Wise words @Smokin Joe, but I question whether it's virtually impossible to assess information and to draw verifiable conclusions. Frequently difficult, and yes we are all susceptible to confirmation bias, but I don't think virtually impossible.
That's why I've taken the negative position here on MTG. She has suggested that no plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, that the Parkland and Sandy Hook school shootings were committed by US Government agents to build the case for gun control, and that wildfires in CA were caused by lasers beamed to earth from orbiting craft. It is not difficult to conclude that these are lunatic assertions. I will not be surprised if we learn next that she was once abducted by aliens.
I join other Briefers in wanting to see milquetoast, go-along-to-get-along Rs replaced by uncompromising conservatives, and if outspoken conservatives in office cause those unreliables to toe the line, that's a good thing. But if our plumbline standard of principled consistency is someone who propagates nonsense conspiracy theories and advocates ridiculous ideas, and we justify this lunacy by pointing to its mirror image in AOC, then the problem isn't unreliable Rs or even the Ds - the problem is us, for switching off our own common sense and falling headlong into that confirmation bias. "We can be just as stupid and outrageous as the Ds" is not a winning campaign slogan.
I have heard all the comments about "jewish space lasers" and other stuff, and am left wondering just how much of all that is typical press, distorting sarcasm or taking comments out of context.
I cannot forget that Katie Couric's crew edited all the lucid moments out of an interview with Sarah Palin (whatever you think of Sarah Palin) to make her look bad and have little doubt the practice continues.
Is it possible to start a wildfire with a laser? Certainly. From space? Most likely, if the targeting systems are precise enough and the laser powerful enough. However I know of no religious lasers anywhere, including Earth orbit or LeGrange points. More likely, of the various things blamed, careless use of fire, electrical problems, lightning, and arson (however conducted) remain the biggest suspects.
There have been a lot of questions raised over the years about 'crisis actors" and mass casualty disaster drills held close to or nearly in conjunction with mass casualty events, and frankly, not being there any more than some of the people trotted out to comment, I can't say what happened. I must note that when the dems start sputtering more than usual about guns, it is time to keep your family close, because it seems some event goes down just in time to support the narrative. As far as we know, people died and were buried, but exactly what happened, nope.
What we don't have is the access to information that we KNOW isn't biased, and that bias is easiest to invent with claims that someone said something on social media and in the broadcast media, where the lie will circumnavigate the globe three or four times before the truth is out the door. So let me rephrase that, and say "reliable, verifiable information". Often, I avoid the preponderance of evidence and go looking for something beyond a reasonable doubt.
Recall Trump mentioning antiseptics in the speech with Hydroxychloroquine, and "sunlight", which the media distorted into drinking chlorox. A bit of digging, however disclosed both inhaled nebulized Hydrogen Peroxide (low concentration) for killing viruses and bacteria in the lungs, and the use of UV wavelengths piped into the bloodstream to irradiate a small fraction of the individual's blood supply, after which their body would build antibodies to the killed pathogens. It was a subject of research before antibiotics became widely available and common, and showed some promise.
SO there is often more to what is batted about in media than that initial crust of narrative thrown to the people, and there may well be levels of understanding completely glazed over in the superficial treatment of any person so quoted by a hostile or ignorant media. Keep in mind that not only the Democrats, who MTG baits mercilessly (esp. the "Squad") are hostile to her presence, but much of the GOP contingent there as well. It is somewhat reminiscent of the relationship POTUS 45 had with the Congress, and I have little doubt that many of her "colleagues" would just as soon see her shoved off to the side because she often brings up uncomfortable truths, to their chagrin.
Anyhow, her future in the Congress is at the behest of the voters in her district, not me.
