Are you sure? I use firefox on an android phone (desktop mode) and some time ago noticed that things changed, and I couldn't vote on posts at all (the button was gone). Turning off desktop mode isn't a serious option, and the only way I could get full functionality back was to turn off community styling. Looks the same to me today as it did when I first noticed the change.
I saw people saying "Trump 2.0 is different. MOSSAD compromised him" and all I can think is, why are you even here? Have you forgotten what's been going on for the past decade? This isn't a general republican hangout space.
Who is doing the better investigation? Probably not the one who says the victim spoke to her in a dream.
Kash probably already knows the answer, but it is not the right time to reveal it to the public. Timing is everything.
Q has always been a psyop. That's the point from the start. The military manipulating us to "wake us up" and start thinking in certain ways and looking certain places. The question is whether it was a (significant enough) deception. Not all payops are bad.
Start asking them questions. Have them think about this: How big was Epstein's villainy? Why was he protected for so long? Who all was in on it? What organizations? What systems would have to be compromised? What lengths would such people go to for power and to avoid justice?
Then ask: How would you take them down? Could it be done without the bloodshed of a full-scale war? What qualities would the public face of change have to have? A clean record, a total rejection of Epstein's advances, an immunity to bribery?
How long are you willing to wait? What has she done to earn that patience? What unique insight has she had, not shared by other prominent right-wing voices, that's later been vindicated "future proves past"-style? Particularly post-Charlie Kirk? The fruits of her gossip have been division, chaos, and confusion. Candace knows what to say to enthrall the conspiracy-minded, and how to say it, to make you feel like she has something worthwhile to share. She'll lead you on forever if you let her.
Questioning things is good, but there's a difference between honestly seeking answers in the evidence, and calling for another round of "questioning" on evidence that doesn't fit your desired answer. I've seen liberals and flat earthers do the second one a lot. Sometimes it's necessary in order to solidify things into a "big picture". But it gets out of control when you stop "questioning" the view you've sided with.
"I'm just asking questions" is a lame excuse to spout nonsense, especially when the one saying it often goes beyond into making real accusations and alleging to have "more evidence" that never gets revealed despite promises...
It can be a useful tool for learning. When I'm exploring a new subject on my own, I can ask it things like "Is there a term for _" or "has anyone ever thought of doing _"
The idea is to use it to help me know what to look into when I'm going into something completely blind, to translate to and from jargon, and to help align my thoughts with the "traditions" of the people immersed in the field. It should absolutely not be used as the sole learning resource.
I could see teachers using AI to help create curricula and lesson plans. If you're letting AI take the wheel, you're using it completely wrong in my opinion.
What "facts" has she actually provided rather than simply asserted with hollow persuasive techniques or relayed from some "anonymous source"?