So to take what you said and expand on it; Someone does research (which typically doesn't happen), they'll come to find it's from the Victorian Era. Realizing this, they'll have to argue that this is not true because the Victorian Era was about 200 years ago.
Their argument will then be "this is simply not true, the sea levels haven't remained the same for thousands of years, only hundresd of years". I think it's a win regardless.
Reigning in these dipshit federal agencies regulatory power https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-deference-power-of-federal-agencies/
This is such a shit take. Losers are surprised by victory. Winners prepare for both outcomes and attack accordingly. My guess is the ensuing retardation he inherited was like buying a rotted house knowing it was going to get worse when you started the demo. He knew what was coming and that was part of the plan.
What type of info should I be looking for? Before the first pregnancy it was pretty much a blind sided moment when they came at us with the "your blood will kill your baby" talk so our research was mostly trying to figure out if we could avoid it back then. Now, obviously, the stakes are a little higher, but regardless, I'd be interested if you have a particular topic in mind when talking about that info.
Timing is everything. My best guess would be (and taking from the comments) election fraud is popping, the trials are failing, hunter is being indicted, shits bubbling back up from pizzagate… the flare could’ve been an effort to lock it down
When I was new to their (Candance, Ben, Charlie, Tim (gay) Poole) brand of outreach I'll admit I was initially drawn in because it was nice to hear someone vocalize some of my thoughts and views. But I feel like time after time videos of their confrontations come up and it just turns into these chess matches of trying to make the other person sound stupid. I'm fine with that when it's a 1:1 conversation, but when you come out sounding petty or argumentative because you sought it out you wind up sounding just like the people we're up against.
I get it, don't play nice because it gives them a longer leash, but their type of combative and mostly fruitless back and forths are not going to be what gets people interested in seeing things from a different perspective.
Wonder if it’s moves/countermoves. They want to remove him but a leak that he’s having an emergency by someone not on their payroll gives you two options. Let her be right and then deal with having to explain away anything else she may have reported on previously which is a Pandora’s box. OR let him remain, discredit her post and find another way to accomplish this later.
This would all be based on the premise that she’s on the right side and wants him to stick until the election.