If this were ACTUALLY a psyop and Trump were a turn coat, they would've just rammed through everything they've wanted to do in the senate with the help of the RINOs to overcome Manchin and Sinema. Literally 2 people basically control the Senate, and by extension the entire federal government.
Think about that. It's not hard to overcome the 2 person vote when you account for the RINOs. Romney, McConnell, Murkowski, Graham. Right there, with just those 4 high profile RINOs you have double the vote needed to overcome Manchin and Sinema and ram through every single corrupt bill they wanted.
The fact that they're all being leashed and forced to vote on party lines on the majority of the big bills that would destroy the US or change it permanently tells you they're not in control.
"Speculation? Wow, are you triggered or what?
Lol. Predictable. You immediately resort to try to make things emotional. If you can't win in ideas you resort to trying to get things emotional.
In what Q posts was it said word for word "Deals were made up to a point in time where the door to deals was shut." That was never said. You are taking out one phrase "No deals" and trying to wildly twist it to your own wild speculations and then claim those as facts.
Also you gave me two hypotheticals that you can't prove are facts, but you want to insist are the truth. Then you were like "See?! In my imagined scenarios that I can't prove I'm right."
Nope. Not even in your imagined scenarios are you right. But keep on imagining ~
No, it's not. You need to check what logic is. A logical response to the question "2 + 2 =?" is "4", not "blue is my favorite color!" or "You're trIGgeReD by me."
Nothing logical about your need to use personal attacks when you can't make your case.
Blackmail is not haggling. Black hats using blackmail and coercion is not them "haggling".
If you think White Hats are "haggling" then you already just proved the difference between the two. Well done.
"Your disagreement is duly noted, yet totally unfounded."
That's fine. I think your speculations are flawed. Let's agree to disagree.
You better read my post dispassionately. You are asking for the clear states road.
Hence, the rest of your peculiar reasoning falls apart as it is bases on a wrong premise.
Again, dispassionately. So before you respond. Think again. Do not use your kneejerk trigger
All I've been saying is I disagree with your premise and you resort to attacks.
Make a case for your theory or pack it up.
Read the response I gave you.
It' s all in there. I even explain how to retrieve posts with certain content. It seems you have not only a problem with reading but also with making a logical sequitur argument. Quite the kind fellow-pede, is it not?
READING
Are you dependent on the reading services of others for being blind? If so, you might want to question the quality of that service, since you are missing the point time and again. It is as if somebody on purpose skips over certain parts. Maybe the person reading it to you is of a WOKE nature and applies censorship?
If not, then what could be precluding you from seeing the obvious. Again, I mentioned 2 posts, 2 years apart. And I go through lengths to explain how to retrieve such things, and what these posts contain in terms of deals made or the door to deals being shut.
THINKING
A logical argument follows a rigorous path. In your first response to me you labeled the positioning of an argument as I did as speculation. Which in and of itself is a gross mislabeling, since it was a logical deduction from statements Q had made. And I provided you the background. On top, in the judicial system, as any prosecutor will be able to tell you, deals are made. Hence the high conviction rate. This is a well established and documented phenomenon. You are aware of this, no?
However, you went from hypothetical back to speculation and now arrived magically at theory. Sorry to say, this is simply non-sequitur. It does not make sense.
As you can see, logical thinking requires precision in definition of words. Speculation, hypothesis, theory have different meanings and uses. These words are not substitutes. Far from it, these words are indication of a progressing nature of certainty towards an explanation for observed phenomena.
ATTITUDE.
Simply maintaining, or rather, demanding that I service your ineptitude-to-see-the-obvious is hardly a compelling argument.
Instead of a demanding attitude, as is evidenced by your behavior and screen-name, try donning humility, and again, please, read my response carefully, as it contains the answers to all the questions you were posing.
Now, I appreciate the fact that our thoughts and opinions can play a game on us. Especially, when we consider ourselves to be quite knowledgeable. And given your post-history here, I would consider you knowledgeable. I, therefor find it highly amazing we find ourselves enthralled in this discussion of a questionable value, since it is easily solved. Read carefully my post and read the referenced Q posts in context.
"Are you dependent on the reading services of others for being blind?"
Why are you resorting to ad hominem?
Debate is instantly derailed by that nonsense.
"Now, I appreciate the fact that our thoughts and opinions can play a game on us. Especially, when we consider ourselves to be quite knowledgeable. And given your post-history here, I would consider you knowledgeable."
I also appreciate a good debate and would love a real discussion, but it all falls apart when we get sidetracked with ad hominem.
Just a discussion on the points.