People are swarming to discredit her personally. They've attacked her for just about everything except her message and her evidence.
Apparently because she's "an antivaxer" and has spoken out about their ill effects before on the record she "has an agenda" and shouldn't be a nurse.
Ok. So, she has an opinion about an unrelated topic. Cool. How does that disprove her evidence here?
When people come out so hard, so enthusiastically, in such large numbers, and they can't even argue against the content? You're over the target and they've called in the shills.
This SOUNDS harsh. But honestly, it's a "foreign" power now claiming another country's territory. I fail to see how anyone would be unsupported by the Constitution going in and reclaiming that territory for the United States.
Pretty sure the guy you're talking to looks something like this.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/f6/89/99f6891b8fa5f9b1a2762eda57de04dc.jpg
Judge: "You shot a man in front of 12 witnesses. Is that right?"
Texan: "Yessir."
Judge: "And your plea?"
Texan: "Not guilty, your honor."
Judge: "Son, why'd you kill him?"
Texan: "Cause he needed killin'."
Judge: "Case dismissed."
I don't care if the guy was resisting arrest or not. The cop made a terrible choice in how he acted. He could have held him down a number of different ways that wouldn't have cut off his breathing. I would say the same thing if it were a black cop and a white meth head.
But that doesn't even matter because these riots ARE NOT ABOUT GEORGE FLOYD.
It's just an excuse to chimp out and cause damage, get free shit for the useless idiots and cause division for the puppeteers.
I need something that obviously doesn't work but balances between "sending a message" and plausible deniability that I'm not actually trying to send a message