I think we can better analyze each other's critiques when we accept that the parties can and often do come with faults attached. Those faults each have their own varying degrees of seriousness which at times makes us pay more attention then others. One reason I think we have to continually try and search for our own answers and, at times, the things we find aren't the things we wanted to find, think about or contemplate as a probability or truth. Searching for the truth behind what really happened during the 2016 Russian election meddling/hoax or whatever people want to label it I had to face that prospect myself when addressing it in regards to all the players the democrats said were involved. That meant stepping back from what the parties were all saying and going to the underground to see what was plausible. What I came back with was, and it blew my mind to tell you the truth, a plausible avenue that it could have been done on behalf of the Trump people. It was compelling and to be honest riveting information. That analysis though came from not just the public players involved but looking at whom they were associated with, whom those players were and their history, these are things you don't see unless you go looking for them. Up until the Ukrainian controversy until I could establish well connected dots in regards to the democrats as a probability of being behind it I always had to hold in the back of my head the likelihood those bumbling batch of idiots associated with Trump pulled off the crime of the century. It was torrid, riveting, shocking, totally disappointing to say the least but I had to face the reality of probability even without a solid criminal case of proof. Even when Mueller exonerated the whole Trump/Russia probe I still held/knew exactly why even if they were found innocent there was a probability that wasn't true. I admit I felt somewhat more relieved after looking at all the players involved in Ukraine when it came to the probability it was the democrats, as it turns out that was also plausible but like I said you have to dig deep, you have to look at all the public players and who they are associated with and how they played into the scheme. You may not come out proof positive of criminality involved but you will find answers other than what the main stream media is telling you or knows. Most importantly you have to be willing to accept that what you find isn't what you wanted to find and be able to accept that probability there is fault and it may not come out in favor of the team you are on. At least when they, or if they, ever come out with positive proof about anything you don't feel like a totally oblivious fool.
I think we can better analyze each other's critiques when we accept that the parties can and often do come with faults attached. Those faults each have their own varying degrees of seriousness which at times makes us pay more attention then others. One reason I think we have to continually try and search for our own answers and, at times, the things we find aren't the things we wanted to find, think about or contemplate as a probability or truth. Searching for the truth behind what really happened during the 2016 Russian election meddling/hoax or whatever people want to label it I had to face that prospect myself when addressing it in regards to all the players the democrats said were involved. That meant stepping back from what the parties were all saying and going to the underground to see what was plausible. What I came back with was, and it blew my mind to tell you the truth, a plausible avenue that it could have been done on behalf of the Trump people. It was compelling and to be honest riveting information. That analysis though came from not just the public players involved but looking at whom they were associated with, whom those players were and their history, these are things you don't see unless you go looking for them. Up until the Ukrainian controversy until I could establish well connected dots in regards to the democrats as a probability of being behind it I always had to hold in the back of my head the likelihood those bumbling batch of idiots associated with Trump pulled off the crime of the century. It was torrid, riveting, shocking, totally disappointing to say the least but I had to face the reality of probability even without a solid criminal case of proof. Even when Mueller exonerated the whole Trump/Russia probe I still held/knew exactly why even if they were found innocent there was a probability that wasn't true. I admit I felt somewhat more relieved after looking at all the players involved in Ukraine when it came to the probability it was the democrats, as it turns out that was also plausible but like I said you have to dig deep, you have to look at all the public players and who they are associated with and how they played into the scheme. You may not come out proof positive of criminality involved but you will find answers other than what the main stream media is telling you or knows. Most importantly you have to be willing to accept that what you find isn't what you wanted to find and be able to accept that probability there is fault and it may not come out in favor of the team you are on. At least when they, or if they, ever come out with positive proof about anything you don't feel like a totally oblivious fool.