A Rebuttal To The 'Common Sense' Substack [Updated]

Hyperbole sells well, but...

Edit: A day after writing this article, another political prediction of The Daily Beagle has come true. We predicted that Gavin Newsom was going to run for President back in July 17th. Gavin Newsom has just announced his intention to do so.

The Common Sense Substack recently published a very embellished article, with a title that reads “No One Saw Liz Truss Coming. Just As She Planned It.”

Really “no one”? The only problem with this claim: The Daily Beagle published an article back in July 21st with a subtitle that read: “How Truss can win, just barely...”

And although political commentators clap the Common Sense’s Retroactive Hindsight 20/20 ‘in-depth’ review on Liz Truss after she won, The Daily Beagle had already done in-depth analysis on all the candidates before they won.

Our analysis even included possible contenders who weren’t even running who would be much better choices. You’ll notice a lot of the listed members now make up Liz Truss’ cabinet, so if anyone was reading The Daily Beagle, none of the picks should come as a surprise. Unless of course, you’d been sticking your fingers in your ears and going ‘la-la-la I’m not listening’.

You Need To Be More Proactive About Politics

The Common Sense Substack - usually full of very good articles - having a ‘after the fact’ last minute retroactive consideration on contenders - only to consider it conspiracy post-hoc - is an alarming disappointment of democratic society as a whole.

Rather than proactively trying to tackle the candidates before they won, getting a sense of their history, knowing who does what, how they voted, and who is likely to win [note: The Daily Beagle called it], Common Sense reflects the general Laissez-faire attitudes of ‘oh I don’t care about that election until after’ that allow globalists to infiltrate unimpeded.

In contrast, not only did The Daily Beagle do an opening review, we did two follow-up reviews as the candidancy got whittled down. Part 2 predicted why several candidates would fail - lack of experience - and Part 3 emphasised the ‘all options are bad’ aspect.

Liz Truss winning isn’t surprising when you literally weigh up the pros and cons of the other contenders.

Rishi Sunak was a Russian-compromised (via his wife working for an Indian firm working for the Russians) pharmaceutical shill advocating spending policies Tories hated with a history of betrayal.

Penny Mordaunt was a pro-child murder (‘abortion’), pro-child abuse (‘transgenderism’) warmongering globalist who had previously served in the British military who lacked experience.

Liz Truss, on the other hand, whilst she voted for vaccine mandates and supported child murder (‘abortion’) policies less eagerly, was far less extreme. She wasn’t overwhelmingly pro-war, she wasn’t strongly pro-pharmaceutical (Rishi took their money; she didn’t), her policies appealed to the Tory party voting base, she gave the EU the finger on many occassions (always a win with the Brexiteers), and most importantly of all - she had experience and she was loyal. This ‘don’t tip the boat’ is generally what Tory voters go for.

Rebuttal Goes Here

Now, this could have been answered as a simple response where I quote the headline, then throw a link. But Common Sense isn’t interested in the free discourse or feedback from the public - you have to be paying to be able to leave a comment, which naturally means the article is insulated from dissenting views (you’re not going to be both critical and a paying member, are you).

I could alternatively ignore it, but it reinforces the pity-plea by lazy voters that they ‘couldn’t possibly know the evil bad guy was behind them’, even as the theatre audience screams “he’s behind you!”.

You could have known Liz Truss was going to win - if you had done your research.

Or alternatively you could just more conventiently subscribe to The Daily Beagle and I’ll do most of the research for you. For the record, this is the 9th political leader election prediction - out of 10 I’ve issued personally - that has landed. The others include:

• Predicting David Cameron would be ousted when he tied himself quitting to losing the Brexit vote in 2015

• Predicting - back in 2015 - that at some point Boris Johnson would become British PM. He was Mayor of London at the time and nearly everyone thought the suggestion absurd.

• Predicting Thesera May would be ousted over the Withdrawal bill

• Predicting the Brexit party getting 0-1 seats in Parliament (they got 0)

• Predicting Boris Johnson would become PM.

• Predicting Donald Trump would win in 2016

• Predicting Joe Biden would ‘win’ in 2020

• Predicting Boris Johnson would be ousted

• Predicting Liz Truss would narrowly win against Rishi Sunak

The one I haven’t hit yet is Mike Pence becoming US President, which if you review the article, goes into depth how voting primaries - the American version of the British ‘leadership contest’ - are completely rigged. Once you understand how broken Representative Democracy is, predicting which candidate will win and why is painfully easy. Because, you know… it is rigged.

Political Contests Are Always Rigged

It doesn’t follow the “logical” choices of the public, which is why who wins always seems “surprising” - if you don’t do your research. If you know how primary rigging and leadership rigging works (coupled with the ‘current objectives’ of the internal party itself), you can easily project a trajectory on who is most likely to win. Pro-tip: it isn’t who the public think will win.

For me, it is a bit like reading a news article saying they were surprised that Xi Jinping managed to win the CCP ‘elections’ again. How could you be? The system has always been broken. It is the flaw of ‘Representative’ democracy; it is not representative of us.

The only difference is the West has access to many Xi Jinpings with different names and appearances. Gotta keep those cups with the ball moving. If you’re fooled by this sleight-of-hand you shouldn’t be giving political advice. Jus’ saying.

Daily Beagle’s is still a long way off from becoming financially viable, consider becoming a paying subscriber today!

Share this article and encourage others to subscribe!

Got your own feedback on my rebuttal? Let me know your views down in the comments! It is free!