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

©2025 Poal.co

985

  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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] [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.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt 2y (edited 2y)

So either someone is competent but being deceitful to achieve a means or they're being completely incompetent but still deceitful in achieving the same means?

*edit - Useful cogs until they become worn out and need to be replaced with fresh ones.

[–] • 0 pt 2y (edited 2y)

So either someone is competent but being deceitful to achieve a means

Almost.

It's more, if he is competent, then this isn't severely ineffective and damaging timing, which would make it malice.

if he isn't competent, then how did he get into office versus competent opposition.

The first rule of avoiding easy and misleading conclusions, is never to assume things happen by accident.