The other commenter said that since he posts tiktoks, I guess he thinks that for some reason it means he doesn't have to post sources since it's a video app. I'm saying there's a place to post sources that he doesn't use called the comment section and the description. I haven't changed my argument at all nor moved any goal posts. In fact, the other dude moved the goalposts by making this about RFK when I'm using this opportunity to talk about how the dudes a grifter passing off others research as his own and not posting sourcing anywhere. IDGAF about the dudes call to arms about voting for RFK (said that in the first reply to the commenter), I care that he doesn't give everyone the tools to discern this information for themselves, and thinks he can just get away with passing other people's work off as his own. Make no mistake, if he sourced things, he'd be linking to the superstonk library, here, and older Twitter threads that would make his videos redundant as everyone can just consume the info themselves without the need for his video commentary. No one would watch him, hence why he keeps sources to himself. That's the branding I'm talking about, my original argument that has not changed nor moved from the onset.
If all war is based on deception this doesn’t mean anything. Why would RFK be allowed to talk about vaccines, blackrock/vanguard and the deep state if he was a black hat?
I get what you mean, and I agree since Q repeatedly said in some of his first posts "disinformation is necessary." However, your logic can apply to guys like Alex Jones, who is controlled by Mossad and Q even called out when he was active:
It's that concept of "the best place to hide the truth is in a lie." I personally am still up in the air on RFK as a whole (remember, YOU said I thought he was deep state, I NEVER SAID THAT ANYWHERE, PERIOD), my only gripe is the concept of taking votes from Trump. Which, when speaking about Ian Carroll, is what upsets me and makes me think all he is a grift (again, YOU SAID I THOUGHT HE WAS DEEP STATE, NOT ME). If he really wanted to be bold and stand out, he would have endorsed Trump, especially after all he's exposed and discussed. Instead, he takes the easy road and remains neutral by supporting RFK rather than Biden or Trump. Which means he gets to keep the leftists in his audience watching. This also happens with guys like Joe Rogan, who I absolutely love and tell people here they should listen to if they want to hear what the average person is thinking right now. I never think they're on some team or apart of some conspiracy, I just think they want to remain neutral and not flat out say they support Trump since that would instantly alienate a large portion of their fan base. And in both Joe and Ian's case, they aren't saying their audience should or shouldn't do something, they're just giving their opinion. However, Joe interviews others, Ian tries to pass others work off as his own, which is my complaint and why I keep saying he's just a grifter.
If we want to shift the conversation to whether or not RFK is deep state or not, I don't think he is. If anything, he has definitely done us a great service by exposing the vaccine narrative to leftists. That's about it, though. Is he a part of Q team? IDK, doesn't change my mind on anything.
Yes, it has a description section and a comment section where you can post your sources.
Obvious moving of goalposts for your ridiculous "never gives sources" statement.
The other commenter said that since he posts tiktoks, I guess he thinks that for some reason it means he doesn't have to post sources since it's a video app. I'm saying there's a place to post sources that he doesn't use called the comment section and the description. I haven't changed my argument at all nor moved any goal posts. In fact, the other dude moved the goalposts by making this about RFK when I'm using this opportunity to talk about how the dudes a grifter passing off others research as his own and not posting sourcing anywhere. IDGAF about the dudes call to arms about voting for RFK (said that in the first reply to the commenter), I care that he doesn't give everyone the tools to discern this information for themselves, and thinks he can just get away with passing other people's work off as his own. Make no mistake, if he sourced things, he'd be linking to the superstonk library, here, and older Twitter threads that would make his videos redundant as everyone can just consume the info themselves without the need for his video commentary. No one would watch him, hence why he keeps sources to himself. That's the branding I'm talking about, my original argument that has not changed nor moved from the onset.
And so what? He puts the studies he sites in a screen shot in the background of his videos. Plenty of other truth tellers do the same thing.
If he was disinfo he is pretty bad at it. Sorry brother but I just think you are doing puritan stuff and we can agree to disagree.
I don’t think Ian Carroll is deep state until I get actual evidence he and/or RFK JR are.
https://twitter.com/HomeboyLelo/status/1714534349989703886
If all war is based on deception this doesn’t mean anything. Why would RFK be allowed to talk about vaccines, blackrock/vanguard and the deep state if he was a black hat?
I get what you mean, and I agree since Q repeatedly said in some of his first posts "disinformation is necessary." However, your logic can apply to guys like Alex Jones, who is controlled by Mossad and Q even called out when he was active:
u/#q1341 u/#q2101
It's that concept of "the best place to hide the truth is in a lie." I personally am still up in the air on RFK as a whole (remember, YOU said I thought he was deep state, I NEVER SAID THAT ANYWHERE, PERIOD), my only gripe is the concept of taking votes from Trump. Which, when speaking about Ian Carroll, is what upsets me and makes me think all he is a grift (again, YOU SAID I THOUGHT HE WAS DEEP STATE, NOT ME). If he really wanted to be bold and stand out, he would have endorsed Trump, especially after all he's exposed and discussed. Instead, he takes the easy road and remains neutral by supporting RFK rather than Biden or Trump. Which means he gets to keep the leftists in his audience watching. This also happens with guys like Joe Rogan, who I absolutely love and tell people here they should listen to if they want to hear what the average person is thinking right now. I never think they're on some team or apart of some conspiracy, I just think they want to remain neutral and not flat out say they support Trump since that would instantly alienate a large portion of their fan base. And in both Joe and Ian's case, they aren't saying their audience should or shouldn't do something, they're just giving their opinion. However, Joe interviews others, Ian tries to pass others work off as his own, which is my complaint and why I keep saying he's just a grifter.
If we want to shift the conversation to whether or not RFK is deep state or not, I don't think he is. If anything, he has definitely done us a great service by exposing the vaccine narrative to leftists. That's about it, though. Is he a part of Q team? IDK, doesn't change my mind on anything.