When in doubt, go with the version of the story that assumes the government (which includes Tulsi Gabbard's office) is bullshitting us yet again for some unknown reason
Well that's the thing; it's two sides who are both part of government giving competing narratives. So which 'don't believe the government' hold more water objectively, when you remove the 'I want X version to be true because it aligns more with my worldview' factor?
I'm not sure how there is a third option between "there was a raid" and "there wasn't a raid", but if anyone can somehow fuck up a binary choice, it's government.
Why is one report automatically more valid than another, beyond giving one version of the story more credence because one wants it to be true?
When in doubt, go with the version of the story that assumes the government (which includes Tulsi Gabbard's office) is bullshitting us yet again for some unknown reason
Well that's the thing; it's two sides who are both part of government giving competing narratives. So which 'don't believe the government' hold more water objectively, when you remove the 'I want X version to be true because it aligns more with my worldview' factor?
Option Z is that both of them are lying and we haven't heard the true story yet
You're probably right.
I'm not sure how there is a third option between "there was a raid" and "there wasn't a raid", but if anyone can somehow fuck up a binary choice, it's government.