She just got into this movement and now she feels that she is in a position to tell the rest of us how we should operate.
Frankly, the exact same thing could be said of Walsh who was Never Trump in 2016 and defended the black "jogger" with the absurd justification of "real men like looking at construction sites".
People of course can be wrong about things, but I've never seen him explain any of his rather drastic changes of opinion.
I see a guy who lies constantly and blatantly. I see a man who changes his positions and his principles at the drop of a hat. I see a deeply immature man who insults people on Twitter but lacks the courage to face them in person. I see someone who fashions himself "politically incorrect" but is really just a cruel and bitter old man who thinks it's funny to mock the disabled. I see a man with no honor who launches vulgar attacks on women and then lies about what he said. I see a phony who brazenly exploits the fears of the American public. I see a guy whose recklessness and greed drives his businesses into bankruptcy, and I see a guy who tries to silence journalists when they report on it. I see a guy who jazzes up the crowd at campaign rallies by bragging about his money and threatening to throw protesters out into the cold without their coats. And so on.
Given the nature of his accusations, I have trouble reconciling them with his modern online persona which borrows many attributes he then cited as serious character flaws in Trump. There's also a certain irony that his critics levy many of the same criticisms against him that he levied against Trump.
I think it's also instructive to compare his circa 2016 "hipster" look to his modern "manly" look and note that his change in appearance corresponds to his change in viewpoint and online persona.
As for whether or not it "helps us" I don't know (though I'm skeptical), but I do know it helps Matt Walsh. And you can be sure that as soon as something appears that would help "us" but hurt Matt Walsh, he will abandon "us" at the first opportunity.
Lol dude Walsh literally has no out. The only way he could abandon his current position is if he dies. Also Trump nor Walsh are God so stop acting like it's apostasy to have issues with the man
You can have issues with Trump, but if your issues with him are "he's a sexist pig, and he insults members of the press" and then you go on to act the same way while never addressing why you now consider this acceptable behavior, then I'm going to question your motivations. Especially if you're a professional pundit.
All it would take is an article: "Why I was wrong in this article I wrote in 2016". Maybe he's already written this; if he has then I take back what I said.
Frankly, the exact same thing could be said of Walsh who was Never Trump in 2016 and defended the black "jogger" with the absurd justification of "real men like looking at construction sites".
People of course can be wrong about things, but I've never seen him explain any of his rather drastic changes of opinion.
Matt Walsh in 2016:
Given the nature of his accusations, I have trouble reconciling them with his modern online persona which borrows many attributes he then cited as serious character flaws in Trump. There's also a certain irony that his critics levy many of the same criticisms against him that he levied against Trump.
I think it's also instructive to compare his circa 2016 "hipster" look to his modern "manly" look and note that his change in appearance corresponds to his change in viewpoint and online persona.
As for whether or not it "helps us" I don't know (though I'm skeptical), but I do know it helps Matt Walsh. And you can be sure that as soon as something appears that would help "us" but hurt Matt Walsh, he will abandon "us" at the first opportunity.
Lol dude Walsh literally has no out. The only way he could abandon his current position is if he dies. Also Trump nor Walsh are God so stop acting like it's apostasy to have issues with the man
You can have issues with Trump, but if your issues with him are "he's a sexist pig, and he insults members of the press" and then you go on to act the same way while never addressing why you now consider this acceptable behavior, then I'm going to question your motivations. Especially if you're a professional pundit.
All it would take is an article: "Why I was wrong in this article I wrote in 2016". Maybe he's already written this; if he has then I take back what I said.