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.
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.
Have you read my response with care? No, then refrain from being daft and whine like a mule. Do read my post.
See, when your daftness is being pointed out for NOT, repeat, NOT reading my post with care and find the answers you were looking for in the first place, I agree it does sidetrack from the actual topic. Yet, it is a necessary sidetrack as it exemplifies why you missed the point I made.
Again, please, do read my post.
Since you are clearly unable to do so, all I am doing is asking what is the matter with you? See, if you were blind, and dependent on third party reading services, that might explain why you did not catch my point.
I would settle for that. It is not an ad hominem, it is a question as to your state of being. Can I now conclude you to be not a blind dependent on third party reading services? No, I cannot, since you did not address that question.
Labeling your behavior as daft, might be considered an ad hominem. But that is not my main argument. By the same token I called you knowledgeable, but I read no ad hominem claim there. My argument is: Read my post, you will find the answers there.
Again, please read my post, I offered you two Q posts with a delta of 2 years between them showing exactly how to find them.
Have I told you to read my post? So, if there is any distraction it is because you are still failing to read my post. Again, please read my post. This subject should indeed not be about your being butt-hurt for having the pleasure of being called out on daftness par excellance, but on looking for the information I am constantly pointing you towards.
So, please, do read my post with care.