the public knows why. If they still haven't woken up, they can still go back to the video and watch it.
The public would only know if they watched it. OANN is not on my cable service. Most normies watch CNN or Fox or (getting to the outliers here) Newsmax. So how are people going to see it? Most people I know rely only on YT, they don't go to sites that sneek in hard core porn, like 8-kun/etc. So I think the idea that this is going to get widespread 'normie' distribution is wrong.
I understand, but - If he had said 'yes, we have a solid plan' everyone would be ecstatic, but if he says 'no plan', everyone says, no worries, that's what he has to say. So what's the net net - it doesn't matter what he (or anyone) says or does ... so how does anyone ever get closure? This could go on literally forever!
Yeah, I noticed the BLM post in the heading. Wasn't there when I first saw the graphic. But it doesn't matter (apologies if it hurt your eyes :) ). The point is, years ago, as a scientist / engineer, I had my own doubts and decided to dig deeper. I read a LOT of stuff. The reason I posted that particular graphic is because it did a great job of summing up just how dramatic 4C is. I can't tell you how much I researched that. I disagree that increased CO2 in the atmosphere has "little effect" on climate, but its way too complicated to hash out here. (if 'little effect' = a few degrees C, then that proves my point). But I'm also of the opinion, personally, that we need to get away from oil for other reasons, and developing electric cars, hybrid technology, solar panels, etc is a good thing 'regardless'. And PERSONALLY, I think we need to pursue nuclear technology very aggressively as nuclear is the ONLY way we can move forward while also reducing warming. But that opinion flies in the face of most libs. Interestingly, Bill Gates is aggressively pursuing nuclear also. Strange bedfellows.
Ah, got it. OK - here's how I interpret that, FWIW. Certain documents are indeed illegal to possess; I'm sure you would agree it's illegal to possess top secret military documents, as an example. But more generally, it is illegal to possess any document marked by the government or military as 'classified'. So in that context, if these documents were deemed / marked / stamped 'classified', then it's a true statement that it is illegal to possess them (or traffic in them). Wikileaks intentionally released thousands of classified docs, some benign, some actually damaging to the government. The Emails in question (Clintons) were deemed classified because she was SOS at the time.
But I agree, the CNN context was kinda bogus; and Cuomo is s dick.
If some 'citizen journalist' got his/her hands on a truly top secret military doc that revealed that the US was about to invade China, for example, and leaked it out on some YT channel (and blew the cover of the op), I would expect everyone would be quite happy for that person to be arrested / charged. My point being - documents being illegal seems reasonable to me in some contexts.
My last paragraph above wasn't a critique at all on your letter, of course - it was just something that was triggered in my mind when I read your words. And to add to it, I have friends who are doctors, friends who are biologists, Chemists, etc. I've known them since I was at University with them - 40 years ago, so I trust them explicitly. When I talk to them about some of the stuff being discussed here (in relation to vaccines), by self-described experts, they pretty much fall off their chair laughing. This notion that the vaccines are mind-controlling, or location tracking, is just completely nuts to them. But can they DISPROVE it? No. And that raises yet another issue - it's virtually impossible to prove a negative. It came up on another thread that John Roberts is a pedo. My question in response is, how could he ever PROVE he was NOT a pedo? If I accused you of being a pedo, how would YOU go about proving that I was wrong? Once I make that accusation, I've potentially damaged your reputation and nothing you do or say can recover it, despite the total false nature of the accusation. These are the things that really bother me about today's 'everyone is an expert' mentality.
Well, that's a huge topic, but one line of thinking is this. Early in the pandemic, there was a massive shortage of ALL PPE - masks, gowns, you name it. What they didn't want to have happen was every tom/dick/harry (joe public) rushing out to buy masks, like they did with toilet paper, because that would have exacerbated the shortage of masks for hospital workers. So the message was, don't bother with masks. Later, as masks became available for hospitals, it was OK to have the public start acquiring them. Also, more studies were carried out on the transmission and masks were found to have LIMITED use in limiting the trajectory of expelled (sneezed / coughed / shouted) particles. Pretty minor benefit in the scheme of things, but a slight advantage. Personally I believe they do stop longer-distance spread of particles FROM me TO others; they are useless at protecting ME from OTHERS. But I'm not trying to force that opinion on anyone, just giving my take.
