In relation to your thread here:


you might be happy to here the news cited here (if you haven't already):


Many things in the local US politics are correcting themselves these days, irrespective of whether Devolution or anything else is taking place.

I should possibly tag also @Sydneykaye01 and @surferistic (you two are Nevadans too, right?), as well as @Davez_Not_Here from neighboring AZ, and @ADudeFromNowhere just for fun 🙂


My recent skimming over SQV made me learn a very important detail, based on which I am gladly writing:


May this day be great for you, have fun in it, make time for yourself and your loved ones, and celebrate well, as you surely deserve it 🙂

I'm tagging here a few others, who I'm sure would be happy to wish you similar blessings when they know it.

@MMA @oystergirl @HunDriverWidow @CDuBois @Bleukitty @Andre @icare4america @Argentum47 @ADudeFromNowhere

@Argentum47, @ADudeFromNowhere, and @Davez_Not_Here are applying it very well towards local political candidates, a topic which I didn't touch at all here.

In addition, like I said in previous correspondences with @C9_stotte - not everyone on the other side is stupid or acting in bad faith. Some simply follow the only info they had available.

I thus conclude with the statements of @LoveAlmonds, @ArnGrimR, and @TXPatriot2021 from my first toot (see them there), and finish here.



Show thread

Of course, to each their own. Believe what you will. I'm only telling you how I get to my conclusions. You're completely allowed to disagree.

But it should be evident that I'm no ``sheep'', and any such accusation would be either in bad faith, or coming from stupidity, or both.

So, to recap - Not everyone on our side is always brilliant, not every statement that supports us is necessarily true or stated in good faith, and care and critical thinking should be applied, always.


Show thread

But the name PRECEDES the first incarnations of Satan's name as Lucifer.

And let's think critically for a moment:

If someone wants to put some Luciferian influence into all of us, wouldn't they want to be just a little more secretive about this?

Sorry guys, this doesn't pass muster (and Emerald seems to be way to full of herself in all of her writings, so it's not my only reason to discard her). Believing it only indicates in WANTING it to be true, for the fight against the vax.


Show thread

I don't know if the COVID vaccine is ``a tool of the WEF to bring us all into the NWO'' (as some might guess, I'm a bit skeptical regarding this scenario, but to each their own).

But Robinson claims that there's a material called Luciferase in the vaccines, and plays on the similarity of the material's name with Lucifer in order to invoke primal fears in people, mainly religious ones:


Yes, the material exists, and is named this way:



Show thread

In another one, he brought a very undetailed graph and said that ``the only explanation is the side-effects of the vax'', where I could come up of three different alternative explanations to the same thing.

THAT's arguing in bad faith, regardless of whether you believe that vax is great or terrible. And it should be allowed to mention it without being accused of being a Big Pharma troll or something.

The same goes for Emerald Robinson, with whom I also strongly disagree about Pence.


Show thread

But regardless of the stance one holds, pointing out where other people failed in presenting theirs should be legitimate.

I have a FB friend, who's a bit Trump supporter, and opposes the COVID vax very strongly.

During my pro-vax days, he'd send me various links, including by Alex Berenson.

On one instance, Berenson titled an article with a statement, and the numbers appearing in the references that he brought weren't anywhere near the numbers he proclaimed in the title.


Show thread

But you see? I can disbelieve them without being a ``Sheep who's following the regime blindly'' (as I don't believe the regime either), and I can question the official narrative without endorsing everything the objectionists say.

Complexity, gray (rather than Black-or-White), in-between.

And admitting to not knowing everything. And let me tell you this - those who claim to know everything, don't know either.

I used to be very pro-vax (not pro-mandates!), but now I don't know anymore.


Show thread

Way before COVID I have seen a few people having very difficult experiences with leading anti-vaxxers, regarding several types of vaccinations.

Many of them wanted to sell alternatives, and were willing to LIE for that cause. They are thus guilty of exactly the same thing they accuse ``Big Pharma'' of doing.

Since with COVID it became universally politicizied, these people celebrate their renowned status as Freedom Fighters.

