More lies now as he attempts to make excuses for the almost non existent secret service reactions to the supposed attack.
His fault apparently as he walked and wouldn’t listen to them.
Bullshit, they’re trained to fucking rugby tackle the **** down within milliseconds at the sign of any danger to life.
Lies, lies, lies!
It’s a three stage process to follow for me.
Firstly, evidentially, is this a man who is capable of lying again and again, who embraces presenting things in a way that is false without any compunction whatsoever? Someone who has no regard for the truth?
Secondly, evidentially, is this man who will do anything to obtain and retain power?
Thirdly, evidentially, does he have the people around him who have the capacity and motive to deliver this for him?
If the answer is ‘no’ to any of (and by extension, all) those questions is ‘no’, or even equivocal, then your opinion on the subject isn’t worth a wank.
If the answer to all three questions is ‘yes’, then the only sane, rational approach is to have a starting point that anything and everything that occurs around him like this is false and work back from there.
Does that mean that every event that occurs around him such as this is false, or wholly distorted? Of course not. That would be an absurd position to assume, but I’m struggling to see how anyone adopting a logical, experienced based position could assume anything else other than a starting point of what has been presented as being false, and requiring a level of proof that assumption is wrong.
