Tis plausible to many laboring under Labour and some still pastorally Tory that the deal negotiated by Team Johnson will lead to terrifying Trump trades, with the erstwhile toothless Brits being force-fed a Yank-based diet of hormone infused hamburgers and chlorinated chicken. It is also plausible to true be-leavers that decisively detached from the yoke of European establishmentarianism and back into the lovingly coated arms of Pax Britannica, crashing out alone will enable the improvisation of every deal their lionhearts desire. But how about a construction to an anti-Stratfordian height of implausibility (if only because four out of five scholars say so) that would shore up the Continent as believable bulwark against the very things it's been slowly allowing to erode? At the end of the day, Liberal Progressivism equals tolerance. Eventually of anything, including giving up the sovereignty of seeding your own soil.
It's plausible to many self-styled electors that the Congresswomen from Hawaii's 2nd is, as precedent-shall-candidate, the allusive Manchurian. Plausible, too*, to an alternate base of similarly self-styled voters is that Hills reps the rot that Tulsa Gabbi twat about. But how about a kayfabe of far-less plausible proportions (due solely to the claimed complexity of coordinates) that in spite of her marginal status, being an apparently preempted also-ran, that she along with the former precedent-shall-candidate are both puppets of things as they actually are, and not the things as their proxies would have you believe?
The former candidate sure knows a thing or two about grooming fanciful hairdos to be president, even if unintentionally at her own expense (be careful who you wish to run against). And speaking of sacrifice in the name of public service, the current candidate and Army vet, for all her criticism of regime change wars, did not when she had the opportunity diverge decisively from the twenty-first century, 24 version of reality, where torture is a must when lives are on the line. Her subsequent denials cannot wholly disappear the fact that a central emphasis on two words are what differentiate her anti-war take from those of every other candidate that's managed to take on the assumption of that mantle, including the former candidate, as laughable as that should seem. Like, there's bad war and then there is war, and next-to-nobody who'll vote against continued massive increases to that part of the budget, let alone slash it.
Full disclosure: I find the commonality of their communication cadences too creepy for comfort though I appreciate the counter-innuendo from the congresswoman that there are certain other Dem candidates being groomed by the likes of last election's loser.
It is plausible that the usual woke pro-athletes have turned a drowsy eye toward the People's Republic because of the massive trickling down of shoe supplies and salary cap demands. It is likewise plausible that many of them are born into the shit-can of inescapable whataboutery in respect to their millions barely if at all shielding them from the oppression of the American police state, and that, anyway, anyone from a land of technological trappings and tariff-free t-shirts should be the last to cast stones at the oppressors of those who manufacture democracy's toys (Well, touché away: Shut yo mouf!) But what about the apparently implausible presentation of that Communist Party as just a panda-branded partner in crime that makes it but one component of the united blood-red orgy of totalitarian capitalism?
You'd be hard pressed to provide a link to a perspective on this issue that doesn't cite Communist despotism as the crime against humanity, whereas selfishly succumbing to its global influence — an idea itself that's a manufactured fantasy — is a secondary, minor misdeed in comparison, done by those who are otherwise champions for freedom. Hong Kong Phooey!
* or plausible that it's equally plausible
It's plausible to many self-styled electors that the Congresswomen from Hawaii's 2nd is, as precedent-shall-candidate, the allusive Manchurian. Plausible, too*, to an alternate base of similarly self-styled voters is that Hills reps the rot that Tulsa Gabbi twat about. But how about a kayfabe of far-less plausible proportions (due solely to the claimed complexity of coordinates) that in spite of her marginal status, being an apparently preempted also-ran, that she along with the former precedent-shall-candidate are both puppets of things as they actually are, and not the things as their proxies would have you believe?
The former candidate sure knows a thing or two about grooming fanciful hairdos to be president, even if unintentionally at her own expense (be careful who you wish to run against). And speaking of sacrifice in the name of public service, the current candidate and Army vet, for all her criticism of regime change wars, did not when she had the opportunity diverge decisively from the twenty-first century, 24 version of reality, where torture is a must when lives are on the line. Her subsequent denials cannot wholly disappear the fact that a central emphasis on two words are what differentiate her anti-war take from those of every other candidate that's managed to take on the assumption of that mantle, including the former candidate, as laughable as that should seem. Like, there's bad war and then there is war, and next-to-nobody who'll vote against continued massive increases to that part of the budget, let alone slash it.
Full disclosure: I find the commonality of their communication cadences too creepy for comfort though I appreciate the counter-innuendo from the congresswoman that there are certain other Dem candidates being groomed by the likes of last election's loser.
It is plausible that the usual woke pro-athletes have turned a drowsy eye toward the People's Republic because of the massive trickling down of shoe supplies and salary cap demands. It is likewise plausible that many of them are born into the shit-can of inescapable whataboutery in respect to their millions barely if at all shielding them from the oppression of the American police state, and that, anyway, anyone from a land of technological trappings and tariff-free t-shirts should be the last to cast stones at the oppressors of those who manufacture democracy's toys (Well, touché away: Shut yo mouf!) But what about the apparently implausible presentation of that Communist Party as just a panda-branded partner in crime that makes it but one component of the united blood-red orgy of totalitarian capitalism?
You'd be hard pressed to provide a link to a perspective on this issue that doesn't cite Communist despotism as the crime against humanity, whereas selfishly succumbing to its global influence — an idea itself that's a manufactured fantasy — is a secondary, minor misdeed in comparison, done by those who are otherwise champions for freedom. Hong Kong Phooey!
* or plausible that it's equally plausible
