>sex in space
It's an absolute disservice to humanity that we can't get some video footage of adult entertainment professionals doing their thing up there.
What in the hell were they even thinking? Like with the Bud Light thing, WTAF? Someone's got some dirt on lots of people, or they really are just that damned stupid?
I want to believe that information dissemination would truly be a function of "The People" but I think it should be apparent that outfits are just taking marching orders in a different way, now. There's been some morphology, but the "machine" is still there.
So while I think there's a significant amount of "YOU MUST SHOW THEM" still happening, I don't think that's going to stop any time in the next many years as this return of power to "The People" is continuously groomed into a specific position by those that can.
How many anons that actual are anons could ever break 1000, 5000, or 10,000 followers on any real platform? There's a reason for that.
Precisely.
Influencers influencing. Thirst trap with social commentary. It's a pretty powerful combo. She's even Tucker approved, if that builds your confidence in her.
>Would it have been moar palatable if she was ugly?
-
These things were going to happen anyway.
-
They could've been prevented, but weren't.
-
Why is that?
-
Why the pretty actresses?
Anons were asked to think for themselves. They stopped doing that, and are just reacting to commentary, nonstop. Why is that?
Stringent criteria you got there.
>and they can weasel their way back into power with promises of solving the problem.
They already have weaseled their way back in. Can you pick them out in the crowd of trusted voices? They started a long time ago.
>Filtered
>these equations were not derived from observation, yet they are accepted as true by 99.9999% of all physicists.
This is so good. Like having an entire NY style cheesecake all to yourself.
https://www.state.gov/disarming-disinformation/to-vilify-ukraine-the-kremlin-resorts-to-antisemitism/
>What if it was to prevent a big steal?
If it's already being regulated, what would that look like? Who would own one of the platforms that doesn't go under? What's the contingency plan for that person?
Connecting dots, here.
So you have a buncha folks that love them some twitter.
"Last bastion" of free speech, and all that.
Did this move already happen, or was a piece moved to make it happen preemptively to keep control over the narrative?
Can't prove anything, really. So what to believe, what to believe…
?
LOL. Live analysis is all the rage.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1765432329311256887
Fuck it. We’ll do it live! Thursday night, March 7, our live response to Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112050558730232529
I am pleased to inform you that tomorrow night we will be doing a LIVE, Play by Play, of Crooked Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address. I will correct, in rapid response, any and all inaccurate Statements, especially pertaining to the Border and his Weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, A.G.s, and District Attorneys, to go after his Political Opponent, ME (something never done before in this Country!). We did this once before to tremendous success - Beating All Records. It is important for the Country to get the TRUTH!
Maybe. Author was describing Charles Sanders Pierce's "Pragmatic Model". They're similar, but not the same. The conclusion of both descriptions is the same. It's still a "belief" and not "proven", but it's a strong belief accepted by a majority.
Kind of like humans having a huge impact on Climate Change when, in fact, it's very little, but arguing that nuance is almost pointless because you'll get trounced by a 99.9% "authority" on the subject.
Reality is so fucking brutal sometimes.
You want to have Boss share the spotlight Tucker? (gif related)
Now that's a gem!!!