It seems like "neutral" would mean "not talking about this stuff at all and letting things play out quietly" rather than "taking the side of the liars and feeding their greatest weapon with exactly the narrative that the White Hats are trying to dismantle."
You believe that the Cabal controls the population with lies fed through a controlled television media, correct?
Well, Trump is a part of that television media. He's going on television and saying things to the cameras and the talking heads.
And in the cases of Ukraine and vaccines, the vast majority of those words agree with the alleged lying narrative that the White Hats are working to destroy.
Giving the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon that they don't even need from Trump doesn't seem neutral to me. That seems like he is very purposefully going out there and at least appearing to throw his weight behind a narrative.
If he stopped talking about this stuff and giving his opinions, the media would keep pushing the same narrative, but Trump would be very clearly, neutrally, staying out of everything. Trump doesn't stay neutral on much, so that would have actually been a pretty powerful piece of evidence in support of Q if he actually was staying neutral.
Yes. The world looks pretty much like what I would expect the world to look like if Trump lost the election and Q was nonsense.
I understand that you see this as optics.
What I haven’t understood is how long the optics have to go on before it’s considered reasonable to doubt that you’re looking at optics.
I have read Sun Tzu. I do recall his advice for not advertising your weaknesses.
That is not the same thing as appearing to lose every significant battle since the 2020 election. That is not the same thing as projecting an image that has a good portion of his own base believe he’s no longer in power.
It’s not the same thing as having no real leadership for your army and every major supporting voice to be viewed with justifiable suspicion by your own forces.
It’s not the same thing as having most of your recent words to your own supporters be viewed as disinformation by them meant for a spying enemy.
The reason Sun Tzu’s tactics work is because the vast majority of the time, when someone looks weak, it’s because they ARE weak. When they appear to lose, it’s because they lost.
And to date, Trump has never had a strategic victory that has led me to believe this kind of tactic is in his wheelhouse. I have no reason to believe he’s an exception. Having a ghost writer write in his autobiography that he enjoyed Sun Tzu is not exactly convincing.
Don’t forget that the inverse is more often true in real society: appear strong when you are weak. Considering that most former Presidents don’t have rallies and start social networks and so forth, I’d argue that Trump is trying far harder to appear stronger than an ex-POTUS, not weaker.
It seems like "neutral" would mean "not talking about this stuff at all and letting things play out quietly" rather than "taking the side of the liars and feeding their greatest weapon with exactly the narrative that the White Hats are trying to dismantle."
You believe that the Cabal controls the population with lies fed through a controlled television media, correct?
Well, Trump is a part of that television media. He's going on television and saying things to the cameras and the talking heads.
And in the cases of Ukraine and vaccines, the vast majority of those words agree with the alleged lying narrative that the White Hats are working to destroy.
Giving the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon that they don't even need from Trump doesn't seem neutral to me. That seems like he is very purposefully going out there and at least appearing to throw his weight behind a narrative.
If he stopped talking about this stuff and giving his opinions, the media would keep pushing the same narrative, but Trump would be very clearly, neutrally, staying out of everything. Trump doesn't stay neutral on much, so that would have actually been a pretty powerful piece of evidence in support of Q if he actually was staying neutral.
Yes. The world looks pretty much like what I would expect the world to look like if Trump lost the election and Q was nonsense.
I understand that you see this as optics.
What I haven’t understood is how long the optics have to go on before it’s considered reasonable to doubt that you’re looking at optics.
I have read Sun Tzu. I do recall his advice for not advertising your weaknesses.
That is not the same thing as appearing to lose every significant battle since the 2020 election. That is not the same thing as projecting an image that has a good portion of his own base believe he’s no longer in power.
It’s not the same thing as having no real leadership for your army and every major supporting voice to be viewed with justifiable suspicion by your own forces.
It’s not the same thing as having most of your recent words to your own supporters be viewed as disinformation by them meant for a spying enemy.
The reason Sun Tzu’s tactics work is because the vast majority of the time, when someone looks weak, it’s because they ARE weak. When they appear to lose, it’s because they lost.
And to date, Trump has never had a strategic victory that has led me to believe this kind of tactic is in his wheelhouse. I have no reason to believe he’s an exception. Having a ghost writer write in his autobiography that he enjoyed Sun Tzu is not exactly convincing.
Don’t forget that the inverse is more often true in real society: appear strong when you are weak. Considering that most former Presidents don’t have rallies and start social networks and so forth, I’d argue that Trump is trying far harder to appear stronger than an ex-POTUS, not weaker.