The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”
And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.
The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”
Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).
Not a good foundation to build your argument on
Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).
Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.
Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.
Association is not the same as guilt.
Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.
You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.
"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.
It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)
Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.
The same argument can be made about Trump: “He makes us look crazy!”
The same argument can be made about Q: “It makes us look crazy!”
Not a good foundation to build your argument on.
Robert David Steele was actually in the CIA, but he became a whistleblower who exposed them. There are a few like him.
Association is not the same as guilt.
And he also creates division. That division is intentional. It is the first part of "divide and conquer," only in this case it is a war of attrition. One side only gets bigger over time. Thus, in this particular case, the creation of the different boxes actually serves to unify. This division into different sides is a necessary operation of any war however.
Q itself doesn't make anyone look crazy. Q doesn't say anything crazy. The media makes "Qanon" look crazy. I suggest that also is intentional, but justifying that would take too much effort, and you don't appear to be listening (since you aren't actually addressing anything I am saying).
Actually it is an excellent foundation to build an argument on. The point is showing intent to divide. The point is showing these operations are not organic. If they aren't organic, then who is controlling them. I have shown substantial evidence for the "who," though you haven't actually addressed any of it (and probably haven't actually looked at it).
Yup, and they all talk about crazy whacked out shit (true or not, they say "out there" things for which they provide no supporting evidence) which serves to discredit themselves, and thus their testimonies. Just look at the crazy things they say, and how that might serve to discredit the other things they say. And they all are part of the C_A. Thinking there is such a thing as an "ex-C_A whistleblower" does not understand how the C_A works.
Who said anything about guilt? I don't care about culpability, I care about patterns. If you are trying to investigate a secret organization that has infiltrated everything at the highest level, patterns are the only path.
You know damning things about some people who are provably agents of the Cabal. You know there are numerous such agents within the larger structure. You see the exact same associations, connections, and actions in other people as the people you know are agents. That is evidence that they are also agents of the same organization. "Solid evidence," "connections," and "patterns" are not proof, but they are really good evidence. Dismissing that evidence and saying "it isn't proof" is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand to justify your currently held beliefs.
It’s evidence, not proof.
"Proof", as the term is used in formal systems, is a verb, not a noun. It is a decision that the evidence meets some burden of proof. That decision is personal. That threshold is different for each person. That is why our court systems are designed that way, to set a burden of proof, and then ask each member of the Jury to decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets that burden. It is a personal choice.
It is impossible to ever prove anything, because it is a personal decision. Evidence is all that can ever be presented. A case is made with evidence. If you choose to say that the evidence does not meet a certain burden of proof for you, I totally respect that. Suggesting there is "no evidence" however is false. As long as you can admit there is evidence, then I'm good with that. If you can further admit that some of it is pretty good, that would make me happy. :)
Not that I need to be happy about this. But some of it is pretty good.