Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

  1. he is part of the swamp, and always was. and this is him pretending to be on our side thinking we won't notice.

  2. this is him influence-brokering

  3. this is him pretending to be on the states side. they have to notice the timing too.

One and two are the answer, number three is wishful thinking.

It's an attempt to split the moderate right and the moderate left, and the libertarians, on the issue of cell phone tracking, when this new and effective tactic just had its biggest success against the uniparty regime's control of elections.

The regime doesn't like when you do to it what it does to you everyday.

1. he is part of the swamp, and always was. and this is him pretending to be on our side thinking we won't notice. 2. this is him influence-brokering 3. this is him pretending to be on the states side. they have to notice the timing too. One and two are the answer, number three is wishful thinking. It's an attempt to split the moderate right and the moderate left, and the libertarians, on the issue of cell phone tracking, when this new and effective tactic just had its biggest success against the uniparty regime's control of elections. The regime doesn't like when you do to it what it does to you everyday.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts 2y

At this point, anyone in politics is defacto corrupt.

They have to be. They are killed otherwise. In politics, you are playing a game, corrupted and twisted over decades, and expecting to come out clean.

Keep this in mind when you think of people like Rand, Trump, DeSantis. They are all setup to be your hero, but none of them have actually affected any long-term positive change for their constituents.

It's all a game.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts 2y

he is part of the swamp, and always was. and this is him pretending to be on our side thinking we won't notice.

This. Always was.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt 2y (edited 2y)

There's another option:

>4. Speaking out once light has been shed upon by those not bound by the shackles of secrecy.

I don't trust Rand any more than I trust anyone that's entrenched in the machine but you have to understand, and I'm sure you do, that traction given to external voices may be the only outlet that some internal voices have.

[–] • 1 pt 2y (edited 2y)

I doubt it, and I am right to doubt it, because the end-result of other's "good actions but badly timed" have shown that timing is more a sign of intent, than the apparent intent in public figures very words.

Rand's timing isn't desperate measures by that rule.

It's the regime circling the wagons.

At best it's opportunism, badly timed, which is stupid.

And stupidity which hurts us, helps the enemy, so by definition it's enemy action.

I'm now more certain than ever, which side Rand Paul is on. Thank you for being the sounding board.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt 2y

I'd really highly encourage you to go back and look into both of the Paul's stances, denunciations of and voting history on The Patriot Act and any legislation aligned with. His, and his father's, call for stopping surveillance is nothing new at all.

[–] • 1 pt 2y

I'd really highly encourage you to go back and look into both of the Paul's stances, denunciations of and voting history on The Patriot Act and any legislation aligned with. His, and his father's, call for stopping surveillance is nothing new at all.

What I'm saying is, they are completely ineffective, to the point of incompetence.

Which makes me ask, how did they get into their positions in the first place?

So either they're not incompetent, and this is strategic floundering to keep people complacent (because thats their job) or they are incompetent, and they were allowed into office, and this is strategic floundering to keep people complacent.

I invite you to choose.

The two simplest explanations have the same conclusion.

Living with occam's razor is a bitch.

[–] • 0 pt 2y

2000 Mules is not nearly that influential. Zero chance his announcement had anything to do with it.

[–] • 0 pt 2y (edited 2y)

2000 Mules is not nearly that influential.

agreed

Zero chance

Disagree.

Everything counts to the uniparty.

It's not about the movie, its about the precedent that the tactic sets, turning the regime's own tactics against it.

Nothing personal against you, but I've assumed for a while now you're a glowie or contractor of some sort, so I figure whenever I'm over the target, you showing up to dissuade me is going to be a pretty reliable indicator that I've hit on a narrative direction that I'm not supposed to.

Sometimes the regime's responses to events are more telling than the events themselves.

Rand paul's timing is this, as is yours.

[–] • 0 pt 2y

lmao just because I don't think poo in the street Dinesh's little documentary is something the kikes in DC are afraid of I'm a glowie

Top kek

[–] • 0 pt 2y

lmao just because I don't think poo in the street Dinesh's little documentary is something the kikes in DC are afraid of I'm a glowie Top kek

Actually that has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with multiple posts and comments you made in the past, things that were far too obvious. It's nothing personal purge.