.


If I said Trump blaming Walz for the cyber-attacks in Minnesota is something I disagree with, but is not factually proven to be incorrect, how is that not disagreeing with Trump on that point?
How is that being forbidden to disagree with Trump? I just did.

Similarly, a few years ago, I said it was not proven that Trump had a sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels. That Trump said it did not happen, but I said that if Trump is like most men, he probably did, but cannot be proven that Trump and Stormy Daniels had a sexual relationship.
Several years later, I see it differently, that Trump is a wealthy guy, and like many wealthy men, he is surrounded with beautiful women who offer themselves to wealthy men, and then if the offer is taken by the man, will gouge the man legally and financially, if he takes the bait. So in retrospect, I now think Trump did NOT sleep with Stormy Daniels, that despite her being a nice piece of ass, he saw having any involvement with her as a legal risk, and so didn't take her offer, and ceased contact. And her story has changed multiple times in the 20 years since, to find a narrative that has allowed her to profit from the false allegation, every way she could.

In the case of Vince Foster turning up dead in a park during Bill Clinton's presidency, the official conclusion is it was a "suicide", but I believe based on evidence and facts that don't follow the official narrative, that Foster was murdered and the Clintons had him killed. That at the very time police discovered his body, the Clintons were taking compromising never-revealed boxes of legal files out of Foster's office. How did they know Foster would not be coming back, that the Clintons could take them, at the precise time his body was found? Or that there was very little blood where his body was found, indicating Foster was killed elsewhere and then moved to the park. And inconsistent position of the gun and his head wound. And oher clues, and lack of fingerprints on the gun, and on Foser's car keys.
https://uspresscorps370.substack.com/p/the-death-of-vince-foster-the-case



In each of these examples, I was clear what the facts are, and divergently, what I believe despite the official narrative, and the facts or circumstantial evidence that makes me believe otherwise. That makes me an independent thinker in each case, not propping up a narrative, or part of a "cult" that feels it necessary to accept only one narrative.