She speaks of Charlie when she was interviewed by Nino in a way that makes you think she's not at all opposed to him. In the same interview she says she gets the requests you mention.
She also parrots exactly what Charlie said two years ago about "650 planeloads of gold"
search - vatican-pedophile-network-closed-as-gold-repatriated-to-us-treasury at search.brave.com
She also parrots exactly what Charlie said two years ago about "650 planeloads of gold"
If we are not careful we will be like those people who say "SOF parrots exactly what QAnon has been saying and hence must be wrong"
I personally stopped judging people and just analyse the message. Whatever we think of Charlie, is not hard to believe that much good was stolen from us and obtained back under Trump.
I mean, we already say "the media reports this so its probably wrong" as it is.
Charlie is someone who was very wrong often, so why would I listen to someone who repeats what he says?
Q teaches us to do research on our own, not just blindly taking what people say at face value just because we're desperate to fit it into our narrative of "patriots in control" (they are). If it can't be proven, then we should absolutely be careful with the information given. Few people will wake up if we feed them bunk even only 25% of the time.
edit: and let me remind that people like Charlie pretend that they are in contact with Trump and team and working with them closely.
So, your logic is, if person A lies often, and if A makes a certain assertion, then anyone else who makes the same assertion is also a liar? I hope you see the error in this logic.
Q teaches us to do research on our own, not just blindly taking what people say at face value
No one is asking you to take anything at face value, that would be stupid. But saying "She says the same as XYZ and so he is a liar" is not critical thinking. Its at the same level as the logic used by left regarding SOF, as I already explained.
Since I know very little about Charlie Ward, I can only analyse your statements based on logic. If you want to make a comprehensive post about Charlie and all his demostrable lies, that would be worthwhile for the community.
I am saying that I dont trust her because she repeats information that only came from a known liar. I would have hoped this made logical sense to everyone. If she hasnt proven these statements to us and is just repeating them (relayed from Charlie) then what good is she? They aren't her words at that point, they are Charlie's.
Charlie is well documented on this forum so I suggest you use the search function.
Just because I agree with some things she is saying doesnt mean i should trust her. See Desantas, Ramaswampy, every other obvious deep state rino, etc.
She speaks of Charlie when she was interviewed by Nino in a way that makes you think she's not at all opposed to him. In the same interview she says she gets the requests you mention.
She also parrots exactly what Charlie said two years ago about "650 planeloads of gold"
search - vatican-pedophile-network-closed-as-gold-repatriated-to-us-treasury at search.brave.com
Check the dates
If we are not careful we will be like those people who say "SOF parrots exactly what QAnon has been saying and hence must be wrong"
I personally stopped judging people and just analyse the message. Whatever we think of Charlie, is not hard to believe that much good was stolen from us and obtained back under Trump.
What did Q say about good and fed again?
I mean, we already say "the media reports this so its probably wrong" as it is.
Charlie is someone who was very wrong often, so why would I listen to someone who repeats what he says?
Q teaches us to do research on our own, not just blindly taking what people say at face value just because we're desperate to fit it into our narrative of "patriots in control" (they are). If it can't be proven, then we should absolutely be careful with the information given. Few people will wake up if we feed them bunk even only 25% of the time.
edit: and let me remind that people like Charlie pretend that they are in contact with Trump and team and working with them closely.
So, your logic is, if person A lies often, and if A makes a certain assertion, then anyone else who makes the same assertion is also a liar? I hope you see the error in this logic.
No one is asking you to take anything at face value, that would be stupid. But saying "She says the same as XYZ and so he is a liar" is not critical thinking. Its at the same level as the logic used by left regarding SOF, as I already explained.
Since I know very little about Charlie Ward, I can only analyse your statements based on logic. If you want to make a comprehensive post about Charlie and all his demostrable lies, that would be worthwhile for the community.
Thats not at all what I am saying.
I am saying that I dont trust her because she repeats information that only came from a known liar. I would have hoped this made logical sense to everyone. If she hasnt proven these statements to us and is just repeating them (relayed from Charlie) then what good is she? They aren't her words at that point, they are Charlie's.
Charlie is well documented on this forum so I suggest you use the search function.
Just because I agree with some things she is saying doesnt mean i should trust her. See Desantas, Ramaswampy, every other obvious deep state rino, etc.
The ad hominem doesnt help your case by the way.
signal not noise - i understand u/bubble_bursts/