>>5666516

The hate for Ann Coulter here is very comparable to the vitriol one expects from leftist npc’s. Never have been a great fan of hers, but while I can tell she is not mentally retarded, I can agree it is totally legitimate to question her motives, everyone has them. Maybe money and fame are hers, all else be damned, I can’t answer that.

Yes I know there was a Q post referencing this, and there have been many many more Q posts asking you to think for yourself, disinfo is necessary, be careful who you follow etc. Who knows whether the back and forth between her and POTUS is legit or theater, some or all of the time.

She can be annoying but she is not stupid and has had some pretty based arguments over the years. She does raise fair points and legitimate questions regarding trumps claims and promises, and being vocal and keeping pressure on politicians shouldn’t make her a target of hate by the people, but it certainly always has made her a target in the media where she has had some of the most vile things said about her. Usually if you are being attacked you are doing something right (((they))) don’t like and she has been on the receiving end frequently. A lot of trumps base ask themselves many of the things she asks, like “where’s all these many many miles of big beautiful wall we keep repeatedly hearing have already been built? Keep hearing about it generally but show us the actual results so far.”

That is a very fair question. Making vile statements about her doesn’t negate the validity of some of her statements and questions, and if you aren’t a shill, step back and think why your comments and attitudes could so easily be compared to a pussy hat wearing npc.

Attack the argument instead of the one making the argument.

>>5667447

I agree with most of your post, I’m one of those anons who overall never particularly liked her, and thanks for the reminder about Berkeley, that went down the memory hole but you helped me fish it back out.

Main point I guess is while “some” statements shes made in the past year, (in this example basically “show specific wall progress”) whatever the motives or timing, may be inconvenient things to have light shined on for either side of the aisle depending on what she’s bringing attention to, they are important things on or should be on the minds of many and she is attacked or dismissed in return. That’s all.

>>5667648

Well I know she’s a “pundit” (lawl) but she’s not exactly an MSM journalist. So that probably doesn’t apply but not in a strict sense because if she gives speeches and sells books she’s not getting a paycheck from a specific newscorp and could be considered more of a free agent/merc for hire.

>>5667817

Not Ann (I have a dick and balls) and never mentioned memes. Most memes are really poor quality as pointed out by another anon and not worth mentioning anyway. Was talking about comments in posts by which most I’m sure are by shills.

Main point was that everyone replies with attacks/dismissal of the one making the point and never addressed the actual point. In this case, no one here is responsive to the point about actual wall progress, which is what she and probably lots of others would like to actually see.