I have given myself time to think about this ever since it first appeared during the Trump Rally on April 9th, 2022. I’ve also managed to get my feelings on this issue under control at the same time. I have some critique on possible reasons why Donald Trump endorsed Dr. Oz, even though many of us (including myself) think he is no good.
First let’s list out some facts based on what we know for sure and what we know from recent events:
1.) Pennsylvania is quite purple. There is a very significant Democrat population within the state (recall that cheating operations took place here in 2020 and they usually take place in places that are significantly purple like Pennsylvania) and there is a significant chance that a Democrat will win the senate seat here. It’ll not be easy for us to win any seats if we do not approach this intelligently.
2.) Senate seats are precious and we really can’t risk any falling into Democrat hands, especially with the Senate split evenly in half like it is right now. If we really want to avoid a repeat of the Pedo-to-Supreme-Court-event, like what happened late last week (remember that the Pedo got in only with the assistance of three RINOs), we should aim to keep as many Senate seats as possible, while gaining a few of them. If we lose any seats to the Democrats, it will make it that much more easier for the Democrats to do their evil since they will not even need to court over the RINOs for their evil schemes.
In addition, I would like to briefly repeat a couple key takeaways from my previous critique that I have made over a month ago:
1.) I think we still have a significant problem of assuming that the common folk out on the streets know the same facts that we know in our echo chambers. Did we even confirm that if the common men and women out in the streets know about Dr. Oz’s crimes, and if they care enough to not be star-struck?
2.) We really did not have a significant campaigning strategy to make Pennsylvania MAGA. Right now, there is even still confusion on which candidate that we are backing, which really should’ve been cleared out long before that last Trump rally (my personal deadline would’ve been end of March, although the sooner, the better).
With that being said, here is the main key point of my critique/Devil’s Advocate argument:
It is in Trump’s interests to keep Pennsylvania’s Senate seats out of Democrat hands to make sure we do not get a repeat of Pedo-Judge-to-SCOTUS event. That means fielding a candidate with a very significant probability in winning the election against the Democrats in a solidly purple state with election rigging. Dr. Oz have significant name-recognition and fame, both which have significant pull with the normies that is critical to success. Also, the star-power will be effective with fundraising to fund political operations necessary to win. With all of that considered, the Democrats will have to invest quite a bit of time, money, and resources into beating Dr. Oz for the Senate seat; money and resources that will not be used for co-current events and plans elsewhere, nor in the future. Even if Oz was defeated, the Democrats will need to rebuild all that they have spent, and could potentially be soften up to be beaten in other races around the state and nation due to lack of funds.
On our MAGA corner, there is still confusion on who are we backing, with two or three names being thrown about. This isn’t good since we are splitting our efforts and making sure that they all sink. Ironing out who is our one horse we are backing should’ve been done by now and we don’t really have too much more time left in the scheduling. Plus, there are valid questions if the MAGA candidate’s campaign was run properly, thought out properly, or could even win in a purple state without the name-recognition and fundraising Oz brings to the table…
On a side note, if we do regain a majority in the Senate, we might have enough breathing room to boot out Oz, should he be proven wanting, and replace with a MAGA candidate...
Final thoughts on this subject, I saw that Patriots.win is having a complete mental and emotional meltdown, again, over something that hasn’t gone their way. We cannot afford to be paralyzed with emotional tantrums at this critical hour every time something wrong happens (which will bound to happen a lot in this war) and we need to start exercising emotional discipline. Learn to shrug off these setbacks, roll with the punches as necessary, and not to emotionally over-invest yourself in various causes. Leave the bitching and crying to the enemy, let them do it and let us laugh at them while we continue to march forward to our goals...
Women. That is why Trump tapped Oz. He’s bringing the most sensitive. Group back into the fold. An endorsement goes both ways y’all. Oz is huge. He’s Gaga for 32-48 yo females.
Indeed. Oz can easily command the attention, votes, and fundraising money of many middle-aged women.
Even with the usual cheating actions, the Demonic Rats will have a tough time defeating Oz along with everyone else across the nation...
Yeah I’m all bout honor, but this is a dirty war. Over and over again. If this was a war over honor we wouldn’t be here...best we can hope for is not to be cruel. Honesty and Q are not synonyms.
Puzzling considering President Trump's stance on Rino's.
Typical Trump Pot Stirring
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Don't really agree with PA being purple. That's a weird thing I've noticed on here and other places. We tend to want to have our cake and eat it too, but it can't be both ways. Either all of these places that are "officially blue/purple" are actually red and they just cheat that much using various methods to steal elections from us. Or these places are actually full of liberals and we legitimately keep losing.
I tend to VEHEMENTLY believe it's the former. Ergo, PA isn't purple. It's probably deep red with a few "blue" enclaves here and there where sheeple congregate in moderately large numbers.
But I got off topic, why was Oz endorsed. Personally, I have no freaking idea. I'm still applying the 48 hour rule at the moment. But as of this moment, my two best guesses are that either we're dealing with another RINO hunt where Trump endorses someone, they get put on a pedestal and make an ass of themselves before the voter base, and then they get their endorsement revoked and crash and burn before the primaries. Think about Mo Brooks, this could very well be the same thing but with Oz.
The other idea I've had in regards to this situation, is that perhaps Oz legitimately flipped. It's not like it's impossible. Remember, Trump himself used to be a liberal Manhattan elitist who hobnobbed with the Clintons and other "undesirables". And now he's the leader and face of the largest conservative movement in history.
People can change. It's entirely possible people like Dr. Oz, Vernon Jones, David Perdue, etc. were at one point, low level cabal lackies that were being used to pacify the masses (Oz) or were being groomed into future RINOs (Perdue and Jones). But just like Trump, they were given a glimpse of what lay "behind the curtain" and flipped because they saw how evil it was.
Neither of these possibilities are absolute, but it's the two I think are most likely at this point.
The entire foundation of your argument is based on the faulty notion that Oz somehow equates to an "us," or that the republican party RINO faction is representative of "us." Neither position is correct.
An Oz, or any other RINO will vote to advance the radical left agenda regardless of a (D) or an (R) label. They are not "us." We gain nothing by advancing political figures based on party labels alone. We need to stop lying to ourselves by accepting the old "lesser of two evils" mantra just because one party is better at smooth talking we the people into deceiving ourselves into believing that subtle, less obvious evil is somehow preferable to overt evil. There is no lesser of two evils candidates when discussing the uniparty establishment.
The "us" have many meanings. Us could refer to the MAGA men and it could refer to Republicans.
The conclusion is still the same: it is far from certain that anyone that is not a Democrat could get into office easily. It'll be an uphill battle with anyone.
Do I agree with Oz? No, I said it so in the first paragraph. However, there might be strategic reasons for Oz that I could only guess at.