Let me play devil's advocate on this one, and assume your friend is correct. I agree that it is possible to build a narrative that is completely, logically consistent with his perspective, as long as you limit your view to only Trump. But throw Q into the mix, and suddenly you have a contradiction. And since Q vouches for Trump, you have to discard your friend's Trump narrative as well when you factor in Q.
The contradiction is that Q is constantly trying to get us to think for ourselves and do our own research. Think about that. Even if your friend was correct, and Trump was installed as a distraction for people who wouldn't buy into the Rep/Dem Uniparty play acting, there is still absolutely no advantage in encouraging us to think for ourselves and research our own data sources. A distraction can only suffer harm by that. If your friend's position was really Trump's true purpose, then all the sources would be provided, and the entire package would be neatly presented in such a way to encourage us to blindly accept it. You might not be able to prevent a few people from still doing independent research, but you sure as hell would not want to encourage it.
No matter how you examine it, there is zero advantage in getting us to think independently under your friend's assumption. That is not how manipulation works. When you psychologically manipulate someone, you want to keep them focused only on the areas and the data sources that you can control.
So yes, logical reasoning implies this could never be.
Let me play devil's advocate on this one, and assume your friend is correct. I agree that it is possible to build a narrative that is completely, logically consistent with his perspective, as long as you limit your view to only Trump. But throw Q into the mix, and suddenly you have a contradiction. And since Q vouches for Trump, you have to discard your friend's Trump narrative as well when you factor in Q.
The contradiction is that Q is constantly trying to get us to think for ourselves and do our own research. Think about that. Even if your friend was correct, and Trump was installed as a distraction for people who wouldn't buy into the Rep/Dem Uniparty play acting, there is still absolutely no advantage in encouraging us to think for ourselves and research our own data sources. A distraction can only suffer harm by that. If your friend's position was really Trump's true purpose, then all the sources would be provided, and the entire package would be neatly presented in such a way to encourage us to blindly accept it. You might not be able to prevent a few people from still doing independent research, but you sure as hell would not want to encourage it.
No matter how you examine it, there is zero advantage in getting us to think independently under your friend's assumption. That is not how manipulation works. When you psychologically manipulate someone, you want to keep them focused only on the areas and the data sources that you can control.
So yes, logical reasoning implies this could never be.