s quote, is already false! Thus, if you had done your research and started at the start, I’d be confused how you got any farther than this point.
So, if you are aware that this quote that Biden stated implying blackmail does not actually reflect the timeline of events, why did you continue to dig?
YAY! Actual discussion!!
The fun thing about research is that you keep asking questions.
If x is true, then what? If x is false, then what?
And then... if x is true, how would that look in the real world? And, if x is false, how would THAT look. And associated behaviors, etc, etc.
And, I can see immediately where we have a slight misunderstanding in that analysis. You sought to answer the question: "is what Biden just said true?" That isn't the question I asked to start. That wasn't MY jumping off point, if you will.
My analysis and hypothesis started from the premise of "why would such a statement be made at all?"
Why would the VP of a completely different country be interested in what a completely unrelated Prosecutor is doing..??
So, that is the point of reference that I started from.
So then if you come into the statement already looking for a crime, wouldn’t you subconsciously make connections that might not actually be the full picture?
And even still, why wouldn’t you look at the timeline of events early on in your research?
I didn't come into it looking for a crime at all.
I know it might come across as a strange question to ask, but I've found that it is outrageously useful. I would HIGHLY recommend you adopt it into your own practices, it really helps with understanding WHY certain pieces of information are getting dropped into the collective consciousness... Aliens now. Why?
WHY. Why make a statement that doesn't need to be made?? It goes back to one of the messages I sent you: what doesn't belong. 3 oranges and a binder, we'll use... Why is there a binder at all? That's how I viewed that statement... It doesn't belong... or does it? Is there a connection at all? Is this relevant in a way that we have no idea about?
To answer your question "why wouldn't you look at the timeline of events early on in your research" is because the timeline builds itself from the back. In that I mean that I asked my question and looked for connections, and then tied things together. Well, I should say, the things tied themselves together. I just asked the question and pulled the thread.
I mean, if you look into the why anyone says anything I don’t know how you don’t STOP researching.
I definitely don’t have any children in my basement by the way.
Why did I write that? Seems odd. But it would be silly to look into everything someone said because at some point you need to start with the basic facts rather than work backwards. If you start with a conclusion, and then start seeking things to support that theory, it’s an easy way to fall into a pattern of confirmation bias