It's not that is sounds outrageous. It's that there are other very plausible reasons (as far as I can see) to explain things about Erika, and the idea that she not only doesn't benefit, but suffers and loses a lot, make more sense.
Of course, Candy's intense attacks are a very good negative marker. (I.e. the fact that Owens is pushing the narrative is a good marker indicating how fake the narrative is.)
but its true.... but its real
What is real? And, how do you know? Or do you simply believe or suspect, and equate that with actual knowledge and fact?
But its true. Sounds outrageous but its real.
It's not that is sounds outrageous. It's that there are other very plausible reasons (as far as I can see) to explain things about Erika, and the idea that she not only doesn't benefit, but suffers and loses a lot, make more sense.
Of course, Candy's intense attacks are a very good negative marker. (I.e. the fact that Owens is pushing the narrative is a good marker indicating how fake the narrative is.)
What is real? And, how do you know? Or do you simply believe or suspect, and equate that with actual knowledge and fact?