I found that Joe Rambo seems to post a LOT of subjective and non-critical thinking, and for that reason, I'm not particularly a big fan.

For example,

First Trump basically says there are investigations going on... "Let's see what happens."

That's ONE possible explanation or interpretation. But there are other just as (if not more) reasonable explanations:

They should be prosecuted. Let's see what happens..." could very well mean "when I get back in to the WH, they will be prosecuted!"

Also, notice how Joe Rambo has selectively edited the clip to EXCLUDE the very thing that Trump was talking about that gives it the context:

"that I said this.... and they put it out, and it's been going around for 3 years. And it's just like Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine...." and he proceeds to give other examples of hoaxes and false information the deep state has put out.

So what is it that he said that they put out and has been going around for three years? (And why did Joe Rambo edit it out?)

u/Axodeth offers one explanation (in comments under this post):

what the left is saying that Trump said about them being suckers

That actually makes sense. but what Joe Rambo concludes does NOT make sense.

He "hopes the military revolts at the ballot boxes"?!! Has the Military been in charge this whole time?

IF the military has been "in charge" (which, by the way, is a 1000 times different to the patriots "being in control", then WHY would Trump want them to revolt? Contradictory ideas.

This is a big problem that certain sections of the Great Awakening community face: they get so caught up in a subjective interpretation of what's going on, WITHOUT applying critical thinking (i.e. looking for possible alternative explanations for something and then vetting their own interpretations), and then run and run and run by employing confirmation bias.

I.e. some folks think that somehow, the military has taken over the US, and that the US is under some type of SECRET military occupation (martial law), and that the military is "in charge". But they also seem to ignore (imo) all the counter arguments to that reality, counterarguments based in law, the constitution and critical thinking.

(one example: If the Cabal ruled us and kept us in ignorance in order to decide everything for us, how is enacting secret martial law in order to control us any different? Where is the basis in law, constitutional or otherwise?)

Some folks do not seem to consider alternative explanations for what they observe. Personally, my own thinking aligns more with the reasoning and research of Patel Patriot, as outlined primarily in the Devolution Series.

Note: Q never says the military is in charge or that the military are "in control". Q famously writes "Patriots in control" and in several drops writes "We are in control". But being "in charge" and being "in control" are two different things.

In charge implies someone or something has legal, organizational or ethical authority over (something), but "in control" simply means that someone or something is directing where something is going. ("He was in control of the car", (he gained control of the company")

It's a pretty big leap from the patriots being in a dominant and controlling position on the game board vis-a-vis game theory to the military being in charge under martial law.

To truly vet and find out what is going on, one needs to be able to critically question one's own ideas and entertain alternative explanations.

In my opinion, the force of influence held by folks like Joe Rambo is largely emotionally based and non-critical (i.e. not critical thinking based). He may be right, or he might not be. But wishful thinking and ignoring confirmation bias is antithetical to Q-type thinking.

Think for yourself. Trust yourself. Research for yourself. Be in control of yourself. NEVER let someone else DRIVE YOU.

Q2604