CNN SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL FOR YOU AND I TO LOOK BUT NOT FOR THEM
You lose credibility when you make claims like this. When did CNN say this? I would suggest revising this.
My other, more general observation is this. Yes, we live in a time when everyone has access to everything (pretty much).
But the problem with that is, we cannot see the forest for the trees. There are too many rabbit-holes to go down.
That's why we have 'experts' who dedicate their lives to specific topics, whether it be ancient historians, drug researchers, scientists, or whatever. It's great saying we are all citizen journalists, but we are simply not qualified in many cases. I read the other day a person arguing about 'flat earth'. He said something like, it makes no sense that we are spinning at high speed, and that the earth is spinning around the sun, etc etc. One has to agree, intuitively, it's a bit strange to think we are spinning like that. But consider the situation with regards to atoms, molecules, etc. Does that seem a bit hard to grasp also? It took a team of fucking geniuses to figure out how to split the atom and build the atom bombs. Intuitively, can you imagine that taking a small handful of a material, and squashing it violently, could result in a bomb capable of destroying an entire city? I find it hard to comprehend even as a trained physicist and engineer. But I accept that there are experts who know this stuff, and that I'll never have the training to fully understand this. Or how to put a rocket into space, or how to create a vaccine. It seems madness to think that 'citizen journalists' can second-guess this sort of thing.
Take a look at this simple graphic; this is the basic info that convinced me there is an issue. https://xkcd.com/1732/
Basically, on the earth, throughout history, the **average **temperature has never been more than 4C colder than it is today. For a long time, I couldn't see why that was significant. Surely, a mere 4C is 'nothing', temperature-wise (about 10F). But then you have to remember, this is the AVERAGE, across the entire world, over an entire year. If you drop the average temp by 4C you get an ice age, because by shifting the temp down by 4C, the winter snows don't melt. Hence, (the area currently known as) Boston was covered in ice back then. So get your head around the fact that a 4C drop is enough to cause the ice age. Then, consider a 4C rise from today; with a 4C rise, the icecaps melt, sea level rises, and storms become violent. Then look at the chart, at the very bottom; the current predictions are for the temp to rise by as much as 4C.
Again, the thing that 'did it' for me was to realize that 4C is such a big deal. I'm an engineer / scientist, FWIW.
Dems have been against sec 230 for some time. Its universally disliked, perhaps for different reasons. Just one simple example - https://www.cnet.com/news/democrats-and-republicans-agree-that-section-230-is-flawed/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-11/section-230-is-hated-by-both-democrats-and-republicans-for-different-reasons
But this is how misinformation works. You post it; someone else sees it and then references it as 'evidence'. Pretty soon, people think it's irrefutable proof because there are 'so many pieces of evidence being posted, it MUST be true'!
https://qanon.pub/index2.html - lists ALL Q-drops.
If you want to claim the 'Hillary Clinton will be arrested ...' part is not Q, fine, but then the reply by Q says "HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross border run. Passport approved to be flagged effective 10/30 @ 12:01am. Expect massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing the US to occur. US M’s will conduct the operation while NG activated. Proof check: Locate a NG member and ask if activated for duty 10/30 across most major cities."
But #2 also asks "HRC detained, not arrested (yet). " This link will place you there - https://qanon.pub/index2.html#1
If I were to make such a claim here, about you - that is, call you a pedo - would you feel obligated to respond to me in any way? If the assertion is blatantly false, wouldn't you just ignore me as a crazy dude on the internet? Responding to me would dignify and continue the assertion. Put another way; if you were to accuse me of being a pedo, and I know I am not a pedo, how would I even begin to prove that I'm not? How does anyone prove they are NOT something? I could be a God-fearing, 'perfect' guy but if you want to believe I'm a pedo, I don't think there's anything I could possibly to do prove you wrong. So - I think I'd just ignore you, which is what Roberts is obviously doing.
Fair enough. Long before any association with Trump, I found Lindell to be an unpleasant guy to watch - nothing sinister, just a typical brash salesperson peddling a dubious product (I've bought myPillows and don't like them, and that retro 'jingle' drives me to insanity!). So I've always tended to ignore him. My normie friends also find him unpleasant - like everyone's worst idea of a used-car salesman. So the thought that normies would go out of their way to find and watch a video by him is a bit of a stretch. Their logic - if there's any substance, it'll be summarized on the MSM and I'll watch it on the 6pm news! Sad but true!