Ah I see. Okay well I'm not sure why you'd suggest the possibility, and even fight for it, when there is little evidence to suggest that it's true.
You said earlier that they may have killed Babbitt because she was a loose end. If that's true, then therefore those that witnessed the fake death would also be loose ends, since they would know the truth. So there is an inconsistency.
I'm not exercised about what you think, you're free to think what you want. I'm just confused how/why you come to your conclusions without evidence.
It's like if someone claims that the 20 year old cashier at the grocery store is actually a robot, or something wild like that. If your neighbor or peer informs you of a bombshell claim like that, you'd be curious as to why right? It seems so unbelievable, you'd want to know, what is it that makes you think that your cashier is a robot? What have they done to make that a possibility?
That's all. What you're claiming seems very outlandish to me, and I'm just confused on why you (and others) come to these conclusions, but I suppose it all comes down to "because I think so." That's fine, I guess I just don't operate like that.
I can only speak for myself but personally almost everyone I know got their 2nd dose weeks or months ago and I've not seen a single death or major side effect.
Mkay, but you realize there's more you can look at from that footage right? There are named people in the footage, who have families and relatives, who have given interviews. If what you're saying is true, then all of this information would need to be fabricated as well. If I were you, I'd want to dig further. It just seems odd to me that you don't.
Essentially what you're doing is looking at a story from only one angle, when you need to open your eyes and see from other perspectives.
Like, it wouldn't make sense at all to stage the death of a person, only to kill her later, and not kill any of the others involved. If she's a loose end, why aren't the others in the video? WOuldn't they have been "suicided" as well? It makes no sense this way.
You seem to have come to your conclusions by believing what others tell you and show you, instead of doing concrete research.
But you're not drawing evidence from the video, you're drawing your own conclusion. You believe without proof.
I'm not here to do your homework for you, but if you choose to believe in something just because someone told you it happened one way, then you're no better than the people who just regurgitate MSM talking points.
Trump used notes in his speeches all the time, and teleprompters.
It's a tall kid man. Kids aren't all the same height
Almost every politician and speaker uses notes, or even a teleprompter. Many don’t, that’s true. But every single president and politician that we’ve had used notes in their speeches, especially in cases where they have speechwriters so they might not be acutely familiar with what’s being said
…you mean a kid standing up?
You trust the MSM to tell you everything that’s happening? That might be your first mistake.
They have their own agenda that may not align with what you think, but you bring up an excellent point. If she were a crisis actor, then of course the MSM would have capitalized on this to squash down the trump presidency. If the MSM had planned this, they’d want the world to know. And yet they didn’t.
Are you certain there was no funeral or are you just trusting this narrative?
I think the whole “go through” issue is a you problem.
I think a comma certainly would have helped you, but for anyone else seeing the fact that “will go” rhymes with “dildo” makes the version much easier, cleaner, smoother, and better. Your version is clunky and awkward
Nothing, it just doesn’t make sense to be believing this whole story because of a video clip when there’s plenty more research you can do.
Don’t believe your lying eyes.
Okay. Well wouldn't you want to dig more and be sure? I mean that's a MAJOR thing if you were right, but it seems odd to me that you're sharing the belief so readily with others but you haven't even compiled any supporting evidence.
Okay so you're not sure, you're just speculating
Right but wouldn't killing her then and there accomplish the same thing? Why fake it if they wanted her dead anyway?
The video isn't appearing to load for me.
I'm neither actually.
I work as a product manager for a manufacturing company. If I got paid to be here I'd be on a LOT more often.
Why leave her alive only to kill her later?
You say "apparently," and you're not sure of the crisis actor she resembles. Did you dig in on this yourself?
I ask because there's another thread at the top of Conspiracies about how her widower is suing.
So she's still alive?
Can you point out one of those impossible appearances like she was two places on the planet? I think that would be pretty damning evidence!
I assume you mean Biden.
So what does that mean?
Look if your theories are above questioning then nobody knows for certain if they're true. Asking questions is how people learn. Conspiracies are founded on asking questions.
Okay well you can't just call my question absurd without stating why.
So if we could, for lack of a better term here, "circle back"?
I understand that Barnwell is someone that looks like Clinton, but she’s never been put out in the open AS Hillary Clinton. She hasn’t spoken AS Hillary Clinton, or been photographed AS Hillary Clinton. She’s always Theresa Barnwell, is she not?
There's also the chance that she sprouted wings and flew away. If we are to include all possibilities, it gets us further than the truth. Eventually it has to come down to probability.
If she were a crisis actor, MANY other things need to also line up for this to take place. All her past relationships, husband, family, parents, kids, childhood friends...all have to be factored in. If she were a crisis actor, did any of them know? If she's not dead, does her family know? her friends?
Some that were in the room are getting arrested now, so why wouldn't they speak out, even if they had no proof themselves? Wouldn't that get more of the public on their side that something fishy is going on? It wouldn't make sense for them to stay silent.
Why shouldn't we exclude it when it is so unlikely that it's true? Why entertain something that is entirely based on speculation?