Perhaps the downthumbs are a reflection of the fact that you're a puerile and intellectually challeneged moron.
You firstly set up some strawman to childishly mock, one that doesn't even exist yet, as you admit "WAITING for wackos". How bold of you to be able to "refute" by a mere insult somone who hasn't even come around yet before even looking at an argument to that effect, since none has yet been made.
It's morons like yourself that actually serve the rulers of this world, putting on display here your intellectual incapacity and immaturity ... and also demonstrating that your feeble intellect has been programmed by the powers that be to do their bidding. It's ironic that you don't realize what an utter drooling moron you are while pretending to sit in judgment of (non-existent) wackos.
See, nobody's forcing you to accept any particular argument, conclusion, etc. But your pre-dismissal of something before any argument has been made clearly shows that you've made up your mind without any evidence whatsoever, that you're already begging the question, before the question has even been posed, and employing the same tactics that the powers that be have deployed (by their own admission) for decades now to shut down all rational discussion prior to any examination or consideration of evidence, even in cases like this one here when none has been presented.
While nobody's forcing you to accept any particular (hypothetical) argument that may or may not be presented in the future, but you would at least prevent embarrassing yourself by acting like a moron with the intellectual capacity of a 5-year-old, hurling derogatory terms and emoticons around in lieu of any ratoinal movement of your intellect, proving only that your feeble mind has easiliy been programmed already. Sad really.
So, the government, by its own admission, coined terms like "conspiracy theory (ist)" and then associated it with other derogatory terms like kook, wacko, nutjob, wearers of tin-foil-hats, etc. precisely to shut down rational discussion (and it's evidently worked on your pea brain). You're party to and an accomplice in the very same tactics that they've used to shut down investigation into and rational discussion of myriad cօռspιʀαcιҽs, from the h0Ɩ0h0αx, to 9/11, to the moon landing, to various other fαℓѕє fℓαgs (Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkins) ... that then play into running cover for the criminal conspirators, who get away with it and then are emboldened to take the next steps. During the COVID and 2020 election fraud criminal hoaxes, they depoyed the term "baseless", so that by merely using the word "baseless" it proved the assertion that there was no evidence for any claims regarding election fraud and inefficacy and lack of safety of the jab. Just because they declared it to be "baseless," that mean it was, and here you are PRE-declaring any future claims as "wacko".
While nobody's forcing you to accept any particular (future hypothetical) argument that may or may not be prestend in the future, you would do yourself a service by acting like a mature adult and taking a rational approach to such matters instead.
IF AND WHEN somone comes along making the case for a double, or that the Bergoglio video was AI / CGI, etc. ... or whatever case one might wish to present, then you can address it at the time by looking at the evidence (or lack thereof). You pretend that it's completely out of the realm of possibility, when they've done far worse before. Communists actually employed doubles as one of their favorite tactics, for various purposes. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, many doubles for Stalin, Kruschev, and others came forward detailing their roles. While there's no evidence, yet, that they rolled out a double in this particular case, you're a moron to shut down the possibility beforehand. It's morally certain that they replaced the real Sister Lucia with a double, so what would stop them from trying it again? When examining (rationally) some conspiracy theory, the first test that they must stand is to have a credible cui bono ... which fails in this case, since there's no compelling reason to keep (the perception of) Bergoglio around, since after Bergoglio stacked the future conclave, there are plenty of viable replacements for him, and ones who would even do a better job to further their agenda.
But these last few lines here represent what a rational and non-puerile approach to such assertions would be.
Bergoglio was replaced by a double?
What's your evidence?
X, Y, Z
I don't find any of those compelling, as this could explain X, that could explain Y, and this other thing could and most likely does explain Z.
In other words, I find no compelling reason whatsoever at this time to believe that Bergoglio is not alive, but I'm not going to mock and shut down any future allegations along those lines before actually 1) seeing such allegations and 2) looking at the evidence presented for them.
But your comments were made as a broad, sweeping generalized attack against all "wackos" everywhere who happen to believe something that you're feeble mind has been programmed out of even considering in the first place.
Topic: Pope being discharged tomorrow (Read 2842 times)