I was not defending this particular individual(As I said as a preface), my context is the one provided by OP itself.
All I said is that you can't immediately label someone as controlled opposition based solely on this, as you point out yourself is an obvious assumption, though for OP seemed to be more than enough to outright confirm the accusation.
I may not have watched any of his stuff, but I did get some of it from pure osmosis, and seems to me he always heavily attacked the whole cOViD scam at least.
Also, DJT may not have outright come out and said "IMMA LOCK THAT BITCH UP!!! because that'd have gone very poorly, but he did promise he was going to "drain the swamp", so locking that wretch up should be implied one would think.
At least that's what a "normie" would think I'd guess, us that have some understanding of "the plan" might be able to shrug it off, but it still stands that to immediate appearances very little swamp draining was done.
Note, the OP said "confirmed". Which really implies, to me, that there are already suspicions, doubts, thoughts that SP is controlled opposition. I certainly fall into that category, although I'm fairly happy with my conclusion as opposed to mere suspicion.
So, sure, based ONLY on this (i.e. one action), you cannot label anyone controlled oppo, but if you have 10 other data points, then certainly this one might clinch the deal. Which is what I think the OP is saying, and which I am inclined to agree with.
To me, the entire post by Peters reeks of controlled oppo attack. I might try to quantify that via a rigorous textual analysis (a field in which I have some training), but it would take a few pages to write that all up in a way that articulates it to the layman. By which, I'm not suggesting you should take my word for it. I'm just saying, that for me, the post reeks, and as such, goes a long way to supporting the OP's primary assertion - that SP just confirmed the role he's playing.
That attack on DJT as not having fulfilled a promise to lock up Clinton stinks to high heaven, imo, but I will grant that interpretation is going to depend a lot on what your starting point is. I have no issue if someone doesn't see it like that, but I'm still going to testify as to what my perception is!!!!
I was not defending this particular individual(As I said as a preface), my context is the one provided by OP itself.
All I said is that you can't immediately label someone as controlled opposition based solely on this, as you point out yourself is an obvious assumption, though for OP seemed to be more than enough to outright confirm the accusation.
I may not have watched any of his stuff, but I did get some of it from pure osmosis, and seems to me he always heavily attacked the whole cOViD scam at least.
Also, DJT may not have outright come out and said "IMMA LOCK THAT BITCH UP!!! because that'd have gone very poorly, but he did promise he was going to "drain the swamp", so locking that wretch up should be implied one would think.
At least that's what a "normie" would think I'd guess, us that have some understanding of "the plan" might be able to shrug it off, but it still stands that to immediate appearances very little swamp draining was done.
Note, the OP said "confirmed". Which really implies, to me, that there are already suspicions, doubts, thoughts that SP is controlled opposition. I certainly fall into that category, although I'm fairly happy with my conclusion as opposed to mere suspicion.
So, sure, based ONLY on this (i.e. one action), you cannot label anyone controlled oppo, but if you have 10 other data points, then certainly this one might clinch the deal. Which is what I think the OP is saying, and which I am inclined to agree with.
To me, the entire post by Peters reeks of controlled oppo attack. I might try to quantify that via a rigorous textual analysis (a field in which I have some training), but it would take a few pages to write that all up in a way that articulates it to the layman. By which, I'm not suggesting you should take my word for it. I'm just saying, that for me, the post reeks, and as such, goes a long way to supporting the OP's primary assertion - that SP just confirmed the role he's playing.
That attack on DJT as not having fulfilled a promise to lock up Clinton stinks to high heaven, imo, but I will grant that interpretation is going to depend a lot on what your starting point is. I have no issue if someone doesn't see it like that, but I'm still going to testify as to what my perception is!!!!