Thanks for the thoughtful reply, dec.

Variation in opinion in and of itself isn't a problem, but is often a plus (it can help generate stereoscopic perspective). To my mind, my comment above isn't concerned with based and discerning opinions, but rather is written in consideration of what seem to me to be emotionalistic knee-jerk reactions that are then employed as the basis for 'opinion'.

I think I'm on the same page as you re: 'Tulsi worship' or 'RFK Jr Worship', which adds to my point; the opposite also seems apparent to me. One might frame it as 'anti-Tulsi worship' or 'anti-RFK jr worship'. In other words, any opinion or view formulated on the basis of emotional reactionism - whether overly positive or overly against - is problematic in nature. It's not discernment. It's reactionism.

Likewise, the 'self-righteous' comment is directed not to discerning perspectives that may, for example, see Gabbard as a less-than-desirable ally or as a fundamentally destructive agent (e.g. a DS asset). Rather, the impulse to self-righteousness is a highly emotional impulse, infused with certain intellectual positions that see the flaws in others above and beyond one's own shortcomings. In short, not a balanced discerning view.

Thus, my comment is more concerned with what is driving people's views and (re)actions, rather than something like diversity of opinion or disagreement.

I think its a valid concern or topic. Q's admonition to be wary of how emotions can affect critical thinking and to eschew allowing emotions to take over (2816) comes to mind.

In summary, all I am saying is (and not necessarily to anons like you, so one needs to discern whether what I'm saying applies to oneself or not): Don't just knee-jerk react because Gabbard was once a democrat or because she has held (or even now holds) political positions that you (the generic you) personally disagree with. Try to consider what impact or effect she might be having on the overall battlefield, who she may be in a position to influence, and whether it's valuable or not to build alliances, not because of uniform agreement on all topics, but because of the contributions that some players might make.

So, to be more concrete: As far as I understand RFK jr., I think he is certainly NOT material for Trump team (i.e. as VP? no way) and I also think in general, his many positions are or have been squarely in opposition to the objectives of Maga (or the Great Awakening). But that opinion doesn't stop me from considering what benefits his actions or role might be bringing (conscious or unconscious) to the objectives of the Great Awakening and ultimate Trump Victory.

Just a final note: you mentioned Stew Peters. I have a particular detestation for disinfo operatives and opportunistic pretend 'truth tellers' who are motivated by personal ambitions or nefarious agendas rather than by pure and patriotic motivations. I'll own up to that position (detestation), and won't go so far so say that it doesn't impact my discernment, but I'm OK with it as far as it goes, and acknowledging or recognizing it is, imo, an important protection.

I don't have much of an issue if someone's view re: Gabbard is different to mine. I only have an issue if it comes across as reactive, as being emotionally driven, rather than actually discernment based and balanced (balanced meaning considering various conflicting views and then choosing the one that rings true the most to oneself.)

But I've written far too much on this topic! Thanks in any case for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate being encouraged to "Think about the people that are all on the same side, but different from you". I hope to and aspire to do that, but maybe I could make more effort there.

Hopefully, this conversation has enhanced our respective views. (I don't have any objection to the view that Gabbard should not be at CPAC... I don't really have an opinion on that point!)