I was watching a video where Tracy Beanz is discussing on 'The Hagman Report' the convoluted maze of Fusion One,
Mueller, the dossier and the politicising of Government agencies, it was an interesting discourse.
What occurred to me was that as they talked about the many facets of alleged corruption and political posturing,
was that if this lady and many others were talking a load of mental-juggling crap, wouldn't it be rating-appealing
AND possibly beneficial to the MSM narrative to have the major news outlets display such discussions?
There's kitten-in-the-tree stories, Ufo and Loch Ness warnings, severe weather articles that mention snow,
flu vaccines and the usual identity politics, but considering the shallowness that the mainstream media enjoy
in their supplying of information, these obviously-biased dialogues regarding Trump's innocence should be easy
to destroy.
Yet, nothing.
There's no bombastic set of paragraphs deriding people offering their opposing views on YouTube, Gab or wherever,
no major columnist looking behind these commentators or even straightening out the offered opinions and no diverse
correspondent explaining some asshole-racial theory on why these 'Trump-Lovers' imply corruption is abound in the
Russia-Trump collusion... nothing.
Fox News' Hannity blasts out similar views on the television and whether it's 'cart-before-the-horse' with these amatuer
political observers or not, the rational song remains the same. That Washington DC is truly a swamp.
I'm just ruminating, but I'm surprised why none of the 'Let's-get-Pewdiepie' gang of the MSM haven't gone after the
'Q/Anon' people for the sake of ridiculing them. Is it because of the problematic facts in their postulations could possibly
shed light on this dirty laundry of the Uranium One Deal, the Clinton Foundation's failings and the trail of Steele's dossier?
Just thinkin' aloud!!
Mueller, the dossier and the politicising of Government agencies, it was an interesting discourse.
What occurred to me was that as they talked about the many facets of alleged corruption and political posturing,
was that if this lady and many others were talking a load of mental-juggling crap, wouldn't it be rating-appealing
AND possibly beneficial to the MSM narrative to have the major news outlets display such discussions?
There's kitten-in-the-tree stories, Ufo and Loch Ness warnings, severe weather articles that mention snow,
flu vaccines and the usual identity politics, but considering the shallowness that the mainstream media enjoy
in their supplying of information, these obviously-biased dialogues regarding Trump's innocence should be easy
to destroy.
Yet, nothing.
There's no bombastic set of paragraphs deriding people offering their opposing views on YouTube, Gab or wherever,
no major columnist looking behind these commentators or even straightening out the offered opinions and no diverse
correspondent explaining some asshole-racial theory on why these 'Trump-Lovers' imply corruption is abound in the
Russia-Trump collusion... nothing.
Fox News' Hannity blasts out similar views on the television and whether it's 'cart-before-the-horse' with these amatuer
political observers or not, the rational song remains the same. That Washington DC is truly a swamp.
I'm just ruminating, but I'm surprised why none of the 'Let's-get-Pewdiepie' gang of the MSM haven't gone after the
'Q/Anon' people for the sake of ridiculing them. Is it because of the problematic facts in their postulations could possibly
shed light on this dirty laundry of the Uranium One Deal, the Clinton Foundation's failings and the trail of Steele's dossier?
Just thinkin' aloud!!
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.