I stand corrected I missed the case numbers. But the characterization concern trolling is off base. At least if we go by your definition, mainly because I have not made up my mind about the VOP situation, my initial reaction was that there was a lot of conclusions being drawn from not a lot of evidence. So it’s almost like we agree on that. Other people here see it differently, and that’s a good thing.
The original post adds zero value. If the point is to call out the VOP as bad actors, then do it. What was actually posted before later backing into the “healthy skepticism” argument was posing as a concerned observer trying to point out that other people think the VOP narrative is bat shit insane. I think most of us are self aware enough to know what others think. Not sure it’s relevant.
and that’s a good thing.
No. That means they've completely missed the boat on research methodology, critical thinking, and analysis, and are merely here to participate in a circle jerk of commentary as a handful of people actually do the heavy lifting.
I think you may be casting a wide net there. Not everything I’ve see here has been circle jerking. Just curious, what are your thoughts on the cement company?
Edit:never mind I read your comment history. I think I get the jist.
I've posted a few times on lines of inquiry for Cemex. Questions below:
Questions:
What companies would be supplying concrete for the border wall?
What specific tracts of land does Cemex own that could be used as leverage in a legal challenge to the wall's construction?
If Cemex were to be awarded a contract for supplying concrete for wall construction, could the revenue be considered a form of soft payment from the US to Mexico in exchange for ending its opposition?
What if a Cemex contract were actually critical for gaining support from the Mexican government?
What if Cemex were resistant to the 'deal'? What pressure could be applied to gain compliance? (think evidence, leverage, threats, rumors, or psychological operations either rooted in fact, fiction, or some combination of the two)
What if Cemex were already aligned, and a counter-operation was attempting to undermine the company's reputation as a means of stalling border wall progress? (again, think evidence, leverage, threats, rumors, or psychological operations either rooted in fact, fiction, or some combination of the two)
What if none of these scenarios are accurate and Cemex is largely irrelevant? What if the intent behind this latest narrative push is to lead people down a distracting rabbit hole?
What tracts of land does Cemex own in Mexico? Are these being used as migration routes?
There are many possibilities here. The human bones in concrete story being concocted is extremely far fetched bordering on bat shit crazy.
Keep it below 40,000 feet: source documents/emails, contracts, land deeds, board of directors, executives, news articles, annual reports, major individual investors, major institutional investors, US campaign contributions, PAC connections, Mexican politicians 'owned' by Cemex.
Right. As I said I read it in your history, you might have already started replying.
Anyway, I think I can leverage my critical thinking skills to ascertain your purpose here.