Should I think Gabbard, holding a recently-fringed anti war stance, who hasn't otherwise been notable or drawn attention to systemic problems of the US Gov, and who polls low is going to win the Election, or otherwise convince a large audience against war? Or should I assume Gabbard isn't going to get elected as president, her intention isn't to present a message, it is to make money from campaigning and then endorsing the democratic candidate (probably Warren as VP and Biden as President). And that, since she doesn't present a useful message (like Ron Paul did by addressing multiple avenues of systemic problems (the money system, war, etc)), the anti war message alone is a pointless message - look how fast the goldfish democrats went from anti war to pro war.
Should I think the corrupted FBI suddenly decided to prosecute Epstein despite their corruption? Or should I assume the Epstein case is there to collect and contain any material held by people other than Epstein on running democratic candidates (one in particular).
At least one youtuber is appropriately skeptic (despite being wrong most of the time on the model) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjuegava1AU
Hopeless Naivete
Re: Hopeless Naivete
Recently-fringed, as in, among democrats, the position of being anti war has recently become a fringe position. I know she has always been anti war, but even that seemingly originally stemmed from the naive position on her part that the US funds terrorists to oppose bad people/governments/dictators.
Re: Hopeless Naivete
the US does fund terrorists to oppose bad people/governments/dictators
Get The Empire Unmasked here
Re: Hopeless Naivete
US funds terrorists to gain strategic power/advantage, not to oppose bad X. The "to oppose bad X" is the front story given to low-mid rank military personnel, and if a bad government is opposed, that is just a side effect. I don't care to continue explaining English or nuance, so, that's all from me.