That isn't an answer to the question. Answer it, or accept that you have no argument nor any ground to stand on. Alternatively, provide an argument for why how someone looks matters and how it invalidates what they say.
My point is that people like you selectively apply the ideology of message over messenger. When its someone you like, approved message! when its someone you don't like, disapprove the message! You like tom Macdonald because you still haven't woken from the jewish MKultra entertainment brainwashing, therefore you approve of his message. You will not comment of Austin Steinbart's message because you have no idea what it is. You have never looked into his message because you dont like him, probably for contrived reasons.
that being said, sure much of what Tom Mcdonald says is on point. Tucker, and Alex jones too. That doesn't mean you should overlook who they are and why they are saying these things. And yeah, appearances do matter. I dont take anything that tranny's say seriously, whether its right or wrong. The same way I wouldn't take advice from the devil, no matter its righteousness.
Your point only exists and is only valid in your head.
So many bullshit assumptions. Making up crap about the other person in your fantasy-land of a brain is a real intelligent way to formulate an argument...
And trust me, you have fucking nothing on me in the way you think you do.
Now, I have no idea what his message is because I didn't, and still don't other than his name, have any clue who he is. Post some of his message like people do with Tom and I will consider it like I did with Tom when I first heard him.
Much of what Alex Jones says it not on point. Same with Tucker. People post what these things are plenty. What no one has done, including you in not answering the question, is outlined what Tom has said that is not on point. Not even one thing.
Looks do not matter. If a tranny preaches a good message, amazing. They have a better chance than any at getting through to the other trannies who are asleep. If Satan renounced his evil ways and started preaching faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, that would be phenomenal. I probably still wouldn't trust it personally, at least at first if ever, but if I'm otherwise unable to lay out why the message is still bad, leading people astray, or pushing evil on the world then I have no ground to stand on in claiming that the messenger is bad or a trap. I can believe what I want, sure, but I have no ground to try and lead other's away.
So again, what part of Toms message makes it oh so apparent that he's no good and leading people away from the truth? Who is he? Why is he saying the things he is? I want evidence, not logical extrapolations.
Answer his question.
What do you think of Austin Steinbart’s message? Now watch the cognitive dissonance kek
That isn't an answer to the question. Answer it, or accept that you have no argument nor any ground to stand on. Alternatively, provide an argument for why how someone looks matters and how it invalidates what they say.
My point is that people like you selectively apply the ideology of message over messenger. When its someone you like, approved message! when its someone you don't like, disapprove the message! You like tom Macdonald because you still haven't woken from the jewish MKultra entertainment brainwashing, therefore you approve of his message. You will not comment of Austin Steinbart's message because you have no idea what it is. You have never looked into his message because you dont like him, probably for contrived reasons.
that being said, sure much of what Tom Mcdonald says is on point. Tucker, and Alex jones too. That doesn't mean you should overlook who they are and why they are saying these things. And yeah, appearances do matter. I dont take anything that tranny's say seriously, whether its right or wrong. The same way I wouldn't take advice from the devil, no matter its righteousness.
Your point only exists and is only valid in your head.
So many bullshit assumptions. Making up crap about the other person in your fantasy-land of a brain is a real intelligent way to formulate an argument...
And trust me, you have fucking nothing on me in the way you think you do.
Now, I have no idea what his message is because I didn't, and still don't other than his name, have any clue who he is. Post some of his message like people do with Tom and I will consider it like I did with Tom when I first heard him.
Much of what Alex Jones says it not on point. Same with Tucker. People post what these things are plenty. What no one has done, including you in not answering the question, is outlined what Tom has said that is not on point. Not even one thing.
Looks do not matter. If a tranny preaches a good message, amazing. They have a better chance than any at getting through to the other trannies who are asleep. If Satan renounced his evil ways and started preaching faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, that would be phenomenal. I probably still wouldn't trust it personally, at least at first if ever, but if I'm otherwise unable to lay out why the message is still bad, leading people astray, or pushing evil on the world then I have no ground to stand on in claiming that the messenger is bad or a trap. I can believe what I want, sure, but I have no ground to try and lead other's away.
So again, what part of Toms message makes it oh so apparent that he's no good and leading people away from the truth? Who is he? Why is he saying the things he is? I want evidence, not logical extrapolations.