There are so many other corrupt things government is doing that they are totally open about, or if not are easily verifiable and the source material is all out in the open. There's absolutely no reason to ever need to rely on poorly sourced or questionable information to make a point about government being corrupt.
I feel like first we need to get more people on board with the fact government is 100% corrupted, then we can go searching for the full extent of corruption. Until then, it is best to stick to easily verifiable stuff, as the less verifiable and more outlandish something is, the more likely the people that need to hear about government corruption will ignore it.
I like how the person he is talking to says that "complications" are OK because we know what they are. Oh, so it's OK if people die from heart problems, because we know they are dying from heart problems due to "complications" from the vaccine? Holy clown world moly.
Instead of "evil" when talking to normies try "corrupt". You have to work in stages when it comes to red pilling normies, you can't just jump straight to saying everything in the news is fake, every government on the planet is evil and working against the population they are supposed to be governing, especially don't start off with ritual sacrifice of children. I'm not saying to ignore these subjects altogether, just that you shouldn't start straight from these topics. Your average normie needs to be further down the red pill track before they will even consider merely discussing these topics, usually they will dismiss you entirely without even letting you say anything, and once they dismiss you in this fashion the chances they will ever accept a redpill from you become incredibly close to 0. Someone else will have to give them the redpill, maybe by that time it will have become a suppository instead.
People routinely crop images on this site to present things in a way that manipulates context. Likewise there are a lot of people on this website that will not actually look into anything any further, so they will see this post and take it at face value, despite the fact it is hiding critical context. At absolute best this is an incredibly low effort post, which I find unlikely, since he clearly went out of his way to search for gateway pundit and trash on Brave. Infact, you can tell he went out of his way to crop the screenshot because A. Its clearly a mobile browser and B. you cant see the top section with the time and battery life of his phone, showing that at minimum he 100% cropped the photo. Context, being of utmost importance, makes it incredibly likely it was cropped on purpose with the intent to deceive. The reason for the deception could vary, I'd wager internet points is pretty high on the list, but it is deception none the less.
Hardly "just sharing information" when you crop something out that 100% changes the context of your post completely such that it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I didn't even come at you in an angry way, and you are the one that so craftily cut out the fact its a Wikipedia result, right above it, indeed, the literal first result, is gateway pundits website, where surprise surprise, Brave didn't slap any fake news label or anything of the sort on the result!
Wikipedia regardless of its faults is still going to be one of the most if not the most revelant page for a wide majority of searches, be it people for birthdays, organization ownership, etc. Sure, there are very glaring issues with the content moderation on wikipedia, but that doesn't change the relevance of the data it does have in relation to what people search. Mind you this is a browser that openly advertises itself as producing similar results to Google. Until there is a viable alternative to Wikipedia that isn't so controlled it is tough to produce a better result than Wikipedia for a lot of search topics. Plus, what do you want them to do? Censor Wikipedia on their searches entirely? The whole reason people are switching search engines is because of censorship and privacy concerns, quite a slippery slope to start censoring sources we don't like, no?
Also, within the context of this post which I was replying to, this person has framed his post as if it was people from Brave themselves that went out of their way to label gateway pundit as fake news, when the reality of the situation is he very obviously cropped out the WIKIPEDIA logo right under it showing this was simply pulling a result from a Wikipedia page. Ironically enough, he kept in his screenshot the fact that Brave produced Gateway pundits actual website as the first result, didn't slap any extra labels on it or anything.
What you have cropped out is that this is pulling automatically from a Wikipedia page, which will happen anytime there is a Wikipedia page for the search you are doing. It isn't like Brave themselves are sitting there writing any of it. Funny how you cropped that part out though, right?
Yes "yawn", calls for investigations are a joke at this point. Can't help but yawn, "investigation" has become code word for "doing nothing". You aren't yawning at stuff like this? Might want to get your ability to yawn checked out bro. Yawning is an important part of any patriots diet.
Yawn, more calls for investigations? Who needs an investigation when they don't bother hiding a thing anymore. All an investigation would do is turn up more evidence. We already have evidence galore, video, witnesses, etc. What we need is action to be taken in light of the massive amount of evidence of corruption we already have, not some stupid money wasting investigation to find more evidence that will promptly be filed away and never made use of.
This times 10. This would never work as a top down edict forced upon everybody by a centralized global totalitarian state, but if it were to naturally happen as a response to government over reach that communities started organically developing something like this would be great, almost necessary even if we are to get disconnected from this tyrannical globalist machine.
Natural outcome of having money be the primary reason people become doctors. All the government had to do was offer up a bit of $$$ and they did whatever they were told to. Helps that they were conditioned from birth to obey authority unquestioningly as well.
Legalize drugs, would end the cartels instantly, destroy big pharma, work towards ending homelessness, remove incentives for coming here illegally, and like you say dont just let it be open season. It was the same way with alcohol prohibition, you only can pull the morals BS with people for so long, those who want alcohol or drugs will get it, cartels and gangs will form to produce them. Much better to have it out in the open, where you actually know what you are paying for. Fentanyl wouldn't be an issue then because nobody fucking wants fentanyl. The ONLY reason fentanyl is even a common thing now is A. It's cheap to produce but mainly B. It's analogues were for the longest time completely legal in most countries, still might be depending on the analogue and the country. There's a reason why if you go to any Lab that tests drugs and posts their findings online you'll see a ton of fentanyl analogues.
By the way, the exact same logic they use to ban drugs gives them precedent to inject you with vaccines you don't want. The precedent of course being whether or not you can choose to consume a substance or not. If the government can prevent you from consuming something they can twist that into making you consume something.
I seem to remember that right before he took office tons of people were being laid off, then shortly after he took office suddenly every where started hiring again. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with that. Also, I hardly consider more people having to work a good thing.
What an absolute waste of plastic and ink for a single jelly bean. Also, who the fuck eats a single jelly bean? I would consider this a wasteful slap in the face more than anything. They are literally training people like dogs "just do what we say and you'll get a treat!" 🤡🌎