But I see no reason to start believing them NOW.


Show thread

The whole COVID/vax thing can (and in my opinion, should) also be treated with the same level of care and critical thinking.

Before I say anything else - I don't know how effective and/or damaging the vaccine is. I really don't.

I don't believe the official narrative, but I have no good reason to believe many on the other side either.

For me it's pretty much ``Liars to the left of me, Grifters to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you''.



Show thread

Compare the two statements:

1) Babbitt was a Trump supporter, the officer was part of an organization that was commanded by Pelosi at the time - it must be a deliberate action!

2) A White police officer killed a Black civilian (never mind the behavior of said civilian, their criminal record, and whatever) - it must be Systemic Racism!

I see the same level of logic in both statements (i.e., none), and they serve a similar purpose (albeit with different directions).


Show thread

In the few seconds that he had to act, he could not verify the precise intentions of every single person there, before deciding whether and how to stop what was going on there.

So there's certainly some level of complexity here, and saying that it was obviously unjustified seems to flatten this complexity into the form that we would have WANTED that situation to have.

Even @BrianCates wrote that on QV at the time (and I agreed with him).

Complexities exist. We should deal with them.


Show thread

Still regarding the same unfortunate day, I've seen anybody who isn't outraged by the killing of Ashli Babbitt being considered a false conservative or an undercover Dem operative or who knows what.

Let's think about the situation there with open eyes:

That officer was at the door, behind which were people he was there to protect.

That door was about to be broken through by people, some of whom showed high level of emotions, with bags whose contents he couldn't see.


Show thread

One of Trump's main ideals is to make the US a country of Law and Order again.

This means that attacking LEO's is illegal, and punishable by law. As it should be. Regardless of the political inclinations of the attacker.

Cruz didn't say that the J6 people did it. He only said that if a particular person is found to have done it, it's a felony, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.

Just like it was supposed to be a felony when Antifa/BLM did it during the Summer of Love.


Show thread

In a similar incident, I recall Ted Cruz' speech with the J6 committee, where he said that anyone attacking an LEO is a criminal and should be prosecuted (or something in that spirit).

He was also accused of browbeating the J6 people, and was called ``Lying Ted'' and similar unflattering names (not by everyone - I remember @Mathman's thread about it here


with @SweetIceTea's comments, with which I agreed at the time).

Let's break that one too, shall we?


Show thread

Nobody here views J6 as domestic terrorists, and we know that BLM and Antifa are such, and are in the US.

So blasting in outrage when Bush said it, without any reference to J6, amounts to implicitly agreeing with the leftists on the matter.

Let's not fall into such traps, shall we?

And if we're not sure, let's try to get clarifications, and make sure that if we're upset, it's for the right reasons and that we understood everything correctly.

On GWB, the jury's still out for me.


Show thread

I also recall that there was a lot of upheavel, both here and on QV, when George Bush stated that ``there are domestic terrorists in the US''.

He was condemned as throwing the J6 people under the bus, being a RINO, and whatnot.

But he never said anything about Jan 6! And during the Summer of Love and it's consequences, we all agreed that there were domestic terrorists in the US (BLM/Antifa).

The deduction that GWB talked about J6 is falling into the trap of the leftists' identification.


Show thread

So calling her out on THAT bullshit doesn't make anybody anti-Republican or supporter of election fraud (and if it does, why doesn't it go the other way around, and supporting her makes one a believer of insane anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, of the type that would mark anyone with @ADudeFromNowhere's awesome hashtag?).

Let's not let our very common goal of wanting to end election fraud in the US make us blind to every sin of anybody saying the right words on the subject.


Show thread

People who saw many of my toots here might suspect that I'm off again into talking about QV or SMB.

While these ideas certainly apply there too, I don't want to go there at all this time.

I can give an example: When @LostInABlueState was still here, I remember that he got pissed off about people on QV disparaging Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Yes, she seems to be fighting against election fraud.

But she also said that the CA fires of 2018 was the result of Jewish lasers from space.


Show thread
Show older
Free Atlantis - Free Speech - Intelligent Conversation - Good People - Good Fun

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!