I included the lead-in with the name for the context. But what do you hear after "Thank you Alveda"?

https://rumble.com/vmwrb1-live-president-donald-j-trump-in-perry-ga.html at 1:34:14

His reaction may also be cos he believes someone close to him died from covid.

I think they meant that we would let Putin be, unlike the DS?

link. Consider the results of shifting from the first to the second version of "sacrifice".

Fair. Add "nsfw" ahead of "youtube.com" in the URL and you won't have to.

Good point

Could it be the mics have been added, then Biden relayered over? I mean still a terrible job, but possible? I don't know enough to be sure it's green screen.

Media suggests it is an optical illusion, conditioning people to reject the possibility of manipulation: https://patriots.win/p/12hkvukV7M/media-green-screen-joe-is-optica/

person of garden*

uh is this real?

Good sentiments. I wish everyone the same

It is, more commonly as far as I can tell.

To be fair and pedantic, the rhyming is decent, but the meter sucks.

Thank you, interesting. I see many stories and posts about resignations, but wasn't sure how the number compared to previous periods, and whether it was truly anomalous.

The ways in which vegetarianism boosts your frequency may surprise you. It is not as simple as changing diet, it carries a particular signature of intention, which you can effect in other ways too.

Re protein, recommend supplementing with a product of your choice. Quality protein is important, and many people who eat meat regularly don't even get enough.

Can you please give some more info on this? Specifically around the assertion that findings indicate she did not exist?

I appreciate where you're coming from, and some clarification will help you get your point across.

"Energy is life and energy supports life and life utilizes energy". This doesn't make sense. If energy is life, it doesn't support life. You are either introducing a non-existent distinction, or conflating two concepts.

"except in cases where you are eating dead food, such as meat". I sympathize with vegetarianism and veganism for a number of reasons but this is not one of them. How is meat "dead food"? Is this supported by any chemical differentiation? For me, dead food is more like the packaged, highly processed stuff, long distant from its original form.

"We are electro magnetic. The emotional field is magnetic, and the mental field of thought is electric.". Are you invoking a metaphor from physics? If so, it's best to make that explicit. I understand what you mean but a lot of people will see this as nonsense.

Yes the message is important.

And, in an important sense, the way it's written is the message.

Agreed. "Conspiracy theory", and now "conspiracy" have been corrupted in the popular understanding to mean "not true", "silly", etc.

Conspiracies are everywhere. Conspiracy theories speculate about that fact. A conspiracy theory with sufficient evidence to put it beyond reasonable doubt, is simply a theory evidencing a conspiracy.

"Stationary". Typo, or Freudian slip?

The military haven't been in power since 2015. I get that you might already know this, but your comment sounded to me as if you were saying this was the military losing in 2020 and attempting to hold on to power.

Also if you have any info or sources on the actual election fraud allegations, let me know. Seems hard to find.

I've considered for some time the issues you seem to have (fortunately) developed an allergy to. For a while, I felt allergic, but couldn't pin down what was bugging me.

The article linked is what I'd call a mild version of a discourse which leads much further. To be brief I won't address the details of that whole journey. Since you ask about identifying propaganda, the key part of the article linked is this: "This is a lesson that therapy has taken to heart, but one that "pure science" continues to neglect.".

primary alarm bell: the subtle disparagement of "pure science". This signifies a mistrust of rationality and evidence-based reasoning, and ultimately, the pursuit of objective truth.

Also, the linked article is badly argued. The idea that knowing is "half" the battle is nowhere disproved. Of course, it is difficult to quantify respective portions of hypothetical battles in abstract ways! But that's kind of the point of using a shortcut like "knowing is half the battle" in the first place.

Surely knowing is some quantity of the battle? Then what quantity is it? If it can't be defined, then is it really true that "pure science" would be behind a 50% proposition that couldn't be supported? And what do we do about it anyway? What's the rest of this article's battle?

hence the second alarm-bell: vagueness. The article applies a firm conclusion to an ill-defined argument. The fallacy against which the article purports to argue is not well-defined, so neither is the counter-argument.

There are further alarm bells but those are the main ones I'd pick. I don't know what else is in the course (though I'd be interested to see, based on this). But I can say that this part is veering toward bullshit of the kind that goes further, ultimately undermining people's confidence in truth. Worse, making them feel self-righteous about that position. Even worse, using people with good intentions to distribute a hidden agenda.