Let's assume for arguments sake that the jabs, after this flu season, will smash through a significant number of people. People begin dropping and the flu season turns into a terrible, terrible epidemic.
Up until this point he's advertised it and the only differentiation he's made from the narrative is that they should not be mandated.
What's the rationale at that point? That white hats replaced many of the poisons and it could have been worse? That this had to happen as part of the plan?
What can he say once the jab (assuming it does what we think it does), begins doing what it was designed to do? He's the one who promoted it, funded it and essentially ran half a campaign on it.
That they solely relied on the vaccine and didn't give people other options?
I'm trying to wrap my head around how he can call out the DS for it.
I wasn't dragging him through the mud lol. It's the reality of the situation. The DS could spin it on him quite easily if they wanted and say "Well we began it under Trump and got the green light from OPWS".
It's called critical thinking and if you're too emotional about the vax, then keep moving.
Maybe that wasn't your attention but that is how it appeared.
People have been trying to say that Geotus is controlled oppositon lately.
Use some of those critical thinking skills and start looking into the coms behind all this you don't have to take my word for it I'm sure there are other sites that are just as good at decoding coms as the WordPress site that I linked.
Also unless I get banned from here I will post wherever I please if I think I have something to contribute.
You do what you gotta do. But just cause I question what the rationale is, think before you hurl out dragging through the mud nonsense