But I will ask one, slightly rhetorical, question: Do you think it's conceivable D'Souza received information from the same source the sheriff recieved his information?
Absolutely!
But that's not what either of them claimed. D'Souza specifically said the sheriff was responding to his film. I don't see how that can be the truth.
Perhaps D'Souza didn't present his argument clearly, but that's... not a good trait for a guy trying to defend the way he's presented evidence of election fraud.
I don't really have any reason to give D'Souza a benefit of the doubt.
In regards to super secret operations with plausible deniability, which are further complicated by a complicit, enemy controlled media, how does one tell the people the truth? How does one SHOW the people the truth?
I've actually asked a variation of this question.
If there is no super secret operation with plausible deniability, how would you ever prove it to yourself? What in the Q narrative allows you to PROVE to yourself that you are wrong about it?
Every failure is interpreted as optics. Every apparent setback is making the enemy "expend ammo." Every idiot move or denial of Q by Important People is seen as "disinformation is necessary."
To respond to your question, ask yourself. Why does this site exist? HOW does this site exist?
If the Cabal can control everything, and this site still exists, then clearly there's a dissonant conclusion. Either they are controlling this site, or the internet is too big even for the Cabal to effectively control.
So put Frazzledrip on the internet. Let me see Clinton eating a child instead of just taking people's word for it. Let me actually see the TrueTheVote data instead of being told what it said in a movie. The MSM can suppress it all they want, but I watched D'Souza's movie on his own site.
Now, what about you? Is Q falsifiable for you? Have you left yourself any way to know if this Plan doesn't come to fruition or never actually existed? How would you know if all the stuff that you think is happening secretly actually isn't happening?
It could easily be true. Many investigations do not produce arrests, either for insufficient evidence or political will. If the movie supplied one new fact, or persuaded a prosecutor to authorize the case, the movie could be a direct cause of arrests from a previous investigation.
Same as how the "cold cases" TV show claims credit for cases with old non-prosecuted cases.
Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.
Isn’t this just hypothetical?
As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.
Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?
He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.
If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.
If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.
I appreciate the response. Here is mine.
Absolutely!
But that's not what either of them claimed. D'Souza specifically said the sheriff was responding to his film. I don't see how that can be the truth.
Perhaps D'Souza didn't present his argument clearly, but that's... not a good trait for a guy trying to defend the way he's presented evidence of election fraud.
I don't really have any reason to give D'Souza a benefit of the doubt.
I've actually asked a variation of this question.
If there is no super secret operation with plausible deniability, how would you ever prove it to yourself? What in the Q narrative allows you to PROVE to yourself that you are wrong about it?
Every failure is interpreted as optics. Every apparent setback is making the enemy "expend ammo." Every idiot move or denial of Q by Important People is seen as "disinformation is necessary."
To respond to your question, ask yourself. Why does this site exist? HOW does this site exist?
If the Cabal can control everything, and this site still exists, then clearly there's a dissonant conclusion. Either they are controlling this site, or the internet is too big even for the Cabal to effectively control.
So put Frazzledrip on the internet. Let me see Clinton eating a child instead of just taking people's word for it. Let me actually see the TrueTheVote data instead of being told what it said in a movie. The MSM can suppress it all they want, but I watched D'Souza's movie on his own site.
Now, what about you? Is Q falsifiable for you? Have you left yourself any way to know if this Plan doesn't come to fruition or never actually existed? How would you know if all the stuff that you think is happening secretly actually isn't happening?
It could easily be true. Many investigations do not produce arrests, either for insufficient evidence or political will. If the movie supplied one new fact, or persuaded a prosecutor to authorize the case, the movie could be a direct cause of arrests from a previous investigation.
Same as how the "cold cases" TV show claims credit for cases with old non-prosecuted cases.
Well, that’s sort of the Q mantra, isn’t it?
“It could easily be true.”
Sure, but where did your theory of this come from? It didn’t come from D’Souza. It didn’t come from the sheriff report. It didn’t come from any after-the-fact clarifications.
Isn’t this just hypothetical?
As far as I continue to see, D’Souza has insisted that the Yuma investigation is a result of his movie, and nobody else involved agrees.
Look, D’Souza’s job was to create a convincing argument that election fraud occurred. If that’s his job, why is it my responsibility, or your responsibility, or anyone’s responsibility to decipher what he really meant?
He’s the messaging guy! It’s his job to put out an accurate message. It’s not my job to clean up his messaging mistakes for him, and no normie on the planet is interested in doing that.
If he meant to say something else, he can clarify. Given the nature of his film, his credibility needs to be airtight.
If maintaining that airtight credibility requires me to assume hypothetical situations that might possibly make D’Souza only partially wrong, then the credibility is not airtight.
I’m not doing D’Souza’s work for him.