If only there were a commonly accepted way of communicating sarcasm online we wouldn't have this problem /s.
Phoenix Pedes, you know what to do, yeah?
Ah. I missed it.
Yeah but he's not Jesus Christ himself so too many here still won't credit him with anything.
The evidence to support his claims are found in pizzagate research others have done. Eyewitness testimony is considered valid evidence in a court of law. The guy sounded like he was speaking from real experience to me. I would give it weight as a juror.
Who said you had no choice?
Sucks he's in a bar, hurts his credibility, but sounded pretty coherent, cogent, and honest to me.
It's not a matter of opinion that THAT is what I asked for help with in this post. It's right there in black and white. And I haven't expressed any concern that some dumbass's feelings might be hurt, dumbass. I'm trying to come up with a term that will feel COMPELLING and ACCURATE to people who don't ALREADY see the issue as you and I do. You may not care whether you're persuasive or not to people who don't already see the world the way you do, but I happen to find it quite satisfying, and my post made that clear, so you chiming in is really just fucking annoying.
Fucking retard.
Ok so you really didn't pay full attention to the assignment did you.
Ok then don't bother replying to the post because I specifically asked for ideas that would be accurate and yet hopefully not rise to the level of hyperbole in the minds of those who don't already think like us. If you don't care about that standard then don't participate, I don't care. As I said, I agree that "invasion" is accurate to a degree, but I don't think it passes the test I'm proposing here. (This is my alt account by the way if you can't tell from my usernames)
100%. They give themselves some deniability by placing them in South Carolina instead of Arkansas but the parallels are undeniable. If you fuck with the Underwoods (Clintons), you die.
I'm glad you asked. The point is obvious for anyone who has seen the show, and that point is told to us plainly by Spacy (playing Underwood) the moment he looks into the camera and speaks to the watchers of the interview directly, rather than to Tucker.
On the show, every time Underwood looks into the camera and breaks that fourth wall, he tells the unmitigated truth about his feelings and intentions regardless of what he's saying or doing in relation to the other characters in the show. He's a reliable narrator because he has no reason to believe that those of us watching at home, clearly froma different universe than his character exists in, has any power whatsoever to thwart the plans he has, so he has no reason not to be honest. If anything, he revels in the chance to be honest because it's a chance to show us how smart he is and dumb he thinks all the people he deals with on this show who aren't aware of our existence are.
Deadpool is actually this kind of character. The movies don't capture it well it's just used for comic relief, but in the comics, Deadpool is actually aware that he's a comic book character, and he has the same knowledge of other comic book characters, even those not in the DC Universe, that the reader, but not the other DC characters, would be aware of. This allows him to play two games: he can converse with the characters in the comics, but he can tell inside jokes the other characters would never get because he's sharing them with us for our benefit and not for theirs.
When Frank Underwood looks into the camera in this interview and says quite plainly "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see" THAT'S the point. He's being a reliable narrator. He's uttering a critical truth. And the conversation that has swirled around the video ever since its release drives home his point: AI and deep fake technology and sinister political forces around the world (that he, when he's not looking at the camera, represents, as a fork-tongued liar who says whatever he needs to get elected but inwardly is a ravenous wolf--this meta commentary driven even deeper by the fact that Spacy in real life IS in fact a ravenous wolf) have made it so that WE MUST ACTIVATE OUR CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IF WE'RE GOING TO SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT TO THE TRUTH.
And wouldn't you know it? That's exactly what this video accomplished. Look at all the comments and questions people have made and asked about it. People can't help it. It seems too strange.
"Is this real?"
"Is this a deep fake?"
"Why would Tucker sit down with Spacy?"
"Why is Spacy talking like that?"
"Is Spacy playing a character or is he really running for President?"
Now, friend, who else that we know of is fond of using this Socratic method to get other people to think critically?
I see this video as a primer of sorts. A "Q-lite" exercise to prime the masses who are yet unfamiliar with Q to start questioning everything they see on TV. It's MASTERFUL.
Won't work out that way. We're not printing debt free treasury dollars at $1,000 per second for nothing.
Yes. Had you watched House of Cards, you would know this.
To throw people off the scent of what it is. You don't think an AI that can see the future knows the impact such statements would make on the overall plan?
Regardless, this whole topic re: Spacey is stupid. Whether he really met with Tucker or not he didn't meet with him as Kevin Spacey, but as Frank Underwood from House of Cards, who ran for President in the show. It's a mock interview no matter how you splice it and the discussion around this topic is embarrassing to the board.
God will everyone just watch House of Cards already so they stop sounding so stupid?
There's nothing confusing about this. Even if Kevin Spacey did sit down with Tucker Carlson, he didn't sit down and get interviewed as Kevin Spacey. He got interviewed as his character from House of Cards, Frank Underwood, whose sole purpose in that show was to become President. It's a mock interview whether Kevin Spacey was really there or not.
Dude. You clearly never saw House of Cards. Even if the interview is real, he's not replying to Tucker as himself, but as his most famous television character, Frank Underwood, who yes, was running for President in the show.
My God people. The efforts you're putting into replies of this clearly mock interview is embarrassing.
Bro. You should have read the comments in the other threads on this topic before posting this. He was playing his Frank Underwood character from House of Cards and it wasn't even a real interview.
May 2024. Should be at about 1.7 trillion debt free treasury dollars by then according the US Debt Clock.
Why is he playing the House of Cards character in this? What's his angle?
My contention, friend, is that Rudy will be fine.
-
He's not dumb, he knows how to protect his assets, and I doubt he's scrambling at the moment to try to hide any of them through his LLC's because he likely has done so all along as any smart lawyer would. Those assets are simply not owned by HIM and this judgment is against HIM. He will likely lose very little of that which he CONTROLS via any LLC's or trusts he would have already owned prior to the judgment and there's a mount everest's worth of case law protecting him in this way no matter what any particular judge may try and say. If they break case law in his case he'll appeal as high as he needs to go in order to win, and he will.
-
He's already appealing this case. He's filing for bankruptcy in case that's drawn out or doesn't go well but the case was a joke and he knows he'll win his appeal. If not, he'll take it to SCOTUS and will win there.
-
There's a reason people file for bankruptcy, and it's not just for fun. It's a legal protection that allows you to keep a large portion of your assets. Why do you think it's there? That's literally what it's for. You can link to any article you want. It doesn't change the fact that bankruptcy exists literally so that you don't go "bankrupt" when your debts grow larger than your ability to repay, or in case you get sued and are unable to repay everything in the manner prescribed by your judgment without going totally BROKE.
Get over it.
Lol oh did the article say that? Oh... those writers are so smart and honest. We should totally listen to them.
I'm just teasing you. I really don't care.